Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
Date: 1890-08-15T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Scripture Commentary

Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

Origen of Alexandria

Royal Archives

1890

Copyright

The source text and this English translation are in the public domain.

The cover design is © 2026 Royal Archives.

Published by Royal Archives

First published 1890

Source: The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Roberts & Donaldson, 1885)

Edition identifier: urn:royalarchives:origens_commentary_on_the_gospel_of_matthew:en:1

Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

Origen’s Commentary
on the

Gospel of Matthew.

by

John Patrick, D.D.

Introduction

Commentary on Matthew.

————————————

————————————

According to Eusebius (H. E. vi. 36) the Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew were written about the same time as the Contra Celsum, when Origen was over sixty years of age, and may therefore be probably assigned to the period 246–248. This statement is confirmed by internal evidence. In the portion here translated, books x.–xiv., he passes by the verses Matt. 18:12, 13, and refers for the exposition of them to his Homilies on Luke (book xiii. 29). Elsewhere, he refers his readers for a fuller discussion on certain points to his Commentaries on John (book xvi. 20), and on Romans (book xvii. 32). Of the twenty-five books into which the work was divided, the first nine, with the exception of two fragments, are lost; books x.–xvii., covering the portion from Matt. 13:36 to 22:33, are extant in the Greek, and the greater part of the remaining books survives in a Latin version, which is co-extensive with the Greek from book xii. 9 to book xvii. 36, and contains further the exposition from Matt. 22:34 to 27:66. The passages in Cramer’s Catena do not seem to be taken from the Commentaries. Of the numerous quotations from Matthew only one (Matt. 21:35) can be definitely traced to this section of the writings of Origen; and as this differs greatly from our present text, and is moreover purely narrative, it is probably taken like the others either from the Scholia (commaticum interpretationis genus), or from the Homilies to which reference is made by Jerome (Prol. in Matt. I. iv). The majority of them may be ascribed to the Scholia.

In addition to the mss. already referred to (p. 292) the old Latin version is often useful for determining the text, though it contains some interpolations and has many omissions. The omissions (cf. book xiii. 28, book xiv. 1, 3, book xiv. 19–22) are not due to any dogmatic bias, but have been made by the translator or some subsequent transcriber on the ground that the passages were uninteresting or unimportant. The version is otherwise for the most part literal, and has in some cases preserved the correct reading, though it often fails just when it would have been of most service. For an estimate of the work and method of Origen as an exegete, see pp. 290–292; and for a fuller statement on some of the points here touched upon, see Westcott’s article on Origen in Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography (vol. iv.).

Origen’s Commentary on Matthew.

From the First Book of the Commentary on Matthew

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.”[1] And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by[2] Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

————————————

[1] 1 Pet. 5:13.

[2] Or, who is commended by Paul.

From the Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew

Book II. This fragment, which is preserved in the Philocalia, c. vi., is all that is extant of Book II.

The Unity and Harmony of Scripture.

“Blessed are the peacemakers.…”[1] To the man who is a peacemaker in either sense there is in the Divine oracles nothing crooked or perverse, for they are all plain to those who understand.[2] And because to such an one there is nothing crooked or perverse, he sees therefore abundance of peace[3] in all the Scriptures, even in those which seem to be at conflict, and in contradiction with one another. And likewise he becomes a third peacemaker as he demonstrates that that which appears to others to be a conflict in the Scriptures is no conflict, and exhibits their concord and peace, whether of the Old Scriptures with the New, or of the Law with the Prophets, or of the Gospels with the Apostolic Scriptures, or of the Apostolic Scriptures with each other. For, also, according to the Preacher, all the Scriptures are “words of the wise like goads, and as nails firmly fixed which were given by agreement from one shepherd;”[4] and there is nothing superfluous in them. But the Word is the one Shepherd of things rational which may have an appearance of discord to those who have not ears to hear, but are truly at perfect concord. For as the different chords of the psalter or the lyre, each of which gives forth a certain sound of its own which seems unlike the sound of another chord, are thought by a man who is not musical and ignorant of the principle of musical harmony, to be inharmonious, because of the dissimilarity of the sounds, so those who are not skilled in hearing the harmony of God in the sacred Scriptures think that the Old is not in harmony with the New, or the Prophets with the Law, or the Gospels with one another, or the Apostle with the Gospel, or with himself, or with the other Apostles. But he who comes instructed in the music of God, being a man wise in word and deed, and, on this account, like another David—which is, by interpretation, skilful with the hand—will bring out the sound of the music of God, having learned from this at the right time to strike the chords, now the chords of the Law, now the Gospel chords in harmony with them, and again the Prophetic chords, and, when reason demands it, the Apostolic chords which are in harmony with the Prophetic, and likewise the Apostolic with those of the Gospels. For he knows that all the Scripture is the one perfect and harmonised[5] instrument of God, which from different sounds gives forth one saving voice to those willing to learn, which stops and restrains every working of an evil spirit, just as the music of David laid to rest the evil spirit in Saul, which also was choking him.[6] You see, then, that he is in the third place a peacemaker, who sees in accordance with the Scripture the peace of it all, and implants this peace in those who rightly seek and make nice distinctions in a genuine spirit.

————————————

[1] Matt. 5:9.

[2] Prov. 8:8, 9.

[3] Ps. 72:7.

[4] Ecc. 12:11.

[5] Or, fitted.

[6] 1 Sam. 16:14.

Book 10.

The Parable of the Tares: the House of Jesus

Book X.

1. The Parable of the Tares: the House of Jesus.

“Then He left the multitudes and went into His house, and His disciples came unto Him saying, Declare to us the parable of the tares of the field.”[1] When Jesus then is with the multitudes, He is not in His house, for the multitudes are outside of the house, and it is an act which springs from His love of men to leave the house and to go away to those who are not able to come to Him. Now, having discoursed sufficiently to the multitudes in parables, He sends them away and goes to His own house, where His disciples, who did not abide with those whom He had sent away, come to Him. And as many as are more genuine hearers of Jesus first follow Him, then having inquired about His abode, are permitted to see it, and, having come, see and abide with Him, all for that day, and perhaps some of them even longer. And, in my opinion, such things are indicated in the Gospel according to John in these words, “On the morrow again John was standing and two of his disciples.”[2] And in order to explain the fact that of those who were permitted to go with Jesus and see His abode, the one who was more eminent becomes also an Apostle, these words are added: “One of the two that heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.”[3] And if then, unlike the multitudes whom He sends away, we wish to hear Jesus and go to the house and receive something better than the multitudes, let us become friends of Jesus, so that as His disciples we may come to Him when He goes into the house, and having come may inquire about the explanation of the parable, whether of the tares of the field, or of any other. And in order that it may be more accurately understood what is represented by the house of Jesus, let some one collect from the Gospels whatsoever things are spoken about the house of Jesus, and what things were spoken or done by Him in it; for all the passages collected together will convince any one who applies himself to this reading that the letters of the Gospel are not absolutely simple as some suppose, but have become simple to the simple by a divine concession;[4] but for those who have the will and the power to hear them more acutely there are concealed things wise and worthy of the Word of God.

[1] Matt. 13:36.

[2] John 1:35.

[3] John 1:40.

[4] Or, by a dispensation.

Exposition of the Parable

“After these things He answered and said to them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man.”[1] Though we have already, in previous sections, according to our ability discussed these matters, none the less shall we now say what is in harmony with them, even if there is reasonable ground for another explanation. And consider now, if in addition to what we have already recounted, you can otherwise take the good seed to be the children of the kingdom, because whatsoever good things are sown in the human soul, these are the offspring of the kingdom of God and have been sown by God the Word who was in the beginning with God,[2] so that wholesome words about anything are children of the kingdom. But while men are asleep who do not act according to the command of Jesus, “Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation,”[3] the devil on the watch sows what are called tares—that is, evil opinions—over and among what are called by some natural conceptions, even the good seeds which are from the Word. And according to this the whole world might be called a field, and not the Church of God only, for in the whole world the Son of man sowed the good seed, but the wicked one tares,—that is, evil words,—which, springing from wickedness, are children of the evil one. And at the end of things, which is called “the consummation of the age,”[4] there will of necessity be a harvest, in order that the angels of God who have been appointed for this work may gather up the bad opinions that have grown upon the soul, and overturning them may give them over to fire which is said to burn, that they may be consumed. And so the angels and servants of the Word will gather from all the kingdom of Christ all things that cause a stumbling-block to souls and reasonings that create iniquity, which they will scatter and cast into the burning furnace of fire. Then those who become conscious that they have received the seeds of the evil one in themselves, because of their having been asleep, shall wail and, as it were, be angry against themselves; for this is the “gnashing of teeth.”[5] Wherefore, also, in the Psalms it is said, “They gnashed upon me with their teeth.”[6] Then above all “shall the righteous shine,” no longer differently as at the first, but all “as one sun in the kingdom of their Father.”[7] Then, as if to indicate that there was indeed a hidden meaning, perhaps, in all that is concerned with the explanation of the parable, perhaps most of all in the saying, “Then shall the righteous shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father,” the Saviour adds, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,”[7] thereby teaching those who think that in the exposition, the parable has been set forth with such perfect clearness that it can be understood by the vulgar,[8] that even the things connected with the interpretation of the parable stand in need of explanation.

[1] Matt. 13:37.

[2] John 1:2.

[3] Matt. 26:41.

[4] Matt. 13:39. Or, reading ὅς καλεῖται for ὁ, and at the end of things, there will of necessity be a harvest, which is called the consummation of the age.

[5] Matt. 13:42.

[6] Ps. 35:16.

[7] Matt. 13:43.

[8] Or, in little details.

The Shining of the Righteous. Its Interpretation

But as we said above in reference to the words, “Then shall the righteous shine as the sun,” that the righteous will shine not differently as formerly, but as one sun, we will, of necessity, set forth what appears to us on the point. Daniel, knowing that the intelligent are the light of the world, and that the multitudes of the righteous differ in glory, seems to have said this, “And the intelligent shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and from among the multitudes of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever.”[1] And in the passage, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory: so also is the resurrection of the dead,”[2] the Apostle says the same thing as Daniel, taking this thought from his prophecy. Some one may inquire how some speak about the difference of light among the righteous, while the Saviour on the contrary says, “They shall shine as one sun.” I think, then, that at the beginning of the blessedness enjoyed by those who are being saved (because those who are not such are not yet purified), the difference connected with the light of the saved takes place: but when, as we have indicated, he gathers from the whole kingdom of Christ all things that make men stumble, and the reasonings that work iniquity are cast into the furnace of fire, and the worse elements utterly consumed, and, when this takes place, those who received the words which are the children of the evil one come to self-consciousness, then shall the righteous having become one light of the sun shine in the kingdom of their Father. For whom will they shine? For those below them who will enjoy their light, after the analogy of the sun which now shines for those upon the earth? For, of course, they will not shine for themselves. But perhaps the saying, “Let your light shine before men,”[3] can be written “upon the table of the heart,”[4] according to what is said by Solomon, in a threefold way; so that even now the light of the disciples of Jesus shines before the rest of men, and after death before the resurrection, and after the resurrection “until all shall attain unto a full-grown man,”[5] and all become one sun. Then shall they shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

[1] Dan. 12:3.

[2] 1 Cor. 15:41, 42.

[3] Matt. 5:16.

[4] Prov. 7:3. Or, on the breadth of the heart.

[5] Eph. 4:13.

Concerning the Parable of the Treasure Hidden in the Field. The Parable Distinguished From the Similitude

“Again the kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid.”[1] The former parables He spoke to the multitudes; but this and the two which follow it, which are not parables but similitudes in relation to the kingdom of heaven, He seems to have spoken to the disciples when in the house. In regard to this and the next two, let him who “gives heed to reading”[2] inquire whether they are parables at all. In the case of the latter the Scripture does not hesitate to attach in each case the name of parable; but in the present case it has not done so; and that naturally. For if He spoke to the multitudes in parables, and “spake all these things in parables, and without a parable spake nothing to them,”[3] but on going to the house He discourses not to the multitudes but to the disciples who came to Him there, manifestly the things spoken in the house were not parables: for, to them that are without, even to those to whom “it is not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,”[4] He speaks in parables. Some one will then say, If they are not really parables, what are they? Shall we then say in keeping with the diction of the Scripture that they are similitudes (comparisons)? Now a similitude differs from a parable; for it is written in Mark, “To what shall we compare the kingdom of God, or in what parable shall we set it forth?”[5] From this it is plain that there is a difference between a similitude and a parable. The similitude seems to be generic, and the parable specific. And perhaps also as the similitude, which is the highest genus of the parable, contains the parable as one of its species, so it contains that particular form of similitude which has the same name as the genus. This is the case with other words as those skilled in the giving of many names have observed; who say that “impulse”[6] is the highest genus of many species, as, for example, of “disinclination”[7] and “inclination,” and say that, in the case of the species which has the same name as the genus, “inclination” is taken in opposition to and in distinction from “disinclination.”

[1] Matt. 13:44.

[2] 1 Tim. 4:13.

[3] Matt. 13:34.

[4] Matt. 13:11.

[5] Mark 4:30.

[6] ὁρμή; also inclination.

[7] ἀφορμή.

The Field and the Treasure Interpreted

And here we must inquire separately as to the field, and separately as to the treasure hidden in it, and in what way the man who has found this hidden treasure goes away with joy and sells all that he has in order to buy that field; and we must also inquire—what are the things which he sells. The field, indeed, seems to me according to these things to be the Scripture, which was planted with what is manifest in the words of the history, and the law, and the prophets, and the rest of the thoughts; for great and varied is the planting of the words in the whole Scripture; but the treasure hidden in the field is the thoughts concealed and lying under that which is manifest, “of wisdom hidden in a mystery,” “even Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden.”[1] But another might say that the field is that which is verily full, which the Lord blessed, the Christ of God; but the treasure hidden in it is the things said to have been “hidden in Christ” by Paul, who says about Christ, “in whom are the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden.” The heavenly things, therefore, even the kingdom of heaven, as in a figure it is written in the Scriptures—which are the kingdom of heaven, or Christ—Himself the king of the ages, are the kingdom of heaven which is likened to a treasure hidden in the field.

[1] Col. 2:3.

The Exposition Continued

And at this point you will inquire, whether the kingdom of heaven is likened only to the treasure hidden in the field, so that we are to think of the field as different from the kingdom, or is likened to the whole of this treasure hidden in the field, so that the kingdom of heaven contains according to the similitude both the field and the treasure hidden in the field. Now a man who comes to the field, whether to the Scriptures or to the Christ who is constituted both from things manifest and from things hidden, finds the hidden treasure of wisdom whether in Christ or in the Scriptures. For, going round to visit the field and searching the Scriptures and seeking to understand the Christ, he finds the treasure in it; and, having found it, he hides it, thinking that it is not without danger to reveal to everybody the secret meanings of the Scriptures, or the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ. And, having hidden it, he goes away, working and devising how he shall buy the field, or the Scriptures, that he may make them his own possession, receiving from the people of God the oracles of God with which the Jews were first entrusted.[1] And when the man taught by Christ has bought the field, the kingdom of God which, according to another parable, is a vineyard, “is taken from them and is given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,”[2]—to him who in faith has bought the field, as the fruit of his having sold all that he had, and no longer keeping by him anything that was formerly his; for they were a source of evil to him. And you will give the same application, if the field containing the hidden treasure be Christ, for those who give up all things and follow Him, have, as it were in another way, sold their possessions, in order that, by having sold and surrendered them, and having received in their place from God—their helper—a noble resolution, they may purchase, at great cost worthy of the field, the field containing the treasure hidden in itself.

[1] Rom. 3:2.

[2] Matt. 21:43.

The Parable of the Pearl of Great Price. The Formation and Difference of Pearls

“Again the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a merchant seeking goodly pearls.”[1] There are many merchants engaged in many forms of merchandise, but not to any one of these is the kingdom of heaven like, but only to him who is seeking goodly pearls, and has found one equal in value to many, a very costly pearl which he has bought in place of many. I consider it reasonable, then, to make some inquiry into the nature of the pearl.[2] Be careful however to note, that Christ did not say, “He sold all the pearls that he had,” for he sold not only those which one seeking goodly pearls had bought, but also everything which he had, in order to buy that goodly pearl. We find then in those who write on the subject of stones, with regard to the nature of the pearl, that some pearls are found by land, and some in the sea. The land pearls are produced among the Indians only, being fitted for signet-rings and collets and necklaces; and the sea pearls, which are superior, are found among the same Indians, the best being produced in the Red Sea. The next best pearls are those taken from the sea at Britain; and those of the third quality, which are inferior not only to the first but to the second, are those found at Bosporus off Scythia. Concerning the Indian pearl these things further are said. They are found in mussels, like in nature to very large spiral snail-shells; and these are described as in troops making the sea their pasture-ground, as if under the guidance of some leader, conspicuous in colour and size, and different from those under him, so that he has an analogous position to what is called the queen of the bees. And likewise, in regard to the fishing for the best—that is, those in India—the following is told. The natives surround with nets a large circle of the shore, and dive down, exerting themselves to seize that one of them all which is the leader; for they say that, when this one is captured, the catching of the troop subject to it costs no trouble, as not one of those in the troop remains stationary, but as if bound by a thong follows the leader of the troop. It is said also that the formation of the pearls in India requires periods of time, the creature undergoing many changes and alterations until it is perfected. And it is further reported that the shell—I mean, the shell of the animal which bears the pearl—opens and gapes, as it were, and being opened receives into itself the dew of heaven; when it is filled with dew pure and untroubled, it becomes illumined and brings forth a large and well-formed pearl; but if at any time it receives dew darkened, or uneven, or in winter, it conceives a pearl cloudy and disfigured with spots. And this we also find that if it be intercepted by lightning when it is on the way towards the completion of the stone with which it is pregnant, it closes, and, as it were in terror, scatters and pours forth its offspring, so as to form what are called “physemata.” And sometimes, as if premature, they are born small, and are somewhat cloudy though well-formed. As compared with the others the Indian pearl has these features. It is white in colour, like to silver in transparency, and shines through as with a radiance somewhat greenish yellow, and as a rule is round in form; it is also of tender skin, and more delicate than it is the nature of a stone to be; so it is delightful to behold, worthy to be celebrated among the more notable, as he who wrote on the subject of stones used to say. And this is also a mark of the best pearl, to be rounded off on the outer surface, very white in colour, very translucent, and very large in size. So much about the Indian pearl. But that found in Britain, they say, is of a golden tinge, but somewhat cloudy, and duller in sparkle. And that which is found in the strait of Bosporus is darker than that of Britain, and livid, and perfectly dim, soft and small. And that which is produced in the strait of Bosporus is not found in the “pinna” which is the pearl-bearing species of shells. but in what are called mussels; and their habitat—I mean those at Bosporus—is in the marshes. There is also said to be a fourth class of pearls in Acarnania in the “pinnæ” of oysters. These are not greatly sought after, but are irregular in form, and perfectly dark and foul in colour; and there are others also different from these in the same Acarnania which are cast away on every ground.

[1] Matt. 13:45.

[2] Cf.Pliny, Nat. Hist. ix. 54, etc.

The Parable Interpreted is the Light of These Views

Now, having collected these things out of dissertations about stones, I say that the Saviour with a knowledge of the difference of pearls, of which some are in kind goodly and others worthless, said, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a merchant seeking goodly pearls;”[1] for, if some of the pearls had not been worthless, it would not have been said, “to a man seeking goodly pearls.” Now among the words of all kinds which profess to announce truth, and among those who report them, he seeks pearls. And let the prophets be, so to speak, the mussels which conceive the dew of heaven, and become pregnant with the word of truth from heaven, the goodly pearls which, according to the phrase here set forth, the merchantman seeks. And the leader of the pearls, on the finding of which the rest are found with it, is the very costly pearl, the Christ of God, the Word which is superior to the precious letters and thoughts in the law and the prophets, on the finding of which also all the rest are easily taken. And the Saviour holds converse with all the disciples, as merchant-men who are not only seeking the goodly pearls but who have found them and possess them, when He says, “Cast not your pearls before swine.”[2] Now it is manifest that these things were said to the disciples from that which is prefixed to His words, “And seeing the multitudes He went up into the mountain, and when He had sat down His disciples came unto Him;”[3] for, in the course of those words, He said, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine.”[2] Perhaps, then, he is not a disciple of Christ, who does not possess pearls or the very costly pearl, the pearls, I mean, which are goodly; not the cloudy, nor the darkened, such as the words of the heterodox, which are brought forth not at the sunrise, but at the sunset or in the north, if it is necessary to take also into the comparison those things on account of which we found a difference in the pearls which are produced in different places. And perhaps the muddy words and the heresies which are bound up with works of the flesh, are the darkened pearls, and those which are produced in the marshes, not goodly pearls.

[1] Matt. 13:45.

[2] Matt. 7:6.

[3] Matt. 5:1.

Christ the Pearl of Great Price

Now you will connect with the man seeking goodly pearls the saying, “Seek and ye shall find,”[1] and this—“Every one that seeketh findeth.”[2] For what seek ye? Or what does every one that seeketh find? I venture to answer, pearls and the pearl which he possesses, who has given up all things, and counted them as loss; “for which,” says Paul, “I have counted all things but loss that I may win Christ;”[3] by “all things” meaning the goodly pearls, “that I may win Christ,” the one very precious pearl. Precious, then, is a lamp to men in darkness, and there is need of a lamp until the sun rise; and precious also is the glory in the face of Moses, and of the prophets also, I think, and a beautiful sight, by which we are introduced so as to be able to see the glory of Christ, to which the Father bears witness, saying, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased.”[4] But “that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect by reason of the glory that surpasseth;”[5] and there is need to us first of the glory which admits of being done away, for the sake of the glory which surpasseth; as there is need of the knowledge which is in part, which will be done away when that which is perfect comes.[6] Every soul, therefore, which comes to childhood, and is on the way to full growth, until the fulness of time is at hand, needs a tutor and stewards and guardians, in order that, after all these things, he who formerly differed nothing from a bond-servant, though he is lord of all,[7] may receive, when freed from a tutor and stewards and guardians, the patrimony corresponding to the very costly pearl, and to that which is perfect, which on its coming does away with that which is in part, when one is able to receive “the excellency of the knowledge of Christ,”[3] having been previously exercised, so to speak, in those forms of knowledge which are surpassed by the knowledge of Christ. But the multitude, not perceiving the beauty of the many pearls of the law, and all the knowledge, “in part,” though it be, of the prophets, suppose that they can, without a clear exposition and apprehension of these, find in whole[8] the one precious pearl, and behold “the excellency of the knowledge of Christ,” in comparison with which all things that came before such and so great knowledge, although they were not refuse in their own nature, appear to be refuse. This refuse is perhaps the “dung” thrown down beside the fig tree by the keeper of the vineyard, which is the cause of its bearing fruit.[9]

[1] Matt. 7:7.

[2] Matt. 7:8.

[3] Phil. 3:8.

[4] Matt. 3:17.

[5] 2 Cor. 3:10.

[6] 1 Cor. 13:9, 10.

[7] Cf. Gal. 4:1, 2.

[8] Or, absolutely.

[9] Luke 13:8.

The Pearl of the Gospel in Relation to the Old Testament

“To everything then is its season, and a time for everything under heaven,”[1] a time to gather the goodly pearls, and a time after their gathering to find the one precious pearl, when it is fitting for a man to go away and sell all that he has in order that he may buy that pearl. For as every man who is going to be wise in the words of truth must first be taught the rudiments, and further pass through the elementary instruction, and appreciate it highly but not abide in it, as one who, having honoured it at the beginning but passed over towards perfection, is grateful for the introduction because it was useful at the first; so the perfect apprehension of the law and the prophets is an elementary discipline for the perfect apprehension of the Gospel, and all the meaning in the words and deeds of Christ.

[1] Eccles. 3:1.

The Parable of the Drag-Net

“Again the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea.”[1] As in the case of images and statues, the likenesses are not likenesses in every respect of those things in relation to which they are made; but, for example, the image painted with wax on the plane surface of wood has the likeness of the surface along with the colour, but does not further preserve the hollows and prominences, but only their outward appearance; and in the moulding of statues an endeavour is made to preserve the likeness in respect of the hollows and the prominences, but not in respect of the colour; and, if the cast be formed of wax, it endeavours to preserve both, I mean both the colour and also the hollows and the prominences, but is not indeed an image of the things in the respect of depth; so conceive with me also that, in the case of the similitudes in the Gospel, when the kingdom of heaven is likened unto anything, the comparison does not extend to all the features of that to which the kingdom is compared, but only to those features which are required by the argument in hand. And here, accordingly, the kingdom of heaven is “like unto a net that was cast into the sea,” not (as supposed by some,[2] who represent that by this word the different natures of those who have come into the net, to-wit, the evil and the righteous, are treated of), as if it is to be thought that, because of the phrase “which gathered of every kind,” there are many different natures of the righteous and likewise also of the evil; for to such an interpretation all the Scriptures are opposed, which emphasise the freedom of the will, and censure those who sin and approve those who do right; or otherwise blame could not rightly attach to those of the kinds that were such by nature, nor praise to those of a better kind. For the reason why fishes are good or bad lies not in the souls of the fishes, but is based on that which the Word said with knowledge, “Let the waters bring forth creeping things with living souls,”[3] when, also, “God made great sea-monsters and every soul of creeping creatures which the waters brought forth according to their kinds.”[4] There, accordingly, “The waters brought forth every soul of creeping animals according to their kinds,” the cause not being in it; but here we are responsible for our being good kinds and worthy of what are called “vessels,” or bad and worthy of being cast outside. For it is not the nature in us which is the cause of the evil, but it is the voluntary choice which worketh evil; and so our nature is not the cause of righteousness, as if it were incapable of admitting unrighteousness, but it is the principle which we have admitted that makes men righteous; for also you never see the kinds of things in the water changing from the bad kinds of fishes into the good, or from the better kind to the worse; but you can always behold the righteous or evil among men either coming from wickedness to virtue, or returning from progress towards virtue to the flood of wickedness. Wherefore also in Ezekiel, concerning the man who turns away from unrighteousness to the keeping of the divine commandments, it is thus written: “But if the wicked man turn away from all his wickednesses which he hath done,” etc., down to the words, “that he turn from his wicked way and live;”[5] but concerning the man who returns from the advance towards virtue unto the flood of wickedness it is said, “But in the case of the righteous man turning away from his righteousness and committing iniquity,” etc., down to the words, “in his sins which he hath sinned in them shall he die.”[6] Let those who, from the parable of the drag-net, introduce the doctrine of different natures, tell us in regard to the wicked man who afterwards turned aside from all the wickednesses which he committed and keeps all the commandments of God, and does that which is righteous and merciful, of what nature was he when he was wicked? Clearly not of a nature to be praised. If verily of a nature to be censured, of what kind of nature can he reasonably be described, when he turns away from all his sins which he did? For if he were of the bad class of natures, because of his former deeds, how did he change to that which was better? Or if because of his subsequent deeds you would say that he was of the good class, how being good by nature did he become wicked? And you will also meet with a like dilemma in regard to the righteous man turning away from his righteousness and committing unrighteousness in all manner of sins. For before he turned away from righteousness, being occupied with righteous deeds he was not of a bad nature, for a bad nature could not be in righteousness, since a bad tree—that is wickedness—cannot produce good fruits,—the fruits that spring from virtue. Again, on the other hand, if he had been of a good and unchangeable nature he would not have turned away from the good after being called righteous, so as to commit unrighteousness in all his sins which he committed.

[1] Matt. 13:47.

[2] Valentinus and his followers.

[3] Gen. 1:20.

[4] Gen. 1:21.

[5] Ezek. 18:20–23.

[6] Ezek. 18:24.

The Divine Scriptures Compared to a Net

Now, these things being said, we must hold that “the kingdom of heaven is likened to a net that was cast into the sea and gathered of every kind,[1]” in order to set forth the varied character of the principles of action among men, which are as different as possible from each other, so that the expression “gathered from every kind” embraces both those worthy of praise and those worthy of blame in respect of their proclivities towards the forms of virtues or of vices. And the kingdom of heaven is likened unto the variegated texture of a net, with reference to the Old and the New Scripture which is woven of thoughts of all kinds and greatly varied. As in the case of the fishes that fall into the net, some are found in one part of the net and some in another part, and each at the part at which it was caught, so in the case of those who have come into the net of the Scriptures you would find some caught in the prophetic net; for example, of Isaiah, according to this expression, or of Jeremiah or of Daniel; and others in the net of the law, and others in the Gospel net, and some in the apostolic net; for when one is first captured by the Word or seems to be captured, he is taken from some part of the whole net. And it is nothing strange if some of the fishes caught are encompassed by the whole texture of the net in the Scriptures, and are pressed in on every side and caught, so that they are unable to escape but are, as it were, absolutely enslaved, and not permitted to escape from the net. And this net has been cast into the sea—the wave—tossed life of men in every part of the world, and which swims in the bitter affairs of life. And before our Saviour Jesus Christ this net was not wholly filled; for the net of the law and the prophets had to be completed by Him who says, “Think not that I came to destroy the law and the prophets, I came not to destroy but to fulfil.”[2] And the texture of the net has been completed in the Gospels, and in the words of Christ through the Apostles. On this account, therefore, “the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea and gathered of every kind.” And, apart from what has been said, the expression, “gathered from every kind,” may show forth the calling of the Gentiles from every race. And those who attended to the net which was cast into the sea are Jesus Christ, the master of the net, and “the angels who came and ministered unto Him,”[3] who do not draw up the net from the sea, nor carry it to the shore beyond the sea,—namely, to things beyond this life, unless the net be filled full, that is, unless the “fulness of the Gentiles” has come into it. But when it has come, then they draw it up from things here below, and carry it to what is figuratively called the shore, where it will be the work of those who have drawn it up, both to sit by the shore, and there to settle themselves, in order that they may place each of the good in the net into its own order, according to what are here called “vessels,” but cast without and away those that are of an opposite character and are called bad. By “without” is meant the furnace of fire as the Saviour interpreted, saying, “So shall it be at the consummation of the age. The angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the righteous and shall cast them into the furnace of fire.”[4] Only it must be observed, that we are already taught by the parable of the tares and the similitude set forth, that the angels are to be entrusted with the power to distinguish and separate the evil from the righteous; for it is said above, “The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.”[5] But here it is said, “The angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the righteous and shall cast them into the furnace of fire.”

[1] Matt. 13:47.

[2] Matt. 5:17.

[3] Matt. 4:11.

[4] Matt. 13:49, 50.

[5] Matt. 13:42.

Relation of Men to Angels

From this it does not follow, as some suppose, that the men who are saved in Christ are superior even to the holy angels; for how can those who are cast by the holy angels into vessels be compared with those who cast them into vessels, seeing that they have been put under the authority of the angels? While we say this, we are not ignorant that the men who will be saved in Christ surpass some angels—namely, those who have not been entrusted with this office—but not all of them. For we read, “Which things angels desire to look into,”[1] where it is not said “all” angels. And we know also this—“We shall judge angels”[2] where it is not said “all” angels. Now since these things are written about the net and about those in the net, we say that he who desires that, before the consummation of the age, and before the coming of the angels to sever the wicked from among the righteous, there should be no evil persons “of every kind” in the net, seems not to have understood the Scripture, and to desire the impossible. Wherefore let us not be surprised if, before the severing of the wicked from among the righteous by the angels who are sent forth for this purpose, we see our gatherings also filled with wicked persons. And would that those who will be cast into the furnace of fire may not be greater in number than the righteous! But since we said in the beginning, that the parables and similitudes are not to be accepted in respect of all the things to which they are likened or compared, but only in respect of some things, we must further establish from the things to be said, that in the case of the fishes, so far as their life is concerned, an evil thing happens to them when they are found in the net. For they are deprived of the life which is theirs by nature, and whether they are cast into vessels or cast away, they suffer nothing more than the loss of the life as it is in fishes; but, in the case of those to whom the parable refers, the evil thing is to be in the sea and not to come into the net, in order to be cast along with the good into vessels. And in like manner the bad fishes are cast without and thrown away; but the bad in the similitude before us are cast into “the furnace of fire,” that what is said in Ezekiel about the furnace of fire may also overtake them—“And the Word of the Lord came unto me saying, Son of man behold the house of Israel is become to me all mixed with brass and iron,” etc., down to the words, “And ye shall know that I the Lord have poured My fury upon you.”[3]

[1] 1 Pet. 1:12.

[2] 1 Cor. 6:3.

[3] Ezek. 18:17–22.

The Disciples as Scribes

“Have ye understood all these things? They say, Yea.”[1] Christ Jesus, who knows the things in the hearts of men,[2] as John also taught concerning Him in the Gospel, puts the question not as one ignorant, but having once for all taken upon Him the nature of man, He uses also all the characteristics of a man of which “asking” is one. And there is nothing to be wondered at in the Saviour doing this, since indeed the God of the universe, bearing with the manners of men as a man beareth with the manners of his son, makes inquiry, as—“Adam, where art thou?”[3] and, “Where is Abel thy brother?”[4] But some one with a forced interpretation will say here that the words “have understood” are not to be taken interrogatively but affirmatively; and he will say that the disciples bearing testimony to His affirmation, say, “Yea.” Only, whether he is putting a question or making an affirmation, it is necessarily said not “these things” only,—which is demonstrative,—not “all things” only, but “all these things.” And here He seems to represent the disciples as having been scribes before the kingdom of heaven;[5] but to this is opposed what is said in the Acts of the Apostles thus, “Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled, and they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus.”[6] Some one may inquire in regard to these things—if they were scribes, how are they spoken of in the Acts as unlearned and ignorant men? Or if they were unlearned and ignorant men, how are they very plainly called scribes by the Saviour? And it might be answered to these inquiries that, as a matter of fact, not all the disciples but only Peter and John are described in the Acts as unlearned and ignorant, but that there were more disciples in regard to whom, because they understood all things, it is said, “Every scribe,” etc. Or it might be said that every one who has been instructed in the teaching according to the letter of the law is called a scribe, so that those who were unlearned and ignorant and led captive by the letter of the law are spoken of as scribes in a particular sense. And it is very specially the characteristic of ignorant men, who are unskilled in figurative interpretation and do not understand what is concerned with the mystical[7] exposition of the Scriptures, but believe the bare letter, and, vindicate it, that they call themselves scribes. And so one will interpret the words, “Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,”[8] as having been said to every one that knows nothing but the letter. Here you will inquire if the scribe of the Gospel be as the scribe of the law, and if the former deals with the Gospel, as the latter with the law, reading and hearing and telling “those things which contain an allegory,”[9] so as, while preserving the historic truth of the events, to understand the unerring principle of mystic interpretation applied to things spiritual, so that the things learned may not be “spiritual things whose characteristic is wickedness,”[10] but may be entirely opposite to such, namely, spiritual things whose characteristic is goodness. And one is a scribe “made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven” in the simpler sense, when he comes from Judaism and receives the teaching of Jesus Christ as defined by the Church; but he is a scribe in a deeper sense, when having received elementary knowledge through the letter of the Scriptures he ascends to things spiritual, which are called the kingdom of the heavens. And according as each thought is attained, and grasped abstractly[11] and proved by example and absolute demonstration, can one understand the kingdom of heaven, so that he who abounds in knowledge free from error is in the kingdom of the multitude of what are here represented as “heavens.” So, too, you will allegorise the word, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand,”[12] as meaning that the scribes—that is, those who rest satisfied in the bare letter—may repent of this method of interpretation and be instructed in the spiritual teaching which is called the kingdom of the heavens through Jesus Christ the living Word. Wherefore, also, so far as Jesus Christ, “who was in the beginning with God, God the word,”[13] has not His home in a soul, the kingdom of heaven is not in it, but when any one becomes nigh to admission of the Word, to him the kingdom of heaven is nigh. But if the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are the same thing in reality,[14] if not in idea, manifestly to those to whom it is said, “The kingdom of God is within you,”[15] to them also it might be said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you;” and most of all because of the repentance from the letter unto the spirit; since “When one turn to the Lord, the veil over the letter is taken away. But the Lord is the Spirit.”[16] And he who is truly a householder is both free and rich; rich because from the office of the scribe he has been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, in every word of the Old Testament, and in all knowledge concerning the new teaching of Christ Jesus, and has this riches laid up in his own treasure-house—in heaven, in which he stores his treasure as one who has been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven,—where neither moth doth consume, nor thieves break through.[17] And in regard to him, who, as we have said, lays up treasure in heaven, we may truly lay down that not one moth of the passions can touch his spiritual and heavenly possessions. “A moth of the passions,” I said, taking the suggestion from the “Proverbs” in which it is written, “a worm in wood, so pain woundeth the heart of man.”[18] For pain is a worm and a moth, which wounds the heart which has not its treasures in heaven and spiritual things, for if a man has his treasure in these—“for where the treasure is, there will the heart be also,”[19]—he has his heart in heaven, and on account of it he says, “Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear.”[20] And so neither can thieves in regard to whom the Saviour said, “All that came before Me are thieves and robbers,”[21] break through those things which are treasured up in heaven, and through the heart which is in heaven and therefore says, “He raised us up with Him, and made us to sit with Him in the heavenly places in Christ,”[22] and, “Our citizenship is in heaven.”[23]

[1] Matt. 13:51.

[2] John 2:25.

[3] Gen. 3:9.

[4] Gen. 4:9.

[5] Matt. 13:52.

[6] Acts 4:13.

[7] Or, anagogical.

[8] Matt. 23:13.

[9] Gal. 4:24.

[10] Eph. 6:12.

[11] Or, in an exalted sense.

[12] Matt. 3:2.

[13] John 1:1, 2.

[14] Or, substance.

[15] Luke 17:21.

[16] 2 Cor. 3:16, 17.

[17] Matt. 6:20.

[18] Prov. 25:20.

[19] Matt. 6:21.

[20] Ps. 27:3.

[21] John 10:8.

[22] Eph. 2:6.

[23] Phil. 3:20.

The Householder and His Treasury

Now since “every scribe who has been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder who bringeth forth out of his treasury things new and old,”[1] it clearly follows, by “conversion of the proposition,” as it is called, that every one who does not bring forth out of his treasury things new and old, is not a scribe who has been made a disciple unto the kingdom of heaven. We must endeavour, therefore, in every way to gather in our heart, “by giving heed to reading, to exhortation, to teaching,”[2] and by “meditating in the law of the Lord day and night,”[3] not only the new oracles of the Gospels and of the Apostles and their Revelation, but also the old things in the law “which has the shadow of the good things to come,”[4] and in the prophets who prophesied in accordance with them. And these things will be gathered together, when we also read and know, and remembering them, compare at a fitting time things spiritual with spiritual, not comparing things that cannot be compared with one another, but things which admit of comparison, and which have a certain likeness of diction signifying the same thing, and of thoughts and of opinions, so that by the mouth of two or three or more witnesses[5] from the Scripture, we may establish and confirm every word of God. By means of them also we must refute those who, as far as in them lies, cleave in twain the Godhead and cut off the New from the Old,[6] so that they are far removed from likeness to the householder who brings forth out of his treasury things new and old. And since he who is likened to any one is different from the one to whom he is likened, the scribe “who is made a disciple unto the kingdom of heaven” will be the one who is likened, but different from him is the householder “who brings out of his treasury things new and old.” But he who is likened to him, as in imitation of him, wishes to do that which is like. Perhaps, then, the man who is a householder is Jesus Himself, who brings forth out of His treasury, according to the time of the teaching, things new, things spiritual, which also are always being renewed by Him in the “inner man” of the righteous, who are themselves always being renewed day by day,[7] and old things, things “written and engraven on stones,”[8] and in the stony hearts of the old man, so that by comparison of the letter and by exhibition of the spirit He may enrich the scribe who is made a disciple unto the kingdom of heaven, and make him like unto Himself; until the disciple shall be as the Master, imitating first the imitator of Christ, and after him Christ Himself, according to that which is said by Paul, “Be ye imitators of me even as I also of Christ.”[9] And likewise, Jesus the householder may in the simpler sense bring forth out of His treasury things new,—that is, the evangelic teaching—and things old,—that is, the comparison of the sayings which are taken from the law and the prophets, of which we may find examples in the Gospels. And with regard to these things new and old, we must attend also to the spiritual law which says in Leviticus, “And ye shall eat old things, and the old things of the old, and ye shall bring forth the old from before the new; and I will set my tabernacle among you.”[10] For we eat with blessing the old things,—the prophetic words,—and the old things of the old things,—the words of the law; and, when the new and evangelical words came, living according to the Gospel we bring forth the old things of the letter from before the new, and He sets His tabernacle in us, fulfilling the promise which He spoke, “I will dwell among them and walk in them.”[11]

[1] Matt. 13:52.

[2] 1 Tim. 4:13.

[3] Ps. 1:2.

[4] Heb. 10:1.

[5] Matt. 18:16.

[6] Marcion and his school.

[7] 2 Cor. 4:16.

[8] 2 Cor. 3:7.

[9] 1 Cor. 11:1.

[10] Lev. 26:10, 11.

[11] Lev. 26:12; 2 Cor. 6:16.

Parables in Relation to Similitudes. Jesus in His Own Country

“And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence. And coming into His own country.”[1] Since we inquired above whether the things spoken to the multitude were parables, and those spoken to the disciples were similitudes, and set forth observations bearing on this in my judgment not contemptible, you must know that the sentence which is subjoined, “And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence,” will appear to be in opposition to all these arguments, as applying not only to the parables, but also to the similitudes as we have expounded. We inquire therefore whether all these things are to be rejected, or whether we must speak of two kinds of parables, those spoken to the multitudes, and those announced to the disciples; or whether we are to think of the name of parable as equi-vocal; or whether the saying, “And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these parables,” is to be referred only to the parables above, which come before the similitudes. For, because of the saying, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to the rest in parables,”[2] it was not possible to say to the disciples, inasmuch as they were not of those without, that the Saviour spoke to them in parables. And it follows from this, that the saying, “And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these parables, He departed thence,” is to be referred to the parables spoken above, or that the name parable is equivocal, or that there are two kinds of parables, or that these which we have named similitudes were not parables at all. And observe that it was outside of His own country He speaks the parables “which, when He had finished, He departed thence; 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.”[3] We must therefore inquire whether, by the expression, “His own country,” is meant Nazareth or Bethlehem,—Nazareth, because of the saying, “He shall be called a Nazarene,”[4] or Bethlehem, since in it He was born. And further I reflect whether the Evangelists could have said, “coming to Bethlehem,” or, “coming to Nazareth.” They have not done so, but have named it “His country,” because of something being declared in a mystic sense in the passage about His country,—namely, the whole of Judæa,—in which He was dishonoured according to the saying, “A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country.”[5] And if anyone thinks of Jesus Christ, “a stumbling-block to the Jews,”[6] among whom He is persecuted even until now, but proclaimed among the Gentiles and believed in,—for His word has run over the whole world,—he will see that in His own country Jesus had no honour, but that among those who were “strangers from the covenants,”[7] the Gentiles, He is held in honour. But what things He taught and spake in their synagogue the Evangelists have not recorded, but only that they were so great and of such a nature that all were astonished. And probably the things spoken were too high to be written down. Only be it noted, He taught in their synagogue, not separating from it, nor disregarding it.

[1] Matt. 13:53, 54.

[2] Matt. 13:11.

[3] Mark 6:1.

[4] Matt. 2:23.

[5] Matt. 13:57.

[6] 1 Cor. 1:23.

[7] Eph. 2:12.

The Brethren of Jesus

And the saying, “Whence hath this man this wisdom,”[1] indicates clearly that there was a great and surpassing wisdom in the words of Jesus worthy of the saying, “lo, a greater than Solomon is here.”[2] And He was wont to do greater miracles than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun. And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) “is not this the carpenter’s son?”[3] And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, “Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?”[4] They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter,[5] as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,”[6] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,”[7] might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, “But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”[8] And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the “Antiquities of the Jews” in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.[9] And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James.”[10] With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, “And His sisters are they not all with us,”[11] seems to me to signify something of this nature—they mind our things, not those of Jesus, and have no unusual portion of surpassing wisdom as Jesus has. And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but something diviner, inasmuch as He was, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four, and of the others—the women—as well, and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power. For they also say elsewhere, “How knoweth this man letters having never learned?”[12] which is similar to what is here said. Only, though they say these things and are so perplexed and astonished, they did not believe, but were offended in Him; as if they had been mastered in the eyes of their mind by the powers which, in the time of the passion, He was about to lead in triumph on the cross.

[1] Matt. 13:54.

[2] Matt. 12:42.

[3] Matt. 13:55.

[4] Matt. 13:55, 56.

[5] The Gospel of Peter, of which a fragment was recovered in 1886 and published in 1892.

[6] Protevangelium Jacobi, c. 9.

[7] Luke 1:35.

[8] Gal. 1:19.

[9] Jos. Ant. xviii. 4.

[10] Jude 1.

[11] Matt. 13:56.

[12] John 7:15.

Prophets in Their Country

“But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country.”[1] We must inquire whether the expression has the same force when applied universally to every prophet (as if each one of the prophets was dishonoured in his own country only, but not as if every one who was dishonoured was dishonoured in his country); or, because of the expression being singular, these things were said about one. If, then, these words are spoken about one, these things which have been said suffice, if we refer that which is written to the Saviour. But if it is general, it is not historically true; for Elijah did not suffer dishonour in Tishbeth of Gilead, nor Elisha in Abelmeholah, nor Samuel in Ramathaim, nor Jeremiah in Anathoth. But, figuratively interpreted, it is absolutely true; for we must think of Judæa as their country, and that famous Israel as their kindred, and perhaps of the body as the house. For all suffered dishonour in Judæa from the Israel which is according to the flesh, while they were yet in the body, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, as having been spoken in censure to the people, “Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute, who showed before of the coming of the Righteous one?”[2] And by Paul in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians like things are said: “For ye brethren became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judæa in Christ Jesus, for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen even as they did of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drave out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men.”[3] A prophet, then, is not without honour among the Gentiles; for either they do not know him at all, or, having learned and received him as a prophet, they honour him. And such are those who are of the Church. Prophets suffer dishonour, first, when they are persecuted, according to historical fact, by the people, and, secondly, when their prophecy is not believed by the people. For if they had believed Moses and the prophets they would have believed Christ, who showed that when men believed Moses and the prophets, belief in Christ logically followed, and that when men did not believe Christ they did not believe Moses.[4] Moreover, as by the transgression of the law he who sins is said to dishonour God, so by not believing in that which is prophesied the prophet is dishonoured by the man who disbelieves the prophecies. And so far as the literal truth is concerned, it is useful to recount what things Jeremiah suffered among the people in relation to which he said, “And I said, I will not speak, nor will I call upon the name of the Lord.”[5] And again, elsewhere, “I was continually being mocked.”[6] And how great sufferings he endured from the then king of Israel are written in his prophecy. And it is also written that some of the people often came to stone Moses to death; for his fatherland was not the stones of any place, but the people who followed him, among whom also he was dishonoured. And Isaiah is reported to have been sawn asunder by the people; and if any one does not accept the statement because of its being found in the Apocryphal Isaiah,[7] let him believe what is written thus in the Epistle to the Hebrews, “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted;”[8] for the expression, “They were sawn asunder,” refers to Isaiah, just as the words, “They were slain with the sword,” refer to Zacharias, who was slain “between the sanctuary and the altar,”[9] as the Saviour taught, bearing testimony, as I think, to a Scripture, though not extant in the common and widely circulated books, but perhaps in apocryphal books. And they, too, were dishonoured in their own country among the Jews who went about “in sheep-skins, in goat-skins, being destitute, afflicted,” and so on;[8] “For all that will to live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”[10] And probably because Paul knew this, “That a prophet has no honour in his own country,” though he preached the Word in many places he did not preach it in Tarsus. And the Apostles on this account left Israel and did that which had been enjoined on them by the Saviour, “Make disciples of all the nations,”[11] and, “Ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judæa and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”[12] For they did that which had been commanded them in Judæa and Jerusalem; but, since a prophet has no honour in his own country, when the Jews did not receive the Word, they went away to the Gentiles. Consider, too, if, because of the fact that the saying, “I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh, and they shall prophesy,”[13] has been fulfilled in the churches from the Gentiles, you can say that those formerly of the world and who by believing became no longer of the world, having received the Holy Spirit in their own country—that is, the world—and prophesying, have not honour, but are dishonoured. Wherefore blessed are they who suffer the same things as the prophets, according to what was said by the Saviour, “For in the same manner did their fathers unto the prophets.”[14] Now if any one who attends carefully to these things be hated and attacked, because of his living with rigorous austerity, and his reproof of sinners, as a man who is persecuted and reproached for the sake of righteousness, he will not only not be grieved, but will rejoice and be exceeding glad, being assured that, because of these things, he has great reward in heaven from Him who likened him to the prophets on the ground of his having suffered the same things. Therefore, he who zealously imitates the prophetic life, and attains to the spirit which was in them, must be dishonoured in the world, and in the eyes of sinners, to whom the life of the righteous man is a burden.

[1] Matt. 13:57.

[2] Acts 7:52.

[3] 1 Thess. 2:14, 15.

[4] John 5:46.

[5] Jer. 20:9.

[6] Jer. 20:7.

[7] Probably the Ascensio Isaiæ. Cf. Orig. Ep. ad Afric. c. 9.

[8] Heb. 11:37.

[9] Matt. 23:35. Cf. Orig. Ep. ad Afric. c. 9.

[10] 2 Tim. 3:12.

[11] Matt. 28:19.

[12] Acts 1:8.

[13] Joel 2:28.

[14] Luke 6:23.

Relation of Faith and Unbelief to the Supernatural Powers of Jesus

Following this you may see, “He did not there many mighty works because of their unbelief.”[1] We are taught by these things that powers were found in those who believed, since “to every one that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance,”[2] but among unbelievers not only did the powers not work, but as Mark wrote, “They could not work.”[3] For attend to the words, “He could not there do any mighty works,” for it is not said, “He would not,” but “He could not; ”as if there came to the power when working co-operation from the faith of him on whom the power was working, but this co-operation was hindered in its exercise by unbelief. See, then, that to those who said, “Why could we not cast it out?” He said, “Because of your little faith.”[4] And to Peter, when he began to sink, it was said, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”[5] But, moreover, she who had the issue of blood, who did not ask for the cure, but only reasoned that if she were to touch the hem of His garment she would be healed, was healed on the spot. And the Saviour, acknowledging the method of healing, says, “Who touched Me? For I perceived that power went forth from Me.”[6] And perhaps, as in the case of material things there exists in some things a natural attraction towards some other thing, as in the magnet for iron, and in what is called naphtha for fire, so there is an attraction in such faith towards the divine power, according to what is said, “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove.”[1] And Matthew and Mark, wishing to set forth the excellency of the divine power, that it has power even in unbelief, but not so great power as it has in the faith of those who are being benefited, seem to me to have said with accuracy, not that He did not “any” mighty works because of their unbelief, but that He did not “many” there.[7] And Mark also does not say, that He could not do any mighty work there, and stop at that point, but added, “Save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and healed them,”[7] the power in Him thus overcoming the unbelief. Now it seems to me that, as in the case of material things, tillage is not sufficient in itself for the gathering in of the fruits, unless the air cooperates to this end, nay, rather, He who forms the air with whatever quality He wills and makes it whatever He wills; nor the air apart from tillage, but rather He who by His providence has enacted that the things which spring up from the earth could not spring up apart from tillage; for this He has done once for all in the law, “Let the earth put forth grass sowing seed after its kind and after its likeness;”[8] so also neither do the operations of the powers, apart from the faith of those who are being healed, exhibit the absolute work of healing, nor faith, however great it may be, apart from the divine power. And that which is written about wisdom, you may apply also to faith, and to the virtues specifically, so as to make a precept of this kind, “If any one be perfect in wisdom among the sons of men, and the power that comes from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing;”[9] or, “If any one be perfect in self-control, so far as is possible for the sons of men, and the control that is from Thee be wanting, he will be reckoned as nothing;” or, “If any one be perfect in righteousness, and in the rest of virtues, and the righteousness and the rest of the virtues that are from Thee be wanting to him, he will be reckoned as nothing.” Wherefore, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, nor the strong man in his strength,”[10] for that which is fit matter for glorying is not ours, but is the gift of God; the wisdom is from Him, and the strength is from Him; and so with the rest.

[1] Matt. 13:58.

[2] Matt. 13:12.

[3] Matt. 17:19, 20.

[4] Matt. 14:31.

[5] Luke 8:45, 46.

[6] Matt. 17:20.

[7] Mark 6:5.

[8] Gen. 1:11.

[9] Wisdom of Solomon 9:6.

[10] Jer. 9:23.

Different Conceptions of John the Baptist

“At that season Herod the tetrarch heard the report concerning Jesus and said unto his own servants, This is John the Baptist.”[1] In Mark[2] it is the same, and also in Luke.[3] The Jews had different opinions, some false, such as the Sadducees held about the resurrection of the dead, that they do not rise, and in regard to angels that they do not exist, but that those things which were written about them were only to be interpreted figuratively, but had no reality in point of fact; and some true opinions, such as were taught by the Pharisees about the resurrection of the dead that they rise. We must therefore here inquire, whether the opinion regarding the soul, mistakenly held by Herod and some from among the people, was somewhat like this—that John, who a little before had been slain by him, had risen from the dead after he had been beheaded, and was the same person under a different name, and being now called Jesus was possessed of the same powers which formerly wrought in John. For what credibility is there in the idea that One, who was so widely known to the whole people, and whose name was noised abroad in the whole of Judæa, whom they declared to be the son of the carpenter and Mary, and to have such and such for brothers and sisters, was thought to be not different from[4] John whose father was Zacharias, and whose mother was Elisabeth, who were themselves not undistinguished among the people? But it is probable that the fact of his being the Son of Zacharias was not unknown to the people, who thought with regard to John that he was truly a prophet, and were so numerous that the Pharisees, in order to avoid the appearance of saying that which was displeasing to the people, were afraid to answer the question, “Was his baptism from heaven or from men?”[5] And perhaps, also, to some of them had come the knowledge of the incident of the vision which was seen in the temple, when Gabriel appeared to Zacharias. What credibility, forsooth, has the erroneous opinion, whether of Herod or of some of the people, that John and Jesus were not two persons, but that it was one and the same person John who rose from the dead after that he had been beheaded and was called Jesus? Some one might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which wrought in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which He was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument. Just as because of the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, “This is Elijah which is to come,”[6] the spirit in Elijah and the power in him having gone over to John—so Herod thought that the powers in John wrought in his case works of baptism and teaching,—for John did not one miracle,[7] but in Jesus miraculous portents. It may be said that something of this kind was the thought of those who said that Elijah had appeared in Jesus, or that one of the old prophets had risen.[8] But the opinion of those who said that Jesus was “a prophet even as one of the prophets,”[9] has no bearing on the question. False, then, is the saying concerning Jesus, whether that recorded to have been the view of Herod, or that spoken by others. Only, the saying, “That John went before in the spirit and power of Elijah,”[10] which corresponds to the thoughts which they were now cherishing concerning John and Jesus, seems to me more credible. But since we learned, in the first place, that when the Saviour after the temptation heard that John was given up, He retreated into Galilee, and in the second place, that when John was in prison and heard the things about Jesus he sent two of his disciples and said to Him, “Art thou He that cometh, or look we for another?”[11] and in the third place, generally that Herod said about Jesus, “It is John the Baptist, he is risen from the dead,”[12] but we have not previously learned from any quarter the manner in which the Baptist was killed, therefore Matthew has now recorded it, and Mark almost like unto him; but Luke passed over in silence the greater part of the narrative as it is found in them.”[13]

[1] Matt. 14:1.

[2] Mark 6:14.

[3] Luke 9:7.

[4] Or, none other than.

[5] Matt. 21:25.

[6] Matt. 11:14.

[7] John 10:41.

[8] Luke 9:8.

[9] Mark 6:15.

[10] Luke 1:17.

[11] Matt. 11:2, 3.

[12] Matt. 14:2.

[13] The question of John’s relation to Jesus and of the supposed transcorporation, is more fully discussed by Origen in his Commentary on John, book vi. 7, p. 353, sqq.

Herod and the Baptist

The narrative of Matthew is as follows,—“for Herod had laid hold on John and bound him in the prison.”[1] In reference to these things, it seems to me, that as the law and the prophets were until John,[2] after whom the grace of prophecy ceased from among the Jews; so the authority of those who had rule among the people, which included the power to kill those whom they thought worthy of death, existed until John; and when the last of the prophets was unlawfully killed by Herod, the king of the Jews was deprived of the power of putting to death; for, if Herod had not been deprived of it, Pilate would not have condemned Jesus to death; but for this Herod would have sufficed along with the council of the chief priests and elders of the people, met for the purpose. And then I think was fulfilled that which was spoken as follows by Jacob to Judah: “A ruler shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from Israel, until that come which is laid up in store, and he is the expectation of the Gentiles.”[3] And perhaps also the Jews were deprived of this power, the Providence of God arranging for the spread of the teaching of Christ among the people, so that even if this were hindered by the Jews, the opposition might not go so far as the slaying of believers, which seemed to be according to law. “But Herod laid hold on John and bound him in prison and put him away,”[1] by this act signifying that, so far as it depended on his power and on the wickedness of the people, he bound and imprisoned the prophetic word, and prevented him from continuing to abide a herald the truth in freedom as formerly. But this Herod did for the sake of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. For John said unto him, “It is not lawful for thee to have her.”[4] Now this Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituræa and of Trachonitis. Some, then, suppose that, when Philip died leaving a daughter, Herodias, Herod married his brother’s wife, though the law permitted marriage only when there were no children. But, as we find nowhere clear evidence that Philip was dead, we conclude that a yet greater transgression was done by Herod, namely, that he had induced his brother’s wife to revolt from her husband while he was still living.

[1] Matt. 14:3.

[2] Luke 16:16.

[3] Gen. 49:10.

[4] Matt. 14:3, 4.

The Dancing of Herodias. The Keeping of Oaths

Wherefore John, endued with prophetic boldness and not terrified at the royal dignity of Herod, nor through fear of death keeping silence in regard to so flagrant a sin, filled with a divine spirit said to Herod, “It is not lawful for thee to have her; for it is not lawful for thee to have the wife of thy brother.” For Herod having laid hold on John bound him and put him in prison, not daring to slay him outright and to take away the prophetic word from the people; but the wife of the king of Trachonitis—which is a kind of evil opinion and wicked teaching—gave birth to a daughter of the same name, whose movements, seemingly harmonious, pleasing Herod, who was fond of matters connected with birthdays, came the cause of there being no longer a prophetic head among the people. And up to this point I think that the movements of the people of the Jews, which seem to be according to the law, were nothing else than the movements of the daughter of Herodias; but the dancing of Herodias was opposed to that holy dancing with which those who have not danced will be reproached when they hear the words, “We piped unto you, and ye did not dance.”[1] And on birthdays, when the lawless word reigns over them, they dance so that their movements please that word. Some one of those before us has observed what is written in Genesis about the birthday of Pharaoh, and has told that the worthless man who loves things connected with birth keeps birthday festivals; and we, taking this suggestion from him, find in no Scripture that a birthday was kept by a righteous man. For Herod was more unjust than that famous Pharaoh; for by the latter on his birthday feast a chief baker is killed;[2] but by the former, John, “than whom no one greater hath risen among those born of women,”[3] in regard to whom the Saviour says, “But for what purpose did ye go out? To see a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.”[4] But thanks be unto God, that, even if the grace of prophecy was taken from the people, a grace greater than all that was poured forth among the Gentiles by our Saviour Jesus Christ, who became “free among the dead;”[5] for “though He were crucified through weakness, yet He liveth through the power of God.”[6] Consider also the word in which pure and impure meats are inquired into; but prophecy is despised when it is brought forward in a charger instead of meat. But the Jews have not the head of prophecy, inasmuch as they disown the crown of all prophecy, Christ Jesus; and the prophet is beheaded, because of an oath in a case where the duty was rather to break the oath than to keep the oath; for the charge of rashness in taking an oath and of breaking it because of the rashness is not the same in guilt as the death of a prophet. And not on this account alone is he beheaded, but because “of those who sat at meat with him,” who preferred that the prophet should be killed rather than live. And they recline at the same table and also feast along with the evil word which reigns over the Jews, who make merry over his birth. At times you may make a graceful application of the passage to those who swear rashly and wish to hold fast oaths which are taken with a view to unlawful deeds, by saying that not every keeping of oaths is seemly, just as the keeping of the oath of Herod was not. And mark, further, that not openly but secretly and in prison does Herod put John to death. For even the present word of the Jews does not openly deny the prophecies, but virtually and in secret denies them, and is convicted of disbelieving them. For as “if they believed Moses they would have believed Jesus,”[7] so if they had believed the prophets they would have received Him who had been the subject of prophecy. But disbelieving Him they also disbelieve them, and cut off and confine in prison the prophetic word, and hold it dead and divided, and in no way wholesome, since they do not understand it. But we have the whole Jesus, the prophecy concerning Him being fulfilled which said, “A bone shall not be broken.”[8]

[1] Matt. 11:17; Luke 7:32.

[2] Gen. 40:20.

[3] Matt. 11:11.

[4] Luke 7:26.

[5] Ps. 88:6.

[6] 2 Cor. 13:4.

[7] John 5:46.

[8] Ex. 12:46; John 19:36.

The Withdrawal of Jesus

And the disciples of John having come bury his remains, and “they went and told Jesus.”[1] And He withdrew to a desert place,—that is, the Gentiles—and after the killing of the prophet multitudes followed Him from the cities everywhere; seeing which to be great He had compassion on them, and healed their sick; and afterwards with the loaves which were blessed and multiplied from a few loaves He feeds those who followed Him. “Now when Jesus heard it He withdrew thence in a boat to a desert place apart.”[2] The letter teaches us to withdraw as far as it is in our power from those who persecute us, and from expected conspiracies through words; for this would be to act according to prudence; and, when one can keep outside of critical positions, to go to meet them is rash and headstrong. For who would still hesitate about avoiding such things, when not only did Jesus retreat in view of what happened to John, but also taught and said, “If they persecute you in this city, flee ye into the other”?[3] When a temptation comes which is not in our power to avoid, we must endure it with exceeding nobleness and courage; but, when it is in our power to avoid it, not to do so is rash. But since after the letter we must also investigate the place according to the mystical meaning, we must say that, when prophecy was plotted against among the Jews and destroyed, because of their giving honour to matters of birthdays, and in respect of their reception of vain movements which, though conceived by the ruler of the wicked and those who feast along with him to be regular and pleasing to them, were irregular and out of tune, if truth be umpire, then Jesus withdraws from the place in which prophecy was attacked and condemned; and He withdraws to the place which had been barren of God among the Gentiles, in order that the Word of God, when the kingdom was taken from the Jews and “given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,”[4] might be among the Gentiles; and, on account of it, “the children of the desolate one,” who had not been instructed either in the law or the prophets, “might be more than of her who has the husband,”[5] that is, the law. When, then, the word was of old among the Jews, it was not so among them as it is among the Gentiles; wherefore it is said that, “in a boat,”—that is, in the body—He went to the desert place apart, when He heard about the killing of the prophet. And, having come into the desert place apart, He was in it, because that the Word dwelt apart, and His teaching was contrary to the customs and usages which obtained among the Gentiles. And the crowds among the Gentiles, when they heard that Jesus had come to stay in their desert, and that He was apart, as we have already reported, followed Him from their own cities, because each had left the superstitious customs of his fathers and come to the law of Christ. And by land they followed Him, and not in a boat, inasmuch as not with the body but with the soul only, and with the resolution to which they had been persuaded by the Word, they followed the Image of God. And to them Jesus comes out, as they were not able to go to Him, in order that, having gone to those who were without, He might lead within those who were without. And great is the crowd without to whom the Word of God goes out, and, having poured out upon it the light of His “visitation,” beholds it; and, seeing that they were rather deserving of being pitied, because they were in such circumstances, as a lover of men He who was impassible suffered the emotion of pity, and not only had pity but healed their sick, who had sicknesses diverse and of every kind arising from their wickedness.

[1] Matt. 14:12.

[2] Matt. 14:13.

[3] Matt. 10:23.

[4] Matt. 21:43.

[5] Isa. 54:1; Gal. 4:27.

The Diverse Forms of Spiritual Sickness

And, if you wish to see of what nature are the sicknesses of the soul, contemplate with me the lovers of money, and the lovers of ambition, and the lovers of boys, and if any be fond of women; for these also beholding among the crowds and taking compassion upon them, He healed. For not every sin is to be considered a sickness, but that which has settled down in the whole soul. For so you may see the lovers of money wholly intent on money and upon preserving and gathering it, the lovers of ambition wholly intent on a little glory, for they gape for praise from the masses and the vulgar; and analogously you will understand in the case of the rest which we have named, and if there be any other like to them. Since, then, when expounding the words, “He healed their sick,”[1] we said that not every sin is a sickness, it is fitting to discuss from the Scripture the difference of these. The Apostle indeed says, writing to the Corinthians who had diverse sicknesses, “For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.”[2] Hear Him in these words, knitting a band and making it plaited of different sins, according as some are weak, and others sickly more than weak, and others, in comparison with both, are asleep. For some, because of impotence of soul, having a tendency to slip into any sin whatever, although they may not be wholly in the grasp of any form of sin, as the sickly are, are only weak; but others who, instead of loving God “with all their soul and all their heart and all their mind,” love money, or a little glory, or wife, or children, are suffering from something worse than weakness, and are sickly. And those who sleep are those who, when they ought to be taking heed and watching with the soul, are not doing this, but by reason of great want of attention are nodding in resolution and are drowsy in their reflections, such as “in their dreamings defile the flesh, and set at naught that which is highest in authority, and rail at dignities.”[3] And these, because they are asleep, live in an atmosphere of vain and dream-like fancies concerning realities, not admitting the things which are actually true, but deceived by what appears in their vain imaginations, in regard to whom it is said in Isaiah, “Like as when a thirsty man dreams that he is drinking, but when he has risen up is still thirsty, and his soul has cherished a vain hope, so shall be the wealth of all the nations as many as have warred in Jerusalem.”[4] If, then, we have seemed to make a digression in recounting the difference between the weak and the sickly and those that sleep, because of that which the Apostle said in the letter to the Corinthians which we have expounded, we have made the digression in our desire to represent what is meant to be understood by the saying, “And He healed their sick.”[1]

[1] Matt. 14:14.

[2] 1 Cor. 11:30.

[3] Jude 8.

[4] Isa. 29:8 (LXX., which has “against mount Zion,” where Origen has “in Jerusalem”).

Healing Precedes Participation in the Loaves of Jesus

After this the word says, “And when even was come, His disciples came to Him, saying, The place is desert and the time is already past; send, therefore, the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.”[1] And first observe that when about to give to the disciples the loaves of blessing, that they might set them before the multitudes, He healed the sick, in order that, having been restored to health, they might participate in the loaves of blessing; for while they are yet sickly, they are not able to receive the loaves of the blessing of Jesus. But if any one, when he ought to listen to the precept, “But let each prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread,” etc.,[2] does not obey these words, but in haphazard fashion participates in the bread of the Lord and His cup, he becomes weak or sickly, or even—if I may use the expression—on account of being stupefied by the power of the bread, asleep.

————————————

[1] Matt. 14:15.

[2] 1 Cor. 11:28.

Book 11.

Introduction to the Feeding of the Five Thousand

Book XI.

1. Introduction to the Feeding of the Five Thousand.

“And when even was come His disciples came to Him,”[1] that is, at the consummation of the age in regard to which we may fitly say what is found in the Epistle of John, “It is the last hour.”[2] They, not yet understanding what the Word was about to do, say to Him, “The place is desert,”[1] seeing the desert condition of the masses in respect of God and the Law and the Word; but they say to Him, “The time is past,”[1] as if the fitting season of the law and prophets had passed. Perhaps they spoke this saying, in reference to the word of Jesus, that because of the beheading of John both the law and the prophets who were until John had ceased.[3] “The time is past,” therefore they say, and no food is at hand, because the season of it is no longer present, that those who have followed Thee in the desert may serve the law and the prophets. And, further, the disciples say, “Send them away,”[1] that each one may buy food, if he cannot from the cities, at least from the villages,—places more ignoble. Such things the disciples said, because, after the letter of the law had been abrogated and prophecies had ceased, they despaired of unexpected and new food being found for the multitudes. But see what Jesus answers to the disciples though He does not cry out and plainly say it: “You suppose that, if the great multitude go away from Me in need of food, they will find it in villages rather than with Me, and among bodies of men, not of citizens but of villagers, rather than by abiding with Me. But I declare unto you, that in regard to that of which you suppose they are in need they are not in need, for they have no need to go away; but in regard to that of which you think they have no need—that is, of Me—as if I could not feed them, of this contrary to your expectation they have need. Since, then, I have trained you, and made you fit to give rational food to them who are in need of it, give ye to the crowds who have followed Me to eat; for ye have the power, which ye have received from Me, of giving the multitudes to eat; and if ye had attended to this, ye would have understood that I am far more able to feed them, and ye would not have said, ‘Send the multitudes away that they may go and buy food for themselves.’”[1]

[1] Matt. 14:15.

[2] 1 John 2:18.

[3] Luke 16:16.

Exposition of the Details of the Miracle

Jesus, then, because of the power which He gave to the disciples, even the power of nourishing others, said, Give ye them to eat.[1] But (not denying that they can give loaves, but thinking that there were much too few and not sufficient to feed those who followed Jesus, and not considering that when Jesus takes each loaf—the Word—He extends it as far as He wills, and makes it suffice for all whomsoever He desires to nourish), the disciples say, We have here but five loaves and two fishes.[2] Perhaps by the five loaves they meant to make a veiled reference to the sensible words of the Scriptures, corresponding in number on this account to the five senses, but by the two fishes either to the word expressed[3] and the word conceived,[4] which are a relish, so to speak, to the sensible things contained in the Scriptures; or, perhaps, to the word which had come to them about the Father and the Son. Wherefore also after His resurrection He ate of a broiled fish,[5] having taken a part from the disciples, and having received that theology about the Father which they were in part able to declare to Him. Such is the contribution we have been able to give to the exposition of the word about the five loaves and the two fishes; and probably those, who are better able than we to gather together the five loaves and the two fishes among themselves, would be able to give a fuller and better interpretation of their meaning. It must be observed, however, that while in Matthew, Mark, and Luke,[6] the disciples say that they have the five loaves and the two fishes, without indicating whether they were wheaten or of barley, John alone says, that the loaves were barley loaves.[7] Wherefore, perhaps, in the Gospel of John the disciples do not acknowledge that the loaves are with them, but say in John, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fishes.”[7] And so long as these five loaves and two fishes were not carried by the disciples of Jesus, they did not increase or multiply, nor were they able to nourish more; but, when the Saviour took them, and in the first placed looked up to heaven, with the rays of His eyes, as it were, drawing down from it power which was to be mingled with the loaves and the fishes which were about to feed the five thousand; and after this blessed the five loaves and the two fishes, increasing and multiplying them by the word and the blessing; and in the third place dividing and breaking He gave to the disciples that they might set them before the multitudes, then the loaves and the fishes were sufficient, so that all ate and were satisfied, and some portions of the loaves which had been blessed they were unable to eat. For so much remained over to the multitudes, which was not according to the capacity of the multitudes but of the disciples who were able to take up that which remained over of the broken pieces, and to place it in baskets filled with that which remained over, which were in number so many as the tribes of Israel. Concerning Joseph, then, it is written in the Psalms, “His hands served in the basket,”[8] but about the disciples of Jesus that they took up that which remained over of the broken pieces twelve baskets, twelve baskets, I take it, not half-full but filled. And there are, I think, up to the present time, and will be until the consummation of the age with the disciples of Jesus, who are superior to the multitudes, the twelve baskets, filled with the broken pieces of living bread which the multitudes cannot eat. Now those who ate of the five loaves which existed before the twelve baskets that remained over, were kindred in nature to the number five; for those who ate had reached the stage of sensible things, since also they were nourished by Him who looked up to heaven and blessed and brake them, and were not boys nor women, but men. For there are, I think, even in sensible foods differences, so that some of them belong to those who “have put away childish things,”[9] and some to those who are still babes and carnal in Christ.

[1] Matt. 14:16.

[2] Matt. 14:17.

[3] λόγος προφορικός.

[4] λόγος ἐνδιάθετος.

[5] Luke 24:42, 43.

[6] Matt. 14:17; Mark 6:38; Luke 9:13.

[7] John 6:9.

[8] Ps. 81:7.

[9] 1 Cor. 13:11.

The Exposition of Details Continued. The Sitting Down on the Grass. The Division Into Companies

We have spoken these things because of the words, “They that did eat were five thousand men, beside children and women,”[1] which is an ambiguous expression; for either those who ate were five thousand men, and among those who ate there was no child or woman; or the men only were five thousand, the children and the women not being reckoned. Some, then, as we have said by anticipation, have so understood the passage that neither children nor women were present, when the increase and multiplication of the five loaves and the two fishes took place. But some one might say that, while many ate and according to their desert and capacity participated in the loaves of blessing, some worthy to be numbered, corresponding to the men of twenty years old who are numbered in the Book of Numbers,[2] were Israelitish men, but others who were not worthy of such account and numbering were children and women. Moreover, interpret with me allegorically the children in accordance with the passage, “I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ;”[3] and the women in accordance with the saying, “I wish to present you all as a pure virgin to Christ;”[4] and the men according to the saying, “When I am become a man I have put away childish things.”[5] Let us not pass by without exposition the words, “He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass, and He look the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, He blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes. And they did all eat.”[6] For what is meant by the words, “And He commanded all the multitudes to sit down on the grass?” And what are we to understand in the passage worthy of the command of Jesus? Now, I think that He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass because of what is said in Isaiah, “All flesh is grass;”[7] that is to say, He commanded them to put the flesh under, and to keep in subjection “the mind of the flesh,”[8] that so any one might be able to partake of the loaves which Jesus blesses. Then since there are different orders of those who need the food which Jesus supplies and all are not nourished by equal words, on this account I think that Mark has written, “And He commanded them that they should all sit down by companies upon the green grass; and they sat down in ranks by hundreds and by fifties;”[9] but Luke, “And He said unto His disciples, Make them sit down in companies about fifty each.”[10] For it was necessary that those who were to find rest in the food of Jesus should either be in the order of the hundred—the sacred number—which is consecrated to God, because of the unit, (in it) or in the order of the fifty—the number which embraces the remission of sins, in accordance with the mystery of the Jubilee which took place every fifty years, and of the feast at Pentecost. And I think that the twelve baskets were in the possession of the disciples to whom it was said “Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”[11] And as the throne of him who judges the tribe of Reuben might be said to be a mystery, and the throne of him who judges the tribe of Simeon, and another of him who judges the tribe of Judah, and so on with the others; so there might be a basket of the food of Reuben, and another of Simeon, and another of Levi. But it is not in accordance with our present discourse now to digress so far from the subject in hand as to collect what is said about the twelve tribes, and separately what is said about each of them, and to say what each tribe of Israel may signify.

[1] Matt. 14:21.

[2] Num. 1:3.

[3] 1 Cor. 3:1.

[4] 2 Cor. 11:2.

[5] 1 Cor. 13:11.

[6] Matt. 14:19, 20.

[7] Isa. 40:6.

[8] Rom. 8:6.

[9] Mark 6:39, 40.

[10] Luke 9:14.

[11] Matt. 19:28.

The Multitudes and the Disciples Contrasted

“And straightway He constrained the disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before Him unto the other side, till He should send the multitudes away.”[1] It should be observed how often in the same passages is mentioned the word, “the multitudes,” and another word, “the disciples,” so that by observing and bringing together the passages about this matter it may be seen that the aim of the Evangelists was to represent by means of the Gospel history the differences of those who come to Jesus; of whom some are the multitudes and are not called disciples, and others are the disciples who are better than the multitudes. It is sufficient, however, for the present, for us to set forth a few sayings, so that any one who is moved by them may do the like with the whole of the Gospels. It is written then—as if the multitudes were below, but the disciples were able to come to Jesus when He went up into the mountain, where the multitudes were not able to be—as follows: “And seeing the multitudes He went up into the mountain, and when He had sat down His disciples came unto Him; and He opened His mouth and taught them saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit,” etc.[2] And again in another place, as the multitudes stood in need of healing, it is said, “Many multitudes followed Him and He healed them.”[3] We do not find any healing recorded of the disciples; since if any one is already a disciple of Jesus he is whole, and being well he needs Jesus not as a physician but in respect of His other powers. Again in another place, when He was speaking to the multitudes, His mother and His brethren stood without, seeking to speak to Him; this was made known to Him by some one to whom He answered, stretching forth His hand not towards the multitudes but towards the disciples, and said, “Behold My mother and My brethren,”[4] and bearing testimony to the disciples as doing the will of the Father which is in heaven, He added, “He is My brother and sister and mother.”[5] And again in another place it is written, “All the multitude stood on the beach and He spake to them many things in parables.”[6] Then after the parable of the sowing, it was no longer the multitudes but the disciples who came and said to Him, not “Why speakest thou to us in parables,” but, “Why speakest thou to them in parables.”[7] Then also He answered and said, not to the multitudes but to the disciples, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to the rest in parables.”[8] Accordingly, of those who come to the name of Jesus some, who know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, would be called disciples; but those to whom such a privilege is not given would be called multitudes, who would be spoken of as inferior to the disciples. For observe carefully that He said to the disciples, “To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,” but about the multitudes, “To them it is not given.”[8] And in another place He dismisses the multitudes indeed, and goes into the house,[9] but He does not dismiss the disciples; and there came to Him into His house, not the multitudes but His disciples, saying, “Declare to us the parable of the tares of the field.”[9] Moreover, also, in another place when Jesus heard the things concerning John and withdrew in a boat to a desert place apart, the multitudes followed Him; when He came forth and saw a great multitude He had compassion on them and healed their sick—the sick of the multitudes, not of the disciples.[10] “And when even was come there came to Him,” not the multitudes, but the disciples, as being different from the multitudes, saying, “Send the multitudes away that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.”[11] And, further, when Jesus took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven He blessed and brake the loaves, He gave not to the multitudes but to the disciples,[12] that the disciples might give to the multitudes who were not able to take from Him, but received with difficulty at the hands of the disciples the loaves of the blessing of Jesus, and did not eat even all these; for the multitudes were filled and left that which remained over in twelve baskets which were full.

[1] Matt. 14:22.

[2] Matt. 5:1–3.

[3] Matt. 12:15.

[4] Matt. 14:46–49.

[5] Matt. 14:50.

[6] Matt. 13:2, 3.

[7] Matt. 13:10.

[8] Matt. 13:11.

[9] Matt. 13:36.

[10] Matt. 14:13, 14.

[11] Matt. 14:15.

[12] Matt. 14:19.

The Disciples in Conflict. Jesus Walks Upon the Waters

The reason why we have taken up this subject is the passage under discussion which tells that Jesus separated the disciples from the multitudes, and constrained them to enter into the boat and to go before Him unto the other side until He Himself should send the multitudes away;[1] for the multitudes were not able to go away to the other side, as they were not in the mystic sense Hebrews, which are by interpretation, “dwelling on the other side.” But this was the work of the disciples of Jesus—I mean to go away to the other side, and to pass beyond things seen and material, as temporal, and to go on to things unseen and eternal. To be dismissed by Jesus was a sufficient act of kindness bestowed on the multitudes by Jesus; for just because they were multitudes they were not able to go away to the other side; and this kind of dismissal no one has the power to effect save Jesus only, and it is not possible for any one to be dismissed unless he has first eaten of the loaves which Jesus blesses. Nor is it possible for any one to eat of the loaves of blessing of Jesus unless he has done as Jesus commanded and sat down upon the grass as we have told. Nor again was it possible for the multitudes to do this unless they had followed Jesus from their own cities, when He withdrew into a desert place apart. And at first, when He was asked by the disciples to send away the multitudes, He did not send them away until He had fed them with the loaves of blessing; but now He sends them away, having first constrained the disciples to enter into the boat; and He sends them away, while they were somewhere below,—for the desert was below,—but He Himself went up into the mountain to pray.[2] And you must observe this, that immediately after the five thousand had been fed, Jesus constrained the disciples to embark into the boat, and to go before Him unto the other side. Only, the disciples were not able to go before Jesus to the other side; but, when they had got as far as the middle of the sea, and the boat was distressed “because the wind was contrary to them,”[3] they were afraid when about the fourth watch of the night Jesus came to them. And if Jesus had not gone up into the boat neither would the wind which was contrary to the disciples who were sailing have ceased, nor would those who were sailing have gone across and come to the other side. And, perhaps, wishing to teach them by experience that it was not possible apart from Him to go to the other side He constrained them to enter into the boat and go before Him to the other side; but, when they were not able to advance farther than the middle of the sea, He appeared to them, and did what is written,[4] and showed that he who arrives at the other side reaches it because Jesus sails along with him. But what is the boat into which Jesus constrained the disciples to enter? Is it perhaps the conflict of temptations and difficulties into which any one is constrained by the Word, and goes unwillingly, as it were, when the Saviour wishes to train by exercise the disciples in this boat which is distressed by the waves and the contrary wind? But since Mark has made a slight change in the reading, and for “Straightway He constrained the disciples to enter into the boat and to go before Him to the other side,” has written, “And straightway He constrained His disciples to enter into the boat and to go before Him unto the other side unto Bethsaida,”[5] we must attend to the word, “He constrained,” when first we have seen to the slight variation in Mark who indicates something more definite by the addition of the pronoun; for the same thing is not expressed by the words, straightway “He constrained the disciples.” Something more than “the” disciples simply is written in Mark, namely, “His” disciples. Perhaps, therefore, to attend to the expression, the disciples who found it hard to tear themselves away from Jesus, and could not be separated from Him by any ordinary cause, wished to be present with Him; but He having judged that they should make trial of the waves and of the contrary wind, which would not have been contrary if they had been with Jesus, put on them the necessity of being separated from Him and entering into the boat. The Saviour then compels the disciples to enter into the boat of temptations and to go before Him to the other side, and through victory over them to go beyond critical difficulties; but when they had come into the midst of the sea, and of the waves in the temptations, and of the contrary winds which prevented them from going away to the other side, they were not able, struggling as they were without Jesus, to overcome the waves and the contrary wind and reach the other side. Wherefore the Word, taking compassion upon them who had done all that was in their power to reach the other side, came to them walking upon the sea, which for Him had no waves or wind that was able to oppose if He so willed; for it is not written, “He came to them walking upon the waves,” but, “upon the waters;”[4] Just as Peter, who at first when Jesus said to him, “Come,” went down from the boat and walked not upon “the waves,” but upon “the waters”[6] to come to Jesus; but when he doubted he saw that the wind was strong, which was not strong to him who laid aside his little faith and his doubting. But, when Jesus went up with Peter into the boat, the wind ceased, as it had no power to energise against the boat when Jesus had gone up into it.

[1] Matt. 14:22.

[2] Matt. 14:23.

[3] Matt. 14:24.

[4] Matt. 14:25.

[5] Mark 6:45.

[6] Matt. 14:29.

Interpretation of the Details in the Narrative. Application Thereof to All Disciples

And then the disciples “having crossed over came to the land Gennesaret,”[1] of which word, if we knew the interpretation, we might gain some assistance in the exposition of the present passage. And observe, since God is faithful, and will not suffer the multitudes to be tempted above that they are able,[2] in what way the Son of God constrained the disciples to enter into the boat, as being stronger and able to get as far as the middle of the sea, and to endure the trials by the waves, until they became worthy of divine assistance, and saw Jesus and heard Him when He had gone up, and to cross over and come to the land Gennesaret; but as for the multitudes who, because they were weaker, did not make trial of the boat and the waves and the contrary wind, them He sent away, and went up into the mountain apart to pray.[3] To pray for whom? Was it perhaps to pray for the multitudes that, when they were dismissed after the loaves of blessing, they might do nothing opposed to their dismissal by Jesus? And for the disciples that, when they were constrained by Him to enter into the boat and to go before Him unto the other side, they might suffer nothing in the sea nor from the contrary wind? And I would say with confidence, that, because of the prayer of Jesus to the Father for the disciples, they suffered nothing when sea and wave and contrary wind were striving against them. The simpler disciple, then, may be satisfied with the bare narrative; but let us remember, if ever we fall into distressful temptations, that Jesus has constrained us to enter into their boat, wishing us to go before Him unto the other side; for it is not possible for us to reach the other side, unless we have endured the temptations of waves and contrary wind. Then when we see many difficulties besetting us, and with moderate struggle we have swum through them to some extent, let us consider that our boat is in the midst of the sea, distressed at that time by the waves which wish us to make shipwreck concerning faith or some one of the virtues; but when we see the spirit of the evil one striving against us, let us conceive that then the wind is contrary to us. When then in such suffering we have spent three watches of the night—that is, of the darkness which is in the temptations—striving nobly with all our might and watching ourselves so as not to make shipwreck concerning the faith or some one of the virtues,—the first watch against the father of darkness and wickedness, the second watch against his son “who opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or thing that is worshipped,”[4] and the third watch against the spirit[5] that is opposed to the Holy Spirit, then we believe that when the fourth watch impendeth, when “the night is far spent, and the day is at hand,”[6] the Son of God will come to us, that He may prepare the sea for us, walking upon it. And when we see the Word appearing unto us we shall indeed be troubled before we clearly understand that it is the Saviour who has come to us, supposing that we are still beholding an apparition, and for fear shall cry out; but He Himself straightway will speak to us saying, “Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.”[7] And if, warmly moved by His “Be of good cheer,” any Peter be found among us, who is on his way to perfection but has not yet become perfect, having gone down from the boat, as if coming out of that temptation in which he was distressed, he will indeed walk at first, wishing to come to Jesus upon the waters; but being as yet of little faith, and as yet doubting, will see that the wind is strong and will be afraid and begin to sink; but he will not sink because he will call upon Jesus with loud voice, and will say to Him, “Lord, save me;”[8] then immediately while such a Peter is yet speaking and saying, “Lord save me,” the Word will stretch forth His hand, holding out assistance to such an one, and will take hold of him when he is beginning to sink, and will reproach him for his little faith and doubting.[9] Only, observe that He did not say, “O thou without faith,” but, “O thou of little faith,” and that it was said, “Wherefore didst thou doubt,” as he had still a measure of faith, but also had a tendency towards that which was opposed to faith.

[1] Matt. 14:34.

[2] Cf. 1 Cor. 10:13.

[3] Matt. 14:22, 23.

[4] 2 Thess. 2:4.

[5] The conception of Origen seems to be that opposed to the Divine Trinity there is an evil trinity. Cf. book xii. 20.

[6] Rom. 13:12.

[7] Matt. 14:27.

[8] Matt. 14:30.

[9] Matt. 14:31.

The Healing of the Sick on the Other Side. The Method of Healing

But after this both Jesus and Peter will go up into the boat, and the wind will cease; and those in the boat, perceiving the great dangers from which they have been saved, will worship Him, saying, not simply, “Thou art the Son of God,” as also the two demoniacs said, but, “Of a truth, Thou art the Son of God.”[1] This the disciples in the boat say, for I do not think that others than the disciples said so. And when we have undergone all these experiences, having crossed over, we shall come to the land where Jesus commanded us to go before Him. And perhaps, also, some secret and occult mystery with reference to some who were saved by Jesus is indicated by the words, “And when the men of that place knew Him,”—plainly of the place on the other side,—“they sent into all that region round about,”—round about the other side, not on the other side itself, but round about it,—“and they brought unto Him all that were sick.”[2] And here observe that they brought unto Him not only many that were sick, but all in that region round about; and the sick who were brought to Him besought Him that they might touch if it were only the border of His garment,[3] beseeching this grace from Him, since they were not like “the woman who had an issue of blood twelve years, and who came behind Him and touched the border of His garment, saying within herself, If I do but touch His garment, I shall be made whole.”[4] For observe in what is said about the border of His garment, on account of what the flowing of her blood ceased at once. But those from the country round the land of Gennesaret, to which Jesus and His disciples crossed over and came, did not come of themselves to Jesus, but were brought by those who had sent the tidings, inasmuch as they were not able because of their extreme weakness to come of themselves. Nor did they merely touch the garment, like the woman who had an issue of blood, but they touched after that they had besought Him. Only, of these, “as many as touched were made whole.”[3] And whether there be any difference between the “They were made whole,”[5] which is said in their case, and the “being saved,”[6]—for it was said to the woman with the issue of blood, “Thy faith hath saved thee,”[7] you may yourself consider.

[1] Matt. 14:33.

[2] Matt. 14:35.

[3] Matt. 14:36.

[4] Matt. 9:20, 21.

[5] διεσώθησαν.

[6] σωθῆναι.

[7] Matt. 9:22.

Concerning the Pharisees and Scribes Who Came and Inquired, Why Do Thy Disciples Transgress the Tradition of the Elders?

“Then there came to Him from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.”[1] He who observes at what time the Pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem to Jesus, saying, “Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders,” etc., will perceive that Matthew of necessity wrote not simply that Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem came to the Saviour to inquire of Him the matters before us, but put it thus, “Then come to Him from Jerusalem.” What time, therefore, are we to understand by “then”? At the time when Jesus and His disciples crossed over and came in the boat to the land of Gennesaret, when the wind ceased from the time that Jesus entered into the boat, and when “the men of that place knowing Him sent into all that region round about, and brought unto Him all that were sick, and besought Him that they might touch if it were only the border of His garment, and as many as touched were made whole.”[2] At that time came to Him from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, not struck with admiration at the power which was in Jesus, which healed those who only touched even the border of His garment, but in a censorious spirit, accusing the disciples before their Teacher, not concerning the transgression of a commandment of God, but of a single tradition of the Jewish elders. And it is probable that this very charge of these censorious persons is a proof of the piety of the disciples of Jesus, who gave to the Pharisees and scribes no opportunity of censure with reference to the transgression of the commandments of God, as they would not have brought the charge of transgression against the disciples, as transgressing the commandment of the elders, if they had had it in their power to censure those whom they accused, and to show that they were transgressing a commandment of God. But do not suppose that these things go to establish the necessity of keeping the law of Moses according to the letter, because the disciples of Jesus up to that time kept it; for not before He suffered did He “redeem us from the curse of the law,”[3] who in suffering for men “became a curse for us.” But just as fittingly Paul became a Jew to the Jews that he might gain Jews,[4] what strange thing is it that the Apostles, whose way of life was passed among the Jews, even though they understood the spiritual things in the law, should have used a spirit of accommodation, as Paul also did when he circumcised Timothy,[5] and offered sacrifice in accordance with a certain legal vow, as is written in the Acts of the Apostles?[6] Only, again, they appear fond of bringing accusations, as they have no charge to bring against the disciples of Jesus with reference to a commandment of God, but only with reference to one tradition of the elders. And especially does this love of accusation become manifest in this, that they bring the charge in presence of those very persons who had been healed from their sickness; in appearance against the disciples, but in reality purposing to slander their Teacher, as it was a tradition of the elders that the washing of hands was a thing essential to piety. For they thought that the hands of those who did not wash before eating bread were defiled and unclean, but that the hands of those who had washed them with water became pure and holy, not in a figurative sense, in due relation to the law of Moses according to the letter. But let us, not according to the tradition of the elders among the Jews, but according to sound reason, endeavour to purify our own actions and so to wash the hands of our souls, when we are about to eat the three loaves which we ask from Jesus, who wishes to be our friend;[7] for with hands that are defiled and unwashed and impure, we ought not to partake of the loaves.

[1] Matt. 15:1, 2.

[2] Matt. 14:35, 36.

[3] Gal. 3:13.

[4] 1 Cor. 9:20.

[5] Gal. 2:3.

[6] Acts 21:26; 18:18.

[7] Cf. Luke 11:5.

Explanation of “Corban.”

Jesus, however, does not accuse them with reference to a tradition of the Jewish elders, but with regard to two most imperative commandments of God, the one of which was the fifth in the decalogue, being as follows: “Honour thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee, and that thy days may be long on the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee;”[1] and the other was written thus in Leviticus, “If a man speak evil of his father or his mother, let him die the death; he has spoken evil of his father or mother, he shall be guilty.”[2] But when we wish to examine the very letter of the words as given by Matthew, “He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death,”[3] consider whether it was taken from the place where it was written, “Whoso striketh his father or mother, let him die the death; and he that speaketh evil of father or mother let him die the death.”[4] For such are the exact words taken from the Law with regard to the two commandments; but Matthew has quoted them in part and in an abridged form, and not in the very words. But what the nature of the charge is which the Saviour brings against the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, when He says that they transgress the commandment of God because of their tradition we must consider. And God said, “Honour thy father and thy mother,”[5] teaching that the child should pay the honour which is due to his parents. Of this honour to parents one part was to share with them the necessaries of life, such as food and clothing, and if there was any other thing in which it was possible for them to show favour towards their own parents. But the Pharisees and scribes promulgated in opposition to the law a tradition which is found rather obscurely in the Gospel, and which we ourselves would not have thought of, unless one of the Hebrews had given to us the following facts relating to the passage. Sometimes, he says, when money-lenders fell in with stubborn debtors who were able but not willing to pay their debts, they consecrated what was due to the account of the poor, for whom money was cast into the treasury by each of those who wished to give a portion of their goods to the poor according to their ability. They, therefore, said sometimes to their debtors in their own tongue, “That which you owe to me is Corban,”—that is, a gift—“for I have consecrated it to the poor, to the account of piety towards God.” Then the debtor, as no longer in debt to men but to God and to piety towards God, was shut up, as it were, even though unwilling, to payment of the debt, no longer to the money-lender, but now to God for the account of the poor, in name of the money-lender. What then the money-lender did to the debtor, that sometimes some sons did to their parents and said to them, “That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me, father or mother, know that you will receive this from Corban,”[3] from the account of the poor who are consecrated to God. Then the parents, hearing that that which should have been given to them was Corban,—consecrated to God,—no longer wished to take it from their sons, even though they were in extreme need of the necessaries of life. The elders, then, declared to the people a tradition of this kind, “Whosoever said to his father or mother, that which should be given to any of them is Corban and a gift, that man was no longer a debtor to his father or mother in respect of giving to them the necessaries of life.” The Saviour censures this tradition, as not being sound but opposed to the commandment of God. For if God says, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” but the tradition said, he is not bound to honour his father or mother by a gift, who has consecrated to God, as Corban, that which would have been given to his parents, manifestly the commandment of God concerning the honour due to parents was made void by the tradition of the Pharisees and scribes which said, that he was no longer bound to honour his father or mother, who had, once for all, consecrated to God that which the parents would have received. And the Pharisees, as lovers of money, in order that under pretext of the poor they might receive even that which would have been given to the parents of any one, gave such teaching. And the Gospel testifies to their love of money, saying, “But the Pharisees who were lovers of money heard these things and they scoffed at Him.”[6] If, then, any one of those who are called elders among us, or of those who are in any way rulers of the people, profess to give to the poor under the name of the commonweal, rather than to be of those who give to their kindred if they should chance to be in need of the necessaries of life, and those who give cannot do both, this man might with justice be called a brother of those Pharisees who made void the word of God through their own tradition, and were accused by the Saviour as hypocrites. And as a very powerful deterrent to any one from being anxious to take from the account of the poor, and from thinking that “the piety of others is a way of gain,”[7] we have not only these things, but also that which is recorded about the traitor Judas, who in appearance championed the cause of the poor, and said with indignation, “This ointment might have been sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor,”[8] but in reality “was a thief, and having the bag took away what was put therein.”[9] If, then, any one in our time who has the bag of the Church speaks likes Judas on behalf of the poor, but takes away what is put therein, let there be assigned to him the portion along with Judas who did these things; on account of which things eating like a gangrene into his soul, the devil cast it into his heart to betray the Saviour; and, when he had received the “fiery dart,”[10] with reference to this end, the devil afterwards himself entered into his soul and took full possession of him. And perhaps, when the Apostle says, “The love of money is a root of all evils,”[11] he says it because of Judas’ love of money, which was a root of all the evils that were committed against Jesus.

[1] Ex. 20:12.

[2] Lev. 20:9.

[3] Matt. 15:4.

[4] Exod. 21:15; Lev. 20:9.

[5] Exod. 20:12.

[6] Luke 16:14.

[7] 1 Tim. 6:5.

[8] Mark 14:5; John 12:5.

[9] John 12:6.

[10] Eph. 6:16.

[11] 1 Tim. 6:10.

The Traditions of the Elders in Collision With Divine Law

But let us return to the subject before us, in which the Saviour abridged and expounded two commandments from the law, the one from the decalogue from Exodus, and the other from Leviticus, or the other from some one of the books of the Pentateuch. Then since we have explained in what way they made void the word of God which said, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” by saying, “Thou shalt not honour thy father or thy mother,” whosoever shall say to his father or mother, “It is a gift that wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me,” some one may inquire whether the words, “He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death,”[1] are not extraneous. For, granted that he does not honour his father and mother, who consecrates to what is called Corban that which would have been given in honour of father and mother, in what way, therefore, does the tradition of the Pharisees make void the word which said, “He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death?” But, perhaps, when any one said to his father or his mother, “It is a gift, that wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me,”[2] he, as it were, casts abuse on his father or mother as if he were calling his parents sacrilegious, in taking that which was consecrated to Corban from him who had consecrated it to Corban. The Jews then punish their sons[3] according to the law, as speaking evil of father or mother, when they say to their father or mother, “It is a gift, that wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me,” but you by one of your traditions make void two commandments of God. And then you are not ashamed to accuse My disciples who transgress no commandment; for they walk “in all His commandments and ordinances blamelessly,”[4] but transgress a tradition of the elders, so as not to transgress a commandment of God. And if you had held this aim before you, you would have kept the commandment about the honour due to father and mother, and that which said, “He that speaketh evil of father and mother, let him die the death;” but the tradition of the elders which is opposed to these commandments you would not have kept.

[1] Matt. 15:4.

[2] Matt. 15:5.

[3] Or, you, if we read ὑμᾶς.

[4] Cf. Luke 1:6.

Exposition of the Prophecy of Isaiah Quoted by Jesus

And, after this, wishing to refute completely from the words of the prophets all these traditions of the elders among the Jews, He brought before them a saying, from Isaiah, which in the exact words is as follows: “And the Lord said, This people draws nigh to Me with their mouth,” etc.;[1] and, as we said before, Matthew has not written out the prophetical saying in the very words. And, if it be necessary because of its use in the Gospel to interpret it according to our ability, we will take in addition the preceding passage which is, in my judgment, noted with advantage by us for the exposition of that passage in the Gospel which was taken from the prophet. The passage in Isaiah from the beginning is thus, “Be ye faint, and be maddened: be ye drunken, but not with strong drink nor with wine: for the Lord hath given you to drink of the spirit of stupor, and He will close their eyes, both of their prophets, and of their rulers who see things secret. And all these sayings shall be to you as the words of the book, which has been sealed, which if they give to a man who knows letters, saying, Read this, he shall answer, I cannot read, 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 know not letters. And the Lord said, This people is nigh to Me,” etc., down to the words, “Woe unto them that form counsel in secret, and their works shall be in darkness.”[2] Taking up then the passage before us in the Gospel, I have put some of the verses which come before it, and some which follow it, in order to show in what way the Word threatens to close the eyes of those of the people who are astonished and drunken, and have been made to drink of the spirit of deep sleep. And it threatens also to close the eyes of their prophets and their rulers who profess to see things secret,—which things, I think, took place after the advent of the Saviour among that people; for all the words of the whole of the Scriptures, and of Isaiah also, have become to them as the words of a sealed book. Now the expression “sealed” is used of a book closed in virtue of its obscurity and not open in virtue of its lucidity, which is equally obscure to those who are not able to read it at all because they do not know letters, and to those who profess to know letters but do not understand the meaning in the things which have been written. Well, then, does he add to this, that when the people, fainting because of their sins and being in a state of madness rage against Him through those sins wherewith they shall be drunken against Him with the spirit of stupor, which shall be given to them to drink by the Lord when He closes their eyes, as unworthy to see, and the eyes 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 shall the prophetic words be sealed to them and hidden, as has been the case with those who do not believe in Jesus as the Christ. And when the prophetic sayings have become as the words of a sealed book, not only to those who do not know letters but to those who profess to know, then the Lord said, that the people of the Jews draw nigh to God with their mouth only, and He says that they honour Him with their lips, because their heart by reason of their unbelief in Jesus is far from the Lord. And now, especially, from the time at which they denied our Saviour, it might be said about them by God, “But in vain do they worship Me;”[3] for they no longer teach the precepts of God but of men, and doctrines which are human and no longer of the Spirit of wisdom. Wherefore, when these things happen to them, God has removed the people of the Jews, and has caused to perish the wisdom of the wise men among them; for there is no longer wisdom among them, just as there is no prophecy; but God has utterly destroyed the prudence of the prudent and concealed it,[4] and no longer is it splendid and conspicuous. Wherefore, although they may seem to form some counsel in a deep fashion, because they do it not through the Lord they are called miserable; and even though they profess to tell some secrets of the Divine counsel they lie, since their works are not works of light, but of darkness and night.[5] I have thought it right briefly to set forth the prophecy, and to a certain extent elucidate its meaning, seeing that Matthew made mention of it. And Mark also made mention of it, from whom we may usefully set down the following words in the place, with reference to the transgression of the elders who held that it was necessary to wash hands when the Jews ate bread, “For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market-place except they wash themselves they eat not. And there are some other things which they have received to hold, washings of cups and pots and brazen vessels and couches.”[6]

[1] Isa. 29:13.

[2] Isa. 29:9–15.

[3] Matt. 15:9.

[4] Isa. 29:14.

[5] Isa. 29:15.

[6] Mark 7:3, 4.

Things Clean and Unclean According to the Law and the Gospel

“And He called to Him the multitude and said unto them, Hear and understand, ” etc.[1] We are clearly taught in these words by the Saviour that, when we read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy the precepts about meat clean and unclean, for the transgression of which we are accused by the material Jews and by the Ebionites who differ little from them, we are not to think that the scope of the Scripture is found in any superficial understanding of them. For if “not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man, but that which proceedeth out of the mouth,”[2] and especially when, according to Mark, the Saviour said these things “making all meats clean,”[3] manifestly we are not defiled when we eat those things which the Jews who desire to be in bondage to the letter of the law declare to be unclean, but we are then defiled when, whereas our lips ought to be bound with perception and we ought “to make for them what we call a balance and weight,”[4] we speak offhand and discuss matters we ought not, from which there comes to us the spring of sins. And it is indeed becoming to the law of God to forbid those things which arise from wickedness, and to enjoin those things which tend to virtue, but as for things which are in their own nature indifferent to leave them in their own place, as they may, according to our choice and the reason which is in us, be done ill if we sin in them, but if rightly directed by us be done well. And any one who has carefully thought on these matters will see that, even in those things which are thought to be good, it is possible for a man to sin who has taken them up in an evil way and under the impulse of passion, and that these things called impure may be considered pure, if used by us in accordance with reason. As, then, when the Jew sins his circumcision shall be reckoned for uncircumcision, but when one of the Gentiles acts uprightly his uncircumcision shall be reckoned for circumcision,[5] so those things which are thought to be pure shall be reckoned for impure in the case of him who does not use them fittingly, nor when one ought, nor as far as he ought, nor for what reason he ought. But as for the things which are called impure, “All things become pure to the pure,” for, “To them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, since both their minds and their conscience are defiled.”[6] And when these are defiled, they make all things whatsoever they touch defiled; as again on the contrary the pure mind and the pure conscience make all things pure, even though they may seem to be impure; for not from intemperance, nor from love of pleasure, nor with doubting which draws a man both ways, do the righteous use meats or drinks, mindful of the precept, “Whether ye eat or drink or whatsoever other thing ye do, do all to the glory of God.”[7] And if it be necessary to delineate the foods which are unclean according to the Gospel, we will say that they are such as are supplied by covetousness, and are the result of base love of gain, and are taken up from love of pleasure, and from deifying the belly which is treated with honour, when it, with its appetites, and not reason, rules our souls. But as for us who know that some things are used by demons, or if we do not know, but suspect, and are in doubt about it, if we use such things, we have used them not to the glory of God, nor in the name of Christ; for not only does the suspicion that things have been sacrificed to idols condemn him who eats, but even the doubt concerning this; for “he that doubteth,” according to the Apostle, “is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”[8] He then eats in faith who believes that that which is eaten has not been sacrificed in the temples of idols, and that it is not strangled nor blood;[9] but he eats not of faith who is in doubt about any of these things. And the man who knowing that they have been sacrificed to demons nevertheless uses them, becomes a communicant with demons, while at the same time, his imagination is polluted with reference to demons participating in the sacrifice. And the Apostle, however, knowing that it is not the nature of meats which is the cause of injury to him who uses them or of advantage to him who refrains from their use, but opinions and the reason which is in them, said, “But meat commendeth us not to God, for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.”[10] And since he knew that those who have a loftier conception of what things are pure and what impure according to the law, turning aside from the distinction about the use of things pure and impure, and superstition, I think, in respect of things being different, become indifferent to the use of meats,[11] and on this account are condemned by the Jews as transgressors of law, he said therefore, somewhere, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink,” etc.,[12] teaching us that the things according to the letter are a shadow, but that the true thoughts of the law which are stored up in them are the good things to come, in which one may find what are the pure spiritual meats of the soul, and what are the impure foods in false and contradictory words which injure the man who is nourished in them, “For the law had a shadow of the good things to come.”[13]

[1] Matt. 15:10.

[2] Matt. 15:11.

[3] Mark 7:19.

[4] Ecclus. 28:25.

[5] Rom. 2:25, 26.

[6] Tit. 1:15.

[7] 1 Cor. 10:31.

[8] Rom. 14:23.

[9] Cf. Acts 15:20.

[10] 1 Cor. 8:8.

[11] The text is uncertain.

[12] Col. 2:16.

[13] Heb. 10:1.

The Offence of the Pharisees

And as in many cases we have to consider the astonishment of the Jews at the words of the Saviour, because they were spoken with authority, so also in regard to the words in this place. Having called the multitudes therefore, He said unto them, “Hear and understand,”[1] etc. And He said this, the Pharisees being offended at this saying, as, because of their evil opinions and their worthless interpretation of the law, they were not the plant of his own Father in heaven, and on this account were being rooted up;[2] for they were rooted up as they did not receive the true vine, which was cultivated by the Father, even Jesus Christ.[3] For how could they be a plant of His Father who were offended at the words of Jesus, words which turn men away from the precept, “Handle not, nor taste, nor touch,—all which things were to perish in the using—after the precepts and doctrines of men,”[4] but induce the intelligent hearer of them to seek in regard to them the things which are above and not the things upon the earth as the Jews do?[5] And since, because of their evil opinions, the Pharisees were not the plant of His Father in heaven, on this account, as about such as were incorrigible, He says to the disciple, “Let them alone;”[6] “Let them alone,” He said for this reason, that as they were blind they ought to become conscious of their blindness and seek guides; but they, being unconscious of their own blindness, profess to guide the blind, not reckoning that they would fall into a pit, about which it is written in the Psalms, “He hath made a pit, and digged it, and will fall into the ditch which he hath made.”[7] Again, elsewhere it is written, “And seeing the multitudes, He went up into the mountain, and when He had sat down His disciples came unto Him;”[8] but here He stretches forth His hand to the multitude, calling them unto Him, and turning their thoughts away from the literal interpretation of the questions in the law, when He in the first place said to them, who did not yet understand what they heard, “Hear and understand,” and thereafter as in parables said to them, “Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man, but that which proceedeth out of the mouth.”[9]

[1] Matt. 15:10.

[2] Matt. 15:13.

[3] John 15:1.

[4] Col. 2:21, 22.

[5] Col. 3:2.

[6] Matt. 15:14.

[7] Ps. 7:15.

[8] Matt. 5:1.

[9] Matt. 15:10, 11.

Why the Pharisees Were Not a Plant of God. Teaching of Origen on the “Bread of the Lord.”

After this, it is worth while to look at the phrase which has been assailed in a sophistical way by those who say[1] that the God of the law and the God of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the same; for they say that the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ is not the husbandman of those who think that they worship God according to the law of Moses. Jesus Himself said that the Pharisees, who were worshipping the God who created the world and the law, were not a plant which His heavenly Father had planted, and that for this reason it was being rooted up.[2] But you might also say this, that even if it were the Father of Jesus who “brought in and planted the people,” when it came out of Egypt, “to the mountain of His own inheritance, to the place which He had prepared for Himself to dwell in,”[3] yet Jesus would have said, in regard to the Pharisees, “Every plant which My heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up.” Now, to this we will say, that as many as on account of their perverse interpretation of the things in the law were not a plant of His Father in heaven, were blinded in their minds, as not believing the truth, but taking pleasure in unrighteousness,[4] by him who is deified by the sons of this world, and on this account is called by Paul the god of this world.[5] And do not suppose that Paul said that he was truly God; for just as the belly, though it is not the god of those who prize pleasure too highly, being lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, is said by Paul to be their god,[6] so the prince of this world, in regard to whom the Saviour says, “Now has the prince of this world been judged,”[7] though he is not God, is said to be the god of those who do not wish to receive the spirit of adoption, in order that they may become sons of that world, and sons of the resurrection from the dead,[8] and who, on this account, abide in the sonship of this world. I have deemed it necessary to introduce these matters, even though they may have been spoken by way of digression, because of the saying, “They are blind guides of the blind.”[9] Who are such? The Pharisees, whose minds the god of this world hath blinded as they are unbelieving, because they have not believed in Jesus Christ; and he hath blinded them so that the “light of the Gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ should not dawn upon them.”[5] But not only must we avoid being guided by those blind ones who are conscious that they are in need of guides, because they have not yet received the power of vision of themselves; but even in the case of all who profess to guide us in sound doctrine, we must hear with care, and apply a sound judgment to what is said, lest being guided according to the ignorance of those who are blind, and do not see the things that concern sound doctrine, we ourselves may appear to be blind because we do not see the sense of the Scriptures, so that both he who guides and he who is guided will fall into the ditch of which we have spoken before. Next to this, it is written in what way Peter answered and said to the Saviour, as if he had not understood the saying, “Not that which cometh into the mouth defileth the man, but that which goeth out of the mouth,” “Declare unto us the parable.”[10] To which the Saviour says, “Are ye also, even yet, without understanding?”[11] As if He had said, “Having been so long time with Me, do ye not yet understand the meaning of what is said, and do ye not perceive that for this reason that which goeth into his mouth does not defile the man, because it passeth into the belly, and going out from it is cast into the draught?”[12] It was not in respect of the law in which they appeared to believe, that the Pharisees were not a plant of the Father of Jesus, but in respect of their perverse interpretation of the law and the things written in it. For since there are two things to be understood in regard to the law, the ministration of death which was engraven in letters[13] and which had no kinship with the spirit, and the ministration of life which is understood in the spiritual law, those who were able with a sincere heart to say, “We know that the law is spiritual,”[14] and therefore “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good,”[15] were the plant which the heavenly Father planted; but those who were not such, but guarded with care the letter which killeth only, were not a plant of God but of him who hardened their heart, and put a veil over it, which veil had power over them so long as they did not turn to the Lord; “for if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.”[16] Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as “not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,”[10] of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for “he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,”[17] and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer[18] does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, “For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.”[19] And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, “For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.”[20] Now, if “everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,”[12] even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh,[21] and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that “every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.”[22]

[1] Marcion and his followers.

[2] Matt. 15:13.

[3] Exod. 15:17.

[4] 2 Thess. 2:12.

[5] 2 Cor. 4:4.

[6] Phil. 3:19.

[7] John 16:11.

[8] Cf. Luke 20:36.

[9] Matt. 15:14.

[10] Matt. 15:11.

[11] Matt. 15:16.

[12] Matt. 15:17.

[13] Cf. 2 Cor. 3:7.

[14] Rom. 7:14.

[15] Rom. 7:12.

[16] 2 Cor. 3:16, 17.

[17] Rom. 14:23.

[18] Cf. 1 Tim. 4:5.

[19] 1 Cor. 11:30.

[20] 1 Cor. 8:8.

[21] John 1:14.

[22] John 6:51.

Eating With Unwashed Heart Defiles the Man

Next to this let us see how the things which proceed out and defile the man do not defile the man because of their proceeding out of the mouth, but have the cause of their defilement in the heart, when there come forth out of it, before those things which proceed through the mouth, evil thoughts, of which the species are—murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings.[1] For these are the things which defile the man, when they come forth out of the heart, and going out from it proceed through the mouth; so that, if they did not come out of the heart, but were retained there somewhere about the heart, and were not allowed to be spoken through the mouth, they would very quickly disappear, and a man would be no more defiled. The spring and source, then, of every sin are evil thoughts; for, unless these gained the mastery, neither murders nor adulteries nor any other such thing would exist. Therefore, each man must keep his own heart with all watchfulness;[2] for when the Lord comes in the day of judgment, “He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts,”[3] “all the thoughts of men meanwhile accusing or else excusing them,”[4] “when their own devices have beset them about.”[5] But of such a nature are the evil thoughts that sometimes they make worthy of censure even those things which seem good, and which, so far as the judgment of the masses is concerned, are worthy of praise. Accordingly, if we do alms before men, having in our thoughts the design of appearing to men philanthropic, and of being honoured because of philanthropy, we receive the reward from men;[6] and, universally, everything that is done with the consciousness in the doer that he will be glorified by men, has no reward from Him who beholds in secret, and renders the reward to those who are pure, in secret. So, too, therefore, is it with apparent purity if it is influenced by considerations of vain glory or love of gain; and the teaching which is thought to be the teaching of the Church, if it becomes servile through the word of flattery, either when it is made the excuse for covetousness, or when any one seeks glory from men because of his teaching, is not reckoned to be the teaching of those “who have been set by God in the Church: first, apostles; secondly, prophets; and thirdly, teachers.”[7] And you will say the like in the case of him who seeks the office of a bishop for the sake of glory with men, or of flattery from men, or for the sake of the gain received from those who, coming over to the word, give in the name of piety; for a bishop of this kind at any rate does not “desire a good work,”[8] nor can he be without reproach, nor temperate, nor sober-minded, as he is intoxicated with glory and intemperately satiated with it. And the same also you will say about the elders and deacons. And if we seem to some to have made a digression in speaking of these things, consider if it were not necessary that they should be said, because that evil thoughts are the spring of all sins, and can pollute even those actions which, if they were done apart from evil thoughts, would have justified the man who did them. We have thus investigated according to our ability what are the things which defile; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man; but if we must say it with boldness, with unwashed heart to eat anything whatsoever which is the natural food of our reason, defileth the man.

[1] Matt. 15:18, 19.

[2] Prov. 4:23.

[3] 1 Cor. 4:5.

[4] Rom. 2:15.

[5] Hos. 7:2.

[6] Matt. 6:1, 2.

[7] 1 Cor. 12:28.

[8] 1 Tim. 3:1.

Concerning the Canaanitish Woman. Meaning of the “Borders of Tyre and Sidon.”

“And Jesus went out thence and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon. And behold a Canaanitish woman.”[1] Whence the “thence”? Was it from the land of Gennesaret, concerning which it was said before, “And when they had crossed over they came into the land of Gennesaret?”[2] But He withdrew, perhaps because the Pharisees were offended when they heard that “not that which entereth in, but that which proceedeth out, defileth the man;”[3] and that, because of their being suspected of plotting against Him, it is said, “He withdrew,” is manifest from the passage, “And when He heard that John was delivered up He withdrew into Galilee.”[4] Perhaps also on this account, when describing the things in this place, Mark says that “He rose up and went into the borders of Tyre, and having entered into the house wished no man to know it.”[5] It is probable that He sought to avoid the Pharisees who were offended at His teaching, waiting for the time for His suffering, which was more fitting and rightly appointed. But some one might say that Tyre and Sidon are used for the Gentiles; accordingly when He withdrew from Israel He came into the parts of the Gentiles. Among the Hebrews, then, Tyre is called Sor, and it is interpreted “anguish.” Sidon, which is also the Hebrew name, is rendered “hunters.” And among the Gentiles likewise the hunters are the evil powers, and among them is great distress, the distress, namely, which exists in wickedness and passions. When Jesus, then, went out from Gennesaret He withdrew indeed from Israel and came, not to Tyre and Sidon, but into “the parts” of Tyre and Sidon, with the result that those of the Gentiles now believe in part; so that if He had visited the whole of Tyre and Sidon, no unbeliever would have been left in it. Now, according to Mark, “Jesus rose up and went into the borders of Tyre,”[5]—that is, the distress of the Gentiles,—in order that they also from these borders who believe can be saved, when they come out of them; for attend to this: “And behold a Canaanitish woman came out from these borders and cried saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou Son of David, my daughter is terribly vexed with a demon.”[6] And I think that if she had not come out from those borders she would not have been able to cry to Jesus with the great faith to which testimony was borne; and according to the proportion of faith one comes out from the borders among the Gentiles, which “when the Most High divided the nations He set up according to the number of the sons of Israel,”[7] and prevented their further advance. Here, then, certain borders are spoken of as the borders of Tyre and Sidon, but in Exodus the borders of Pharaoh,[8] in which, they say, were formed the plagues against the Egyptians. And we must suppose that each of us when he sins is in the borders of Tyre or Sidon or of Pharaoh and Egypt, or some one of those which are outside the allotted inheritance of God; but when he changes from wickedness to virtue he goes out from the borders of evil, and comes to the borders of the portion of God, there being among these also a difference which will be manifest to those who are able to understand the things that concern the division and the inheritance of Israel, in harmony with the spiritual law. And attend also to the meeting, so to speak, which took place between Jesus and the Canaanitish woman; for He comes as to the parts of Tyre and Sidon, and she comes out of those parts, and cried, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou Son of David.”[6] Now the woman was Canaanitish, which is rendered, prepared for humiliation. The righteous, indeed, are prepared for the kingdom of heaven and for the exaltation in the kingdom of God;[9] but sinners are prepared for the humiliation of the wickedness which is in them, and of the deeds which flow from it and prepare them for it, and of the sin which reigns in their mortal body. Only, the Canaanitish woman came out of those borders and went forth from the state of being prepared for humiliation, crying and saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou Son of David.”

[1] Matt. 15:21, 22.

[2] Matt. 14:34.

[3] Matt. 15:11.

[4] Matt. 4:12.

[5] Mark 7:24.

[6] Matt. 15:22.

[7] Deut. 32:8.

[8] Exod. 8:2.

[9] Cf. Matt. 25:34.

Exposition of the Details in the Narrative

Now bring together from the Gospels those who call Him Son of David, as she, and the blind men in Jericho;[1] and who call Him Son of God, and that without the addition “truly” like the demoniacs who say, “What have we to do with Thee, Thou Son of God;”[2] and who call Him so with the addition “truly,” like those in the boat who worshipped Him saying, “Truly Thou art the Son of God.”[3] For the bringing together of these passages will, I think, be useful to you with a view to seeing the difference of those who come (to Jesus); some indeed come as to Him “who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh;”[4] but others come to Him who “was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness;”[5] and of these some with the “truly,” and some without it. Further, observe, that the Canaanitish woman besought Him not about a son, whom she does not seem to have brought forth at all, but about a daughter who was terribly vexed with a demon; but another mother receives back alive her son who was being carried forth dead.[6] And again the ruler of the synagogue makes supplication for a daughter twelve years old, as being dead,[7] but the nobleman about a son as being still sick, and at the point of death.[8] The daughter, accordingly, who was distressed by a demon, and the dead son sprang from two mothers; and the dead daughter, and the son who was sick unto death, sprang from two fathers, of whom the one was a ruler of the synagogue, and the other was a nobleman. And I am persuaded these things contain reasons concerning the diverse kinds of souls which Jesus vivifies and heals. And all the cures that He works among the people, especially those recorded by the Evangelists, took place at that time, that those who would not otherwise have believed unless they saw signs and wonders might believe;[9] for the things aforetime were symbols of the things that are ever being accomplished by the power of Jesus; for there is no time when each of the things which are written is not done by the power of Jesus according to the desert of each. The Canaanitish woman, therefore, because of her race was not worthy even to receive an answer from Jesus, who acknowledged that He had not been sent by the Father for any other thing than to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,[10]—a lost race of souls possessed of clear vision; but, because of her resolution and of having worshipped Jesus as Son of God, she obtains an answer, which reproaches her with baseness of birth and exhibits the measure of her worthiness, namely, that she was worthy of crumbs as the little dogs, but not of the loaves. But when she with intensified resolution, accepting the saying of Jesus, puts forth the claim to obtain crumbs even as a little dog, and acknowledges that the masters are of a nobler race, then she gets a second answer, which bears testimony to her faith as great, and a promise that it shall be done unto her as she wills.[11] And corresponding, I think, “to the Jerusalem above, which is free, the mother”[12] of Paul and those like to him, must we conceive of the Canaanitish woman, the mother of her who was terribly distressed with a demon, who was the symbol of the mother of such a soul. And consider whether it is not according to sound reason that there are also many fathers and many mothers corresponding to the fathers of Abraham to whom the patriarch went away,[13] and to Jerusalem the “mother,” as Paul says, concerning himself and those like to him. And it is probable that she of whom the Canaanitish woman was a symbol came out of the borders of Tyre and Sidon, of which the places on earth were types, and came to the Saviour and besought Him and even now beseeches Him saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Thou Son of David, my daughter is terribly vexed with a demon.”[14] Then also to those without and to the disciples when necessary He answers and says, “I was not sent;”[10] teaching us that there are some lost souls pre-eminently intellectual and clear of vision, figuratively called sheep of the house of Israel; which things, I think, the simpler who are of opinion that they are spoken in regard to the Israel which is after the flesh will of necessity admit, namely, that our Saviour was sent by the Father to no others than to those lost Jews. But we, who can truthfully boast that “if we have once known Christ after the flesh, but now no longer do we know Him so,”[15] are assured that it is pre-eminently the work of the Word to save the more intelligent, for these are more akin to Him than those who are duller. But since the lost sheep of the house of Israel, with the exception of “the remnant according to the election of grace,”[16] disbelieved the Word, on this account “God chose the foolish things of the world,”[17] namely, that which was not Israel, nor clear of vision, that He might put to shame the wise ones of Israel; and He called “the things which are not,”[18] handing over to them an intelligent nation who were able to admit “the foolishness of the preaching,”[19] and of His good pleasure saved those who believe in this, that He might refute “the things which are,” having perfected praise for Himself, “out of the mouths of babes and sucklings,”[20] when they became hostile to truth. Now, the Canaanitish woman, having come, worshipped Jesus as God, saying, “Lord, help me,” but He answered and said, “It is not possible to take the children’s bread and cast it to the little dogs.”[21] But some one might inquire also into the meaning of this saying, since,—inasmuch as there was a measure of loaves such that both the children and the dogs of the household could not eat loaves, unless the dogs ate other loaves than those which were well made,—it was not possible according to right reason for the well-made loaf of the children to be given as food to the little dogs. But no such thing appears in the case of the power of Jesus, for of this it was possible both for the children and those called little dogs to partake. Consider, then, whether perhaps with reference to the saying, “It is not possible to take the bread of children,” we ought to say that, “He who emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant,”[22] brought a measure of power such as the world was capable of receiving, of which power also He was conscious that a certain quantity went forth from Him as is plain from the words, “Some one did touch Me, for I perceived that power had gone forth from Me.”[23] From this measure of power, then, He dispensed, giving a larger portion to those who were pre-eminent and who were called sons, but a smaller portion to those who were not such, as to the little dogs. But though these things were so, nevertheless where there was great faith, to her, who because of her base birth in Canaanitish land was a little dog, He gave as to a child the bread of the children. And perhaps, also, of the words of Jesus there are some loaves which it is possible to give to the more rational, as to children only; and other words, as it were, crumbs from the great house and table of the wellborn and the masters, which may be used by some souls, like the dogs. And according to the law of Moses it is written about certain things, “Ye shall cast them to the dogs,”[24] and it was a matter of care to the Holy Spirit to give instruction about certain foods that they should be left to the dogs. Let others, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we, who do not find this at all in the divine Scripture, say that the more rational condition changes into one more irrational, undergoing this affection in consequence of great slothfulness and negligence. But, also, in the same way, a will which was more irrational, because of its neglect of reason, sometimes turns and becomes rational, so that that which at one time was a dog, loving to eat of the crumbs that fell from the table of its masters, comes into the condition of a son. For virtue contributes greatly to the making of one a son of God, but wickedness, and mad fury in wanton discourses and shamelessness, contribute to the giving of a man the name of dog according to the word of the Scripture.[25] And the like you will also understand in the case of the other names which are applied to animals without reason. Only, he who is reproached as a dog and yet is not indignant at being called unworthy of the bread of children and with all forbearance repeats the saying of that Canaanitish woman, “Yea, Lord, for even the little dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’[26] table,” will obtain the very gentle answer of Jesus saying to him, “Great is thy faith,”—when he has received so great faith—and saying, “Be it done unto thee even as thou wilt,”[11] so that he himself may be healed, and if he has produced any fruit which stands in need of healing, that this, too, may be cured.

[1] Matt. 20:30.

[2] Matt. 8:29.

[3] Matt. 14:33.

[4] Rom. 1:3.

[5] Rom. 1:4.

[6] Luke 7:12.

[7] Matt. 9:18.

[8] John 4:46.

[9] John 4:48.

[10] Matt. 15:24.

[11] Matt. 15:28.

[12] Gal. 4:26.

[13] Gen. 15:15.

[14] Matt. 15:22.

[15] 2 Cor. 5:16.

[16] Rom. 11:5.

[17] 1 Cor. 1:27.

[18] 1 Cor. 1:28.

[19] 1 Cor. 1:21.

[20] Ps. 8:2.

[21] Matt. 15:25, 26.

[22] Phil. 2:7.

[23] Luke 8:46.

[24] Exod. 22:31.

[25] 2 Sam. 16:9.

[26] Matt. 15:27.

Concerning the Multitudes Who Were Healed. Comparison of the Mountain Where Jesus Sat to the Church

“And Jesus departed thence,”—manifestly, from what has been said before, from the parts of Tyre and Sidon,—“and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee,”[1] which is commonly called the Lake of Gennesaret, and again went up into the mountain where He went up and sat. We may say, then, that into this mountain where Jesus sits, not only the sound in health go up, but along with the sound, those also who were suffering from various disorders. And, perhaps, this mountain to which Jesus went up and sat is that which is more commonly called the Church, which has been set up through the word of God over the rest of the world and the men upon it; whither go not the disciples only, leaving the multitudes as in the case of the beatitudes, but great multitudes who were not accused themselves of being deaf or suffering from any affection, but who had such along with themselves. For you may see, along with the multitudes who come to this mountain where the Son of God sits, some who have become deaf to the things promised, and others blind in soul and not looking at the true light, and others who are lame and not able to walk according to reason, and others who are maimed and not able to work according to reason. Those, accordingly, who are suffering in soul from such things, though they go up along with the multitudes into the mountain where Jesus was, so long as they are outside of the feet of Jesus, are not healed by Him; but when, as men suffering from such disorders, they are cast by the multitude at His feet,[2] and at the extremities of the body of Christ, not being worthy to obtain such things so far as they themselves are concerned, they are then healed by Him. And when you see in the congregation of what is more commonly called the church the catechumens cast behind those who are at the extreme end of it, and as it were at the feet of the body of Jesus—the church—coming to it with their own deafness and blindness and lameness and crookedness, and in time cured according to the Word, you would not err in saying that such having gone up with the multitudes of the church to the mountain where Jesus was, are cast at His feet and are healed; so that the multitude of the church is astonished at beholding transformations which have taken place from so great evils to that which is better, so that it might say, those who were formerly dumb afterwards speak the word of God, and the lame walk, the prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled, not only in things bodily but in things spiritual, which said, “Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of him that hath an impediment in his speech be plain.”[3] And there, unless the expression, “the lame man shall leap as an hart,” is to be taken as accidental, we will say that those formerly lame, and who now through the power of Jesus leap as an hart are not without design compared to a hart, which is a clean animal, and hostile to serpents and cannot at all be injured by their poison. But also, in respect of the fact that the dumb are seen speaking is the prophecy fulfilled which said, “And the tongue of him that hath an impediment shall be plain,” or rather that which said, “Hear ye deaf;” but the blind see according to the prophecy following, “Hear ye deaf, and ye blind look up that ye may see.”[4] Now the blind see, when they see the world and from the exceeding great beauty of the things created they contemplate the Creator corresponding in greatness and beauty to them; and when they see clearly “the invisible things of God Himself from the creation of the world, which are perceived through the things that are made;”[5] that is, they see and understand with care and clearness. Now the multitudes seeing these things, glorified the God of Israel,[6] and glorify Him in the persuasion that it is the same God, who is the Father of Him who healed those previously mentioned, and the God of Israel. For He is not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.[7] Let us then cause to go up along with ourselves to the mountain where Jesus sits—His church—those who wish to go up to it along with us, the deaf, the blind, the lame, the maimed and many others, and let us cast them at the feet of Jesus that He may heal them, so that the multitudes are astonished at their healing; for it is not the disciples who are described as wondering at such things, although at that time they were present with Jesus, as is manifest from the words, “And Jesus called unto Him His disciples and said, I have compassion on the multitudes,”[8] etc.; and perhaps if you attend carefully to the words, “There came unto Him great multitudes,”[2] you would find that the disciples at that time did not come to Him, but had begun long ago to follow Him and followed Him into the mountain. But there came unto Him those who were inferior to the disciples, and were then for the first time approaching Him, who had not the same experience as those who had gone up with them. Observe, moreover, in the Gospel who are described as having followed Jesus, and who as having come to Him, and who as having been brought to Him, and the division between those who go before and of those who follow; and of those who came, who came to Him in the house, and who when He was elsewhere. For by observation, and by comparing things spiritual with spiritual, you would find many things worthy of the accurate wisdom in the Gospels.

[1] Matt. 15:29.

[2] Matt. 15:30.

[3] Isa. 35:6.

[4] Isa. 42:18.

[5] Rom. 1:20.

[6] Matt. 15:31.

[7] Rom. 3:29.

[8] Matt. 15:32.

Concerning the Seven Loaves. The Narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand Compared With That of the Five Thousand

“And Jesus called unto Him His disciples and said.”[1] Above in the similar history to this about the loaves, before the loaves are spoken of, “Jesus came forth and saw a great multitude and had compassion upon them and healed their sick. And when even was come the disciples came to Him saying, The place is desert and the time is already past, send them away,”[2] etc. But now after the healing of the deaf and the rest, He takes compassion on the multitude which had continued with Him now three days and had nothing to eat. And there the disciples make request concerning the five thousand;[2] but here He speaks of His own accord about the four thousand.[1] Those, too, are fed when it was evening after they had spent a day with Him; but these, who are testified to have continued with Him three days, partake of the loaves lest they might faint by the way. And there the disciples say to Him when He was not inquiring, that they had only five loaves and two fishes; but here to Him making inquiry, they give answer about the seven loaves and the few small fishes. And there He commands the multitudes to sit down or lie upon the grass; for Luke also wrote, “Make them sit down,”[3] and Mark says, “He commanded them all to sit down;”[4] but here He does not command but proclaims[5] to the multitude to sit down. Again, there, the three Evangelists say in the very same words that “He took the five loaves and the two fishes and looking up to heaven He blessed;”[6] but here, as Matthew and Mark have written, “Jesus gave thanks and brake;”[7] there, they recline upon the grass, but here they sit down upon the ground. You will moreover investigate in the accounts in the different places the variation found in John, who wrote in regard to that transaction that Jesus said, “Make the men sit down,”[8] and that, having given thanks, He gave of the loaves to them that were set down, but he did not mention this miracle at all.[9] Attending, then, to the difference of those things which are written in the various places in regard to the loaves, I think that these belong to a different order from those; wherefore these are fed in a mountain, and those in a desert place; and these after they had continued three days with Jesus, but those one day, on the evening of which they were fed. And further, unless it be the same thing for Jesus to do a thing of Himself and to act after having heard from the disciples, consider if those to whom Jesus shows kindness are not superior when He fed them on the spot with a view to showing them kindness. And, if according to John,[10] they were barley loaves of which the twelve baskets remained over, but nothing of this kind is said about these, how are not these superior to the former? And the sick of those He healed,[11] but here He heals these, along with the multitudes, who were not sick but blind, and lame, and deaf, and maimed; wherefore also in regard to these the four thousand marvel,[12] but in regard to the sick no such thing is said. And these I think who ate of the seven loaves for which thanks were given, are superior to those who ate of the five which were blessed; and these who ate the few little fishes to those who ate of the two, and perhaps also these who sat down upon the ground to those who sat down on the grass. And those from fewer loaves leave twelve baskets, but these from a greater number leave seven baskets, inasmuch, as they were able to receive more. And perhaps these tread upon all earthly things and sit down upon them, but those upon the grass—upon their flesh only—for “all flesh is grass.”[13] Consider also after this, that Jesus does not wish to send them away fasting lest they faint on the way, as being without the loaves of Jesus, and while they were still on the way—the way to their own concerns—might suffer injury. Take note also of the cases where Jesus is recorded to have sent any one away, that you may see the difference of those who were sent away by Him after being fed, and those who had been sent away otherwise; and, as a pattern of one who was sent away otherwise, take “Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.”[14] But further the disciples who are always with Jesus are not sent away by Him; but the multitudes after they have eaten are sent away. Likewise, again, the disciples who conceive nothing great about the Canaanitish woman say, “Send her away, for she crieth after us;”[15] but the Saviour does not at all appear to send her away; for saying unto her, “O woman, great is thy faith, be it done to thee even as thou wilt,”[16] He healed her daughter from that hour: it is not however written that He sent her away. So far at the present time have we been able to investigate and see into the passage before us.

————————————

[1] Matt. 15:32.

[2] Matt. 14:15.

[3] Luke 9:14.

[4] Mark 6:39.

[5] ὀυ κελεύει ἁλλὰ παραγγέλλει

[6] Matt. 14:19; Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16.

[7] Matt. 15:36; Mark 8:6.

[8] John 6:10.

[9] Or, did not mention the occasion of this.

[10] John 6:13.

[11] Matt. 14:14.

[12] Matt. 15:31.

[13] Isa. 40:6.

[14] Luke 13:12, Literally ‘thou art sent away.’

[15] Matt. 15:23.

[16] Matt. 15:28.

Book 12.

Concerning Those Who Asked Him to Show Them a Sign From Heaven

Book XII.

1. Concerning Those Who Asked Him to Show Them a Sign from Heaven.

“And the Sadducees and Pharisees came, and tempting Him kept asking Him to shew them a sign from heaven.”[1] The Sadducees and Pharisees who disagreed with each other in regard to the most essential truths,—for the Pharisees champion the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, hoping that there will be a world to come, while the Sadducees know nothing after this life in store for a man whether he has been advancing towards virtue, or has made no effort at all to come out from the mountains of wickedness,—these, I say, agree that they may tempt Jesus. Now, a similar thing, as Luke has narrated,[2] happened in the case of Herod and Pilate, who became friends with one another that they might kill Jesus; for, perhaps, their hostility with one another would have prevented Herod from asking that He should be put to death, in order to please the people, who said, “Crucify Him, Crucify Him,”[3] and would have influenced Pilate, who was somewhat inclined against His condemnation, his hostility with Herod giving fresh impulse to the inclination which he previously cherished to release Jesus. But their apparent friendship made Herod stronger in his demand against Jesus with Pilate, who wished, perhaps, also because of the newly-formed friendship to do something to gratify Herod and all the nation of the Jews. And often even now you may see in daily life those who hold the most divergent opinions, whether in the philosophy of the Greeks or in other systems of thought, appearing to be of one mind that they may scoff at and attack Jesus Christ in the person of His disciples. And from these things I think you may go on by rational argument to consider, whether when forces join in opposition which are in disagreement with one another, as of Pharaoh with Nebuchadnezzar,[4] and of Tirhakah, king of the Ethiopians, with Sennacherib,[5] a combination then takes place against Jesus and His people. So perhaps, also, “The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers were gathered together,”[6] though not at all before at harmony with one another, that having taken counsel against the Lord and His Christ, they might slay the Lord of glory.

[1] Matt. 16:1.

[2] Luke 23:12.

[3] Luke 23:21.

[4] 2 Kings 24:7.

[5] 2 Kings 19:9.

[6] Ps. 2:2.

Why the Pharisees Asked a Sign From Heaven

Now, to this point we have come in our discourse, because of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming together unto Jesus, who disagreed in matters relating to the resurrection, but came, as it were, to an agreement for the sake of tempting our Saviour, and asking Him to show them a sign from heaven. For, not satisfied with the wonderful signs shown among the people in the healing of all forms of disease and sickness, and with the rest of the miracles which our Saviour had done in the knowledge of many, they wished Him to show to them also a sign from heaven. And I conjecture that they suspected that the signs upon earth might possibly not be of God; for they did not hesitate indeed to say, “Jesus casts out demons by Beelzebub the prince of the demons;”[1] and it seemed to them that a sign from heaven could not spring from Beelzebub or any other wicked power. But they erred in regard to both, in regard to signs upon earth as well as to signs from heaven, not being “approved money-changers,”[2] nor knowing how to distinguish between the spirits that are working, which kind are from God, and which have revolted from Him. And they ought to have known that even many of the portents wrought against Egypt in the time of Moses, though they were not from heaven, were clearly from God, and that the fire which fell from heaven upon the sheep of Job was not from God;[3] for that fire belonged to the same one as he to whom belonged those who carried off, and made three bands of horsemen against, the cattle of Job. I think, moreover, that in Isaiah—as if signs could be shown both from the earth and from heaven, the true being from God, but “with all power and signs and lying wonders”[4] those from the evil one—it was said to Ahaz, “Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God in the depth or in the height.”[5] For, unless there had been some signs in the depth or in the height which were not from the Lord God, this would not have been said, “Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God in the depth or in the height.” But I know well that such an interpretation of the passage, “Ask for thyself a sign from the Lord thy God,” will seem to some one rather forced; but give heed to that which 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 deceit of unrighteousness,”[6] he shall be manifested to them that are perishing, imitating all kinds of wonders, to-wit, those of truth. And as the enchanters and magicians of the Egyptians, as being inferior to the man of sin and the son of perdition, imitated certain powers, both the signs and wonders of truth, doing lying wonders so that the true might not be believed; so I think the man of sin will imitate signs and powers. And perhaps, also, the Pharisees suspected these things because of the prophecies concerning Him; but I inquire whether also the Sadducees tempting Him asked Jesus to show them a sign from heaven. For unless we say that they suspected this, how shall we describe their relation to the portents which Jesus wrought, who continued hard-hearted and were not put to shame by the miraculous things that were done? But if any one supposes that we have given an occasion of defence to the Pharisees and Sadducees, both when they say that the demons were cast out by Jesus through Beelzebub, and when tempting Him, they ask Jesus about a heavenly sign, let him know that we plausibly say that they were drawn away to the end that they might not believe in the miracles of Jesus; but not as to deserve forgiveness; for they did not look to the words of the prophets which were being fulfilled in the acts of Jesus, which an evil power was not at all capable of imitating. But to bring back a soul which had gone out, so that it came out of the grave when already stinking and passing the fourth day,[7] was the work of no other than Him who heard the word of the Father, “Let us make man after our image and likeness.”[8] But also to command the winds and to make the violence of the sea cease at a word, was the work of no other than Him through whom all things, both the sea itself and the winds, have come into being. Moreover also as to the teaching which stimulates men to the love of the Creator, in harmony with the law and the prophets, and which checks passions and moulds morals according to piety, what else did it indicate to such as were able to see, than that He was truly the Son of God who wrought works so mighty? In respect of which things He said also to the disciples of John, “Go your way and tell John what great things ye see and hear; the blind receive their sight,” etc.[9]

[1] Matt. 9:24, 12:24.

[2] The familiar saying so frequently quoted as Scripture in the Fathers, sometimes ascribed to Jesus by them, sometimes to Paul. See Suicer.

[3] Job 1:16.

[4] 2 Thess. 2:9.

[5] Isa. 7:11.

[6] 2 Thess. 2:9, 10.

[7] John 11:39.

[8] Gen. 1:26.

[9] Matt. 11:4, 5.

The Answer of Jesus to Their Request

Next let us remark in what way, when asked in regard to one sign, that He might show it from heaven, to the Pharisees and Sadducees who put the question, He answers and says, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall be no sign given to it, but the sign of Jonah the prophet, ” when also, “He left them and departed.”[1] But the sign of Jonah, in truth, according to their question, was not merely a sign but also a sign from heaven; so that even to those who tempted Him and sought a sign from heaven He, nevertheless, out of His own great goodness gave the sign. For if, as Jonah passed three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so the Son of man did in the heart of the earth, and after this rose up from it,—whence but from heaven shall we say that the sign of the resurrection of Christ came? And especially when, at the time of the passion, He became a sign to the robber who obtained favour from Him to enter into the paradise of God; after this, I think, descending into Hades to the dead, “as free among the dead.”[2] And the Saviour seems to me to conjoin the sign which was to come from Himself with the reason of the sign in regard to Jonah when He says, not merely that a sign like to that is granted by Him but that very sign; for attend to the words, “And there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.”[1] Accordingly that sign was this sign, because that became indicative of this, so that the elucidation of that sign, which was obscure on the face of it, might be found in the fact that the Saviour suffered, and passed three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. At the same time also we learn the general principle that, if the sign signifies something, each of the signs which are recorded, whether as in actual history, or by way of precept, is indicative of something afterwards fulfilled; as for example, the sign of Jonah going out after three days from the whale’s belly was indicative of the resurrection of our Saviour, rising after three days and three nights from the dead; and that which is called circumcision is the sign of that which is indicated by Paul in the words: “We are the circumcision.”[3] Seek you also every sign in the Old Scriptures as indicative of some passage in the New Scripture, and that which is named a sign in the New Covenant as indicative of something either in the age about to be, or even in the subsequent generations after that the sign has taken place.

[1] Matt. 16:4.

[2] Ps. 88:6.

[3] Phil. 3:3.

Why Jesus Called Them an Adulterous Generation. The Law as Husband

And He called them, indeed, “an evil generation,” because of the quality arising from evil which had been produced in them, for wickedness is voluntary evil-doing, but “adulterous” because that when the Pharisees and Sadducees left that which is figuratively called man, the word of truth or the law, they were debauched by falsehood and the law of sin. For if there are two laws, the law in our members warring against the law of the mind, and the law of the mind,[1] we must say that the law of the mind—that is, the spiritual—is man, to whom the soul was given by God as wife, that is, to the man who is law, according to what is written, “A wife is married to a man by God;”[2] but the other is a paramour of the soul which is subject to it, which also on account of it is called an adulteress. Now that the law is husband of the soul Paul clearly exhibits in the Epistle to the Romans, saying, “The law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth; for the woman that hath a husband is bound to the husband while he liveth, to the husband who is law,”[3] etc. For consider in these things that the law hath dominion over the man so long time as the law liveth,—as a husband over a wife. “For the woman that hath a husband,” that is, the soul under the law, “is bound to the husband while he liveth,” to the husband who is the law; but if the husband—that is, the law die—she is discharged from the law, which is her husband. Now the law dies to him who has gone up to the condition of blessedness, and no longer lives under the law, but acts like to Christ, who, though He became under law for the sake of those under law, that He might gain those under law,[4] did not continue under law, nor did He leave subject to law those who had been freed by Him; for He led them up along with Himself to the divine citizenship which is above the law, which contains, as for the imperfect and such as are still sinners, sacrifices for the remission of sins. He then who is without sin, and stands no longer in need of legal sacrifices, perhaps when he has become perfect has passed beyond even the spiritual law, and comes to the Word beyond it, who became flesh to those who live in the flesh, but to those who no longer at all war after the flesh, He is perceived as being the Word, as[5] He was God in the beginning with God, and reveals the Father. Three things therefore are to be thought of in connection with this place—the woman that hath a husband, who is under a husband—the law; and the woman who is an adulteress, to-wit, the soul, which, while her husband, the law, liveth, has become joined to another husband, namely, the law of the flesh; and the woman who is married to the brother of the dead husband, to the Word who is alive and dies not, who “being raised from the dead dieth no more, for death hath no more dominion over Him.”[6] So far then because of the saying, “But if the husband die she is discharged from the law, the husband,” and because of this, “so then, while her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress, if she be joined to another man,” and because of this, “but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress though she be joined to another man.”[7] But this very saying, “So then while her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress,” we have brought forward, wishing clearly to show why in answer to the Pharisees and Sadducees who were tempting Him and asking Him to show them a sign from heaven, He said not only “a wicked generation,” but an “adulterous” generation.[8] In a general way, then, the law in the members which wars against the law of the mind,[1] as a man who is an adulterer, is an adulterer of the soul. But now also every power that is hostile, which gains the mastery over the human soul, and has intercourse with it, commits adultery with her who had a bridegroom given to her by God, namely, the Word. After these things it is written that “He left them and departed.” For how was the bridegroom—the Word—not going to leave the adulterous generation and depart from it? But you might say that the Word of God, leaving the synagogue of the Jews as adulterous, departed from it, and took a wife of fornication,[9] namely, those from the Gentiles; since those who were “Sion, a faithful city,”[10] have become harlots; but these have become like the harlot Rahab, who received the spies of Joshua, and was saved with all her house;[11] after this no longer playing the harlot, but coming to the feet of Jesus, and wetting them with the tears of repentance, and anointing them with the fragrance of the ointment of holy conversation, on account of whom, reproaching Simon the leper,—the former people,—He spoke those things which are written.[12]

[1] Rom. 7:23.

[2] Prov. 19:14.

[3] Rom. 7:1, 2. ῾Η γὰρ ὕπανδρος γυνὴ τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ δέδεται νόμῳ. The reader must note that Origen takes νόμῳ in apposition to ἀνδρὶ.

[4] 1 Cor. 9:10.

[5] Or, who was God.

[6] Rom. 6:9.

[7] Rom. 7:2, 3.

[8] Matt. 16:4.

[9] Hos. 1:2.

[10] Isa. 1:21.

[11] Josh. 6:25.

[12] Luke 7:37–50. Cf. Matt. 26:6.

Concerning the Leaven of the Pharisees

“And His disciples came to the other side and forgot to take loaves.”[1] Since the loaves which they had before they came to the other side were no longer useful to the disciples when they came to the other side, for they needed one kind of loaves before they crossed and a different kind when they crossed,—on this account, being careless of taking loaves when going to the other side, they forgot to take loaves with them. To the other side then came the disciples of Jesus who had passed over from things material to things spiritual, and from things sensible to those which are intellectual. And perhaps that He might turn back those who, by crossing to the other side, “had begun in spirit,”[2] from running back to carnal things, Jesus said to them when on the other side, “Take heed and beware.”[3] For there was a certain lump of teaching and of truly ancient leaven,—that according to the bare letter, and on this account not freed from those things which arise from wickedness,—which the Pharisees and Sadducees offered, of which Jesus does not wish His own disciples any longer to eat, having made for them a new and spiritual lump, offering Himself to those who gave up the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees and had come to Him—“the living bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world.”[4] But since, to him who is no longer going to use the leaven and the lump and the teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the first thing is to “see” and then to “beware,” so that no one, by reason of not seeing and from want of taking heed, may ever partake of their forbidden leaven,—on this account He says to the disciples, first, “see,” and then, “beware.” It is the mark of the clear-sighted and careful to separate the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees and every food that is not of “the unleavened-bread of sincerity and truth”[5] from the living bread, even that which came down from heaven, so that no one who eats may adopt the things of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, but by eating the living and true bread may strengthen his soul. And we might seasonably apply the saying to those who, along with the Christian way of life, prefer to live as the Jews, materially, 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. Yea and also all, who do not wish to understand that the law is spiritual, and has a shadow of the good things to come,[6] and is a shadow of the things to come,[7] neither inquire of what good thing about to be each of the laws is a shadow, nor do they see nor beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; and they also who reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead are not on their guard against the leaven of the Sadducees. And there are many among the heterodox who, because of their unbelief in regard to the resurrection of the dead, are imbued with the leaven of the Sadducees. Now, while Jesus said these things, the disciples reasoned, saying not aloud, but in their own hearts, “We took no loaves.”[8] And something like this was what they said, “If we had loaves we would not have had to take of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees; but since, from want of loaves, we run the risk of taking from their leaven, while the Saviour does not wish us to run back to their teaching, therefore He said to us, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.””[3] And these things then they reasoned; Jesus, while looking to that which was in their hearts, and hearing the reasons in them, as the true overseer of hearts, reproves them because they did not see nor remember the loaves which they received from Him; on account of which, even when they appeared to be in want of loaves, they did not need the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

[1] Matt. 16:5.

[2] Cf. Gal. 3:3.

[3] Matt. 16:6.

[4] John 6:33, 51.

[5] 1 Cor. 5:8.

[6] Heb. 10:1.

[7] Col. 2:17.

[8] Matt. 16:7.

The Meaning of Leaven. Jesus’ Knowledge of the Heart

Then expounding clearly and representing to them, who were being distracted because of the equivocal meaning of loaf and leaven, in an undisguised fashion, that He was not speaking to them about sensible bread but about the leaven in the teaching, He subjoins, “How is it that ye do not perceive that I spake not you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”[1] And though He had not laid bare the interpretation, but still continued to use metaphorical language, the disciples would have understood that the discourse of the Saviour was about the teaching, figuratively called leaven, which the Pharisees and Sadducees were teaching. So long, then, as we have Jesus with us fulfilling the promise which runs, “Lo, I am with you always unto the consummation of the age,”[2] we cannot fast nor be in want of food, so that, because of want of it we should desire to take and eat the forbidden leaven, even from the Pharisees and Sadducees. Now there may sometimes be a time, when He is with us, that we are without food, as is spoken of in the passage above, “They continue with me now three days and have nothing to eat;”[3] but, even though this should happen, being unwilling to send us away fasting lest we faint on the way, He gives thanks over the loaves which were with the disciples, and causes us to have the seven baskets over from the seven loaves, as we have recorded. And moreover this also is to be observed, in view of those who think that the divinity of the Saviour is not at all demonstrable from the Gospel of Matthew, that the fact that, when the disciples were reasoning among themselves and saying, “We have no loaves,” Jesus knew their reasonings and said, “Why reason ye among yourselves, O ye of little faith, because ye took no loaves,”[4] was beyond the power of man; for the Lord alone, as Solomon says in the third Book of Kings, knows the hearts of men.[5] But since the disciples understood, when Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven,”[6] that He did not tell them to beware of the loaves but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, you will understand that whenever leaven is named it is put figuratively for teaching, whether in the law, or in the Scriptures which come after the law; and so perhaps leaven is not offered upon the altar; for it is not right that prayers should take the form of teaching, but should only be supplications of good things from God. But one might inquire, on account of what has been said about disciples who came to the other side, if any one who has reached the other side can be reproached as one of little faith, and as not yet understanding nor remembering what was done by Jesus. But it is not difficult, I think, to say to this, that in relation to that which is perfect, on the coming of which “that which is in part shall be done away,”[7] all our faith here is little faith, and in regard to that, we who know in part do not yet know nor remember; for we are not able to obtain a memory which is sufficient and able to attain to the magnitude of the nature of the speculations.

[1] Matt. 16:11.

[2] Matt. 28:20.

[3] Matt. 15:32.

[4] Matt. 16:8.

[5] 1 Kings 8:39.

[6] Matt. 16:6.

[7] 1 Cor. 13:10.

Relative Magnitude of Sins of the Heart and Actual Sins

But we may also learn from this, that in respect of the reasonings only which we reason within ourselves, we are sometimes convicted and reproached as being of little faith. And I think that just as a man commits adultery in his heart only, though not proceeding altogether to the overt act, so he commits in his heart the rest of the things which are forbidden. As then he who has committed adultery in his heart will be punished proportionately to adultery of this kind, so also he who has done in his heart any one of the things forbidden, for example, who has stolen in his heart only, or borne false witness in his heart only, will not be punished as he who has stolen in fact, or who has completed the very act of false testimony, but only as he who has done such things in his heart. There is also the case of the man who while he did not arrive at the evil action, came short of it in spite of his own will. For if, in addition to willing it, he has attempted it, but not carried it out, he will be punished not as one who has sinned in his heart alone but in deed. To questions of this sort one might ask, whether any one commits adultery in his heart, even if he does not do the deed of adultery, but lacks self-control in heart only. And the like also you will say concerning the rest of things which are deserving of praise. But the passage possibly contains a plausible fallacy which must be cleared away, I think, in this manner: adultery which takes place in the heart is a less sin, than if one were also to add to it the act. But it is impossible that there can be chastity in the heart, hindering the chaste action—unless indeed one brings forward for an illustration of this the case of the virgin who according to the law was violated in solitude;[1] for it may be granted that the heart of any one may be most pure,[2] but that force in a matter of licentiousness has caused the corruption of the body of her who was chaste. In truth she seems to me to be altogether chaste in secret heart, but no longer to be pure in body such as she was before the act of violence; but though she is not pure outwardly, is she therefore now also unchaste? I have said these things because of the words, “They reasoned among themselves saying, We took no loaves,” to which is added, “And Jesus perceiving it, said, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves,”[3] etc.; for it was necessary that investigation should be made in regard to the censure of things in secret and correlatively to the praise of things in secret.

[1] Deut. 22:25.

[2] Or, violence in the licentious person.

[3] Matt. 16:7, 8.

The Leaven Figurative Like the Water Spoken of by Jesus to the Woman of Samaria

But I wonder if the disciples thought, before the saying was explained to them by Jesus, that their Teacher and Lord was forbidding them to beware of the sensible leaven of the Pharisees or the Sadducees as impure, and on this account forbidden, lest they might use that leaven because they had not taken loaves. And we might make a like inquiry in regard to other things; but by-way of illustration the narrative about the woman of Samaria sufficeth, “Every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst.”[1] For there, also, so far as the mere form of expression is concerned, the Samaritan woman would seem to have thought that the Saviour was giving a promise about sensible water, when He said, “Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst.” And those things then must be figuratively interpreted, and we must examine and compare the water of the spring of Jacob from which the woman of Samaria drew water with the water of Jesus; and here the like must be done; for perhaps the loaves were not baked, but a kind of raw leaven solely, the teaching, namely, of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

[1] John 14:13, 14.

Concerning the Question of Jesus in Cæsarea, Who Do Men Say That I Am? Different Conceptions of Jesus

“Now when Jesus came into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi, He asked His disciples.”[1] Jesus inquires of the disciples, “Who do men say that I am,” that we may learn from the answer of the Apostles the different conceptions then held among the Jews in regard to our Saviour; and perhaps also that the disciples of Jesus might learn to be interested in knowing what is said by men about them;[2] because that will be an advantage to them who do it, by cutting off in every way occasions of evil if anything evil is spoken of, and by increasing the incitements to good, if anything good is spoken of. Only, observe how, on account of the different movements of opinion among the Jews about Jesus, some, under the influence of unsound theories, said that He was John the Baptist, like Herod the tetrarch who said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist, he is risen from the dead, and therefore do the powers work in him;”[3] but others that He who was now called Jesus was Elijah, either having been born a second time, or living from that time in the flesh, and appearing at the present time. But those who said that Jesus was Jeremiah, and not that Jeremiah was a type of the Christ, were perhaps influenced by what is said in the beginning of Jeremiah about Christ, which was not fulfilled in the prophet at that time, but was beginning to be fulfilled in Jesus, whom “God set up over nations and kingdoms to root up, and to break down, and to destroy, and to build up, and to transplant,”[4] having made Him to be a prophet to the Gentiles to whom He proclaimed the word. Moreover also those who said, “that he was a certain one of the prophets,”[5] conceived this opinion concerning Him because of those things which had been said in the prophets as unto them, but which had not been fulfilled in their case. But also the Jews, as worthy of the veil which was upon their heart, held false opinions concerning Jesus; while Peter as not a disciple “of flesh and blood,”[6] but as one fit to receive the revelation of the Father in heaven, confessed that He was the Christ. The saying of Peter to the Saviour, “Thou art the Christ,” when the Jews did not know that He was Christ, was indeed a great thing, but greater that he knew Him not only to be Christ, but also “the Son of the living God,”[7] who had also said through the prophets, “I live,”[8] and “They have forsaken Me the spring of living water;”[9]—and He is life also, as from the Father the spring of life, who said, “I am the Life;”[10] and consider carefully, whether, as the spring of the river is not the same thing as the river, the spring of life is not the same as life. And these things we have added because to the saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of God,” was subjoined the word “living;”[7] for it was necessary to set forth something noteworthy in regard to that which is said about God and the Father of all things as living, both in relation to His absolute life, and in relation to those things which participate in it. But since we said that they were under the influence of unsound opinions who declared that Jesus was John the Baptist, or any one of those named, in saying this let us prove that if they had fallen in with Jesus as He was going away to John for baptism, or with John when he was baptizing Jesus, or if they had heard it from any one, they would not have said that Jesus was John. But also if they had understood the opinions under the influence of which Jesus said, “If ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah which is to come,”[11] and had heard what was said, as men having ears, some would not have said that He was Elijah. And if those who said that He was Jeremiah had perceived that the most of the prophets took upon themselves certain features that were symbolical of Him, they would not have said that He was Jeremiah; and in like manner the others would not have said that He was one of the prophets.

[1] Matt. 16:13.

[2] Or, Him.

[3] Matt. 14:2.

[4] Jer. 1:10.

[5] Matt. 16:14.

[6] Matt. 16:17.

[7] Matt. 16:16.

[8] Jer. 22:24.

[9] Jer. 2:13.

[10] John 14:6.

[11] Matt 11:14.

The Answer of Peter

And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,”[1] if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven,[2] revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive “the spirit of the wisdom and revelation” of God.[3] And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc.[4] For a rock[5] is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them,[6] and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

[1] Matt. 16:16.

[2] Phil. 3:20.

[3] Eph. 1:17.

[4] Matt. 16:18.

[5] Or, a Peter.

[6] 1 Cor. 10:4.

The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,”[1] hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”?[1] Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”[2] be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,”[2] etc.; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit,”[3] etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;” but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this “with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord”[4] they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, “Lord Jesus,” and to Him, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”[5] And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved,[6] that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom.[7] And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, “Thou art Peter,” etc., down to the words, “prevail against it.” But what is the “it”? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs,[8] cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock,[9] is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.

[1] Matt. 16:18.

[2] Matt. 16:19.

[3] John 20:22.

[4] 2 Cor. 3:18.

[5] Matt. 16:16.

[6] 1 Cor. 10:4.

[7] 1 Cor. 1:30.

[8] Prov. xxx. l9.

[9] Matt. 7:24.

Every Sin—Every False Doctrine is a “Gate of Hades.”

But when we have understood how each of the sins through which there is a way to Hades[1] is a gate of Hades, we shall apprehend that the soul, which has “spot or wrinkle or any such thing,”[2] and because of wickedness is neither holy nor blameless, is neither a rock upon which Christ builds, nor a church, nor part of a church which Christ builds upon the rock. But if any one wishes to put us[3] to shame in regard to these things because of the great majority of those of the church who are thought to believe, it must be said to him not only “Many are called, but few chosen;”[4] but also that which was said by the Saviour to those who come to Him, as it is recorded in Luke in these words, “Strive to enter in by the narrow door, for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in through the narrow door and shall not be able;”[5] and also that which is written in the Gospel of Matthew thus, “For narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth unto life, and few be they that find it.”[6] Now, if you attend to the saying, “Many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in and shall not be able,”[5] you will understand that this refers to those who boast that they are of the church, but live weakly and contrary to the word. Of those, then, who seek to enter in, those who are not able to enter will not be able to do so, because the gates of Hades prevail against them; but in the case of those against whom the gates of Hades will not prevail, those seeking to enter in will be strong, being able to do all things, in Christ Jesus, who strengtheneth them.[7] And in like manner each one of those who are the authors of any evil opinion has become the architect of a certain gate of Hades; but those who co-operate with the teaching of the architect of such things are servants and stewards, who are the bond-servants of the evil doctrine which goes to build up impiety. And though the gates of Hades are many and almost innumerable, no gate of Hades will prevail against the rock or against the church which Christ builds upon it. Notwithstanding, these gates have a certain power by which they gain the mastery over some who do not resist and strive against them; but they are overcome by others who, because they do not turn aside from Him who said, “I am the door,”[8] have rased from their soul all the gates of Hades. And this also we must know that as the gates of cities have each their own names, in the same way the gates of Hades might be named after the species of sins; so that one gate of Hades is called “fornication,” through which fornicators go, and another “denial,” through which the deniers of God go down into Hades. And likewise already each of the heterodox and of those who have begotten any “knowledge which is falsely so called,”[9] has built a gate of Hades—Marcion one gate, and Basilides another, and Valentinus another.

[1] Or, each of the sins on account of which Christ was about to go to Hades. (Erasmus)

[2] Eph. 5:27.

[3] Or, you.

[4] Matt. 22:14.

[5] Luke 13:24.

[6] Matt. 7:14.

[7] Phil. 4:13.

[8] John 10:9.

[9] 1 Tim. 6:20.

The “Gates of Hades” And the “Gates of Zion” Contrasted

In this place, then, the gates of Hades are spoken of; but in the Psalms the prophet gives thanks saying, “He who lifteth me up from the gates of death that I may declare all thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion.”[1] And from this we learn that it is never possible for any one to be fit to declare the praises of God, unless he has been lifted up from the gates of death, and has come to the gates of Zion. Now the gates of Zion may be conceived as opposed to the gates of death, so that there is one gate of death, dissoluteness, but a gate of Zion, self-control; and so a gate of death, unrighteousness, but a gate of Zion, righteousness, which the prophet shows forth saying, “This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous shall enter into it.”[2] And again there is cowardice, a gate of death, but manly courage, a gate of Zion; and want of prudence, a gate of death, but its opposite, prudence, a gate of Zion. But to all the gates of the “knowledge which is falsely so called”[3] one gate is opposed, the gate of knowledge which is free from falsehood. But consider if, because of the saying, “our wrestling is not against flesh and blood,”[4] etc., you can say that each power and world-ruler of this darkness, and each one of the “spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places”[4] is a gate of Hades and a gate of death. Let, then, the principalities and powers with which our wrestling is, be called gates of Hades, but the “ministering spirits”[5] gates of righteousness. But as in the case of the better things many gates are first spoken of, and after the gates, one, in the passage, “Open to me the gates of righteousness, I will enter into them, and will make full confession to the Lord,” and “this is the gate of the Lord, by it the righteous shall enter;”[6] so also in the case of those gates which are opposed, many are the gates of Hades and death, each a power; but over all these the wicked one himself. And let us take heed in regard to each sin, as if we were descending into some gate of death if we sin; but when we are lifted up from the gates of death let us declare all the praises of the Lord in the gates of the daughter of Zion; as, for example, in one gate of the daughter of Zion—that which is called self-control—we will declare by our self-control the praises of God; and in another which is called righteousness, by righteousness we will declare the praises of God; and, generally, in all things whatsoever of a praiseworthy character with which we are occupied, in these we are at some gate of the daughter of Zion, declaring at each gate some praise of God. But we must make inquiry whether in one of the Twelve[7] it is said, “They hated him that reproveth in the gates, and they loathed the holy word.”[8] Perhaps, then, he who reproves in the gates is of the gates of the daughter of Zion, reproving those who are in sins which are opposed to this gate, even of the gates of Hades or death. But if ye do not so understand the words, “They hated him that reproveth in the gates,” either the expression “in the gates” will be held to be superfluous, or investigate how that which is said can be worthy of the prophetic spirit.

[1] Ps. 9:13, 14.

[2] Ps. 118:20.

[3] 1 Tim. 6:20.

[4] Eph. 6:12.

[5] Heb. 1:14.

[6] Ps. 118:19, 20.

[7] That is, the Minor Prophets.

[8] Amos 5:10.

In What Sense the “Keys” Are Given to Peter, and Every Peter. Limitations of This Power

And after this let us see in what sense it is said to Peter, and to every Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”[1] And, in the first place, I think that the saying, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” is spoken in consistency with the words, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”[2] For he is worthy to receive from the same Word the keys of the kingdom of heaven, who is fortified against the gates of Hades so that they do not prevail against him, receiving, as it were, for a prize, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, because the gates of Hades had no power against him, that he might open for himself the gates that were closed to those who had been conquered by the gates of Hades. And he enters in, as a temperate man, through an opened gate—the gate of temperance—by the key which opens temperance; and, as a righteous man, by another gate—the gate of righteousness—which is opened by the key of righteousness; and so with the rest of the virtues. For I think that for every virtue of knowledge certain mysteries of wisdom corresponding to the species of the virtue are opened up to him who has lived according to virtue; the Saviour giving to those who are not mastered by the gates of Hades as many keys as there are virtues, which open gates equal in number, which correspond to each virtue according to the revelation of the mysteries. And perhaps, also, each virtue is a kingdom of heaven, and all together are a kingdom of the heavens; so that according to this he is already in the kingdom of the heavens who lives according to the virtues, so that according to this the saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,”[3] is to be referred, not to the time, but to deeds and dispositions; for Christ, who is all virtue, has come, and speaks, and on account of this the kingdom of God is within His disciples, and not here or there.[4] But consider how great power the rock has upon which the church is built by Christ, and how great power every one has who says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” so that the judgments of this man abide sure, as if God were judging in him, that in the very act of judging the gates of Hades shall not prevail against him. But when one judges unrighteously, and does not bind upon earth according to the Word of God, nor loose upon earth according to His will, the gates of Hades prevail against him; but, in the case of any one against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, this man judges righteously. Wherefore he has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, opening to those who have been loosed on earth that they may be also loosed in heaven, and free; and shutting to those who by his just judgment have been bound on earth that they also may be bound in heaven, and condemned. But when those who maintain the function of the episcopate make use of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Saviour, teach that things bound by them, that is to say, condemned, are also bound in heaven, and that those which have obtained remission by them are also loosed in heaven, we must say that they speak wholesomely if they have the way of life on account of which it was said to that Peter, “Thou art Peter;”[2] and if they are such that upon them the church is built by Christ, and to them with good reason this could be referred; and the gates of Hades ought not to prevail against him when he wishes to bind and loose. But if he is tightly bound with the cords of his sins,[5] to no purpose does he bind and loose. And perhaps you can say that in the heavens which are in the wise man—that, is the virtues,—the bad man is bound; and again in these the virtuous man is loosed, and has received an indemnity for the sins which he committed before his virtue. But, as the man, who has not the cords of sins nor iniquities compared to a “long rope or to the strap of the yoke of a heifer,”[6] not even God could bind, in like manner, no Peter, whoever he may be; and if any one who is not a Peter, and does not possess the things here spoken of, imagines as a Peter that he will so bind on earth that the things bound are bound in heaven, and will so loose on earth that the things loosed are loosed in heaven, he is puffed up, not understanding the meaning of the Scriptures, and, being puffed up, has fallen into the ruin of the devil.[7]

[1] Matt. 16:19.

[2] Matt. 16:18.

[3] Matt. 3:2; 4:17.

[4] Luke 17:21.

[5] Prov. 5:22.

[6] Isa. 5:18.

[7] 1 Tim. 3:10.

Relation of the Former Commission Given by Jesus to the Disciples, to His Present Injunction of Silence. Belief and Knowledge Contrasted

“Then enjoined He His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ.”[1] It is written above that Jesus sent forth these twelve saying unto them, “Go not into any way of the Gentiles,”[2] and the other words which are recorded to have been said to them when He sent them to the apostleship. Did He then wish them when they were already discharging the function of Apostles to proclaim that He was the Christ? For, if He wished it, it is fitting to inquire why He now at all commands the disciples that they should not say that He was the Christ? Or if He did not wish it, how can the things concerning the apostleship be safely maintained? And these things also one may inquire at this place,—whether, when He sent away the Twelve, He did not send them away with the understanding that He was the Christ? But if the Twelve had such understanding, manifestly Peter had it also; how, then, is he now pronounced blessed? For the expression here plainly indicates that now for the first time Peter confessed that Christ was the Son of the living God. Matthew then, according to some of the manuscripts, has written, “Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ,” but[1] Mark says, “He charged them that they should tell no man of Him;”[3] and Luke, “He charged them and commanded them to tell this to no man.”[4] But what is the “this”? Was it that also according to him, Peter answered and said to the question, “Who say ye that I am.”—“The Christ, the Son of the living God?”[5] You must know, however, that some manuscripts of the Gospel according to Matthew have, “He charged.”[1] The difficulty thus started seems to me a very real difficulty; but let a solution which cannot be impugned be sought out, and let the finder of it bring it forward before all, if it be more credible than that which shall be advanced by us as a fairly temperate view.[6] Consider, then, if you can say, that the belief that Jesus is the Christ is inferior to the knowledge of that which is believed. And perhaps also there is a difference in the knowledge of Jesus as the Christ, as every one who knows does not know Him alike. From the words in John, “If ye abide in My word, ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,”[7] it is plain that belief without knowledge is inferior to knowing; but that there is a difference in the knowledge of Jesus as the Christ, as all who know Him do not know Him equally, is a fact self-evident to any one who gives even a very little consideration to the matter. For who would not acknowledge, for example, that Timothy, though he knew that Jesus was the Christ, had not been enlightened to such an extent in the knowledge of Him as the Apostle had been enlightened? And who would not also admit this—that though many, speaking the truth, say about God, “He has given to me a true knowledge of things that are,” yet they will not say this with equal insight and apprehension of the things known, nor as knowing the same number of things? But it is not only in respect of the difference of knowing that those who know do not know alike, but also according to that which is the source of the knowledge; so that according to this he who knows the Son by the revelation of the Father,[8] as Peter is testified to have known, has the highest beatitude. Now, if these views of ours are sound, you will consider whether the Twelve formerly believed but did not know; but, after believing, they gained also the rudiments of knowledge and knew a few things about Him; and afterwards they continued to advance in knowledge so that they were able to receive the knowledge from the Father who reveals the Son; in which position Peter was, when he was pronounced blessed; for also he is pronounced blessed not merely because he said, “Thou art the Christ,” but with the addition, “the Son of the living God.” Accordingly Mark and Luke who have recorded that Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ,” but have not given the addition found in Matthew, have not recorded that he was declared blessed for what had been said, nor the blessing which followed the declaration of blessedness, “Thou art Peter,”[9] etc.

[1] Matt. 16:20.

[2] Matt. 10:5.

[3] Mark 8:30.

[4] Luke 9:21.

[5] Matt. 16:15, 16.

[6] Or, which he may regard as mediocre.

[7] John 8:31, 32.

[8] Matt. 16:16.

[9] Matt. 16:18.

Gradual Growth in Knowledge of the Disciples

But now we must first investigate the fact that they were declaring other things about Him as being great and wonderful, but did not yet proclaim that He was the Christ, lest the Saviour may not appear to take away from them the authority to announce that He was the Christ, which He had formerly bestowed upon them. And perhaps some one will support an argument of this kind, saying that on their introduction into the school of Christ the Jews were taught by the disciples glorious things about Jesus, so that in due season there might be built upon these as a foundation the things about Jesus being the Christ; and perhaps many of the things which were said to them were said to all who virtually believed; for not to the Apostles alone did the saying apply, “Before governors and kings also shall ye be brought for My sake for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles;”[1] and perhaps also not to the Apostles absolutely, but to all who were about to believe the word, “And brother shall deliver up brother to death,”[2] etc.; but, “Whosoever shall confess Me,”[3] etc., is said not specially to the Apostles, but also to all believers. According to this, then, through that which was said to the Apostles an outline was given beforehand of the teaching which would afterwards come to be of service both to them and to every teacher.

[1] Matt. 10:18.

[2] Matt. 10:21.

[3] Matt. 10:32.

Reasons for That Gradual Knowledge

And likewise he who holds that the fact that He was Christ had been formerly proclaimed by the Apostles when they heard the saying, “What I tell you in the darkness, speak ye in the light, and what ye hear in the ear proclaim on the housetops,”[1] will say, that He wished first to give catechetical instruction as it were to those of the Apostles who were to hear the name of Christ, then to permit this, so to speak, to be digested in the minds of the hearers, that, after there had been a period of silence in the proclamation of something of this kind about Him, at a more seasonable time there might be built up upon the former rudiments “Christ Jesus crucified and raised from the dead,” which at the beginning not even the Apostles knew; for it is written in the passage now under consideration, “From that time began Jesus to show unto His disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem”[2] and suffer this and that. But if now, for the first time, the Apostles learn from Jesus the things that were about to happen unto Him, namely, that the elders will plot against Him, and that He will be killed, and that after these things, on the third day, He will rise from the dead,—what necessity is there for supposing that those who had been taught by the Apostles concerning Jesus knew them before, or that although Christ was announced to them He was announced to them by way of an introduction which did not clearly elucidate the things concerning Him? For our Saviour wished, when He enjoined the disciples to tell no man that He was the Christ, to reserve the more perfect teaching about Him to a more fitting time, when to those who had seen Him crucified, the disciples who had seen Him crucified and risen could testify the things relating to His resurrection. For if the Apostles, who were always with Him and had seen all the wonderful things which He did, and who bore testimony to His words that they were words of eternal life,[3] were offended on the night on which He was betrayed,—what do you suppose would have been the feelings of those who had formerly learned that He was the Christ? To spare them, I think, He gave this command.

[1] Matt. 10:27.

[2] Matt. 16:21.

[3] John 6:68.

Jesus Was at First Proclaimed by the Twelve as a Worker and a Teacher Only

But he who holds that the things spoken to the Twelve refer to the times subsequent to this, and that the Apostles had not as yet announced to their hearers that He was the Christ, will say that He wished the conception of the Christ which was involved in the name of Jesus to be reserved for that preaching which was more perfect, and which brought salvation, such as Paul knew of when he said to the Corinthians, “I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.”[1] Wherefore, formerly they proclaimed Jesus as the doer of certain things, and the teacher of certain things; but now when Peter confesses that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God, as He did not wish it to be proclaimed already that He was the Christ, in order that He might be proclaimed at a more suitable time, and that as crucified, He commands His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ. And that this was His meaning, when He forbade proclamation to be made that He was the Christ, is in a measure established by the words, “From that time began Jesus to show unto His disciples how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders,” and what is annexed;[2] for then, at the fitting time, He proclaims, so to speak, to the disciples who knew that Jesus was Christ, the Son of the living God, the Father having revealed it to them, that instead of believing in Jesus Christ who had been crucified, they were to believe in Jesus Christ who was about to be crucified. But also, instead of believing in Christ Jesus and Him risen from the dead, He teaches them to believe in Christ Jesus and Him about to be risen from the dead. But since “having put off from Himself the principalities and the powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over in the cross,”[3] if any one is ashamed of the cross of Christ, he is ashamed of the dispensation on account of which these powers were triumphed over; and it is fitting that he, who both believes and knows these things, should glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,[4] through which, when Christ was crucified, the principalities—among which, I think, was also the prince of this world—were made a show of and triumphed over before the believing world. Wherefore, when His suffering was at hand he said, “Now the prince of this world has been judged,”[5] and, “Now shall the prince of this world be cast out,” and, “I, if I be lifted from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself;”[6] as he no longer had sufficient power to prevent those going to Jesus who were being drawn by Him.

[1] 1 Cor. 2:2.

[2] Matt. 16:21.

[3] Col. 2:15.

[4] Gal. 6:14.

[5] John 16:11.

[6] John 12:31, 32.

Importance of the Proclamation of Jesus as the Crucified

It is necessary, therefore, to the proclamation of Jesus as Christ, that He should be proclaimed as crucified; and the proclamation that Jesus was the Christ does not seem to me so defective when any of His other miracles is passed over in silence, as when the fact of His crucifixion is passed over. Wherefore, reserving the more perfect proclamation of the things concerning Him by the Apostles, He commanded His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ; and He prepared them to say that He was the Christ crucified and risen from the dead, “when He began” not only to say, nor even to advance to the point of teaching merely, but “to show”[1] to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, etc.; for attend to the expression “show”; because just as sensible things are said to be shown so the things spoken by Him to His disciples are said to be shown by Jesus. And I do not think that each of the things seen was shown to those who saw Him suffering many things in body from the elders of the people, with such clearness as was the rational demonstration about Him to the disciples.

[1] Matt. 16:21.

Why Jesus Had to Go to Jerusalem

“Then began He to show;”[1] and probably afterwards when they were able to receive it He shewed more clearly, no longer beginning to show as to those who were learning the introduction, but already also advancing in the showing; and if it is reasonable to conceive that Jesus altogether completed what He began, then, some time, He altogether completed that which He began to show to His disciples about the necessity of His suffering the things which are written. For, when any one apprehends from the Word the perfect knowledge of these things, then it must be said that, from a rational exhibition (the mind seeing the things which are shown,) the exhibition becomes complete for him who has the will and the power to contemplate these things, and does contemplate them. But since “it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem,”[2]—a perishing which corresponds to the words, “He that loseth his life for My sake shall find it,”[3]—on this account it was necessary for Him to go to Jerusalem, that having suffered many things in that Jerusalem, He might make “the first-fruits”[4] of the resurrection from the dead in the Jerusalem above, doing away with and breaking up the city upon the earth with all the worship which was maintained in it. For so long as Christ “had not been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of them that are asleep,”[4] and those who become conformed to His death and resurrection had not yet been raised along with Him, the city of God was sought for below, and the temple, and the purifications, and the rest; but when this took place, no longer were the things below sought for, but the things above; and, in order that these might be set up, it was necessary that He should go unto the Jerusalem below, and there suffer many things from the elders in it, and the chief priests and scribes of the people, in order that He might be glorified by the heavenly elders who could receive his bounties, and by diviner high-priests who are ordained under the one High-Priest, and that He might be glorified by the scribes of the people who are occupied with letters “not written with ink”[5] but made clear by the Spirit of the living God, and might be killed in the Jerusalem below, and having risen from the dead might reign in Mount Zion, and the city of the living God—the heavenly Jerusalem.[6] But on the third day He rose from the dead,[7] in order that having delivered them from the wicked one, and his son,[8] in whom was falsehood and unrighteousness and war and everything opposed to that which Christ is, and also from the profane spirit who transforms himself into the Holy Spirit, He might gain for those who had been delivered the right to be baptized in spirit and soul and body, into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which represent the three days eternally present at the same time to those who by means of them are sons of light.

[1] Matt. 16:21.

[2] Luke 13:33.

[3] Matt. 10:39.

[4] 1 Cor. 15:20.

[5] 2 Cor. 3:3.

[6] Heb. 12:22.

[7] Or (putting a comma after Jerusalem), but that on the third day He might rise.

[8] See xi. c. 6, p. 434, note 2.

The Rebuke of Peter and the Answer of Jesus

“And Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, God be propitious to Thee. Lord, this shall never be unto thee.”[1] To whom He said, “Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto Me; for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men.”[2] Since Jesus had begun to show unto His disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things, Peter up to this point learned the beginnings of those things which were shown.[3] But since he thought that the sufferings were unworthy of Christ the Son of the living God, and below the dignity of the Father who had revealed to him so great things about Christ,—for the things that concerned His coming suffering had not been revealed to him,—on this account he took Him, and as one forgetful of the honour due to the Christ, and that the Son of the living God neither does nor says anything worthy of rebuke, he began to rebuke Him; and as to one who needed propitiation,—for he did not yet know that “God had set Him forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood,”[4] he said, “God be propitious to thee, O Lord.”[1] Approving his purpose, indeed, but rebuking his ignorance, because of the purpose being right, He says to him, “Get thee behind Me,”[2] as to one who, by reason of the things of which he was ignorant and spake not rightly, had abandoned the following of Jesus; but because of his ignorance, as to one who had something antagonistic to the things of God, He said, “Satan,” which in the Hebrew means “adversary.” But, if Peter had not spoken from ignorance, nor rebuked the Son of the living God, saying unto Him, “God be propitious to thee, Lord, this shall never be unto Thee,” Christ would not have said to him, “Get thee behind Me,” as to one who had given up being behind Him and following Him; nor would He have said as to one who had spoken things adverse to what He had said, “Satan.” But now Satan prevailed over him who had followed Jesus and was going behind Him, to turn aside from following Him and from being behind the Son of God, and to make him, by reason of the words which he spoke in ignorance, worthy of being called “Satan” and a stumbling-block to the Son of God, and “as not minding the things of God but the things of men.” But that Peter was formerly behind the Son of God, before he committed this sin, is manifest from the words, “Come ye behind Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”[5]

[1] Matt. 16:22.

[2] Matt. 16:23.

[3] These three sentences are supplied from the old Latin version, as at this point there is a hiatus in the mss.

[4] Rom. 3:25.

[5] Matt. 4:19.

Importance of the Expressions “Behind” And “Turned.”

But you will compare together His saying to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan,”[1] with that said to the devil (who said to Him, “All these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me”),[2] “get thee hence,”[3] without the addition, “behind Me;” for to be behind Jesus is a good thing. Wherefore it was said, “Come ye behind Me and I will make you fishers of men.”[4] And to the same effect is the saying, “He that doth not take his cross and follow behind Me is not worthy of Me.”[5] And as a general principle observe the expression “behind”; because it is a good thing when any one goes behind the Lord God and is behind the Christ; but it is the opposite when any one casts the words of God behind him, or when he transgresses the commandment which says, “Do not walk behind thy lusts.”[6] And Elijah also, in the third Book of Kings, says to the people, “How long halt ye on both your knees? If God is the Lord, go behind Him, but if Baal is the Lord, go behind him.”[7] And Jesus says this to Peter when He “turned,” and He does so by way of conferring a favour. And if therefore you will collect more illustrations of the “having turned,” and especially those which are ascribed to Jesus, and compare them with one another, you would find that the expression is not superfluous. But it is sufficient at present to bring forward this from the Gospel according to John, “Jesus turned and beheld them”—clearly, Peter and Andrew—“following, and saith unto them, What seek ye?”[8] For observe that, when He “turned,” it is for the advantage of those to whom He turned.

[1] Matt. 16:23.

[2] Matt. 4:9.

[3] Matt. 4:10.

[4] Matt. 4:19.

[5] Matt. 10:38.

[6] Ecclus. 18:30.

[7] 1 Kings 18:21.

[8] John 1:38.

Peter as a Stumbling-Block to Jesus

Next we must inquire how He said to Peter, “Thou art a stumbling-block unto Me,”[1] especially when David says, “Great peace have they that love Thy law, and there is no stumbling-block to them.”[2] For some one will say, if this is said in the prophet, because of the steadfastness of those who have love, and are incapable of being offended, for “love beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things, love never faileth,”[3] how did the Lord Himself, “who upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all that be bowed down,”[4] say to Peter, “Thou art a stumbling-block unto Me”? But it must be said that not only the Saviour, but also he who is perfected in love, cannot be offended. But, so far as it depends on himself, he who says or does such things is a stumbling-block even to him who will not be offended; unless perhaps Jesus calls the disciple who sinned a stumbling-block even to Himself, as much more than Paul He would have said from love, “Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I burn not?”[5] In harmony with which we may put, “Who is made to stumble, and I am not made to stumble?” But if Peter, at that time because of the saying, “God be propitious to Thee, Lord, this shall not be unto Thee,”[6] was called a stumbling-block by Jesus, as not minding the things of God in what he said but the things of men, what is to be said about all those who profess to be made disciples of Jesus, but do not mind the things of God, and do not look to things unseen and eternal, but mind the things of man, and look to things seen and temporal,[7] but that such still more would be stigmatized by Jesus as a stumbling-block to Him, and because stumbling-blocks to Him, as stumbling-blocks to His brethren also? As in regard to them He says, “I was thirsty and ye gave Me no drink,”[8] etc., so also He might say, “When I was running ye caused Me to stumble.” Let us not therefore suppose that it is a trivial sin to mind the things of men, since we ought in everything to mind the things of God. And it will be appropriate also to say this to every one that has fallen away from the doctrines of God and the words of the church and a true mind; as, for example, to him who minds as true the teaching of Basilides, or Valentinus, or Marcion, or any one of those who teach the things of men as the things of God.

[1] Matt. 16:23.

[2] Ps. 119:165.

[3] 1 Cor. 13:7, 8.

[4] Ps. 145:14.

[5] 2 Cor. 11:29.

[6] Matt. 16:22.

[7] 2 Cor. 4:18.

[8] Matt. 25:42.

Self-Denial and Cross-Bearing

“Then Jesus said to His disciples, If any man wills to follow after Me,” etc.[1] He shows by these words that, to will to come after Jesus and to follow Him, springs from no ordinary manly courage, and that no one who has not denied himself can come after Jesus. And the man denies himself who wipes out by a striking revolution his own former life which had been spent in wickedness; as by way of illustration he who was once licentious denies his licentious self, having become self-controlled even abidingly. But it is probable that some one may put the objection, whether as he denied himself so he also confesses himself, when he denied himself, the unjust, and confesses himself, the righteous one. But, if Christ is righteousness, he who has received righteousness confesses not himself but Christ; so also he who has found wisdom, by the very possession of wisdom, confesses Christ. And such a one indeed as, “with the heart believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth maketh confession unto salvation,”[2] and bears testimony to the works of Christ, as making confession by all these things of Christ before men, will be confessed by Him before His Father in heaven.[3] So also he who has not denied himself but denied the Christ will experience the saying, “I also will deny him.”[4] On this account let every thought and every purpose and every word and every action become a denial of ourselves, but a testimony about Christ and in Christ; for I am persuaded that every action of the perfect man is a testimony to Christ Jesus, and that abstinence from every sin is a denial of self, leading him after Christ. And such an one is crucified with Christ, and taking up his own cross follows Him who for our sakes bears His own cross, according to that which is said in John: “They took Jesus therefore and put it on Him,” etc., down to the words, “Where they crucified Him.”[5] But the Jesus according to John, so to speak, bears the cross for Himself, and bearing it went out; but the Jesus according to Matthew and Mark and Luke, does not bear it for Himself, for Simon of Cyrene bears it.[6] And perhaps this man refers to us, who because of Jesus take up the cross of Jesus, but Jesus Himself takes it upon Himself; for there are, as it were, two conceptions of the cross, the one which Simon of Cyrene bears, and the other which Jesus Himself bears for Himself.

[1] Matt. 16:24.

[2] Rom. 10:10.

[3] Matt. 10:32.

[4] Matt. 10:33.

[5] John 19:17, 18.

[6] Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26.

Reference to the Saying of Paul About Crucifixion With Christ

Moreover in regard to the saying, “Let him deny himself,”[1] the following saying of Paul who denied himself seems appropriate, “Yet I live, and yet no longer I but Christ liveth in me;”[2] for the expression, “I live, yet no longer I,” was the voice of one denying himself, as of one who had laid aside his own life and taken on himself the Christ, in order that He might live in him as Righteousness, and as Wisdom, and as Sanctification, and as our Peace,[3] and as the Power of God, who worketh all things in him. But further also, attend to this, that while there are many forms of dying, the Son of God was crucified, being hanged on a tree, in order that all who die unto sin may die to it, in no other way than by the way of the cross. Wherefore they will say, “I have been crucified with Christ,” and, “Far be it from me to glory save in the cross of the Lord, through which the world has been crucified unto me and I unto the world.”[4] For perhaps also each of those who have been crucified with Christ puts off from himself the principalities and the powers, and makes a show of them and triumphs over them in the cross;[5] or rather, Christ does these things in them.

[1] Matt. 16:24.

[2] Gal. 2:20.

[3] 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 2:14.

[4] Gal. 2:20; 6:14.

[5] Col. 2:15.

The Less of Life; And the Saving of It

“For whosoever would save his own life shall lose it.”[1] The first expression is ambiguous; for it may be understood in one way thus. If any one as being a lover of life, and thinking that the present life is good, tends carefully his own life with a view to living in the flesh, being afraid to die, as through death going to lose it, this man, by the very willing to save in this way his own life will lose it, placing it outside of the borders of blessedness. But if any one despising the present life because of my word, which has persuaded him to strive in regard to eternal life even unto death for truth, loses his own life, surrendering it for the sake of piety to that which is commonly called death, this man, as for my sake he has lost his life, will save it rather, and keep it in possession. And according to a second way we might interpret the saying as follows. If any one, who has grasped what salvation really is, wishes to procure the salvation of his own life, let this man having taken farewell of this life, and denied himself and taken up his own cross, and following me, lose his own life to the world; for having lost it for my sake and for the sake of all my teaching, he will gain the end of loss of this kind—salvation.

[1] Matt. 16:25.

Life Lost to the World is Saved

But at the same time also observe that at the beginning it is said, “Whosoever wills,” but afterwards, “Whoso shall lose.”[1] If we then wish it to be saved let us lose it to the world, as those who have been crucified with Christ and have for our glorying that which is in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world is to be crucified unto us and we unto the world,[2] that we may gain our end, even the salvation of our lives, which begins from the time when we lose it for the sake of the word. But if we think that the salvation of our life is a blessed thing, with reference to the salvation which is in God and the blessednesses with Him, then any loss of life ought to be a good thing, and, for the sake of Christ must prove to be the prelude to the blessed salvation. It seems to me, therefore, following the analogy of self-denial, according to what has been said, that each ought to lose his own life. Let each one therefore lose his own sinning life, that having lost that which is sinful, he may receive that which is saved by right actions; but a man will in no way be profited if he shall gain the whole world. Now he gains the world, I think, to whom the world is not crucified; and to whom the world is not crucified, to that man shall be the loss of his own life. But when two things are put before us, either by gaining one’s life to forfeit the world, or by gaining the world to forfeit one’s life, much more desirable is the choice, that we should forfeit the world and gain our life by losing it on account of Christ.

[1] Matt. 16:25.

[2] Gal. 6:14.

The Exchange for One’s Life

But the saying, “What shall a man give in exchange for his own life,”[1] if spoken by way of interrogation, will seem to be able to indicate that an exchange for his own life is given by the man who after his sins has given up his whole substance, that his property may feed the poor, as if he were going by that to obtain salvation; but, if spoken affirmatively, I think, to indicate that there is not anything in man by the giving of which in exchange for his own life which has been overcome by death, he will ransom it out of its hand. A man, therefore, could not give anything as an exchange for his own life, but God gave an exchange for the life of us all, “the precious blood of Christ Jesus,”[2] according as “we were bought with a price,”[3] “having been redeemed, not with corruptible things as silver or gold, but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,” even of Christ.[4] And in Isaiah it is said to Israel, “I gave Ethiopia in exchange for thee, and Egypt and Syene for thee; from what time thou hast become honourable before Me thou wast glorified.”[5] For the exchange, for example, of the first-born of Israel was the first-born of the Egyptians, and the exchange for Israel was the Egyptians who died in the last plagues that came upon Egypt, and in the drowning which took place after the plagues. But, from these things, let him who is able inquire whether the exchange of the true Israel given by God, “who redeems Israel from all his transgressions,”[6] is the true Ethiopia, and, so to speak, spiritual Egypt, and Syene of Egypt; and to inquire with more boldness, perhaps Syene is the exchange for Jerusalem, and Egypt for Judæa, and Ethiopia for those who fear, who are different from Israel, and the house of Levi, and the house of Aaron.

[1] Matt. 16:26.

[2] 1 Pet. 1:19.

[3] 1 Cor. 6:20.

[4] 1 Pet. 1:18, 19.

[5] Isa. 43:3, 4.

[6] Ps. 130:8.

The Coming of the Son of Man in Glory

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His own Father with His angels.”[1] Now, indeed, the Son of man has not come in His glory; “for we saw Him, and He had no form nor beauty; but His form was dishonoured and defective compared with the sons of men; He was a man in affliction and toil, and acquainted with the enduring of sickness, because His face was turned away, He was dishonoured and not esteemed.”[2] And it was necessary that He should come in such form that He might bear our sins[3] and suffer pain for us; for it did not become Him in glory to bear our sins and suffer pain for us. But He also comes in glory, having prepared[4] the disciples through that epiphany of His which has no form nor beauty; and, having become as they that they might become as He, “conformed to the image of His glory,”[5] since He formerly became conformed to “the body of our humiliation,”[6] when He “emptied Himself and took upon Him the form of a servant,”[7] He is restored to the image of God and also makes them conformed unto it.

[1] Matt. 16:27.

[2] Isa. 53:2, 3.

[3] Isa. 53:4.

[4] Reading προευτρεπισός as the Vetus Inter.

[5] Rom. 8:29.

[6] Phil. 3:21.

[7] Phil. 2:7.

The Word Appears in Different Forms; The Time of His Coming in Glory

But if you will understand the differences of the Word which by “the foolishness of preaching”[1] is proclaimed to those who believe, and spoken in wisdom to them that are perfect, you will see in what way the Word has the form of a slave to those who are learning the rudiments, so that they say, “We saw Him and He had no form or beauty.”[2] But to the perfect He comes “in the glory of His own Father,”[3] who might say, “and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”[4] For indeed to the perfect appears the glory of the Word, and the only-begotten of God His Father, and the fulness of grace and likewise of truth, which that man cannot perceive who requires the “foolishness of the preaching,” in order to believe. But “the Son of man shall come in the glory of His own Father” not alone, but “with His own angels.” And if you can conceive of all those who are fellow-helpers in the glory of the Word, and in the revelation of the Wisdom which is Christ, coming along with Him, you will see in what way the Son of man comes in the glory of His own Father with His own angels. And consider whether you can in this connection say that the prophets who formerly suffered in virtue of their word having “no form or beauty” had an analogous position to the Word who had “no form or beauty.” And, as the Son of man comes in the glory of His own Father, so the angels, who are the words in the prophets, are present with Him preserving the measure of their own glory. But when the Word comes in such form with His own angels, He will give to each a part of His own glory and of the brightness of His own angels, according to the action of each. But we say these things not rejecting even the second coming of the Son of God understood in its simpler form. But when shall these things happen? Shall it be when that apostolic oracle is fulfilled which says, “For we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad?”[5] But if He will render to each according to his deed, not the good deed only, nor the evil apart from the good, it is manifest that He will render to each according to every evil, and according to every good, deed. But I suppose—in this also following the Apostle, but comparing also the sayings of Ezekiel, in which the sins of him who is a perfect convert are wiped out, and the former uprightness of him who has utterly fallen away is not held of account—that in the case of him who is perfected, and has altogether laid aside wickedness, the sins are wiped out, but that, in the case of him who has altogether revolted from piety, if anything good was formerly done by him, it is not taken into account.[6] But to us, who occupy a middle position between the perfect man and the apostate, when we stand before the judgment-seat of Christ,[5] there is rendered what we have done, whether good or bad; for we have not been so pure that our evil deeds are not at all imputed unto us, nor have we fallen away to such an extent that our better actions are forgotten.

[1] 1 Cor. 1:21.

[2] Isa. 53:2.

[3] Matt. 16:27.

[4] John 1:14.

[5] 2 Cor. 5:10.

[6] Ezek. 18:21–24.

The Simpler Interpretation of the Promise About Not Tasting of Death

“Verily I say unto you there be some of them that stand here that shall not taste of death.”[1] Some refer these things to the going up—six days after, or, as Luke says,[2] eight days—of the three disciples into the high mountain with Jesus apart; and those who adopt this interpretation say that Peter and the remaining two did not taste of death before they saw the Son of man coming in His own kingdom and in His own glory. For when they saw Jesus transfigured before them so that “His face shone,” etc., “they saw the kingdom of God coming with power.”[3] For even as some spear-bearers stand around a king, so Moses and Elijah appeared to those who had gone up into the mountains, talking with Jesus. But it is worth while considering whether the sitting on the right hand and on the left hand of the Saviour in His kingdom refers to them, so that the words, “But for whom it is prepared,” were[4] spoken because of them. Now this interpretation about the three Apostles not tasting of death until they have seen Jesus transfigured, is adapted to those who are designated by Peter as “new-born babes longing for the reasonable milk which is without guile,”[5] to whom Paul says, “I have fed you with milk, not with meat,”[6] etc. Now, too, every interpretation of a text which is able to build up those who cannot receive greater truths might reasonably be called milk, flowing from the holy ground of the Scriptures, which flows with milk and honey. But he who has been weaned, like Isaac,[7] worthy of the good cheer and reception which Abraham gave at the weaning of his son, would seek here and in every Scripture food which is different, I think, from that which is meat, indeed, but is not solid food, and from what are figuratively called herbs, which are food to one who has been weaned and is not yet strong but weak, according to the saying, “He that is weak eateth herbs.”[8] In like manner also he who has been weaned, like Samuel, and dedicated by his mother to God,[9]—she was Hannah, which is, by interpretation, grace,—would be also a son of grace, seeking, like one nurtured in the temple, flesh of God, the holy food of those who are at once perfect and priests.

[1] Matt. 16:28.

[2] Luke 9:28.

[3] Mark 9:1.

[4] Matt. 20:23.

[5] 1 Pet. 2:2.

[6] 1 Cor. 3:2.

[7] Gen. 21:8.

[8] Rom. 14:2.

[9] 1 Sam. 1:23, 24.

Standing by the Saviour

The reflections in regard to the passage before us that occur to us at the present time are these: Some were standing where Jesus was, having the footsteps of the soul firmly planted with Jesus, and the standing of their feet was akin to the standing of which Moses said in the passage, “And I stood on the mountain forty days and forty nights,”[1] who was deemed worthy to have it said to him by God who asked him to stand by Him, “But stand thou here with Me.”[2] Those who really stand by Jesus—that is, by the Word of God—do not all stand equally; for among those who stand by Jesus are differences from each other. Wherefore, not all who stand by the Saviour, but some of them as standing better, do not taste of death until they shall have seen the Word who dwelt with men, and on that account called Son of man, coming in His own kingdom; for Jesus does not always come in His own kingdom when He comes, since to the newly initiated He is such that they might say, beholding the Word Himself not glorious nor great, but inferior to many among them, “We saw Him, and He had no form or beauty, but His form was dishonoured, defective compared with all the sons of men.”[3] And these things will be said by those who beheld His glory in connection with their own former times, when at first the Word as understood in the synagogue had no form nor beauty to them. To the Word, therefore, who has assumed most manifestly the power above all words, there belongs a royal dignity which is visible to some of those who stand by Jesus, when they have been able to follow Him as He goes before them and ascends to the lofty mountain of His own manifestation. And of this honour some of those who stand by Jesus are deemed worthy if they be either a Peter against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, or the sons of thunder,[4] and are begotten of the mighty voice of God who thunders and cries aloud from heaven great things to those who have ears and are wise. Such at least do not taste death.

[1] Deut. 10:10.

[2] Deut. 5:31.

[3] Isa. 53:2, 3.

[4] Mark 3:17.

Interpretation of “Tasting of Death.”

But we must seek to understand what is meant by “tasting of death.” And He is life who says, “I am the life,”[1] and this life assuredly has been hidden with Christ in God; and. “when Christ our life shall be manifested, then along with Him”[2] shall be manifested those who are worthy of being manifested with Him in glory. But the enemy of this life, who is also the last enemy of all His enemies that shall be destroyed, is death,[3] of which the soul that sinneth dies, having the opposite disposition to that which takes place in the soul that lives uprightly, and in consequence of living uprightly lives. And when it is said in the law, “I have placed life before thy face,”[4] the Scripture says this about Him who said, “I am the Life,” and about His enemy, death; the one or other of which each of us by his deeds is always choosing. And when we sin with life before our face, the curse is fulfilled against us which says, “And thy life shall be hanging up before thee,” etc., down to the words, “and for the sights of thine eyes which thou shalt see.”[5] As, therefore, the Life is also the living bread which came down from heaven and gave life to the world,[6] so His enemy death is dead bread. Now every rational soul is fed either on living bread or dead bread, by the opinions good or bad which it receives. As then in the case of more common foods it is the practice at one time only to taste them, and at another to eat of them more largely; so also, in the case of these loaves, one eats insufficiently only tasting them, but another is satiated,—he that is good or is on the way to being good with the living bread which came down from heaven, but he that is wicked with the dead bread, which is death; and some perhaps sparingly, and sinning a little, only taste of death; but those who have attained to virtue do not even taste of it, but are always fed on the living bread. It naturally followed then in the case of Peter, against whom the gates of Hades will not prevail, that he did not taste of death, since any one tastes of death and eats death at the time when the gates of Hades prevail against him; and one eats or tastes of death in proportion as the gates of Hades to a greater or less extent, more or fewer in number, prevail against him. But also for the sons of thunder who were begotten of thunder, which is a heavenly thing, it was impossible to taste of death, which is extremely far removed from thunder, their mother. But these things the Word prophesies to those who shall be perfected, and who by standing with the Word advanced so far that they did not taste of death, until they saw the manifestation and the glory and the kingdom and the excellency of the Word of God in virtue of which He excels every word, which by an appearance of truth draws away and drags about those who are not able to break through the bonds of distraction, and go up to the height of the excellency of the Word of truth.

[1] John 14:6.

[2] Col. 3:3, 4.

[3] 1 Cor. 15:26.

[4] Deut. 30:15.

[5] Deut. 28:66, 67.

[6] John 6:33, 51.

Meaning of “Until.” No Limitation of Promise

But since some one may think that the promise of the Saviour prescribes a limit of time to their not tasting of death, namely, that they will not taste of death “until”[1] they see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom, but after this will taste of it, let us show that according to the scriptural usage the word “until” signifies that the time concerning the thing signified is pressing, but is not so defined that after the “until,” that which is contrary to the thing signified should at all take place. Now, the Saviour says to the eleven disciples when He rose from the dead, this among other things, “Lo, I am with you all the days, even until the consummation of the age.”[2] When He said this, did He promise that He was going to be with them until the consummation of the age, but that after the consummation of the age, when another age was at hand, which is “called the age to come,” He would be no longer with them?—so that according to this, the condition of the disciples would be better before the consummation of the age than after the consummation of the age? But I do not think that any one will dare to say, that after the consummation of the age the Son of God will be no longer with the disciples, because the expression declares that He will be with them for so long, until the consummation of the age is at hand; for it is clear that the matter under inquiry was, whether the Son of God was forthwith going to be with His disciples before the age to come and the hoped for promises of God which were given as a recompense. But there might have been a question—it being granted that He would be with them—whether sometimes He was present with them, and sometimes not present. Wherefore setting us free from the suspicion that might have arisen from doubt, He declared that now and even all the days He would be with the disciples, and that He would not leave those who had become His disciples until the consummation of the age; (because He said “all the days” He did not deny that by night, when the sun set, He would be present with them.) But if such is the force of the words, “until the consummation of the age,” plainly we shall not be compelled to admit that those who see the Son of man coming in His own kingdom shall taste of death, after being deemed worthy of beholding Him in such guise. But as in the case of the passage we brought forward, the urgent necessity was to teach us that “until the consummation of the age” He would not leave us but be with us all the days; so also in this case I think that it is clear to those who know how to look at the logical coherence of things that He who has seen once for all “the Son of man coming in His own kingdom,” and seen Him “in His own glory,” and seen “the kingdom of God come with power,” could not possibly taste of death after the contemplation of things so good and great. But apart from the word of the promise of Jesus, we have conjectured not without reason that we would taste of death, so long as we were not yet held worthy to see “the kingdom of God come with power,” and “the Son of man coming in His own glory and in His own kingdom.”

[1] Matt. 16:28.

[2] Matt. 28:20.

Scriptural References to Death

But since here it is written in the three Evangelists, “They shall not taste of death,”[1] but in other writers different things are written concerning death, it may not be out of place to bring forward and examine these passages along with the “taste.” In the Psalms, then, it is said, “What man is he that shall live and not see death?”[2] And again, in another place, “Let death come upon them and let them go down into Hades alive;”[3] but in one of the prophets, “Death becoming mighty has swallowed them up;”[4] and in the Apocalypse, “Death and Hades follow some.”[5] Now in these passages it appears to me that it is one thing to taste of death, but another thing to see death, and another thing for it to come upon some, and that a fourth thing, different from the aforesaid, is signified by the words, “Death becoming mighty has swallowed them up,” and a fifth thing, different from these, by the words, Death and Hades follow them.” And if you were to collect them, you would perhaps find also other differences than those which we have mentioned, by a comparison of which with one another and right investigation, you would find the things signified in each place. But here I inquire whether it is a less evil to see death, but a greater evil than seeing to taste of it, but still worse than this that death should follow any one, and not only follow him, but also now come upon him and seize him whom it formerly followed; but to be swallowed up seems to be more grievous than all the things spoken of. But giving heed to what is said, and to the differences of sins committed, you will not I think, be slow to admit that things of this kind were intended by the Spirit who caused these things to be written in the oracles of God. But, if it be necessary to give an exposition clearer than what has been said of what is signified by seeing the Son of man coming in His own kingdom, or in His own glory, and what is signified by seeing the kingdom of God come with power, these things—whether those that are made to shine in our hearts, or that are found by those who seek, or that enter gradually into our thoughts,—let each one judge as he wills—we will set forth. He who beholds and apprehends the excellency of the Word, as he breaks down and refutes all the plausible forms of things which are truly lies but profess to be truths, sees the Son of man, (according to the word of John, “the Word of God,”) coming in His own kingdom; but if such an one were to behold the Word, not only breaking down plausible oppositions, but also representing His own truths with perfect clearness, he would behold His glory in addition to His kingdom. And such an one indeed would see in Him the kingdom of God come with power; and he would see this, as one who is no longer now under the reign of “sin which reigns in the mortal body of those who sin,”[6] but is ever under the orders of the king, who is God of all, whose kingdom is indeed potentially “within us,”[7] but actually, and, as Mark has called it, “with power,” and not at all in weakness within the perfect alone. These things, then, Jesus promised to the disciples who were standing, prophesying not about all of them, but about some.

[1] Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27.

[2] Ps. 89:48.

[3] Ps. 55:18.

[4] Isa. 25:8.

[5] Rev. 6:10.

[6] Rom. 6:12.

[7] Luke 17:21.

Concerning the Transfiguration of the Saviour

“Now after six days,” according to Matthew and Mark,[1] “He taketh with him Peter and James and John his brother, and leads them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them.” Now, also, let it be granted, before the exposition that occurs to us in relation to these things, that this took place long ago, and according to the letter. But it seems to me, that those who are led up by Jesus into the high mountain, and are deemed worthy of beholding His transfiguration apart, are not without purpose led up six days after the discourses previously spoken. For since in six days—the perfect number—the whole world,—this perfect work of art,—was made, on this account I think that he who transcends all the things of the world by beholding no longer the things which are seen, for they are temporal, but already the things which not seen, and only the things which are not seen, because that they are eternal, is represented in the words, “After six days Jesus took up with Him” certain persons. If therefore any one of us wishes to be taken by Jesus, and led up by Him into the high mountain, and be deemed worthy of beholding His transfiguration apart, let him pass beyond the six days, because he no longer beholds the things which are seen, nor longer loves the world, nor the things in the world,[2] nor lusts after any worldly lust, which is the lust of bodies, and of the riches of the body, and of the glory which is after the flesh, and whatever things whose nature it is to distract and drag away the soul from the things which are better and diviner, and bring it down and fix it fast to the deceit of this age, in wealth and glory, and the rest of the lusts which are the foes of truth. For when he has passed through the six days, as we have said, he will keep a new Sabbath, rejoicing in the lofty mountain, because he sees Jesus transfigured before him; for the Word has different forms, as He appears to each as is expedient for the beholder, and is manifested to no one beyond the capacity of the beholder.

[1] Matt. 17:1; Mark 9:2.

[2] 1 John 2:15.

Force of the Words “Before Them.”

But you will ask if, when He was transfigured before those who were led up by Him into the lofty mountain, He appeared to them in the form of God, in which He formerly was, so that He had to those below the form of a servant, but to those who had followed Him after the six days to the lofty mountain, He had not that form, but the form of God. But hear these things, if you can, at the same time giving heed spiritually, that it is not said simply, “He was transfigured,” but with a certain necessary addition, which Matthew and Mark have recorded; for, according to both, “He was transfigured before them.”[1] And according to this, indeed, you will say that it is possible for Jesus to be transfigured before some with this transfiguration, but before others at the same time not to be transfigured. But if you wish to see the transfiguration of Jesus before those who went up into the lofty mountain apart long with Him, behold with me the Jesus in the Gospels, as more simply apprehended, and as one might say, known “according to the flesh,” by those who do not go up, through works and words which are uplifting, to the lofty mountain of wisdom, but known no longer after the flesh, but known in His divinity by means of all the Gospels, and beholden in the form of God according to their knowledge; for before them is Jesus transfigured, and not to any one of those below. But when He is transfigured, His face also shines as the sun, 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,[2] and are no longer the children of darkness or night, but have become the sons of day, and walk honestly as in the day;[3] and being manifested, He will shine unto them not simply as the sun, but as demonstrated to be the sun of righteousness.

[1] Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2.

[2] Rom. 13:12.

[3] Rom. 13:13; 1 Thess. 5:5.

The Garments White as the Light

And not only is He transfigured before such disciples, nor does He only add to the transfiguration the shining of His face as the sun; but further also to those who were led up by Him into the high mountain apart, His garments appear white as the light.[1] But the garments of Jesus are the expressions and letters of the Gospels with which He invested Himself. But I think that even the words in the Apostles which indicate the truths concerning Him are garments of Jesus, which become white to those who go up into the high mountain along with Jesus. But since there are differences also of things white, His garments become white as the brightest and purest of all white things; and that is light. When therefore you see any one not only with a thorough understanding of the theology concerning Jesus, but also making clear every expression of the Gospels, do not hesitate to say that to Him the garments of Jesus have become white as the light. But when the Son of God in His transfiguration is so understood and beheld, that His face is a sun, and His garments white as the light, straightway there will appear to him who beholds Jesus in such form Moses,—the law—and Elijah,—in the way of synecdoche, not one prophet only, but all the prophets—holding converse with Jesus; for such is the force of the words “talking with Him;”[2] but, according to Luke, “Moses and Elijah appeared in glory,” down to the words, “in Jerusalem.”[3] But if any one sees the glory of Moses, having understood the spiritual law as a discourse in harmony with Jesus, and the wisdom in the prophets which is hidden in a mystery,[4] he sees Moses and Elijah in glory when he sees them with Jesus.

[1] Matt. 17:2.

[2] Matt. 17:3.

[3] Luke 9:30, 31.

[4] 1 Cor. 2:7.

Jesus Was Transfigured—“As He Was Praying.”

Then, since it will be necessary to expound the passage as given in Mark, “And as He was praying He was transfigured before them,”[1] we must say that perhaps it is possible especially to see the Word transfigured before us if we have done the things aforesaid, and gone up into the mountain, and seen the absolute Word holding converse with the Father, and praying to Him for such things as the true High-Priest might pray for to the only true God. But in order that He may thus hold fellowship with God and pray to the Father, He goes up into the mountain; and then, according to Mark, “His garments become white and glistening as the light, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.”[2] And perhaps the fullers upon the earth are the wise men of this world who are careful about the diction which they consider to be bright and pure, so that even their base thoughts and false dogmas seem to be beautified by their fulling, so to speak; but He who shows His own garments glistering to those who have ascended and brighter than their fulling can make them, is the Word, who exhibits in the expressions of the Scriptures which are despised by many the glistering of the thoughts, when the raiment of Jesus, according to Luke, becomes white and dazzling.[3]

[1] Luke (9:28, 29) alone mentions the praying.

[2] Mark 9:3.

[3] Luke 9:29.

Discussion of the Saying of Peter

But let us next see what was the thought of Peter when he answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles,”[1] etc. And on this account these words call for very special examination, because Mark, in his own person, has added, “For he wist not what to answer,”[2] but Luke, “not knowing,” he says, “what he spake.”[3] You will consider, therefore, if he spake these things as in a trance, being filled with the spirit which moved him to say these things, which could not be a Holy Spirit; for John taught in the Gospel that, before the resurrection of the Saviour, no one had the Holy Spirit, saying, “For the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.”[4] But if the Spirit was not yet, and he, not knowing what he said, spoke under the influence of some spirit, the spirit which caused these things to be said was some one of the spirits which had not yet been triumphed over in the cross, nor made a show of along with them, about whom it is written, “Having put off from Himself the principalities and the powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in the cross.”[5] But this spirit was perhaps that which is called a stumbling-block by Jesus, and which is spoken of as Satan in the passage, “Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto me.”[6] But I know well that such things will offend many who meet with them, because they think that it is opposed to sound reason that he should be spoken ill of who a little before had been pronounced blessed by Jesus, on the ground that the Father in heaven had revealed to him the things concerning the Saviour, to-wit, that He was verily Jesus, and the Christ, and the Son of the living God. But let such an one attend more exactly to the statements about Peter and the rest of the Apostles, how even they made requests as if they were yet alien from Him who was to redeem them from the enemy and purchase them with His own precious blood; or let them also, who will have it that even before the passion of Jesus the Apostles were perfect, tell us whence it came about that “Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep.”[7] But to anticipate something else of what follows and apply it to the subject in hand, I would raise in turn these questions,—whether it is possible for any one to find occasion of stumbling in Jesus apart from the working of the devil who caused him to stumble; and whether it is possible for any one to deny Jesus, and that in presence of a little maid and a doorkeeper and men most worthless, unless a spirit had been with him in his denial hostile to the Spirit which is given and the wisdom, (which is given) to those who are assisted by God to make confession, according to a certain desert of theirs. But he who has learned to refer the roots of sin to the father of sin, the devil, will not say that apart from him either the Apostles were caused to stumble, or that Peter denied Christ thrice before that well-known cock-crowing. But if this be so, consider whether perhaps with a view to make Jesus stumble, so far as was in his power, and to turn Him aside from the dispensation whose characteristic was suffering that brought salvation to men, which He undertook with great willingness, seeking to effect these things which seemed to contribute to this end, he himself also here wishes as it were, by deceit, to draw away Jesus, as if calling upon Him no longer to condescend to men, and come to them, and undergo death for them, but to abide on the high mountain with Moses and Elijah. But he promised also to build three tabernacles, one apart for Jesus, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah, as if one tabernacle would not have sufficed for the three, if it had been necessary for them to be in tabernacles and in the high mountain. And perhaps also in this he acted with evil intent, when he incited him “who did not know what he said,” not desiring that Jesus and Moses and Elijah should be together, but desiring to separate them from one another, under pretext of the three tabernacles.” And likewise it was a lie, “It is good for us to be here;”[8] for if it had been a good thing they would also have remained there. But if it were a lie, you will seek to know who caused the lie to be spoken; and especially since according to John, “When he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar and the father thereof;”[9] and as there is no truth apart from the working of Him who says, “I am the Truth,”[10] so there is no lie apart from him who is the enemy of truth. These contrary qualities, accordingly, were still in Peter truth and falsehood; and from truth he said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God,”[11] but from falsehood he said, “May God be propitious to Thee, Lord, this shall not be unto Thee,”[12] and also, “It is good for us to be here.”[8] But if any one will not admit that Peter spoke these things from any evil inspiration, but that his words were of his own mere choice, and it is demanded of him how he will interpret, “not knowing what he said,” and,[3] “for he did not know what to answer,”[2] he will say, that in the former case Peter held it to be a shameful thing and unworthy of Jesus to admit that the Son of the living God, the Christ, whom already the Father had revealed to him, should be killed; and in the present case that, as having seen the two forms of Jesus and the one at the transfiguration which was much more excellent, being well pleased with that, he said that it was good to make their sojourning in that mountain, in order that he himself and those with him might rejoice as they beheld the transfiguration of Jesus and His face shining as the sun, and His garments white as the light, and, in addition to these things, might always behold in glory those whom they had once seen in glory, Moses and Elijah; and that they might rejoice at the things which they might hear, as they talked and held intercourse with each other, Moses and Elijah with Jesus, and Jesus with them.

[1] Matt. 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33.

[2] Mark 9:6.

[3] Luke 9:33.

[4] John 7:39.

[5] Col. 2:15.

[6] Matt. 16:23.

[7] Luke 9:32.

[8] Matt. 17:4.

[9] John 8:44.

[10] John 14:6.

[11] Matt. 16:16.

[12] Matt. 16:20.

Figurative Interpretation of the Same

But since we have not yet spent our energy in interpreting the things in the place figuratively, but have said these things by way of searching into the mere letter, let us in conformity with these things, consider whether the aforesaid Peter and the sons of thunder who were taken up into the mountain of the dogmas of the truth, and who saw the transfiguration of Jesus and of Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory with Him, might wish to make tabernacles in themselves for the Word of God who was going to dwell in them, and for His law which had been beholden in glory, and for the prophecy which spake of the decease of Jesus, which He was about to accomplish;[1] and Peter, as one loving the contemplative life, and having preferred that which was delightsome in it to the life among the crowd with its turmoil, said, with the design of benefiting those who desired it, “It is good for us to be here.”[2] But since “love seeketh not its own,”[3] Jesus did not do that which Peter thought good; wherefore He descended from the mountain to those who were not able to ascend to it and behold His transfiguration, that they might behold Him in such form as they were able to see Him. It is, therefore, the part of a righteous man who possesses “the love which seeketh not its own”[3] to be free from all, but to bring himself under bondage to all those below that He might gain the more of them.[4] But some one, with reference to what we have alleged about the trance and the working of an evil spirit in Peter, concerning the words, “not knowing what he said,”[5] not accepting that interpretation of ours, may say that there were certain mentioned by Paul “desiring to be teachers of the law,”[6] who do not know about what they speak, but who, though they do not clearly expound the nature of what is said, nor understand their meaning, make confident affirmations of things which they do not know. Of such a nature was the affection of Peter also, for not apprehending what was good with reference to the dispensation of Jesus and of those who appeared in the mountain,—Moses and Elijah,—he says, “It is good for us to be here,” etc., “not knowing what he said,” “for he wist not what to say,” for if “a wise man will understand the things from his own mouth, and carries prudence in his lips,”[7] he who is not so does not understand the things from his own mouth, nor comprehend the nature of the things spoken by him.

[1] Luke 9:31.

[2] Matt. 17:4.

[3] 1 Cor. 13:5.

[4] 1 Cor. 9:19.

[5] Luke 9:33.

[6] 1 Tim. 1:7.

[7] Prov. 16:23.

The Meaning of the “Bright Cloud.”

Next to these come the words, “While He was yet speaking, behold, also, a bright cloud overshadowed them,”[1] etc. Now, I think that God, wishing to dissuade Peter from making three tabernacles, under which so far as it depended on his choice he was going to dwell, shows a tabernacle better, so to speak, and much more excellent, the cloud. For since it is the function of a tabernacle to overshadow him who is in it, and to shelter him, and the bright cloud overshadowed them, God made, as it were, a diviner tabernacle, inasmuch as it was bright, that it might be to them a pattern of the resurrection to come; for a bright cloud overshadows the just, who are at once protected and illuminated and shone upon by it. But what might the bright cloud, which overshadows the just, be? Is it, perhaps, the fatherly power, from which comes the voice of the Father bearing testimony to the Son as beloved and well-pleasing, and exhorting those who were under its shadow to hear Him and no other one? But as He speaks of old, so also always does He speak through what He wills. And perhaps, too, the Holy Spirit is the bright cloud which overshadows the just, and prophesies of the things of God, who works in it, and says, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased;” but I would venture also to say that our Saviour is a bright cloud. When, therefore, Peter said, “Let us make here three tabernacles,”[2]…one from the Father Himself, and from the Son, and one from the Holy Spirit. For a bright cloud of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit overshadows the genuine disciples of Jesus; or a cloud overshadows the Gospel and the law and the prophets, which is bright to him who is able to see the light of it in the Gospel, and the law, and the prophets. But perhaps the voice from the cloud says to Moses and Elijah, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased, hear Him,” as they were desirous to see the Son of man, and to hear Him, and to behold Him as He was in glory. And perhaps it teaches the disciples that He who was, in a literal sense, the Son of God, and His beloved in whom He was well-pleased, whom it behoved them especially to hear, was He who was then beheld, and transfigured, and whose face shone as the sun, and who was clothed with garments white as the light.

[1] Matt. 17:5.

[2] The text is mutilated.

Relation of Moses and Elijah to Jesus. The Injunction of Silence

But after these things it is written that, when they heard the voice from the cloud bearing testimony to the Son, the three Apostles, not being able to bear the glory of the voice and power resting upon it, “fell on their face,”[1] and besought God; for they were sore afraid at the supernatural sight, and the things which were spoken from the sight. But consider if you can also say this with reference to the details in the passage, that the disciples, having understood that the Son of God had been holding conference with Moses, and that it was He who said, “A man shall not see My face and live,”[2] and taking further the testimony of God about Him, as not being able to endure the radiance of the Word, humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God;[3] but, after the touch of the Word, lifting up their eyes they saw Jesus only and no other.[4] Moses, the law, and Elijah, the prophet, became one only with the Gospel of Jesus; and not, as they were formerly three, did they so abide, but the three became one. But consider these things with me in relation to mystical matters; for in regard to the bare meaning of the letter, Moses and Elijah, having appeared in glory and talked with Jesus, went away to the place from which they had come, perhaps to communicate the words which Jesus spake with them, to those who were to be benefited by Him, almost immediately, namely, at the time of the passion, when many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep, their tombs being opened, were to go to the city which is truly holy—not the Jerusalem which Jesus wept over—and there appear unto many.[5] But after the dispensation in the mountain, when the disciples were coming down from the mountain in order that, when they had come to the multitude, they might serve the Son of God concerning the salvation of the people, Jesus commanded the disciples saying, “Tell the vision to no man until the Son of man rise from the dead.”[6] But that saying, “Tell the vision to no man,” is like that which was investigated in the passage above, when “He enjoined the disciples to tell no man that He was the Christ.”[7] Wherefore the things that were said at that passage may be useful to us also for the passage before us; since Jesus wishes also, in accordance with these, that the things of His glory should not be spoken of, before His glory after the passion; for those who heard, and in particular the multitudes, would have been injured when they saw Him crucified, who had been so glorified. Wherefore since His being glorified in the resurrection was akin to His transfiguration, and to the vision of His face as the sun, on this account He wishes that these things should then be spoken of by the Apostles, when He rose from the dead.

————————————

[1] Matt. 17:6.

[2] Exod. 30:20.

[3] 1 Pet. 5:6.

[4] Matt. 17:8.

[5] Matt. 27:52, 53.

[6] Matt. 17:9.

[7] Matt. 16:20.

Book 13.

Relation of the Baptist to Elijah. The Theory of Transmigration Considered

Book XIII.

1. Relation of the Baptist to Elijah. The Theory of Transmigration Considered.

“The disciples asked Him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?”[1] The disciples indeed who went up with Jesus remembered the traditions of the scribes concerning Elijah, that before the advent of Christ, Elijah would come and prepare for Him the souls of those who were going to receive Him. But the vision in the mountain, at which Elijah appeared, did not seem to be in harmony with the things which were said, since to them it seemed that Elijah had not come before Jesus but after Him; wherefore, they say these things, thinking that the scribes lied. But to this the Saviour answers, not setting aside the traditions concerning Elijah, but saying that there was another advent of Elijah before that of Christ of which the scribes were ignorant; and, in regard to this, being ignorant of him, they “had done unto him whatsoever they listed,”[2] as if they had been accomplices in his having been cast into prison by Herod and slain by him; then He says that according as they had done towards Elijah so would He suffer at their hands.[2] And these things indeed as about Elijah the disciples asked and the Saviour answered, but when they heard they understood that the words, “Elijah has already come,” and that following which was spoken by the Saviour, had reference to John the Baptist.[3] And let these things be said by way of illustration of the passage before us. But now according to our ability let us make investigation also into the things that are stored up in it. In this place it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is foreign to the church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures; for it is also in opposition to the saying that “things seen are temporal,”[4] and that “this age shall have a consummation,” and also to the fulfilment of the saying, “Heaven and earth shall pass away,”[5] and “the fashion of this world passeth away,”[6] and “the heavens shall perish,”[7] and what follows. For if, by hypothesis, in the constitution of things which has existed from the beginning unto the end of the world, the same soul can be twice in the body, for what cause should it be in it? For if because of sin it should be twice in the body, why should it not be thrice, and repeatedly in it, since punishments, in respect of this life, and of the sins committed in it, shall be rendered to it only by the method of transmigration? But if this be granted as a consequence, perhaps there will never be a time when a soul shall not undergo transmigration: for always because of its former sins will it dwell in the body; and so there will be no place for the corruption of the world, at which “the heaven and the earth shall pass away.”[5] And if it be granted, on this hypothesis, that one who is absolutely sinless shall not come into the body by birth, after what length of time do you suppose that a soul shall be found absolutely pure and needing no transmigration? But nevertheless, also, if any one soul is always thus being removed from the definite number of souls and returns no longer to the body, sometime after infinite ages, as it were, birth shall cease; the world being reduced to some one or two or a few more, after the perfecting of whom the world shall perish, the supply of souls coming into the body having failed. But this is not agreeable to the Scripture; for it knows of a multitude of sinners at the time of the destruction of the world. This is manifest from consideration of the saying, “How-beit when the Son of man cometh shall He find faith on the earth?”[8] So we find it thus said in Matthew, “As were the days of Noah so shall also be the coming of the Son of man; for as they were in the days of the flood,” etc.[9] But to those who are then in existence there shall be the exaction of a penalty for their sins, but not by way of transmigration; for, if they are caught while still sinning, either they will be punished after this by a different form of punishment,—and according to this either there will be two general forms of punishment, the one by way of transmigration, and the other outside of a body of this kind, and let them declare the causes and differences of these,—or they will not be punished, as if those who were left at the consummation of things had forthwith cast away their sins; or, which is better, there is one form of punishment for those who have sinned in the body, namely, that they should suffer, outside of it, that is, outside the constitution of this life, what is according to the desert of their sins. But to one who has insight into the nature of things it is clear that each of these things is fitted to overturn the doctrine of transmigration. But if, of necessity, the Greeks who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the Scriptures straight in the face which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them, or invent a series of arguments in regard to the interpretation of the things concerning the consummation; which even if they wish they will not be able to do. And this besides we will say to those who may have had the hardihood to aver that the world will not perish, that, if the world does not perish but is to exist for infinite periods of time, there will be no God knowing all things before they come into being. But if, perhaps, He knows in part, either He will know each thing before it comes into being, or certain things, and after these again other things; for things infinite in nature cannot possibly be grasped by that knowledge whose nature it is to limit things known. From this it follows that there cannot be prophecies about all things whatsoever, since all things are infinite.

[1] Matt. 17:10.

[2] Matt. 17:12.

[3] Matt. 17:13.

[4] 2 Cor. 4:18.

[5] Matt. 24:35.

[6] 1 Cor. 7:31.

[7] Ps. 102:26.

[8] Luke 18:8.

[9] Matt. 24:37–39.

“The Spirit and Power of Elijah”—Not the Soul—Were in the Baptist

I have thought it necessary to dwell some time on the examination of the doctrine of transmigration, because of the suspicion of some who suppose that the soul under consideration was the same in Elijah and in John, being called in the former case Elijah, and in the second case John; and that, not apart from God, had he been called John, as is plain from the saying of the angel who appeared to Zacharias, “Fear not, Zacharias, for thy supplication is heard, and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John;”[1] and from the fact that Zacharias regained his speech after he had written in the tablet, that he who had been born should be called John.[2] But if it were the soul of Elijah, then, when he was begotten a second time, he should have been called Elijah; or for the change of name some reason should have been assigned, as in the case of Abram and Abraham, Sarah and Sarrah, Jacob and Israel, Simon and Peter. And yet not even thus would their argument in the case be tenable; for, in the case of the aforesaid, the changes of name took place in one and the same life. But some one might ask, if the soul of Elijah was not first in the Tishbite and secondly in John, what might that be in both which the Saviour called Elijah? And I say that Gabriel in his words to Zacharias suggested what the substance was in Elijah and John that was the same; for he says, “Many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God; and he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah.”[3] For, observe, he did not say in the “soul” of Elijah, in which case the doctrine of transmigration might have some ground, but “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” For the Scripture well knows the distinction between spirit and soul, as, “May God sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ;”[4] and the passage, “Bless the Lord, ye spirits and souls of the righteous”[5] as it stands in the book of Daniel, according to the Septuagint, represents the difference between spirit and soul. Elijah, therefore, was not called John because of the soul, but because of the spirit and the power, which in no way conflicts with the teaching of the church, though they were formerly in Elijah, and afterwards in John; and “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets,”[6] but the souls of the prophets are not subject to the prophets, and “the spirit of Elijah rested on Elisha.”[7] But we ought to inquire whether the spirit of Elijah is the same as the spirit of God in Elijah, or whether they are different from each other, and whether the spirit of Elijah which was in him was something supernatural, different from the spirit of each man which is in him; for the Apostle clearly indicates that the Spirit of God, though it be in us, is different from the spirit of each man which is in Him, when he says somewhere, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God;”[8] and elsewhere, “No one of men knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of the man which is in him; even so the things of God none knoweth save the Spirit of God.”[9] But do not marvel in regard to what is said about Elijah, if, just as something strange happened to him different from all the saints who are recorded, in respect of his having been caught up by a whirlwind into heaven,[10] so his spirit had something of choice excellence, so that not only did it rest on Elisha, but also descended along with John at his birth; and that John, separately, “was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb,” and separately, “came before Christ in the spirit and power of Elijah.”[11] For it is possible for several spirits not only worse, but also better, to be in the same man. David accordingly asks to be established by a free spirit,[12] and that a right spirit be renewed in his inward parts.[13] But if, in order that the Saviour may impart to us of “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and reverence,”[14] he was filled also with the spirit of the fear of the Lord; it is possible also that these several good spirits may be conceived as being in the same person. And this also we have brought forward, because of John having come before Christ “in the spirit and power of Elijah,”[15] in order that the saying, “Elijah has already come,”[16] may be referred to the spirit of Elijah that was in John; as also the three disciples who had gone up with Him understood that He spake to them about John the Baptist.[17] Upon Elisha, then, only the spirit of Elijah rested, but John came before,[18] not only in the spirit, but also in the power of Elijah. Wherefore, also, Elisha could not have been called Elijah, but John was Elijah himself. But if it be necessary to adduce the Scripture from which the scribes said that Elijah must first come, listen to Malachi who says, “And behold I will send to you Elijah the Tishbite,” etc., down to the words, “Lest I come and smite the earth utterly.”[19] And it seems to be indicated by these words, that Elijah was to prepare for the glorious coming of Christ by certain holy words and dispositions in their souls, those who had been made fittest for this, which those upon earth could not have endured, because of the excellency of the glory, unless they had been prepared before hand by Elijah. And likewise, by Elijah, in this place, I do not understand the soul of that prophet but his spirit and his power; for these it is by which all things shall be restored,[20] so that when they have been restored, and, as a result of that restoration, become capable of receiving the glory of Christ, the Son of God who shall appear in glory may sojourn with them. But if also Elijah be in some sort a word inferior to “the Word who was in the beginning with God, God the Word,”[21] this word also might come as a preparatory discipline to the people prepared by it, that they might be trained for the reception of the perfect Word. But some one may raise the question whether the spirit and power of Elijah, suffered what was suffered in John, according to the words, “They did in him whatsoever they listed.”[16] And to this it will be said on the one hand, in simpler fashion that there is nothing strange in the thought, that the things which assist do, because of love, suffer along with those that are assisted; and Jesus indeed says. “Because of the weak I was weak, and I hungered because of the hungry, and I thirsted because of the thirsty,”[22] and, on the other hand, in a deeper sense that the words are not, “But they did unto him whatsoever they listed in him,” for the things which suffered leaned upon the spirit and the power of Elijah, the soul of John being in no wise Elijah; and probably also the body (leaned upon them). For in one fashion is the soul in the body, and the spirit, and the power; and in another fashion is the body of the righteous man in these better parts, as leaning upon them, and clinging to them; but “they who are in the flesh cannot please God; but ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if the Spirit of God dwell in you;”[23] for the soul of the sinner is in the flesh, but of the righteous man in spirit. And likewise, further, this might be inquired into, to whom refer the words, “But they did in him whatsoever they listed.”[16] Was it to the scribes in regard to whom the disciples inquired and said, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must first come?”[24] But it is not at all evident that John suffered anything at the hands of the scribes, except, indeed, that they did not believe him; or, as we said also before, that they were accomplices in the wrongs which Herod dared to inflict on him. But another might say that the words, “But they did in him whatsoever they listed,” refer not to the scribes but to Herodias and her daughter, and Herod, who did in him whatsoever they listed. And that which follows, “So shall the Son of man suffer from them,”[16] might be referred to the scribes, if the former were referred to them; but, if the former refers to Herod and Herodias and her daughter, the second passage will also refer to them;[25] for Herod also seems to have joined in the vote that Jesus should die, perhaps his wife also taking part with him in the plot against Him.

[1] Luke 1:13.

[2] Luke 1:63.

[3] Luke 1:16, 17.

[4] 1 Thess. 5:23.

[5] Dan. 3:86. (Song of the Three Children 64.)

[6] 1 Cor. 14:32.

[7] 2 Kings 2:15.

[8] Rom. 8:16.

[9] 1 Cor. 2:11.

[10] 2 Kings 2:11.

[11] Luke 1:15, 17.

[12] Ps. 51:12.

[13] Ps. 51:10.

[14] Isa. 11:2.

[15] Luke 1:17.

[16] Matt. 17:12.

[17] Matt. 17:13.

[18] Cf. Luke 1:17.

[19] Mal. 4:5, 6.

[20] Matt. 17:11.

[21] John 1:1.

[22] Cf. Matt. 25:35.

[23] Rom. 8:8, 9.

[24] Matt. 17:10.

[25] The text is uncertain.

Concerning the Epileptic

“And when they were come to the multitude, there came to Him a man kneeling to Him and saying, Lord, have mercy upon my son.”[1] Those who are suffering, or the kinsfolk of the sufferers, are along with the multitudes; wherefore, when He has dispensed the things that were beyond the multitudes, He descends to them, so that those, who were not able to ascend because of the sicknesses that repressed their soul, might be benefited when the Word descended to them from the loftier regions. But we ought to make inquiry, in respect of what diseases the sufferers believe and pray for their own healing, and in respect of what diseases others do this for them, as, for example, the centurion for his servant, and the nobleman for his son, and the ruler of the synagogue for a daughter, and the Canaanitish woman for her female child who was vexed with a demon, and now the man who kneels to Him on behalf of his epileptic son. And along with these you will investigate when the Saviour heals of Himself and unasked by any one, as for example, the paralytic; for these cures, when compared with one another for this very purpose, and examined together, will exhibit to him who is able to hear “the wisdom of God hidden in a mystery,”[2] many dogmas concerning the different diseases of souls, as well as the method of their healing.

[1] Matt. 17:14, 15.

[2] 1 Cor. 2:7.

Spiritual Epileptics

But since our present object is not to make inquiry about every case, but about the passage before us, let us, adopting a figurative interpretation, consider who we may say the lunatic was, and who was his father who prayed for him, and what is meant by the sufferer falling not constantly but oft-times, sometimes into the fire, and sometimes into the water, and what is meant by the fact that he could not be healed by the disciples but by Jesus Himself. For if every sickness and every infirmity, which our Saviour then healed among the people, refers to different disorders in souls, it is also in accordance with reason that by the paralytics are symbolised the palsied in soul, who keep it lying paralysed in the body; but by those who are blind are symbolised those who are blind in respect of things seen by the soul alone, and these are really blind; and by the deaf are symbolised those who are deaf in regard to the reception of the word of salvation. On the same principle it will be necessary that the matters regarding the epileptic should be investigated. Now this affection attacks the sufferers at considerable intervals, during which he who suffers from it seems in no way to differ from the man in good health, at the season when the epilepsy is not working on him. Similar disorders you may find in certain souls, which are often supposed to be healthy in point of temperance and the other virtues; then, sometimes, as if they were seized with a kind of epilepsy arising from their passions, they fall down from the position in which they seemed to stand, and are drawn away by the deceit of this world and other lusts. Perhaps, therefore, you would not err if you said, that such persons, so to speak, are epileptic spiritually, having been cast down by “the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places,”[1] and are often ill, at the time when the passions attack their soul; at one time falling into the fire of burnings, when, according to what is said in Hosea, they become adulterers, like a pan heated for the cooking from the burning flame;[2] and, at another time, into the water, when the king of all the dragons in the waters casts them down from the sphere where they appeared to breath freely, so that they come into the depths of the waves of the sea of human life. This interpretation of ours in regard to the lunatic will be supported by him who says in the Book of Wisdom with reference to the even temperament of the just man, “The discourse of a pious man is always wisdom,” but, in regard to what we have said, “The fool changes as the moon.”[3] And sometimes even in the case of such you may see impulses which might carry away in praise of them those who do not attend to their want of ballast, so that they would say that it was as full moon in their case, or almost full moon. And you might see again the light that seemed to be in them diminishing,—as it was not the light of day but the light of night,—fading to so great an extent, that the light which appeared to be seen in them no longer existed. But whether or not those who first gave their names to things, on account of this gave the name of lunacy to the disease epilepsy, you will judge for yourself.

[1] Eph. 6:12.

[2] Hos. 7:4.

[3] Ecclus. 27:11.

The Deaf and Dumb Spirit

Now the father of the epileptic—perhaps the angel to whom he had been allotted, if we are to say that every human soul is put in subjection to some angel—prays the Physician of souls for his son that He may heal him who could not be healed from his disorder by the inferior word which was in the disciples. But the dumb and deaf spirit, who was cast out by the Word, must be figuratively understood as the irrational impulses, even towards that which seems to be good, so that, what things any man once did by irrational impulse which seemed to onlookers to be good, he may do no longer irrationally but according to the reason of the teaching of Jesus. Under the inspiration of this Paul also said, “If I have all faith so as to remove mountains;”[1] for he, who has all faith, which is as a grain of mustard seed,[2] removes not one mountain only, but also several analogous to it; for although faith is despised by men and appears to be something very little and contemptible; yet when it meets with good ground, that is the soul, which is able fittingly to receive such seed, it becomes a great tree, so that no one of those things which have no wings, but the birds of heaven which are winged spiritually, are able to lodge in the branches of faith so great.[3]

[1] 1 Cor. 13:2.

[2] Matt. 17:20.

[3] Cf. Matt. 13:31, 32.

Influence of the Moon and Stars on Men

Let us now, then, give heed to the very letter of the passage, and first let us inquire, how he who has been cast into darkness and repressed by an impure and deaf and dumb spirit is said to be a “lunatic,” and for what reason the expression to be a “lunatic” derives its name from the great light in heaven which is next to the sun, which God appointed “to rule over the night.”[1] Let physicians then, discuss the physiology of the matter, inasmuch as they think that there is no impure spirit in the case, but a bodily disorder, and inquiring into the nature of things let them say, that the moist humours which are in the head are moved by a certain sympathy which they have with the light of the moon, which has a moist nature; but as for us, who also believe the Gospel that this sickness is viewed as having been effected by an impure dumb and deaf spirit in those who suffer from it, and who see that those, who are accustomed like the magicians of the Egyptians to promise a cure in regard to such, seem sometimes to be successful in their case, we will say that, perhaps, with the view of slandering the creation of God, in order that “unrighteousness may be spoken loftily, and that they may set their mouth against the heaven,”[2] this impure spirit watches certain configurations of the moon, and so makes it appear from observation of men suffering at such and such a phase of the moon, that the cause of so great an evil is not the dumb and deaf demon, but the great light in heaven which was appointed “to rule by night,” and which has no power to originate such a disorder among men. But they all “speak unrighteousness loftily,” as many as say, that the cause of all the disorders which exist on the earth, whether of such generally or of each in detail, arises from the disposition of the stars; and such have truly “set their mouth against the heaven,” when they say that some of the stars have a malevolent, and others a benevolent influence; since no star was formed by the God of the universe to work evil, according to Jeremiah as it is written in the Lamentations, “Out of the mouth of the Lord shall come things noble and that which is good.”[3] And it is probable that as this impure spirit, producing what is called lunacy, observes the phases of the moon, that it may work on him who for certain causes has been committed to it, and who has not made himself worthy of the guardianship of angels, so also there are other spirits and demons who work at certain phases of the rest of the stars; so that not the moon only, but the rest of the stars also may be calumniated by those “who speak unrighteousness loftily.” It is worth while, then, to listen to the casters of nativities, who refer the origin of every form of madness and every demoniacal possession to the phases of the moon. That those, then, who suffer from what is called lunacy sometimes fall into the water is evident, and that they also fall into the fire, less frequently indeed, yet it does happen; and it is evident that this disorder is very difficult to cure, so that those who have the power to cure demoniacs sometimes fail in respect of this, and sometimes with fastings and supplications and more toils, succeed. But you will inquire whether there are such disorders in spirits as well as in men; so that some of them speak, but some of them are speechless, and some of them hear, but some are deaf; for as in them will be found the cause of their being impure, so also, because of their freedom of will, are they condemned to be speechless and deaf; for some men will suffer such condemnation if the prayer of the prophet, as spoken by the Holy Spirit, shall be given heed to, in which it is said of certain sinners, “Let the lying lips be put to silence.”[4] And so, perhaps, those who make a bad use of their hearing, and admit the hearing of vanities, will be rendered deaf by Him who said, “Who hath made the stone-deaf and the deaf,”[5] so that they may no longer lend an ear to vain things.

[1] Gen. 1:16.

[2] Ps. 73:8, 9.

[3] Lam. 3:38. Origen reads τὰ καλὰ instead of τὰ κακὰ.

[4] Ps. 31:18.

[5] Exod. 4:11.

The Power of Faith

But when the Saviour said, “O faithfulness and perverse generation,”[1] He signifies that wickedness, which is contrary to nature, stealthily enters in from perversity, and makes us perverted. But of the whole race of men on earth, I think, being oppressed by reason of their wickedness and His tarrying with them, the Saviour said, “How long shall I be with you?” We have already, then, spoken in part of the words, “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain,”[2] etc.; but nevertheless also we shall speak in this place the things that appear to us fitted to increase perspicuity. The mountains here spoken of, in my opinion, are the hostile powers that have their being in a flood of great wickedness, such as are settled down, so to speak, in some souls of men. Whenever, then, any one has all faith so that he no longer disbelieves in any things which are contained in the Holy Scriptures, and has faith such as was that of Abraham, who believed in God to such a degree that his faith was counted for righteousness. he has all faith as a grain of mustard seed; then will such an one say to this mountain—I mean, the dumb and deaf spirit in him who is called lunatic,—“Remove hence,” clearly, from the man who is suffering, perhaps to the abyss, and it shall remove. And the Apostle, taking, I think. his starting-point from this place, says with apostolical authority, “If I have all faith so as to remove mountains,”[3] for not one mountain merely, but also several analogous to it, he removes who has all faith which is as a grain of mustard-seed; and nothing shall be impossible to him who has so great faith.[2] But let us also attend to this, “This kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting,”[4] in order that if at any time it is necessary that we should be engaged in the healing of one suffering from such a disorder, we may not adjure, nor put questions, nor speak to the impure spirit as if it heard, but devoting ourselves to prayer and fasting, may be successful as we pray for the sufferer, and by our own fasting may thrust out the unclean spirit from him.

[1] Matt. 17:17.

[2] Matt. 17:20.

[3] 1 Cor. 13:2.

[4] Matt. 17:21.

Jesus’ Prediction of His “Delivery” Into the Hands of Men

“And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.”[1] And these things will appear to be of the same effect as those, “that Jesus began to show unto His disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes.”[2] But it is not so; for it is not the same thing “to show unto the disciples that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes,” and, after suffering, “be killed,” and, after being killed, “be raised up on the third day,” as that which was said to them, when they were in Galilee,—which we did not learn before,—that the Son of man “would be delivered up;” for the being delivered up was not mentioned above, but now also it is said that “He is to be delivered up into the hands of men.”[1] As for these matters let us inquire by what person or persons He will be delivered up into the hands of men; for there we are taught of whom He will suffer, and in what place He will suffer; but here, in addition, we learn that while His suffering many things takes place at the hands of the aforesaid, they are not the prime causes of His suffering many things, but the one or ones who delivered Him up into the hands of men. For some one will say that the Apostle, interpreting this, says with reference to God, “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all;”[3] but the Son also gave Himself to death for us, so that He was delivered up, not only by the Father but also by Himself. But another will say not merely that, but also collecting the passages together, will say that the Son is first delivered up by God,—then about to be tempted, then to be in conflict, then to suffer for men, or even for the whole world that He might take away its sin,[4]—to the prince of this age, and to the rest of its princes, and then by them delivered into the hands of men who would slay Him. The case of Job will be taken as an illustration. “Lo, all that is his I give into thy hands, but do not touch him;”[5] thereafter, he was, as it were, delivered up by the devil to his princes, namely, to those who took prisoners of war, to the horsemen, to the fire that came down from heaven, to the great wind that came from the desert and broke up his house.[6] But you will consider if, as he delivered up the property of Job to those who took them captive, and to the horsemen, so also he delivered them up to a certain power, subordinate to “the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience,”[7] in order that the fire which descended thence on the sheep of Job might seem to fall from heaven, to the man who announced to Job that “fire fell from heaven, and burned up his sheep, and consumed the shepherds likewise.”[8] And in the same way you will inquire whether also the sudden mighty wind, that came down from the desert and assailed the four corners of the dwelling, was one of those which are under the devils to whom the devil delivered up the banquet of the sons and daughters of Job, that the house might fall on the children of the just man, and they might die. Let it be granted, then, that, as in the case of Job, the Father first delivered up the Son to the opposing powers, and that then they delivered Him up into the hands of men, among which men Judas also was, into whom after the sop[9] Satan entered, who delivered Him up in a more authoritative manner than Judas. But take care lest on comparing together the delivering up of the Son by the Father to the opposing powers, with the delivering up of the Saviour by them into the hands of men, you should think that what is called the delivering up is the same in the case of both. For understand that the Father in His love of men delivered Him up for us all; but the opposing powers, when they delivered up the Saviour into the hands of men, did not intend to deliver Him up for the salvation of some, but, as far as in them lay, since none of them knew “the wisdom of God which was hidden in a mystery,”[10] they gave Him up to be put to death, that His enemy death might receive Him under its subjection, like those who die in Adam;[11] and also the men who slew Him did so, as they were moulded after the will of those who wished indeed that Jesus should become subject to death. I have deemed it necessary also to examine into these things, because that when Jesus was delivered up into the hands of men, He was not delivered up by men into the hands of men, but by powers to whom the Father delivered up His Son for us all, and in the very act of His being delivered up, and coming under the power of those to whom He was delivered up, destroying him that has the power of death; for “through death He brought to nought him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil, and delivered all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.”[12]

[1] Matt. 17:22.

[2] Matt. 16:21.

[3] Rom. 8:32.

[4] John 1:29.

[5] Job 1:12.

[6] Job 1:15–19.

[7] Eph. 2:2.

[8] Job 1:16.

[9] John 13:27.

[10] 1 Cor. 2:7, 8.

[11] 1 Cor. 15:22.

[12] Heb. 2:14, 15.

Satan and the “Delivery” Of Jesus

Now we must think that the devil has the power of death,—not of that which is common and indifferent, in accordance with which those who are compacted of soul and body die, when their soul is separated from the body,—but of that death which is contrary to and the enemy of Him who said, “I am the Life,”[1] in accordance with which “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.”[2] But that it was not God who gave Him up into the hands of men, the Saviour manifestly declares when He says, “If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews.”[3] For, when He was delivered up to the Jews, He was delivered into the hands of men, not by His own servants, but by the prince of this age who says, concerning the powers which are in the sphere of the invisible, the kingdoms which are set up against men, “All these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship Me.”[4] Wherefore also we should think that in regard to them it was said, “The kings of the earth stood side by side, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ.”[5] And those kings, indeed, and those rulers stood side by side and were gathered against the Lord and against His Christ; but we, because we have been benefited by His being delivered by them into the hands of men and slain, say, “Let us break their bonds asunder and cast away their yoke from us.”[6] For, when we become conformed to the death of Christ, we are no longer under the bonds of the kings of the earth, as we have said, nor under the yoke of the princes of this age, who were gathered together against the Lord. And, on this account, “the Father spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all,”[7] that those, who took Him and delivered Him up into the hands of men, might be laughed at by Him who dwells in the heavens, and might be derided by the Lord, inasmuch as, contrary to their expectation, it was to the destruction of their own kingdom and power, that they received from the Father the Son, who was raised on the third day, by having abolished His enemy death, and made us conformed, not only to the image of His death but also of His resurrection; through whom we walk in newness of life,[8] no longer sitting “in the region and shadow of death,”[9] through the light of God which has sprung up upon us. But when the Saviour said, “The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill Him, and the third day He shall rise again,” they were “exceeding sorry,”[10] giving heed to the fact that He was about to be delivered up into the hands of men, and that He would be killed, as matters gloomy and calling for sorrow, but not attending to the fact that He would rise on the third day, as He needed no longer time “to bring to nought through death him that had the power of death.”[11]

[1] John 14:6.

[2] Ezek. 18:4.

[3] John 18:36.

[4] Matt. 4:9.

[5] Ps. 2:2.

[6] Ps. 2:3.

[7] Rom. 8:32.

[8] Rom. 6:4.

[9] Matt. 4:16.

[10] Matt. 17:22, 23.

[11] Heb. 2:14.

Concerning Those Who Demanded the Half-Shekel

“And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter.”[1] There are certain kings of the earth, and the sons of these do not pay toll or tribute; and there are others, different from their sons, who are strangers to the kings of the earth, from whom the kings of the earth receive toll or tribute. And among the kings of the earth, their sons are free as among fathers; but those who are strangers to them, while they are free in relation to things beyond the earth, are as slaves in respect of those who lord it over them and keep them in bondage; as the Egyptians lorded it over the children of Israel, and greatly afflicted their life and violently held them in bondage.[2] It was for the sake of those who were in a bondage, corresponding to the bondage of the Hebrews, that the Son of God took upon Him only the form of a slave,[3] doing no work that was foul or servile. As then, having the form of that slave, He pays toll and tribute not different from that which was paid by His disciple; for the same stater sufficed, even the one coin which was paid for Jesus and His disciple. But this coin was not in the house of Jesus, but it was in the sea, and in the mouth of a fish of the sea which, in my judgment, was benefited when it came up and was caught in the net of Peter, who became a fisher of men, in which net was that which is figuratively called a fish, in order also that the coin with the image of Cæsar might be taken from it, and that it might take its place among those which were caught by them who have learned to become fishers of men. Let him, then, who has the things of Cæsar render them to Cæsar,[4] that afterwards he may be able to render to God the things of God. But since Jesus, who was “the image of the invisible God,”[5] had not the image of Cæsar, for “the prince of this age had nothing in Him,”[6] on this account He takes from its own place, the sea, the image of Cæsar, that He may give it to the kings of the earth for Himself and His disciple, so that those who receive the half-shekel might not imagine that Jesus was the debtor of them and of the kings of the earth; for He paid the debt, not having taken it up, nor having possessed it, nor having acquired it, nor at any time having made it His own possession, so that the image of Cæsar might never be along with the image of the invisible God.

[1] Matt. 17:24.

[2] Exod. 1:13, 14.

[3] Phil. 2:7.

[4] Mark 41:17; Luke 20:25.

[5] Col. 1:15.

[6] John 14:31.

The Freedom of Sons

And this may be put in another way. There are some who are kings’ sons on the earth, and yet they are not sons of those kings, but sons, and sons absolutely; but others, because of their being strangers to the sons of the kings of the earth, and sons of no one of those upon the earth, but on this very account are sons, whether of God or of His Son, or of some one of those who are God’s. If, then, the Saviour inquires of Peter, saying, “The kings of the earth from whom do they receive toll or tribute—from their own sons or from strangers?”[1] and Peter replies not from their own sons, but “from strangers,” then Jesus says about such as are strangers to the kings of the earth, and on account of being free are sons, “Therefore the sons are free;”[2] for the sons of the kings of the earth are not free, since “every one that committeth sin is the bond-servant of sin,”[3] but they are free who abide in the truth of the word of God, and on this account, know the truth, that they also may become free from sin. If, any one then, is a son simply, and not in this matter wholly a son of the kings of the earth, he is free. And nevertheless, though he is free, he takes care not to offend even the kings of the earth, and their sons, and those who receive the half-shekel; wherefore He says, “Let us not cause them to stumble, but go thou and cast thy net, and take up the fish that first cometh up,”[4] etc. But I would inquire of those who are pleased to make myths about different natures, of what sort of nature they were, whether the kings of the earth, or their sons, or those who receive the half-shekel, whom the Saviour does not wish to offend; it appears of a verity, ex hypothesi, that they are not of a nature worthy of praise, and yet He took heed not to cause them to stumble, and He prevents any stumbling-block being put in their way, that they may not sin more grievously, and that with a view to their being saved—if they will—even by receiving Him who has spared them from being caused to stumble. And as in a place verily of consolation,—for such is, by interpretation, Capernaum,—comforting the disciple as being both free and a son, He gives to him the power of catching the fish first, that when it came up Peter might be comforted by its coming up and being caught, and by the stater being taken from its mouth, in order to be paid to those whose the stater was, and who demanded as their own such a piece of money.

[1] Matt. 17:25.

[2] Matt. 17:26.

[3] John 8:34.

[4] Matt. 17:27.

The Stater Allegorized

But you might sometimes gracefully apply the passage to the lover of money, who has nothing in his mouth but things about silver, when you behold him healed by some Peter, who takes the stater, which is the symbol of all his avarice, not only from his mouth and words, but from his whole character. For you will say that such an one was in the sea, and in the bitter affairs of life, and in the waves of the cares and anxieties of avarice, having the stater in his mouth when he was unbelieving and avaricious, but that he came up from the sea and was caught in the rational net, and being benefited by some Peter who has taught him the truth, no longer has the stater in his mouth, but in place of it those things which contain His image, the oracles of God.

The Sacred Half-Shekel

Moreover to the saying, “They that received the half-shekel came to Peter,”[1] you will adduce from Numbers that, for the saints according to the law of God, is paid not a half-shekel simply, but a sacred half-shekel. For it is written, “And thou shalt take five shekels per head, according to the sacred half-shekel.”[2] But also on behalf of all the sons of Israel is given a sacred half-shekel per head. Since then it was not possible for the saint of God to possess along with the sacred half-shekels the profane shekels, so to speak, on this account, to them who do not receive the sacred half-shekels, and who asked Peter and said, “Doth not your master pay the half-shekel?” the Saviour commands the stater to be paid, in which was the half-shekel which was found in the mouth of the first fish that came up, in order that it might be given for the Teacher and the disciple.

[1] Matt. 17:24.

[2] Num. 3:47.

Concerning Those Who Said, Who is the Greatest? and Concerning the Child That Was Called by Jesus

“In that day came the disciples unto Jesus saying, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”[1] In order that we might be taught what it was that the disciples came to Jesus and asked to learn of Him, and how He answered to their inquiry, Matthew, though he might have given an account of this very thing only, has added, according to some manuscripts, “In that hour the disciples came unto Jesus,” but, according to others, “In that day;” and it is necessary that we should not leave the meaning of the evangelist without examination. Wherefore giving attention to the words preceding “in that day,” or “hour,” let us see if it is possible from them to find a way to understand, as being necessary, the addition, “in that day,” or “hour.” Jesus then had come to Capernaum along with His disciples, where “they that received the half-shekel came to Peter,” and asked and said, “Doth not your Master pay the half-shekel?” Then, when Peter answered and said to them, Yea, Jesus giving further a defence with reference to the giving of the half-shekel, sends Peter to drag up the fish into the net, in the mouth of which He said that a stater would be found which was to be given for Himself and Peter. It seems to me, then, that thinking that this was a very great honour which had been bestowed on Peter by Jesus, who judged that he was greater than the rest of His friends, they wished to learn accurately the truth of their suspicion, by making inquiry of Jesus and hearing from Him, whether, as they supposed, He had judged that Peter was greater than they; and at the same time also they hoped to learn the ground on which Peter had been preferred to the rest of the disciples. Matthew then, I think, wishing to make this plain, has subjoined to the words “that take”—the stater, to-wit—“and give unto them for thee and me,” the words, “In that day came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”[2] And, perhaps, they were also in doubt because of the preference which had been given to the three at the transfiguration, and they were in doubt about this—which of the three was judged by the Lord to be greatest. For John reclined on His breast through love, and we may conclude that before the Supper they had seen many tokens of special honour given by Jesus to John; but Peter on his confession was called blessed in their hearing, because of his saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;”[3] but again because of the saying, “Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumbling-block unto Me, for thou mindest not the things of God but the things of men,”[4] they were distracted in mind as to whether it was not he but one of the sons of Zebedee, that was the greatest. So much for the words “in that day” or “hour,” on which took place the matters relating to the stater.

[1] Matt. 18:1.

[2] Matt. 17:27; 18:1.

[3] Matt. 16:16, 17.

[4] Matt. 16:23.

Greatness Varies in Degree

But next we must seek to understand this: the disciples came to Him, as disciples to a teacher proposing difficult questions, and making inquiry, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?[1] And, in this respect, we must imitate the disciples of Jesus; for if, at any time, any subject of investigation among us should not be found out let us go with all unanimity in regard to the question in dispute to Jesus, who is present where two or three are gathered together in His name,[2] and is ready by His presence with power to illumine the hearts of those who truly desire to become His disciples, with a view to their apprehension of the matters under inquiry. And likewise it would be nothing strange for us to go to any of those who have been appointed by God as teachers in the church, and propose any question of a like order to this, “Who, then, is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” What, then, was already known to the disciples of the matters relating to this question? And what was the point under inquiry? That there is not equality in regard to those who are deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven they had apprehended, and that, as there was not equality, some one was greatest, and so in succession down to the least: but of what nature was the greatest, and what was the way of life of him who was the least, and who occupied the middle position, they further desired to know; unless, indeed, it is more accurate to say that they knew who was least from the words, “Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;” but who was the greatest of all they did not know, even if they had grasped the meaning of the words, “Whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven;”[3] for as there were many great, it was not clear to them who was the greatest of the great, to use a human standard. And that many are great, but the great not equally great, will be manifest from the ascription of the epithet “great” to Isaac, “who waxed great, and became exceedingly great,”[4] and from what is said in the case of Moses, and John the Baptist, and the Saviour. And every one will acknowledge that even though all these were great according to the Scripture, yet the Saviour was greater than they. But whether John also (than whom there was no greater among those born of women),[5] was greater than Isaac and Moses, or whether he was not greater, but equal to both, or to one of them, it would be hazardous to declare. And from the saying, “But Isaac, waxing great, became greater,”[4] until he became not simply great, but with the twice repeated addition, “exceedingly,” we may learn that there is a difference among the great, as one is great, and another exceedingly great, and another exceedingly exceedingly great. The disciples, therefore, came to Jesus and sought to learn, who was the greatest in the kingdom of heaven; and perhaps they wished to learn, hearing from Him sometimes like this, “A certain one is greatest in the kingdom of heaven;” but He gives a universal turn to the discourse, showing what was the quality of him who was greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Let us seek to understand, from what is written, to the best of our ability, who this is. “For Jesus called a little child,”[6] etc.

[1] Matt. 18:1.

[2] Matt. 18:20.

[3] Matt. 5:19.

[4] Gen. 26:13.

[5] Matt. 11:11.

[6] Matt. 18:2.

Why the Great Are Compared to Little Children

But first we may expound it in simple fashion. One, expounding the word of the Saviour here after the simple method, might say that, if any one who is a man mortifies the lusts of manhood, putting to death by the spirit the deeds of the body, and “always bearing about in the body the putting to death of Jesus,”[1] to such a degree that he has the condition of the little child who has not tasted sensual pleasures, and has had no conception of the impulses of manhood, then such an one is converted, and has become as the little children. And the greater the advance he has made towards the condition of the little children in regard to such emotions, by so much the more as compared with those who are in training and have not advanced to so great a height of self-control, is he the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. But that which has been said about little children in respect of lustful pleasures, the same might also be said in regard to the rest of the affections and infirmities and sicknesses of the soul, into which it is not the nature of little children to fall, who have not yet fully attained to the possession of reason; as, for example, that, if any one be converted, and, though a man, such an one becomes as a child in respect of anger; and, as is the child in relation to grief, so that sometimes he laughs and plays at the very time that his father or mother or brother is dead, he who is converted would become such an one as little children; and, having received from the Word a disposition incapable of grief, so that he becomes like the little child in regard to grief. And the like you will say about what is called pleasure, in regard to which the wicked are irrationally lifted up, from which little children do not suffer, nor such as have been converted and become as little children. As, then, it has been accurately demonstrated also by others, that no passion is incident to the little children who have not yet attained to full possession of reason; and if no passion, clearly fear also; but, if there be anything corresponding to the passions, these are faint, and very quickly suppressed, and healed in the case of little children, so that he is worthy of love, who, being converted as the little children, has reached such a point as to have, as it were, his passions in subjection like the little children. And with regard to fear, therefore, similar things to those spoken might be conceived, that the little children do not experience the fear of the wicked, but a different thing, to which those who have an accurate knowledge of questions in regard to the passions and their names give the name of fear; as, for example, in the case of children there is a forgetfulness of their evils at the very time of their tears, for they change in a moment, and laugh and play along with those who were thought to grieve and terrify them, but in truth had wrought in them no such emotion. So too, moreover, one will humble himself like the little child which Jesus called; for neither haughtiness, nor conceit in respect of noble birth, or wealth, or any of those things which are thought to be good, but are not, comes to a little child. Wherefore you may see those who are not altogether infants, up to three or four years of age, like to those who are of mean birth, though they may seem to be of noble birth, and not appearing at all to love rich children rather than the poor. If, therefore, in the same way as according to their age children are affected towards those passions which exalt the senseless, the disciple of Jesus under the influence of reason[2] has humbled himself like the little child which Jesus showed, not being exalted because of vainglory, nor puffed up on the ground of wealth, or raiment, nor elated because of noble birth, in particular are they to be received and imitated in the name of Jesus, who have been converted as the Word showed, like the little child which Jesus took to Him; since especially in such the Christ is, and therefore He says, “Whosoever shall receive one such little child in My name receiveth Me.”[3]

[1] 2 Cor. 4:10.

[2] Or, the Word.

[3] Matt. 18:5.

The Little Ones and Their Stumbling-Blocks

But it is a hard task to expound what follows in logical harmony with what has already been said; for one might say, how is it that he who is converted and has become as the little children, is a little one among such as believe in Jesus, and is capable of being caused to stumble? And likewise let us attempt to explain this coherently. Every one that gives his adherence to Jesus as the Son of God according to the true history concerning Him, and by deeds done according to the Gospel, is on the way to living the life which is according to virtue, is converted and is on the way towards becoming as the little children; and it is impossible for him not to enter into the kingdom of heaven. There are, indeed, many such; but not all, who are converted with a view to becoming like the little children, have reached the point of being made like unto little children; but each wants so much of the likeness to the little children, as he falls short of the disposition of little children towards the passions, of which we have spoken. In the whole multitude, then, of believers, are also those who, having been, as it were, just converted in regard to their becoming as the little children, at the very point of their conversion that they may become as the little children, are called little; and those of them, who are converted that they may become as the little children, but fall far short of having truly become as the little children, are capable of being caused to stumble; each of whom falls so far short of the likeness to them, as he falls short of the disposition of children towards the passions, of which we have spoken, to whom we ought not to give occasions of stumbling-block; but, if it be otherwise, he who has caused him to stumble will require, as contributing towards his cure, to have “an ass’s millstone hanged about his neck, and be sunk into the depths of the sea.”[1] For, in this way, when he has paid the due penalty in the sea, where is “the dragon which God formed to play in it,”[2] and, so far as is expedient for the end in view, has been punished and undergone suffering, he shall then[3] have his part in those troubles which belong to the depths of the sea, which he endured when he was dragged down by the ass’s millstone. For there are also differences of millstones, so that one of them may be, so to call it, the millstone of a man, and another that of an ass; and that is human, about which it is written, “Two women shall be grinding at the mill; one is taken and one is left;”[4] but the millstone of the ass is that which shall be put round him who has given occasion of stumbling-block. But some one might say—I know not whether he would speak soundly or erroneously—that the ass’s millstone is the heavy body of the wicked man, which is sunken downwards, and which he will receive at the resurrection that he may be sunk in the abyss which is called the depth of the sea, where “is the dragon which God formed to play therein.”[2] But another will refer the creating of a stumbling-block to one of the little ones to the powers that are unseen by men; for from these arise many stumbling-blocks to the little ones pointed out by Jesus. But when they cause to stumble one of the little ones pointed out by Jesus, who are believers in Him, he shall assume an ass’s millstone, the corruptible body which presses heavily on the soul, which is itself hung from the neck, which is dragged down to the affairs in this life, that by means of these their conceit may be taken away, and having paid the penalty, they shall come, through means of the ass’s millstone, to the condition expedient for them.

[1] Matt. 18:6.

[2] Ps. 104:26.

[3] Or, be free from. The Vetus Inter. has “extra dolores.” It has had ἔξω instead of ἑξῆς.

[4] Matt. 24:41.

Who Was the Little Child Called by Jesus

Now another interpretation different from what is called the simpler may be uttered; whether as dogma, or for the sake of exercise, so to speak, let us also inquire what was the little child who was called by Jesus and set in the midst of the disciples. Now consider if you can say that the little child, whom Jesus called, was the Holy Spirit who humbled Himself, when He was called by the Saviour, and set in the midst of the reason of the disciples of Jesus; if, indeed, He wishes us, being turned away from everything else, to be turned towards the examples suggested by the Holy Spirit, so that we may so become as the little children, who are themselves also turned and likened to the Holy Spirit; which little children God gave to the Saviour, according to what is said in Isaiah, “Behold, I and the little children which God has given to me.”[1] And it is not possible for any one to enter into the kingdom of heaven, who has not been turned away from the affairs of this world, and made like unto the little children who possess the Holy Spirit; which Holy Spirit was called by Jesus, and, descending from His own perfection to men as a little child, was set by Jesus in the midst of the disciples. It is necessary, then, for him who has turned away from the desires of this world to humble himself not simply as the little child, but, according to what is written, “as this little child.”[2] But to humble oneself as that little child is to imitate the Holy Spirit, who humbled Himself for the salvation of men. Now, that the Saviour and the Holy Spirit were sent by the Father for the salvation of men has been declared in Isaiah, in the person of the Saviour, saying, “And now the Lord hath sent me and His Spirit.”[3] You must know, however, that this expression is ambiguous; for either God sent, but also the Holy Spirit sent, the Saviour; or, as we have taken it, the Father sent both—the Saviour and the Holy Spirit. He, therefore, who has humbled himself more than all those who have humbled themselves in imitation of that little child, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. For there are many who are willing to humble themselves as that little child; but the man, who in every respect has become like to the little child who humbled himself, in the name of Jesus—especially in Jesus Himself,—in reality, would be found to be he who is named greater than all in the kingdom of heaven. But as he receives Jesus, whosoever receives one such of the little children in His name, so he rejects Jesus and casts Him out, who does not wish to receive one such little child in the name of Jesus. But if, also, there is a difference in those who are deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit, as believers receive 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: to avenge whose being made to stumble the Word says, with reference to those who had caused them to stumble, “It is profitable for him that an ass’s millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.”[4] Let these things be said in regard to the passage of Matthew before us.

[1] Psa. 8:18.

[2] Matt. 18:4.

[3] Isa. 48:16.

[4] Matt. 18:6.

The Parallel Passages in Mark and Luke

But let us consider also the like account in the other Evangelists. Mark,[1] then, says, that the Twelve reasoned in the way as to which of them was the greatest. Wherefore He sat down, and called them, and teaches who is the greatest, saying, that he who became last of all by means of his moderation and gentleness, would as the greatest obtain the first place, so that he did not receive the place of one who was being ministered unto, but the place of one who ministered, and that not to some but not to others, but to all absolutely; for attend to the words, “If any man would be first he shall be last of all, and minister of all.”[2] And next to that He says, that “He,”—Jesus to-wit—“took a little child, and set him in the midst of His own disciples, and taking him in His arms, He said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of the little children in My name receiveth Me.”[3] But what was the little child which Jesus took and placed in His arms, according to the deeper meaning in the passage? Was it the Holy Spirit? And to this little child, indeed, some were likened, of whom He said, “Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in My name receiveth Me.” According to Luke, however, the reasoning did not arise spontaneously in the disciples, but was suggested to them by the question, “which of them should be greatest.”[4] And Jesus, seeing the reasoning of their heart, as He had eyes that see the reasonings of hearts,—seeing the reasoning of their heart,—without being questioned, according to Luke, “took the little child and set him,” not in the midst alone, as Matthew and Mark have said, but now, also, “by His side,” and said to the disciples, not only, “Whosoever shall receive one such little child,” or, “Whosoever shall receive one of such little ones in My name receiveth Me,” but, now going even a step higher, “Whosoever shall receive this little child in My name receiveth Me.”[5] It is necessary, therefore, according to Luke, to receive in the name of Jesus that very little child which Jesus took and placed by His side. And I know not if there be any one who can interpret figuratively the word, “Whosoever shall receive this little child in My name.” For it is necessary that each of us should receive in the name of Jesus that little child which Jesus then took and set by His side; for he lives as immortal, and we must receive him from Jesus Himself in the name of Jesus; and without being separated from him, Jesus is with him who receives the little child, so that according to this it is said, “Whosoever shall receive this little child in My name receiveth Me.” Then, since the Father is inseparable from the Son, He is with him who receives the Son. Wherefore it is said, “And whosoever shall receive Me receives Him that sent Me.”[6] But he who has received the little child, and the Saviour, and Him that sent Him, is least of all the disciples of Jesus, making himself little. But, so far as he belittles himself, to that extent does he become great; as that very thing, which caused him the more to make himself little, contributes to his advance in greatness; for attend to what is said, “He that is least among you all the same is great;” but in other manuscripts we read, “The same shall be great.” Now, according to Luke, “If any one shall not receive the kingdom of God as the little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.”[7] And this expression is ambiguous; for either it means that he who receives the kingdom of God may become as a little child, or, that he may receive the kingdom of God, which has become to him as a little child. And perhaps here those who receive the kingdom of God receive it, when it is as a little child, but in the world to come no longer as a little child; and they receive the greatness of the perfection in the spiritual manhood, so to speak, which perfection is manifested to all who in the present time receive it, when it is here as a little child.

[1] Mark 9:33, 34.

[2] Mark 9:35.

[3] Mark 9:36, 37.

[4] Luke 9:46.

[5] Luke 9:47, 48.

[6] Luke 9:48.

[7] Luke 18:17.

The World and Offences. Various Meanings of World

“Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling.”[1] The expression “cosmos,” is used in itself and absolutely in the passage, “He was in the cosmos and the cosmos knew Him not,”[2] but it is used relatively and in respect of its connection with that of which it is the cosmos, in the words, “Lest you look up to the heaven, and seeing the sun, and the moon, and all the cosmos of the heavens, you should stray and bow down to them and worship them.”[3] And the like you will find in the Book of Esther, spoken about her, when it is written, stripping off all her “cosmos.”[4] For the word “cosmos,” simply, is not the same as the “cosmos” of heaven, or the “cosmos” of Esther; and this which we are now investigating is another. I think, then, that the world is not this compacted whole of heaven and earth according to the Divine Scriptures, but only the place which is round about the earth, and this is not to be conceived in respect of the whole earth, but only in respect of ours which is inhabited; for the true light “was in the world,” that is, in the place which is around, conceived in relation to our part of the earth; “and the world knew Him not,”[2] that is, the men in the region round about, and perhaps also the powers that have an affinity to this place. For it is monstrous to understand by the world here the compacted whole formed of heaven and earth, and those in it; so that it could be said, that the sun and moon and the choir of the stars and the angels in all this world, did not know the true light, and, though ignorant of it, preserved the order which God had appointed for them. But when it is said by the Saviour in the prayer to the Father, “And, now, glorify me, O Father, with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was,”[5] you must understand by the “world,” that which is inhabited by us on the earth; for it was from this world that the Father gave men to the Son, in regard to whom alone the Saviour beseeches His Father, and not for the whole world of men. Moreover, also, when the Saviour says, “And I come to thee and am no longer in the world,”[6] He speaks of the terrestrial world; for it is not to be supposed that He spoke things contradictory when He said, “And I come to thee, and I am no longer in the world,” and “I am in the world.” But also in this, “And these things I speak in the world,”[7] we must think of the place round about the earth. And this is clearly indicated also by the words, “And the world hated them, because they are not of the world.”[8] For it hated us from the time when we no longer “look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen,”[9] because of the teaching of Jesus; not the world of heaven and earth and them that are therein, all compacted together but the men on the earth along with us. And the saying, “They are not of the world,”[10] is equivalent to, They are not of the place round about the earth. And so also the disciples of Jesus are not of this world, as He was not of the world. And further also the saying, “That the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me,”[11] twice spoken in the Gospel according to John, does not refer to the things that are superior to men, but to men who need to believe that the Father sent the Son into the world here. Yea, and also in the Apostle, “Your faith is proclaimed in the whole world.”[12]

[1] Matt. 18:7.

[2] John 1:10.

[3] Deut. 4:19.

[4] Lomm., following Huet. refers to Esther (The addition to Esther, xiv. 2). But the word κόσμος does not occur in this passage. See Judith 10:4; 1 Macc. 2:11.

[5] John 17:5.

[6] John 17:11.

[7] John 17:13.

[8] John 17:14.

[9] 2 Cor. 4:18.

[10] John 17:21.

[11] John 17:21, 23.

[12] Rom. 1:8.

The “Woe” Does Not Apply to the Disciples of Jesus

But if there is woe unto men everywhere on the earth, because of occasions of stumbling to those who are laid hold of by them; but the disciples are not of the world, as they do not look at things seen, like as the Master is not of this world; to no one of the disciples of Jesus does the “woe because of occasions of stumbling” apply, since “great peace have they who love the law of God, and there is to them no occasion of stumbling.”[1] But if any one seems to be called a disciple, but yet is of the world, because of his loving the world, and the things therein,—I mean, the life in the place round about the earth, and the property in it, or the possessions, or any form of wealth whatsoever,—so that the saying, “they are not of the world,”[2] does not fit him; to him, as being really of the world, shall come that which happens to the world, the “woe, because of occasions of stumbling.” But let him who wishes to avoid this woe not be a lover of life, but let him say with Paul,” “The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.”[3] For the saints while “in the tabernacle, do groan being burdened”[4] with “the body of humiliation,” and do all things that they may become worthy to be found in the mystery of the resurrection, when God shall fashion anew the body of humiliation not of all, but of those who have been truly made disciples to Christ, so that it may be conformed to the body of the glory of Christ.[5] For as none of the “woes” happen to any of the disciples of Christ, so does not this “woe, because of occasions of stumbling;” for, supposing that thousands of occasions should arise, they shall not touch those who are no longer of the world. But if any one, because of his faith wanting ballast, and the instability of his submission in regard to the Word of God, is capable of being caused to stumble, let him know that he is not called by Jesus His disciple. Now we must suppose that so many stumbling-blocks come, that, as a result, the woes extend not to some parts of the earth, but to the whole “world” which is in it.

[1] Ps. 119:165.

[2] John 17:16.

[3] Gal. 6:14.

[4] 2 Cor. 5:4.

[5] Phil. 3:21.

What the “Occasions of Stumbling” Are

“And it must needs be that occasions of stumbling come,”[1] which I take to be different from the men by whom they come. The occasions then which come are an army of the devil, his angels, and a wicked band of impure spirits, which, seeking out instruments through whom they will work, often find men altogether strangers to piety, and sometimes even some of those who are thought to believe the Word of God, for whom exists a worse woe than that which comes to him who is caused to stumble, just as also it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment,[2] than for the places where Jesus did signs and wonders, and yet was not believed. But as one might undertake to make a collection from the Scriptures of those who are pronounced blessed, and of the things in respect of which they are so called, so also he might undertake to do with the woes which are written, and those in whose case the woes are spoken. But that the woe is worse in the case of him who causes to stumble, than in him who is made to stumble, you may prove by the passage, “Whoso shall cause to stumble one of these little ones which believe in Me, it is profitable for him,”[3] etc.; for, while the little one who is made to stumble receives retribution from him who caused him to stumble, it is expedient that the severe and intolerable punishment which is written should befall the man who has caused the stumbling. But if we were to give more careful consideration to these things, we should be on our guard against sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, lest we sin against Christ;[4] as often our brethren about us, “for whom Christ died,” perish, not only through our knowledge, but also through some other causes connected with us; in the case of whom, we, sinning against Christ, shall pay the penalty, the soul of them who perish through us being required of us.

[1] Matt. 18:7.

[2] Matt. 11:22.

[3] Matt. 18:6.

[4] 1 Cor. 8:11, 12.

In What Sense “Necessary.”

Next we must test accurately the meaning of the word “necessity” in the passage, “For there is a necessity that the occasions come,”[1] and to the like effect in Luke, “It is ‘inadmissible’ but that occasions of stumbling should come,”[2] instead of “impossible.” And as it is necessary that that which is mortal should die, and it is impossible but that it should die, and as it must needs be that he who is in the body should be fed, for it is impossible for one who is not fed to live, so it is necessary and impossible but that occasions of stumbling should arise, since there is a necessity also that wickedness should exist before virtue in men, from which wickedness stumbling-blocks arise; for it is impossible that a man should be found altogether sinless, and who, without sin, has attained to virtue. For the wickedness in the evil powers, which is the primal source of the wickedness among men, is altogether eager to work through certain instruments against the men in the world. And perhaps also the wicked powers are more exasperated when they are cast out by the word of Jesus, and their worship is lessened, their customary sacrifices not being offered unto them; and there is a necessity that these offences come; but there is no necessity that they should come through any particular one; wherefore the “woe” falls on the man through whom the stumbling-block comes, as he has given a place to the wicked power whose purpose it is to create a stumbling-block. But do not suppose that by nature, and from constitution, there are certain stumbling-blocks which seek out men through whom they come; for as God did not make death, so neither did He create stumbling-blocks; but free-will begot the stumbling-blocks in some who did not wish to endure toils for virtue.

[1] Matt. 18:7.

[2] Luke 18:1.

The Offending Hand, or Foot, or Eye

And it is well, then, if the eye and the hand are deserving of praise, that the eye cannot with reason say to the hand, “I have no need of thee.”[1] But if any one in the whole body of the congregations of the church, who because of his practical gifts has the name of hand, should change and become a hand causing to stumble, let the eye say to such a hand, “I have no need of thee,” and, saying it, let him cut it off and cast it from him.[2] And so it is well, if any head be blessed, and the feet worthy of the blessed head, so that the head observing the things which are becoming to itself, may not be able to say to the feet, “I have no need of you.” If, however, any foot be found to become a stumbling-block to the whole body, let the head say to such a foot, “I have no need of thee,” and having cast it off, let him cast it from himself; for even it is much better that the rest of the body should enter into life, wanting the foot or the hand which caused the stumbling-block, rather than, when the stumbling-block has spread over the whole body, it should be cast into the hell of fire with the two feet or the two hands. And so it is well, that he who can become the eye of the whole body should be worthy of Christ and of the whole body; but if such an eye should ever change, and become a stumbling-block to the whole body, it is well to take it out and cast it outside the whole body, and that the rest of the body without that eye should be saved, rather than that along with it, when the whole body has been corrupted, the whole body should be cast into the hell of fire.[3] For the practical faculty of the soul, if prone to sin, and the walking faculty of the soul, so to speak, if prone to sin, and the faculty of clear vision, if prone to sin, may be the hand that causes to stumble, and the foot that causes to stumble, and the eye that causes to stumble, which things it is better to cast away, and having put them aside to enter into life without them, like as one halt, or maimed, or one-eyed, rather than along with them to lose the whole soul. And likewise in the case of the soul it is a good and blessed thing to use its power for the noblest ends; but if we are going to lose one for any cause, it is better to lose the use of it, that along with the other powers we may be saved.

[1] 1 Cor. 12:21.

[2] Matt. 18:8.

[3] Cf. Matt. 18:9.

The Eye or Hand Allegorized

And it is possible to apply these words also to our nearest kinsfolk, who are our members, as it were; being considered to be our members, because of the close relationship; whether by birth, or from any habitual friendship, so to speak; whom we must not spare if they are injuring our soul. For let us cut off from ourselves as a hand or a foot or an eye, a father or mother who wishes us to do that which is contrary to piety, and a son or daughter who, as far as in them lies, would have us revolt from the church of Christ and the love of Him. But even if the wife of our bosom, or a friend who is kindred in soul, become stumbling-blocks to us, let us not spare them, but let us cut them out from ourselves, and cast them outside of our soul, as not being truly our kindred but enemies of our salvation; for “whosoever hates not his father, and mother,”[1] and the others subjoined, when it is the fitting season to hate them as enemies and assailants, that he may be able to win Christ, this man is not worthy of the Son of God. And in respect of these we may say, that from a critical position any lame one, so to speak, is saved, when he has lost a foot—say a brother—and alone obtains the inheritance of the kingdom of God; and a maimed one is saved, when his father is not saved, but they perish, while he is separated from them, that he alone may obtain the benedictions. And so also any one is saved with one eye, who has cut out the eye of his own house, his wife, if she commit fornication, lest having two eyes he may go away into the hell of fire.

[1] Luke 14:26.

The Little Ones and Their Angels

“See that ye despise not one of these little ones.”[1] It seems to me that as among the bodies of men there are differences in point of size,—so that some are little, and others great, and others of middle height, and, again, there are differences among the little, as they are more or less little, and the same holds of the great, and of those of middle height,—so also among the souls of men, there are some things which give them the stamp of littleness, and other things the stamp of greatness, so to speak, and generally, after the analogy of things bodily, other things the stamp of mediocrity. But in the case of bodies, it is not due to the action of men but to the spermatic principles, that one is short and little, another great, and another of middle height; but in the case of souls, it is our free-will, and actions of such a kind, and habits of such a kind, that furnish the reason why one is great, or little, or of middle height; and it is of our free-will either by advancing in stature to increase our size, or not advancing to be short. And so indeed I understand the words about Jesus having assumed a human soul, “Jesus advanced;”[2] for as from the free-will there was an advance of His soul in wisdom and grace, so also in stature. And the Apostle says, “Until we all attain unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;”[3] for we must think that he attains unto a man, and that full-grown, according to the inner man, who has gone through the things of the child, and has reached the stage of the man, and has put away the things of the child, and generally, has perfected the things of the man.[4] And so we must suppose that there is a certain measure of spiritual stature unto which the most perfect soul can attain by magnifying the Lord, and become great. Thus, then, these became great, of whom this is written, Isaac, and Moses, and John, and the Saviour Himself above all; for also about Him Gabriel said, “He shall be great;”[5] but the little ones are “the newborn babes which long for the reasonable milk which is without guile,”[6] such as stand in need of nursing-fathers and nursing-mothers, spoken of in Isaiah when he says, about the calling from the Gentiles, “And they shall bring the sons in the bosom, and take their daughters on the shoulders, and kings shall be thy nursing-fathers and their princesses thy nursing-mothers.”[7] For these reasons you will, then, attend to the word, “Do not despise one of these little ones,”[1] and consider whether it is their angels who bring them in their bosom, since they have become sons, and also take on their shoulders what are called daughters, and whether from them are the nursing-fathers who are called kings, and the nursing-mothers who are called princesses. And since the little ones, pointed out by our Saviour, are under the stewardship as of nursing-fathers and nursing-mothers, on this account I think that Moses, who believed that he had been already assigned a place among the ranks of the great, said, with regard to the promise, “My angel shall go before you,”[8] “If thou thyself do not go along with me, carry me not up hence.”[9] For though the little one even be an heir, yet as being a child he differs nothing from a servant when he is a child,[10] and to the extent to which he is little “has the spirit of bondage to fear;”[11] but he who is not at all any longer such has no longer the spirit of bondage, but already the spirit of adoption, when “perfect love casteth out fear;”[12] it will be plain to thee, how that according to these things “the angel of the Lord” is said “to encamp round about them that fear Him, and to save them.”[13] But you will consider, according to these things also, whether these are indeed angels of the little ones “who are led by the spirit of bondage to fear,” “when the angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear Him and delivereth them;” but of the great, whether it is the Lord who is greater than the angels, who might say about each of them, “I am with him in affliction;”[14] and, so long as we are imperfect, and need one to assist us that we may be delivered from evils, we stand in need of an angel of whom Jacob said, “The angel who delivered me from all the evils;”[15] but, when we have become perfected, and have passed through the stage of being subject to nursing-fathers and nursing-mothers and guardians and stewards,[16] we are meet to be governed by the Lord Himself.

[1] Matt. 18:10.

[2] Luke 2:52.

[3] Eph. 4:13.

[4] Cf. 1 Cor. 13:11.

[5] Luke 1:32.

[6] 1 Pet. 2:2.

[7] Isa. 49:22, 23.

[8] Exod. 32:34.

[9] Exod. 33:15.

[10] Gal. 4:1.

[11] Rom. 8:15.

[12] 1 John 4:18.

[13] Ps. 34:7.

[14] Ps. 91:15.

[15] Gen. 48:16.

[16] Gal. 4:4.

When the Little Ones Are Assigned to Angels

Then again one might inquire at what time those who are called their angels assume guardianship of the little ones pointed out by Christ; whether they received this commission to discharge concerning them, from what time “by the laver of regeneration,”[1] through which they were born “as new-born babes, they long for the reasonable milk which is without guile,”[2] and no longer are in subjection to any wicked power; or, whether from birth they had been appointed, according to the foreknowledge and predestination of God, over those whom God also foreknew, and foreordained to be conformed to the glory of the Christ.[3] And with reference to the view that they have angels from birth, one might quote, “He who separated me from my mother’s womb,”[4] and, “From the womb of my mother thou hast been my protector,”[5] and, “He has assisted me from my mother’s womb,”[6] and, “Upon thee I was cast from my mother,”[7] and in the Epistle of Jude, “To them that are beloved in God the Father and are kept for Jesus Christ, being called,”[8]—kept completely by the angels who keep them.

[1] Tit. 3:5.

[2] 1 Pet. 2:2.

[3] Rom. 8:29.

[4] Gal. 1:15.

[5] Ps. 71:6.

[6] Ps. 139:13.

[7] Ps. 22:10.

[8] Jude 1.

Close Relationship of Angels to Their “Little Ones.”

With reference to the words, “When through the laver I became a child in Christ,”[1] it may be said, that there is no holy angel present with those who are still in wickedness, but that during the period of unbelief they are under the angels of Satan;[2] but, after the regeneration, He who has redeemed us with His own blood consigns us to a holy angel, who also, because of his purity, beholds the face of God. And a third exposition of this passage might be something like the following, which would say, that as it is possible for a man to change from unbelief to faith, and from intemperance to temperance, and generally from wickedness to virtue, so also it is possible that the angel, to whom any soul has been entrusted at birth, may be wicked at the first, but afterwards may at some time believe in proportion as the man believes, and may make such advance that he may become one of the angels who always behold the face of the Father in heaven,[3] beginning from the time that he is yoked along with the man who was foreknown and foreordained to believe at that time, the judgments of God, which are unspeakable and unsearchable and like to the depths, fitly bringing together all this harmonious relationship—angels with men. And it may be that as when a man and his wife are both unbelievers, sometimes it is the man who first believes and in time saves his wife, and sometimes the wife who begins and afterwards in time persuades her husband, so it happens with angels and with men. If, however, anything of this kind takes place in the case of other angels or not, you may seek out for yourself. But consider whether it may not be appropriate to say something of this kind in regard to each angel who is so honoured according to the word of the Saviour, that he is said to behold always the face of the Father who is in heaven. But since in what we said above, that the little ones have angels, but that the great have passed beyond such a position, some one will quote in opposition to us from the Acts of the Apostles, where it is written, that a certain maid Rhoda, when Peter knocked at the door, came to answer, and recognizing the voice of Peter, ran in and announced that Peter stood before the gate; but when they who were gathered together in the house wondered, and thought that it was quite impossible that Peter verily stood before the gate, they said, It is his angel.[4] For the objector will say that, as they had learned once for all that each of the believers had some definite angel, they knew that Peter also had one. But he, who adheres to what we have previously said, will say that the word of Rhoda was not necessarily a dogma, and perhaps also the word of those who did not accurately know, when one as being little and God-fearing is governed by angels, and when now by the Lord Himself. After this, in order to establish our conception of the little one which we have brought forward, it will be said that we need no command about “not despising” in the case of the great, but we do need it in the case of the little; wherefore it is not merely said, “Do not despise one of these,” pointing to all the disciples, but “one of these little ones,”[3] pointed out by Him, who sees the littleness and the greatness of the soul.

[1] Cf. Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 2:2.

[2] The text is perhaps corrupt.

[3] Matt. 18:10.

[4] Acts 12:13–15.

The Little Ones and the Perfect

But another might say that the perfect man is here called little, applying the word, “For he that is least among you all, the same is great,”[1] and will affirm that he who humbles himself and becomes a child in the midst of all that believe, though he be an apostle or a bishop, and becomes such “as when a nurse cherisheth her own children,”[2] is the little one pointed out by Jesus, and that the angel of such an one is worthy to behold the face of God. For to say that the little are here called perfect, according to the passage, “He that is least among you all, the same is great,”[1] and as Paul said, “Unto me who am less than the least of all saints was this grace given,”[3] will seem to be in harmony with the saying, “Whoso shall cause one of these little ones to stumble,”[4] and “So it is not the will of My Father in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.”[5] For he, as has been stated, who is now little, could not be made to stumble nor perish, for “great peace have they who love the law of God, and there is no stumbling-block to them;”[6] and he could not perish, who is least of all among all the disciples of Christ, and on this account becomes great; and, since he could not perish, he could say, “Who shall separate us from the love,”[7] etc. But he who wishes to maintain this last exposition will say that the soul even of the just man is changeable, as Ezekiel also testifies, saying, that the righteous man may abandon the commandments of God, so that his former righteousness is not reckoned unto him;[8] wherefore it is said, “Whoso shall cause to stumble one of these little ones,[4] and, “It is not the will of My Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”[5]

[As for the exposition of the matters relating to “the hundred sheep,” you may consult the homilies on Luke.[9]]

[1] Luke 9:48.

[2] 1 Thess. 2:7.

[3] Eph. 3:8.

[4] Matt. 18:6.

[5] Matt. 18:14.

[6] Ps. 119:165.

[7] Rom. 8:35.

[8] Ezek. 33:12.

[9] Matt. 18:12–14.

The Sinning Brother

“If thy brother sin against thee, go, shew him his fault between thee and him alone.[1]” He, then, who attends closely to the expression, in proof of the surpassing philanthropy of Jesus, will say, that as the words do not suggest a difference of sins, they will act in a singular manner and contrary to the goodness of Jesus, who supply the thought, that these words are to be understood as being limited in their application to lesser sins. But another, also attending closely to the expression, and not wishing to introduce these extraneous thoughts, nor admitting that it is spoken about every sin, will say, that he who commits those great sins is not a brother, even if he be called a brother, as the Apostle says, “If any one that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, etc., with such an one not to eat;”[2] for no one who is an idolater, or a fornicator, or covetous, is a brother; for if he, who seems to bear the name of Christ, though he is named a brother, has something of the features of these, he would not rightly be called a brother. As then he, who says that such words are spoken about every sin, whether the sin be murder, or poisoning, or pæderasty, or anything of that sort, would give occasion of injury to the exceeding goodness of Christ, so, on the contrary, he who distinguishes between the brother and him who is called the brother, might teach that, in the case of the least of the sins of men, he who has not repented after the telling of the fault is to be reckoned as a Gentile and a publican, for sins which are “not unto death,”[3] or, as the law has described them in the Book of Numbers, not “death-bringing.”[4] This would seem to be very harsh; for I do not think that any one will readily be found who has not been censured thrice for the same form of sin, say, reviling, with which revilers abuse their neighbours, or those who are carried away by passion, or for over-drinking, or lying and idle words, or any of those things which exist in the masses. You will inquire, therefore, whether any observation of the passage has escaped the notice of those, who are influenced by their conception of the goodness of the Word, and grant pardon to those who have committed the greatest sins, as well as of those who teach that, in the case of the very least sins, he is to be reckoned as a Gentile and a publican, making him a stranger to the church, after he has committed three very trivial transgressions. But the following seems to me to have been overlooked by both of them, namely, the words, “Thou hast gained thy brother.”[1] It is assigned by the Word to him only who heard, and He no longer applies it in the case of him who has stumbled twice or thrice and been censured; but that which was to be said about him who was censured twice or thrice, corresponding to the saying, “Thou hast gained thy brother,” He has left in the air, so to speak. He is not, therefore, altogether gained, nor will he altogether perish, or he will receive stripes. And attend carefully to the first passage, “If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother,” and to the second passage, which is literally, “If he hear thee not, take with thyself one or two more, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”[5] What, then, will happen to him who has been censured for the second time, after every word has been established by two or three witnesses, He has left us to conceive. And, again, “If he refuse to hear them”—manifestly, the witnesses who have been taken—“tell it,” he says, “to the church;”[6] and He does not say what he will suffer if he does not hear the church, but He taught that if he refused to hear the church, then he who had thrice admonished, and had not been heard, was to regard him for the future as the Gentile and the publican.[6] Therefore he is not altogether gained, nor will he altogether perish. But what at all he will suffer, who at first did not hear, but required witnesses, or even refused to hear these, but was brought to the church, God knows; for we do not declare it, according to the precept, “Judge not that ye be not judged,”[7] “until the Lord come, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts.”[8] But, with reference to the seeming harshness in the case of those who have committed less sins, one might say that it is not possible for him who has not heard twice in succession to hear the third time, so as, on this account, no longer to be as a Gentile or a publican, or no longer to stand in need of the censure in presence of all the church. For we must bear in mind this, “So it is not the will of My Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”[9] For if “we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad,”[10] let each one with all his power do what he can so that he may not receive punishment for more evil things done in the body, even if he is going to receive back for all the wrongs which he has done; but it should be our ambition to procure the reward for a greater number of good deeds, since “with what measure we mete, it shall be measured to us,”[11] and, “according to the works of our own hands shall it happen unto us,”[12] and not in infinite wise, but either double or sevenfold shall sinners receive for their sins from the hand of the Lord; since He does not render unto any one according to the works of his hands, but more than that which he has done, for “Jerusalem,” as Isaiah taught, “received from the hand of the Lord double for her sins;”[13] but the neighbours of Israel, whoever they may be, will receive sevenfold, according to the following expression in the Psalms, “Render unto our neighbours sevenfold into their bosom the reproach with which they have reproached Thee, O Lord.”[14] And other forms of payment in return could be found, which, if we apprehend, we shall know that to repent after any sin, whatever its greatness, is advantageous, in order that, in addition to our not being punished for more offences, there may be some hope left to us concerning good deeds done afterwards at some time, even though, before them, thousands of errors have been committed by anyone of us. For it would be strange that evil deeds should be reckoned to any one, but the better which are done after the bad should profit nothing; which may also be learned from Ezekiel,[15] by those who pay careful consideration to the things said about such cases.

[1] Matt. 18:15.

[2] 1 Cor. 5:11.

[3] 1 John 5:16.

[4] Num. 18:22.

[5] Matt. 18:15, 16.

[6] Matt. 18:17.

[7] Matt. 7:1.

[8] 1 Cor. 4:5.

[9] Matt. 18:14.

[10] 2 Cor. 5:10.

[11] Matt. 7:2.

[12] Isa. 3:11.

[13] Isa. 40:2.

[14] Ps. 79:12.

[15] Ezek. 33.

The Power to Bind on Earth and in Heaven

But to me it seems that, to the case of him who after being thrice admonished was adjudged to be as the Gentile and the publican, it is fitly subjoined, “Verily, I say unto you,”—namely, to those who have judged any one to be as the Gentile and the publican,—“and what things soever ye shall bind on the earth,”[1] etc.; for with justice has he, who has thrice admonished and not been heard, bound him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican; wherefore, when such an one is bound and condemned by one of this character, he remains bound, as no one of those in heaven overturns the judgment of the man who bound him. And, in like manner, he who was admonished once for all, and did things worthy of being gained, having been set free by the admonition of the man who gained him, and no longer bound by the cords of his own sins,[2] for which he was admonished, shall be adjudged to have been set free by those in heaven. Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens,”[3] has been specially set before the words, “And what things soever ye shall bind on earth,” etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens.[3] The better, therefore, is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished.

————————————

[1] Matt. 18:18.

[2] Prov. 5:22.

[3] Matt. 16:19.

Book 14.

The Power of Harmony in Relation to Prayer

Book XIV.

1. The Power of Harmony in Relation to Prayer.

“Again I say unto you that if two of you shall agree[1]on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them.”[2] The word symphony is strictly applied to the harmonies of sounds in music. And there are indeed among musical sounds some accordant and others discordant. But the Evangelic Scripture is familiar with the name as applied to musical matters in the passage, “He heard a symphony and dancing.”[3] For it was fitting that when the son who had been lost and found came by penitence into concord with his father a symphony should be heard on the occasion of the joyous mirth of the house. But the wicked Laban was not acquainted with the word symphony in his saying to Jacob, “And if thou hadst told me I would have sent thee away with mirth and with music and with drums and a harp.”[4] But akin to the symphony of this nature is that which is written in the second Book of Kings when “the brethren of Aminadab went before the ark, and David and his son played before the Lord on instruments artistically fitted with might and with songs;”[5] for the instruments thus fitted with might and with songs, had in themselves the musical symphony which is so powerful that when two only, bring along with the symphony which has relation to the music that is divine and spiritual, a request to the Father in heaven about anything whatsoever, the Father grants the request to those who ask along with the symphony on earth,—which is most miraculous,—those things which those who have made the symphony spoken of may have asked. So also I understand the apostolic saying “Defraud ye not one the other except it be by agreement for a season that ye may give yourselves unto prayer.”[6] For since the word harmony is applied to those who marry according to God in the passage from Proverbs which is as follows: “Fathers will divide their house and substance to their sons, but from God the woman is married to the man,”[7] it is a logical consequence of the harmony being from God, that the name and the deed should enjoy the agreement with a view to prayer, as is indicated in the word, “unless it be by agreement.”[6] Then the Word repeating that the agreeing of two on the earth is the same thing as the agreeing with Christ, adds, “For where two or three are gathered together in My name.”[8] Therefore the two or three who are gathered together in the name of Christ are those who are in agreement on earth, not two only but sometimes also three. But he who has the power will consider whether this agreement and a congregation of this sort in the midst of which Christ is, can be found in more, since “narrow and straightened is the way that leadeth unto life, and few be they that find it.”[9] But perhaps also not even few but two or three make a symphony as Peter and James and John, to whom as making a symphony the Word of God showed His own glory. But two made a symphony, Paul and Sosthenes, when writing the first Epistle to the Corinthians;[10] and after this Paul and Timothy when sending the second Epistle to the same.[11] And even three made a symphony when Paul and Silvanus and Timothy gave instruction by letter to the Thessalonians.[12] But if it be necessary also from the ancient Scriptures to bring forward the three who made a symphony on earth, so that the Word was in the midst of them making them one, attend to the superscription of the Psalms, as for example to that of the forty-first, which is as follows: “Unto the end, unto understanding, for the sons of Korah.”[13] For though there were three sons of Korah whose names we find in the Book of Exodus,[14] Aser, which is, by interpretation, “instruction,” and the second Elkana, which is translated, “possession of God,” and the third Abiasaph, which in the Greek tongue might be rendered, “congregation of the father,” yet the prophecies were not divided but were both spoken and written by one spirit, and one voice, and one soul, which wrought with true harmony, and the three speak as one, “As the heart panteth after the springs of the water, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.”[15] But also they say in the plural in the forty-fourth Psalm, “O God, we have heard with our ears.”[16] But if you wish still further to see those who are making symphony on earth look to those who heard the exhortation, “that ye may be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment,”[17] and who strove after the goal, “the soul and the heart of all the believers were one,”[18] who have become such, if it be possible for such a condition to be found in more than two or three, that there is no discord between them, just as there is no discord between the strings of the ten-stringed psaltery with each other. But they were not in symphony in earth who said, “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ,”[19] but there were schisms among them, upon the dissolution of which they were gathered together in company with the spirit in Paul, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ,[20] that they might no longer “bite and devour one another so that they were consumed by one another;”[21] for discord consumes, as concord brings together, and admits[22] the Son of God who comes in the midst of those who have become at concord. And strictly, indeed, concord takes place in two things generic, through the perfecting together, as the Apostle has called it, of the same mind by an intellectual grasp of the same opinions, and through the perfecting together of the same judgment, by a like way of living. But if whenever two of us agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father of Jesus who is in heaven,[2] plainly when this is not done for them of the Father in heaven as touching anything that they shall ask, there the two have not been in agreement on earth; and this is the cause why we are not heard when we pray, that we do not agree with one another on earth, neither in opinions nor in life. But further also if we are the body of Christ and God hath set the members each one of them in the body that the members may have the same care one for another, and may agree with one another, and when one member suffers, all the members suffer with it, and if one be glorified, they rejoice with it,[23] we ought to practise the symphony which springs from the divine music, that when we are gathered together in the name of Christ, He may be in the midst of us, the Word of God, and the Wisdom of God, and His Power.[24]

[1] συμφωνήσωσιν.

[2] Matt. 18:19.

[3] Luke 15:25.

[4] Gen. 31:27.

[5] 2 Sam. 6:4, 5.

[6] 1 Cor. 7:5.

[7] Prov. 19:14, ἁρμόζεται·.

[8] Matt. 18:20.

[9] Matt. 7:14.

[10] 1 Cor. 1:1.

[11] 2 Cor. 1:1.

[12] 1 Thess. 1:1.

[13] Ps. 42.

[14] Exod. 6:24.

[15] Ps. 42:1.

[16] Ps. 44:1.

[17] 1 Cor. 1:10.

[18] Acts 4:32.

[19] 1 Cor. 1:12.

[20] 1 Cor. 5:4.

[21] Gal. 5:15.

[22] Or reading χωρίζει, following the Vetus Inter, keeps apart.

[23] 1 Cor. 12:25, 18, 25, 26.

[24] 1 Cor. 1:24.

The Harmony of Husband and Wife

So much then for the more common understanding of the two or three whom the Word exhorts to be in agreement. But now let us also touch upon another interpretation which was uttered by some one of our predecessors, exhorting those who were married to sanctity and purity; for by the two, he says, whom the Word desires to agree on earth, we must understand the husband and wife, who by agreement defraud each other of bodily intercourse that they may give themselves unto prayer;[1] when if they pray for anything whatever that they shall ask, they shall receive it, the request being granted to them by the Father in heaven of Jesus Christ on the ground of such agreement. And this interpretation does not appear to me to cause dissolution of marriage, but to be an incitement to agreement, so that if the one wished to be pure, but the other did not desire it, and on this account he who willed and was able to fulfil the better part, condescended to the one who had not the power or the will, they would not both have the accomplishment from the Father in heaven of Jesus Christ, of anything whatever that they might ask.

[1] 1 Cor. 7:5.

The Harmony of Body, Soul, and Spirit

And next to this about the married, I am familiar also with another interpretation of the agreement between the two which is as follows. In the wicked, sin reigns over the soul, being settled as on its own throne in this mortal body, so that the soul obeys the lusts thereof;[1] but in the case of those, who have stirred up the sin which formerly reigned over the body as from a throne and who are in conflict with it, “the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh;”[2] but in the case of those who have now become perfected, the spirit has gained the mastery and put to death the deeds of the body, and imparts to the body of its own life, so that already this is fulfilled, “He shall quicken also your mortal bodies because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you;”[3] and there arises a concord of the two, body and spirit, on the earth, on the successful accomplishment of which there is sent up a harmonious prayer also of him who “with the heart believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth maketh confession unto salvation,”[4] so that the heart is no longer far from God, and along with this the righteous man draws nigh to God with his own lips and mouth. But still more blessed is it if the three be gathered together in the name of Jesus that this may be fulfilled, “May God sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[5] But some one may inquire with regard to the concord of spirit and body spoken of, if it is possible for these to be at concord without the third being so,—I mean the soul—and whether it does not follow from the concord of these on the earth after the two have been gathered together in the name of Christ, that the three also are already gathered together in His name, in the midst of whom comes the Son of God as all are dedicated to Him,—I mean the three,—and no one is opposed to Him, there being no antagonism not only on the part of the spirit, but not even of the soul, nor further of the body.

[1] Rom. 6:12.

[2] Gal. 5:17.

[3] Rom. 8:11.

[4] Rom. 10:10.

[5] 1 Thess. 5:23.

Harmony of the Old and New Covenants

And likewise it is a pleasant thing to endeavour to understand and exhibit the fact of the concord of the two covenants,—of the one before the bodily advent of the Saviour and of the new covenant; for among those things in which the two covenants are at concord so that there is no discord between them would be found prayers, to the effect that about anything whatever they shall ask it shall be done to them from the Father in heaven. And if also you desire the third that unites the two, do not hesitate to say that it is the Holy Spirit, since “the words of the wise,” whether they be of those before the advent, or at the time of the advent, or after it, “are as goads, and as nails firmly fixed, which were given by agreement from one shepherd.”[1] And do not let this also pass unobserved, that He did not say, where two or three are gathered together in My name, there “shall I be” in the midst of them, but “there am I,”[2] not going to be, not delaying, but at the very moment of the concord being Himself found, and being in the midst of them.

[1] Eccl. 12:11.

[2] Matt. 18:20.

The Limit of Forgiveness

“Then came Peter and said unto Him, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?”[1] The conception that these things were said in a simple sense by Peter, as if he were inquiring whether he was to forgive his brother when he sinned against him seven times, but no longer if he sinned an eighth time, and by the Saviour, as if He thought that one should sit still and reckon up the sins of his neighbours against him in order that he might forgive seventy times and seven, but that from the seventy-eighth he should not forgive the man who wronged him, seems to me altogether silly and unworthy alike of the progress which Peter had made in the company of Jesus and of the divine magnanimity of Jesus. Perhaps, then, these things also border on an obscurity akin to the words, “Hear My voice, ye wives of Lamech,”[2] etc. If any one has already become a friend of Jesus so as to be taught by His spirit which illumines the reason of him who has advanced so far according to his desert, he might know the true meaning, therefore, in regard to these things, and such as Jesus Himself would have clearly expounded it; but we who fall short of the greatness of the friendship of Jesus must be content if we can babble a little about the passage. The number six, then, appears to be working and toilsome, but the number seven to contain the idea of repose. And consider if you can say that he, who loves the world and works the things of the world, and does those things which are material, sins six times, and that the number seven is the end of sin in his case, so that Peter with some such thought in his mind wished to pardon seven sins of those which his brother had committed against him. But since as units the tens and the hundreds have a certain common measure of proportion to the number which is in units, and Jesus knew that the number might be exceeded, on this account, I think, that He added to the number seven also the seventy,[3] and said that there ought to be forgiveness to brethren here, and to them who have sinned in respect to things here. But if any one going beyond the things about the world and this age were to commit sin, even if it were trifling, he could not longer reasonably have forgiveness of sins; for forgiveness extends to the things here, and in relation to the sins committed here, whether the forgiveness comes late or soon; but there is no forgiveness, not even to a brother, who has sinned beyond the seven and seventy times. But you might say that he who has sinned in such wise, whether as against Peter his brother, or as against Peter, against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, is by sins of this kind in the smaller number of the sin, but according to sins still worse is in the number which has no forgiveness of sins.

[1] Matt. 18:21.

[2] Gen. 4:23.

[3] Matt. 18:22.

Concerning the King Who Made a Reckoning With His Own Servants, to Whom Was Brought a Man Who Owed Ten Thousand Talents

“Therefore I say unto you the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who wished to make a reckoning with his own servants.”[1] The general conception of the parable is to teach us that we should be inclined to forgive the sins committed against us by those who have wronged us, and especially if after the wrongdoing he who has done it supplicates him who has been wronged, asking forgiveness for the sins which he has committed against him. And this the parable wishes to teach us by representing that even when forgiveness has been granted by God to us of the sins in respect of which we have received remission, exaction will be demanded even after the remission, unless we forgive the sins of those who have wronged us, so that there is no longer left in us the least remembrance of the wrong that was done, but the whole heart, assisted by the spirit of forgetfulness of wrongs, which is no common virtue, forgives him who has wronged us those things which have been wickedly done against any of us by him, even treacherously. But next to the general conception of the parable, it is right to examine the whole of it more simply according to the letter, so that he who advances with care to the right investigation of each detail of the things previously written may derive profit from the examination of what is said. Now there is, as is probable, an interpretation, transcendental and hard to trace, as it is somewhat mystical, according to which, after the analogy of the parables which are interpreted by the Evangelists, one would investigate each of the details in this; as, for example, who the king was, and who the servants were, and what was the beginning of his making a reckoning, and who was the one debtor who owed many talents, and who was his wife and who his children, and what were the “all things” spoken of besides those which the king ordered to be sold in order that the debt might be paid out of his belongings, and what was meant by the going out of the man who had been forgiven the many talents, and who was the one of the servants who was found and was a debtor not to the householder, but to the man who had been forgiven, and what is meant by the number of the hundred pence, and what by the word, “He took him by the throat saying, Pay what thou owest,” and what is the prison into which he who had been forgiven all the talents went out and cast his fellow-servant, and who were the fellow-servants who were grieved and told the lord all that had been done, and who were the tormentors to whom he who had cast his fellow-servant into prison was delivered, and how he who was delivered to the tormentors paid all that was due, so that he no longer owed anything.[2] But it is probable also that some other things could be added to the number by a more competent investigator, the exposition and interpretation of which I think to be beyond the power of man, and requiring the Spirit of Christ who spoke them in order that Christ may be understood as He spoke; for as “no one among men knows the things of the man, save the spirit which is in him,” and “no one knows the things of God, save the Spirit of God,”[3] so no one knows after God the things spoken by Christ in proverbs and parables save the Spirit of Christ, in which he who participates in Christ not only so far as He is Spirit, but in Christ as He is Wisdom, as He is Word, would behold the things which were revealed to him in this passage. But with regard to the interpretation of the loftiest type, we make no profession; nor on the other hand with the assistance of Christ who is the Wisdom of God do we despair of apprehending the things signified in the parable; but whether it shall be the case that such things shall be dictated to us in connection with this Scripture or not, may God in Christ suggest the doing of that which is pleasing to Him, if only there be granted to us also concerning these things, the word of wisdom which is given from God through the Spirit, and the word of knowledge which is supplied according to the Spirit.[4]

[1] Matt. 18:23.

[2] Matt. 18:23, 34.

[3] 1 Cor. 2:11.

[4] 1 Cor. 12:8.

Exposition Continued: the King and the Servants

“The kingdom of heaven,” He says, “is likened,”[1] etc. But if it be likened to such a king, and one who has done such things, who must we say that it is but the Son of God? For He is the King of the heavens, and as He is absolute Wisdom and absolute Righteousness and absolute Truth, is He not so also absolute Kingdom? But it is not a kingdom of any of those below, nor of a part of those above, but of all the things above, which were called heavens. But if you enquire into the meaning of the words, “Theirs is the kingdom of heaven,”[2] you may say that Christ is theirs in so far as He is absolute Kingdom, reigning in every thought of the man who is no longer under the reign of sin which reigns in the mortal body of those who have subjected themselves to it.[3] And if I say, reigning in every thought, I mean something like this, reigning as Righteousness and Wisdom and Truth and the rest of the virtues in him who has become a heaven, because of bearing the image of the heavenly, and in every power, whether angelic, or the rest that are named saints, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come, and who are worthy of a kingdom of such a kind. Accordingly this kingdom of heaven (when it was made “in the likeness of sinful flesh,”[4] that for sin it might condemn sin, when God made “Him who knew no sin to be sin on behalf of us,”[5] who bear the body of our sin), is likened to a certain king who is understood in relation to Jesus being united to Him, if we may dare so to speak, having more capacity towards being united and becoming entirely one with the “First-born of all creation,”[6] than he, who, being joined to the Lord, becomes one spirit with Him.[7] Now of this kingdom of the heavens which is likened unto a certain king, according to the conception of Jesus, and is united to Him, it is said by anticipation that he wished to make a reckoning with his servants. But he is about to make a reckoning with them in order that it may be manifested how each has employed the tried money of the householder and his rational coins. And the image in the parables was indeed taken from masters who made a reckoning with their own servants; but we shall understand more accurately what is signified by this part of the parable, if we fix our thought on the things done by the slaves who had administered their master’s goods, and who were asked to give a reckoning concerning them. For each of them, receiving in different measure from his master’s goods, has used them either for that which was right so as to increase the goods of his master, or consumed it riotously on things which he ought not, and spent profusely without judgment and without discretion that which had been put into his hands. But there are those who have wisely administered these goods and goods so great, but have lost others, and whenever they give the reckoning when the master makes a reckoning with them, there is gathered together how much loss each has incurred, and there is reckoned up how much gain each has brought, and according to the worthiness of the way in which he has administered it, he is either honoured or punished, or in some cases the debt is forgiven, but in others the talents are taken away. Well, then, from what has been said, let us first look at the rational coins and the tried money of the householder, of which one receives more and another less, for according to the ability of each, to one are given five talents as he has the ability to administer so many, but to another two as not being able to receive the amount of the man before him, and to another one as being also inferior to the second.[8] Are these, then, the only differences, or are we to recognize these differences in the case of certain persons of whom the Gospel goes on to speak while there are also others besides these: In other parables also are found certain persons, as the two debtors, the one who owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty;[9] but whether these had been entrusted with them and had administered them badly as being inferior in ability to him who had been entrusted with a talent, or had received them, we have not learned; but that they owed so much, we seem to be taught from the parable. And there are found other ten servants who were each entrusted with a pound separately.[10] And if any one understood the varied character of the human soul and the wide differences from each other in respect of natural aptitude, or want of aptitude for more or fewer of the virtues, and for these virtues or for those, perhaps he would comprehend how each soul has come with certain coins of the householder which come to light with the full attainment of reason, and with the attention which follows the full attainment of reason, and with exercise in things that are right, or with diligence and exercise in other things, whether they be useful as pursuits, or in part useful and in part not useful, such as the opinions which are not wholly true nor wholly false.

[1] Matt. 18:23.

[2] Matt. 5:3.

[3] Rom. 6:12.

[4] Rom. 8:3.

[5] 2 Cor. 5:21.

[6] Col. 1:15.

[7] 1 Cor. 6:17.

[8] Matt. 25:15.

[9] Luke 7:41.

[10] Luke 19:13.

The Principle of the Reckoning

But you will here inquire whether all men can be called servants of the king, or some are servants whom he foreknew and fore-ordained, while there are others who transact business with the servants, and are called bankers.[1] And in like manner you will inquire if there are those outside the number of the slaves from whom the householder declares that he will exact his own with usury, not only men alien from piety, but also some of the believers. Now the servants alone are the stewards of the Word, but the king, making a reckoning with the servants, demands from those who have borrowed from the servants, whether a hundred measures of wheat or a hundred measures of oil,[2] or whatever in point of fact those who are outside of the household of the king have received; for he who owed the hundred measures of wheat or the hundred measures of oil is not found to be, according to the parable, a fellow-servant of the unjust steward, as is evident from the question—how much owest thou to my lord?[3] But mark with me that each deed which is good or seemly is like a gain and an increment, but a wicked deed is like a loss; and as there is a certain gain when the money is greater and another when it is less, and as there are differences of more or less, so according to the good deeds, there is as it were a valuing of gains more or less. To reckon what work is a great gain, and what a less gain, and what a least, is the prerogative of him who alone knows to investigate such things, looking at them in the light of the disposition, and the word, and the deed, and from consideration of the things which are not in our power cooperating with those that are; and so also in the case of things opposite, it is his to say what sin, when a reckoning is made with the servants, is found to be a great loss, and what is less, and what, if we may so call it, is the loss of the very last mite,[4] or the last farthing.[5] The account, therefore, of the entire and whole life is exacted by that which is called the kingdom of heaven which is likened to a king, when “we must all stand before the judgment-sent of Christ that each one may receive the things done in the body according to what he hath done, whether good or bad;”[6] and then when the reckoning is being made, shall there be brought into the reckoning that is made also every idle word that men shall speak,[7] and any cup of cold water only which one has given to drink in the name of a disciple.[8]

[1] Matt. 25:27.

[2] Luke 16:6, 7.

[3] Luke 16:5.

[4] Luke 12:59.

[5] Matt. 5:26.

[6] 2 Cor. 5:10.

[7] Matt. 12:36.

[8] Matt. 10:42.

The Time Occupied by the Reckoning

And these things will take place whenever that happens which is written in Daniel, “The books were opened and the judgment was set;”[1] for a record, as it were, is made of all things that have been spoken and done and thought, and by divine power every hidden thing of ours shall be manifested, and everything that is covered shall be revealed,[2] in order that when any one is found who has not “given diligence to be freed from the adversary,” he may go in succession through the hands of the magistrate, and the judge, and the attendant into the prison, until he pays the very last mite;[3] but when one has given diligence to be freed from him and owes nothing to any one, and already has made the pound ten pounds or five pounds, or doubled the five talents, or made the two four, he may obtain the due recompense, entering into the joy of his Lord, either being set over all His possessions,[4] or hearing the word, “Have thou authority over ten cities,”[5] or “Have thou authority over five cities.”[6] But we think that these things are spoken of as if they required a long period of time, in order that an account may be made by us of the whole times of the earthly life, so that we might suppose that when the king makes a reckoning with each one of his many servants the matter would require so vast a period of time, until these things come to an end which have existed from the beginning of the world down to the consummation of the age, not of one age, but of many ages. But the truth is not so; for when God wished all at once to rekindle in the memories of all everything that had been done by each one throughout the whole time, in order that each might become conscious of his own doings whether good or bad, He would do it by His ineffable power. For it is not with God as with us; for if we wish to call some things to remembrance, we require sufficient time for the detailed account of what has been said by us, and to bring to our remembrance the things which we wish to remember; but if He wished to call to our memory the things which have been done in this life, in order that becoming conscious of what we have done we may apprehend for what we are punished or honoured, He could do so. But if any one disbelieves the swiftness of the power of God in regard to these matters, he has not yet had a true conception of the God who made the universe, who did not require times to make the vast creation of heaven and earth and the things in them; for, though He may seem to have made these things in six days, there is need of understanding to comprehend in what sense the words “in six days” are said, on account of this, “This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth,”[7] etc. Therefore it may be boldly affirmed that the season of the expected judgment does not require times, but as the resurrection is said to take place “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,”[8] so I think will the judgment also be.

[1] Dan. 7:10.

[2] Matt. 10:26; Luke 12:2.

[3] Luke 12:58, 59.

[4] Matt. 24:47.

[5] Luke 19:17.

[6] Luke 19:19. In chap. 12 Origen reads: Be thou also over five cities—as W. & H., and comments on the difference of the reward. The mss. are therefore in error here.

[7] Gal. 2:4.

[8] 1 Cor. 15:52.

The Man Who Owed Many Talents

Next we must speak in regard to this, “And when he had begun to reckon, there was brought unto him one which owed many talents.”[1] The sense of this appears to me to be as follows: The season of beginning the judgment is with the house of God, who says, as also it is written in Ezekiel, to those who are appointed to attend to punishments, “Begin ye with My saints;”[2] and it is like “the twinkling of an eye;” but, the time of making a reckoning includes the same “twinkling,” ideally apprehended, for we are not forgetful of what has been previously said of those who owe more. Wherefore it is not written, when he was making reckoning, but it is said, “When he began to reckon,” there was brought, at the beginning of his making a reckoning, one who owed many talents; he had lost tens of thousands of talents, having been entrusted with great things, and having had many things committed to his care, but he had brought no gain to his master, but had lost tens of thousands so that he owed many talents; and, perhaps on this account, he owed many talents, seeing that he followed often the woman, who was sitting upon the talent of lead, whose name is wickedness.[3] But observe here that every great sin is a loss of the talents of the master of the house, and such sins are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men, effeminate, idolaters, murderers. Perhaps then the one who is brought to the king owing many talents has committed no small sin but all that are great and heinous; and if you were to seek for him among men, perhaps you would find him to be “the man of sin, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth himself against every God or object of worship;”[4] but if you seek him outside the number of men, who can this be but the devil who has ruined so many who received him, who wrought sin in them. For “man is a great thing, and a pitiful man is precious,”[5] precious so as to be worthy of a talent, whether of gold like as the lamp which was equal to a talent of gold,[6] or of silver or of any kind of material whatsoever understood intellectually, the symbols of which are recorded in the Words of the Days,[7] when David became enriched with many talents of which the number is mentioned, so many talents of gold, and so many of silver, and of the rest of the material there named, from which the temple of God was built.

[1] Matt. 18:24.

[2] Ezek. 9:6.

[3] Zech. 5:7, 8.

[4] 2 Thess. 2:3, 4.

[5] Prov. 20:6.

[6] Exod. 25:39.

[7] 1 Chron. 22:14.

The Servant Who Owed a Hundred Pence

Only, though he cannot pay the talents, for he has lost them, he has a wife and children and other things, of which it is written, “All that he has.”[1] And it was possible that when he had been sold along with his own, he would have prospered if some one had bought him, and, by his worth and the things that were his, have paid the whole debt in full; and it was possible that he might no longer be the servant of the king, but become that of his purchaser. And he makes a request that he be not sold along with his own, but may continue to abide in the house of the king; wherefore he fell down and worshipped him, knowing that the king was God, and said, “Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all;”[2] for he was, as is probable, an active man, who knew that he could by a second course of action fill up the whole deficiency of the former loss of many talents. And this truly good king was moved with compassion for the man who owed him many talents and then released him, having bestowed upon him a favour greater than the request which had been made; for the debtor promised to the long-suffering master to pay all his debts, but the Lord moved with compassion for him did not merely forgive him with the idea of receiving his own back as a result of his patience, but even entirely released him and forgave him the whole debt. But this wicked servant, who had besought his master to have patience for his many talents, acted without mercy, for, having found one of his fellow-servants which owed him a hundred pence, he laid hold on him and took him by the throat, saying, “Pay if thou owest.”[3] And did he not exhibit the very excess of wickedness who laid hold of his fellow-servant for a hundred pence, and took him by the throat and deprived him of freedom to breathe, when he himself, for the many talents, had neither been laid hold of, nor seized by the throat, but at first was ordered to be sold along with his wife and children and all that was his own; but afterwards, when he had worshipped him, the master was moved with compassion for him, and he was released and forgiven in regard to the whole of the debt. But it were indeed a hard task to tell according to the conception of Jesus who is the one fellow-servant who was found to be owing a hundred pence, not to his own lord, but to him who owed many talents, and who are the fellow-servants who saw the one taking by the throat, and the other taken, and were exceedingly sorry, and represented clearly unto their own lord all that had been done. But what the truth in these matters is, I declare that no one can interpret unless Jesus, who explained all things to His own disciples privately, takes up His abode in his reason, and opens up all the treasures in the parable which are dark, hidden, unseen, and confirms by clear demonstrations the man whom He desires to illumine with the light of the knowledge of the things that are in this parable, that he may at once represent who is brought to the king as the debtor of many talents, and who is the other one who owes to him a hundred pence, etc.; whether he can be the man of sin previously mentioned,[4] or the devil, or neither of these, but some other, whether a man, or some one of these under the sway of the devil; for it is a work of the wisdom of God to exhibit the things that have been prophesied concerning those who are in themselves of a certain nature, or have been made according to such and such qualities, whether among visible powers or also among some men, in whatever way they may have been written by the Holy Spirit. But as we have not yet received the competent mind which is able to be blended with the mind of Christ, and which is capable of attaining to things so great, and which is able with the Spirit to “search all things, even the deep things of God,”[5] we, forming an impression still indefinitely with regard to the matters in this passage, are of opinion that the wicked servant indicated by the parable who is here represented in regard to the debt of many talents, refers to some definite one.

[1] Matt. 18:25.

[2] Matt. 18:26.

[3] Matt. 18:28.

[4] 2 Thess. 2:3.

[5] 1 Cor. 2:10.

The Time of the Reckoning

But it is fitting to examine at what time the man—the king—in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants, and to what period we ought to refer the things that are said. For if it be after the consummation, or at it at the time of the expected judgment, how are we to maintain the things about him who owed a hundred pence, and was taken by the throat by the man who had been forgiven the many talents? But if, before the judgment, how can we explain the reckoning that was made before this by the king, with his own servants? But we ought to think in a general way about every parable, the interpretation of which has not been recorded by the evangelists, even though Jesus explained all things to His own disciples privately;[1] and for this reason the writers of the Gospels have concealed the clear exposition of the parables, because the things signified by them were beyond the power of the nature of words to express, and every solution and exposition of such parables was of such a kind that not even the whole world itself could contain the books that should be written[2] in relation to such parables. But it may happen that a fitting heart be found, and, because of its purity, able to receive the letters of the exposition of the parable, so that they could be written in it by the Spirit of the living God. But some one will say that, perhaps, we act with impiety, who, because of the secret and mystical import of some of the Scriptures which are of heavenly origin, wish them to be symbolic, and endeavour to expound them, even though it might seem ex hypothesi that we had an accurate knowledge of their meaning. But to this we must say that, if there be those who have obtained the gift of accurate apprehension of these things, they know what they ought to do; but as for us, who acknowledge that we fall short of the ability to see into the depth of the things here signified, even though we obtain a somewhat crass perception of the things in the passage, we will say, that some of the things which we seem to find after much examination and inquiry, whether by the grace of God, or by the power of our own mind, we do not venture to commit to writing; but some things, for the sake of our own intellectual discipline, and that of those who may chance to read them, we will to some extent set forth. But let these things, then, be said by way of apology, because of the depth of the parable; but, with regard to the question at what time the man—the king—in the parable wished to make a reckoning with his own servants, we will say that it seems that this takes place about the time of the judgment which had been proclaimed. And this is confirmed by two parables, one at the close of the Gospel before us,[3] and one from the Gospel according to Luke.[4] And not to prolong the discussion by quoting the very letter, as any one who wishes can take it from the Scripture himself, we will say that the parable according to Matthew declares, “For it is as when a man going into another country called his own servants, and delivered unto them his own goods, and to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one talent;”[5] then they took action with regard to that which had been entrusted to them, and, after a long time, the lord of those servants cometh, and it is written in the very words, that he also makes a reckoning with them.[6] And compare the words, “And when he began to make a reckoning,”[7] and consider that he called the going of the householder into another country the time at which “we are at home in the body but absent from the Lord;”[8] but his advent, when, “after a long time the lord of those servants cometh,”[6] the time at the consummation in the judgment; for after a long time the lord of those servants cometh and makes a reckoning with them, and those things which follow take place. But the parable in Luke represents with more clearness, that “a certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return,” and when going, “he called ten servants, and gave to them ten pounds, and said unto them, Trade ye till I come.”[9] But the nobleman, being hated by his own citizens, who sent an ambassage after him, as they did not wish him to reign over them, came back again, having received the kingdom, and told the servants to whom he had given the money to be called to himself that he might know what they had gained by trading. And, seeing what they had done, to him who had made the one pound ten pounds, rendering praise in the words, “Well done, thou good servant, because thou wast found faithful in a very little,”[10] he gives to him authority over ten cities, to-wit, those which were under his kingdom. And to another, who had multiplied the pound fivefold, he did not render the praise which he assigned to the first, nor did he specify the word “authority,” as in the case of the first, but said to him, “Be thou also over five cities.”[11] But to him who had tied up the pound in a napkin, he said, “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant;”[12] and he said to them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it unto him that hath the ten pounds.[13] Who, then, in regard to this parable, will not say that the nobleman, who goes into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return, is Christ, going, as it were, into another country to receive the kingdoms of this world, and the things in it? And those who have received the ten talents are those who have been entrusted with the dispensation of the Word which has been committed unto them. And His citizens who did not wish Him to reign over them when He was a citizen in the world in respect of His incarnation,[14] are perhaps Israel who disbelieved Him, and perhaps also the Gentiles who disbelieved Him.

[1] Mark 4:34.

[2] John 21:25.

[3] Matt. 25:14–30.

[4] Luke 19:12–27.

[5] Matt. 25:14, 15.

[6] Matt. 25:19.

[7] Matt. 18:24.

[8] 2 Cor. 5:6.

[9] Luke 19:12, 13.

[10] Luke 19:17.

[11] Luke 19:19. See note 4, p. 500.

[12] Luke 19:22.

[13] Luke 19:24.

[14] Luke 19:14.

No Forgiveness to the Unforgiving

Only, I have said these things with the view of referring his return when he comes with his kingdom to the consummation, when he commanded the servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him that he might know what they had gained by trading, and from a desire to demonstrate from this, and from the parable of the Talents, that the passage “he who wished to make a reckoning with his own servants”[1] is to be referred to the consummation when now he is king, receiving the kingdom, on account of which, according to another parable,[2] he went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. Therefore, when he returned after receiving the kingdom, he wished to make a reckoning with his own servants. And “when he had begun to reckon, there was brought unto him one who owed many talents,”[3] and he was brought as to a king by those who had been appointed his ministers—I think, the angels. And perhaps he was one of those under the kingdom who had been entrusted with a great administration and had not dispensed it well, but had wasted what had been entrusted to him, so that he came to owe the many talents which he had lost. This very man, perhaps not having the means to pay, is ordered by the king to be sold along with his wife, by intercourse with whom he became the father of certain children. But it is no easy task to see what is intellectually meant by father and mother and children. What this means in point of truth God may know, and whether He Himself has given insight to us or not, he who can may judge. Only this is our conception of the passage; that, as “the Jerusalem which is above” is “the mother”[4] of Paul and of those like unto him, so there may be a mother of others after the analogy of Jerusalem, the mother, for example, of Syene in Egypt, or Sidon, or as many cities as are named in the Scriptures. Then, as Jerusalem is “a bride adorned for her husband,”[5] Christ, so there may be those mothers of certain powers who have been allotted to them as wives or brides. And as there are certain children of Jerusalem, as mother, and of Christ, as father, so there would be certain children of Syene, or Memphis, or Tyre, or Sidon, and the rulers set over them. Perhaps then, too, this one, the debtor of many talents who was brought to the king, has, as we have said, a wife and children, whom at first the king ordered to be sold, and also all that he had to be sold; but afterwards, being moved with compassion, he released him and forgave him all the debt; not, as if he were ignorant of the future, but, in order that we might understand what happened, it was written that he did so. Each one then of those who have, as we have said, a wife and children will render an account whenever the king comes to make a reckoning, having received the kingdom and having returned; and each of them as a ruler of any Syene or Memphis, or Tyre or Sidon, or any like unto them, has also debtors. This one, then, having been released, and having been forgiven all the debt, “went out from the king and found one of his fellow-servants,”[6] etc.; and, on this account, I suppose that he took him by the throat, when he had gone out from the king, for unless he had gone out he would not have taken his own fellow-servant by the throat. Then observe the accuracy of the Scripture, how that the one fell down and “worshipped,” but the other fell down and did not worship but “besought;”[7] and the king being moved with compassion released him and forgave him all the debt, but the servant did not wish even to pity his own fellow-servant; and the king before his release ordered him to be sold and what was his, while he who had been forgiven cast him into prison. And observe that his fellow-servants did not bring any accusation or “said,” but “told,”[8] and that he did not use the epithet “wicked” at the beginning in regard to the money lost, but reserved it afterwards for his action towards the fellow-servant. But mark also the moderation of the king; he does not say, You worshipped me, but You besought me; and no longer did he order him and his to be sold, but, what was worse, he delivered him to the tormentors, because of his wickedness.[9] But who may these be but those who have been appointed in the matter of punishments? But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by adherents of heresies, that if they accuse the Creator[10] of being passionate, because of words that declare the wrath of God, they ought also to accuse this king, because that “being wroth,” he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But it must further be said to those whose view it is that no one is delivered by Jesus to the tormentors,—pray, explain to us, good sirs, who is the king who delivered the wicked servant to the tormentors? And let them also attend to this, “So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you;”[11] and to the same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the Ten Pounds that the Son of the good God said, “Howbeit these mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them,”[12] etc. The conclusion of the parable, however, is adapted also to the simpler; for all of us who have obtained the forgiveness of our own sins, and have not forgiven our brethren, are taught at once that we shall suffer the lot of him who was forgiven but did not forgive his fellow-servant.

[1] Matt. 18:23.

[2] Luke 19:12.

[3] Matt. 18:24.

[4] Gal. 4:26.

[5] Rev. 21:2.

[6] Matt. 18:28.

[7] Matt. 17:26, 29.

[8] Matt. 18:31.

[9] Matt. 18:34.

[10] That is, the God of the Old Testament—according to Marcion.

[11] Matt. 18:35.

[12] Luke 19:27.

How Jesus Finished His Words

“And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words.”[1] He who gives a detailed and complete account of each of the questions before him so that nothing is left out, finishes his own words. But he will give a declaration on this point with more confidence who devotes himself with great diligence to the entire reading of the Old and New Testament; for if the expression, “he finished these words,” may be applied to no other, neither to Moses, nor to any of the prophets, but only to Jesus, then one would dare to say that Jesus alone finished His words, He who came to put an end to things, and to fulfil what was defective in the law, by saying, “It was said to them of old time,”[2] etc., and, again, “That the things spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled.”[3] But if it is written somewhere also in them, then you may compare and contrast the discourses finished by them with those finished by the Saviour, that you may find the difference between them. And yet at this point, also, investigation might be made whether in the case of the things spoken by way of oracle the expression, “he finished,” is applied either to the things spoken by Moses, or any of the prophets, or of both together; for careful observation would suggest very weighty thoughts to those who know how “to compare spiritual things with spiritual,” and on this account “speak not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth.”[4] But perhaps some other one, attending with over-curious spirit to the word “finished,” which is assigned to things of a more mystical order, just as we say that some one delivered to those who were under his control mysteries and rites of “perfecting”[5] not in a praiseworthy fashion, and another delivered the mysteries of God to those who are worthy, and rites of “perfecting” proportionate to such mysteries, might say that having initiated them, he made a rite of “perfecting,” by which “perfecting” the words were shown to be powerful, so that the gospel of Jesus was preached in the whole world, and by virtue of the divine “perfecting” gained the mastery of every soul which the Father draws to the Son, according to what is said by the Saviour, “No one comes to Me except the Father which has sent Me draw him.”[6] Wherefore also “the word” of those who by the grace of God are ambassadors of the gospel, “and their preaching, is not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit of power,”[7] to those for whom the words of the doctrine of Jesus were finished. You will therefore observe how often it is said, “He finished,” and of what things it is said, and you will take as an illustration that which is said in regard to the beatitudes, and the whole of the discourse to which is subjoined, “And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, all the multitudes were astonished at His teaching.”[8] But now the saying, “Jesus finished these words,” is referred also immediately to the very mystical parable according to which the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a king, but also beyond this parable to the sections which were written before it.

[1] Matt. 19:1.

[2] Matt. 5:33.

[3] Mark 14:49; Matt. 26:56.

[4] 1 Cor. 2:13.

[5] τελετὰς. Origen’s play on the words ἐτέλεσεν and τελετή cannot be fully reproduced in English. The word τελετή, in reference to the mysteries, meant the rite, or participation in the rite, by which one became perfect; and in later Christian usage it was applied to the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. See Suicer.

[6] John 6:44.

[7] 1 Cor. 2:4. πνεύματος δυνάμεως. The omission of the καὶ is strange; for in the Contra Celsum (i. 2) Origen characterises the argument from prophecy as “the demonstration of the Spirit” and the argument from miracles as “the demonstration of power.”

[8] Matt. 7:28.

How Men Followed Jesus

Only, when Jesus had finished these words, having spoken them in Galilee about Capernaum, then “He departed thence, and came into the borders of Judæa,”[1] which were different from Galilee. But He came to the borders of Judæa, and not to the middle of it, but, as it were, to the outermost parts, where great multitudes followed Him,[2] whom He healed at “the borders of Judæa beyond Jordan,”—where baptism had been given.[3] But you will observe the difference between the crowds who simply followed, and Peter and the others who gave up everything and followed, and Matthew, who arose and followed him;[4] he did not simply follow, but “having arisen;” for “having arisen” is an important addition. There are always those, then, who follow like the great multitudes, who have not arisen that they may follow, nor have given up all that was theirs formerly, but few are they who have arisen and followed, who also, in the regeneration, shall sit on twelve thrones.[5] Only, if one wishes to be healed, let him follow Jesus.

[1] Matt. 19:1.

[2] Matt. 19:2.

[3] John 1:28.

[4] Matt. 9:9.

[5] Matt. 19:28.

Concerning the Pharisees and Scribes Tempting Jesus (By Asking) Whether Was Lawful for a Man to Put Away His Wife for Every Cause

After this it is written that “there came unto Him the Pharisees tempting Him and saying, Is it lawful for a man to wife for every cause?”[1] Mark, also, has written to the like effect.[2] Accordingly, of those who came to Jesus and inquired of Him, there were some who put questions to tempt Him; and if our Saviour so transcendent was tempted, which of His disciples who is ordained to teach need be vexed, when he is tempted by some who inquire, not from the love of learning, but from the wish to tempt? And you might find many passages, if you brought them together, in which the Pharisees tempted our Jesus, and others, different from them, as a certain lawyer,[3] and perhaps also a scribe,[4] that by bringing together what is said about those who tempted Him, you might find by investigation what is useful for this kind of inquiries. Only, the Saviour, in response to those who tempted Him, laid down dogmas; for they said, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his own wife for every cause?” and He answered and said, “Have ye not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?”[5] etc. And I think that the Pharisees put forward this word for this reason, that they might attack Him whatever He might say; as, for example, if He had said, “It is lawful,” they would have accused Him of dissolving marriages for trifles; but, if He had said, “It is not lawful,” they would have accused Him of permitting a man to dwell with a woman, even with sins; so, likewise, in the case of the tribute-money,[6] if He had told them to give, they would have accused Him of making the people subject to the Romans, and not to the law of God, but if He had told them not to give, they would have accused Him of creating war and sedition, and of stirring up those who were not able to stand against so powerful an army. But they did not perceive in what way He answered blamelessly and wisely, in the first place, rejecting the opinion that a wife was to be put away for every cause, and, in the second place, giving answer to the question about the bill of divorcement; for He saw that not every cause is a reasonable ground for the dissolution of marriage, and that the husband must dwell with the wife as the weaker vessel, giving honour,[7] and bearing her burdens in sins;[8] and by what is written in Genesis, He puts to shame the Pharisees who boasted in the Scriptures of Moses, by saying, “Have ye not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,” etc., and, subjoining to these words, because of the saying, “And the twain shall become one flesh,” teaching in harmony with one flesh, namely, “So that they are no more twain, but one flesh.”[9] And, as tending to convince them that they should not put away their wife for every cause, is it said, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”[10] It is to be observed, however, in the exposition of the words quoted from Genesis in the Gospel, that they were not spoken consecutively as they are written in the Gospel; and I think that it is not even said about the same persons, namely, of those who were formed after the image of God, and of those who were formed from the dust of the ground and from one of the ribs of Adam. For where it is said, “Male and female made He them,”[11] the reference is to those formed “after the image,” but where He also said, “For this cause shall a man leave his own father and mother,”[12] etc., the reference is not to those formed after the image; for some time after the Lord God formed the man, taking dust from the ground, and from his side the helpmate. And mark, at the same time, that in the case of those who are formed “after the image,” the words were not “husband and wife” but “male and female.” But we have also observed this in the Hebrew, for man is indicated by the word “is,” but male by the word “zachar,” and again woman by the word “essa,” but female by the word “agkeba.” For at no time is it “woman” or “man” “after the image,” but the superior class, the male, and the second, the female. But also if a man leave his mother and his father, he cleaves not to the female, but to his own wife, and “they become,” since man and woman are one in flesh, “one flesh.” Then, describing what ought to be in the case of those who are joined together by God, so that they may be joined together in a manner worthy of God, the Saviour adds, “So that they are no more twain;”[10] and, wherever there is indeed concord, and unison, and harmony, between husband and wife, when he is as ruler and she is obedient to the word, “He shall rule over thee,”[13] then of such persons we may truly say, “They are no more twain.” Then since it was necessary that for “him who was joined to the Lord,” it should be reserved “that he should become one spirit with Him,”[14] in the case of those who are joined together by God, after the words, “So that they are no more twain,” it is said, “but one flesh.” And it is God who has joined together the two in one so that they are no more twain, from the time that[15] the woman is married to the man. And, since God has joined them together, on this account in the case of those who are joined together by God, there is a “gift”; and Paul knowing this, that marriage according to the Word of God was a “gift,” like as holy celibacy was a gift, says, “But I would that all men were like myself; howbeit, each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.”[16] And those who are joined together by God both mind and keep the precept, “Husbands love your wives, as Christ also the church.”[17] The Saviour then commanded, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,”[10] but man wishes to put asunder what God hath joined together, when, “falling away from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron, forbidding,” not only to commit fornication, but “to marry,”[18] he dissolves even those who had been before joined together by the providence of God. Let these things then be said, keeping in view what is expressly said concerning the male and the female, and the man and the woman, as the Saviour taught in the answer to the Pharisees.

[1] Matt. 19:3.

[2] Mark 10:2.

[3] Matt. 22:35.

[4] Mark 12:28.

[5] Matt. 19:4.

[6] Matt. 22:17.

[7] 1 Pet. 3:7.

[8] Gal. 6:2.

[9] Matt. 19:4–6.

[10] Matt. 19:6.

[11] Gen. 1:27.

[12] Gen. 2:24.

[13] Gen. 3:16.

[14] 1 Cor. 6:17.

[15] Or, by God the woman is married to the man.

[16] 1 Cor. 7:7.

[17] Eph. 5:25.

[18] 1 Tim. 4:1–3.

Union of Christ and the Church

But since the Apostle understands the words, “And they twain shall be one flesh,”[1] of Christ and the church,[2] we must say that Christ keeping the saying, “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder,”[3] did not put away His former wife, so to speak—that is, the former synagogue—for any other cause than that that wife committed fornication, being made an adulteress by the evil one, and along with him plotted against her husband and slew Him, saying, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, crucify Him, crucify Him.”[4] It was she therefore who herself revolted, rather than her husband who put her away and dismissed her; wherefore, reproaching her for falling away from him, it says in Isaiah, “Of what kind is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, with which I sent her away?”[5] And He who at the beginning created Him “who is in the form of God” after the image, made Him male, and the church female, granting to both oneness after the image. And, for the sake of the church, the Lord—the husband—left the Father whom He saw when He was “in the form of God,”[6] left also His mother, as He was the very son of the Jerusalem which is above, and was joined to His wife who had fallen down here, and these two here became one flesh. For because of her, He Himself also became flesh, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,”[7] and they are no more two, but now they are one flesh, since it is said to the wife, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members each in his part;”[8] for the body of Christ is not something apart different from the church, which is His body, and from the members each in his part. And God has joined together these who are not two, but have become one flesh, commanding that men should not separate the church from the Lord. And he who takes heed for himself so as not to be separated, is confident as one who will not possibly be separated and says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”[9] Here, therefore, the saying, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,”[3] was written with relation to the Pharisees, but to those who are superior to the Pharisees, it could be said, “What then God hath joined together, let nothing put asunder,” neither principality nor power; for God, who has joined together is stronger than all those which any one could conceive and name.

[1] Matt. 19:5.

[2] Eph. 5:31, 32.

[3] Matt. 19:6.

[4] John 19:6, 15; Luke 23:18.

[5] Isa. 50:1.

[6] Phil. 2:6.

[7] John 1:14.

[8] 1 Cor. 12:27.

[9] Rom. 8:35.

The Bill of Divorcement

After this we will discuss the saying of the Pharisees which they said to Jesus, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement and put her away?”[1] And with good reason we will bring forward for this purpose the passage from Deuteronomy concerning the bill of divorcement, which is as follows: “But if a man taketh a wife and cohabit with her, and it shall be, if she do not find favour in his sight because he hath found in her a thing unseemly,” etc., down to the words, “and ye shall not pollute the land which the Lord your God giveth you for an inheritance.”[2] Now I inquire whether in these things according to this law, we are to seek nothing in it beyond the letter seeing that God has not given it, or whether to the Pharisees who quoted the saying, “Moses commanded to give a bill of divorcement and put her away,” it was of necessity said, “Moses, for your hardness of heart, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it hath not been so.”[3] But if any one ascends to the Gospel of Christ Jesus which teaches that the law is spiritual, he will seek also the spiritual understanding of this law. And he who wishes to interpret these things figuratively will say that, just as it was said by Paul confident in the grace which he had, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth, but if the husband be dead she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord; but she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment, and I think that I also have the Spirit of God”[4] (for here to the words, “after my judgment,” lest it should be despised as being without the Spirit of God, he well added, “and I think that I also have the Spirit of God),” so also it would be possible for Moses, by reason of the power given to him to make laws, to the effect that he suffered for the hardness of heart of the people certain things, among which was the putting away of wives, to be persuaded in regard to the laws which he promulgated according to his own judgment, that in these also the legislation took place with the Spirit of God. And he will say that, unless one law is spiritual and another is not such, this is a law, and this is spiritual, and its spiritual significance ought to be investigated.

[1] Matt. 19:7.

[2] Deut. 24:1–4.

[3] Matt. 19:8.

[4] 1 Cor. 7:39, 40.

The Divorce of Israel

Now, keeping in mind what we said above in regard to the passage from Isaiah about the bill of divorcement, we will say that the mother of the people separated herself from Christ, her husband, without having received the bill of divorcement, but afterwards when there was found in her an unseemly thing, and she did not find favour in his sight, the bill of divorcement was written out for her; for when the new covenant called those of the Gentiles to the house of Him who had cast away his former wife, it virtually gave the bill of divorcement to her who formerly separated from her husband—the law, and the Word. Therefore he, also, having separated from her, married, so to speak, another, having given into the hands of the former the bill of divorcement; wherefore they can no longer do the things enjoined on them by the law, because of the bill of divorcement. And a sign that she has received the bill of divorcement is this, that Jerusalem was destroyed along with what they called the sanctuary of the things in it which were believed to be holy, and with the altar of burnt offerings, and all the worship associated with it. And a further sign of the bill of divorcement is this, that they cannot keep their feasts, even though according to the letter of the law designedly commanded them, in the place which the Lord God appointed to them for keeping feasts; but there is this also, that the whole synagogue has become unable to stone those who have committed this or that sin; and thousands of things commanded are a sign of the bill of divorcement; and the fact that “there is no more a prophet,” and that they say, “We no longer see signs;”[1] for the Lord says, “He hath taken away from Judæa and from Jerusalem,” according to the word of Isaiah, “Him that is mighty, and her that is mighty, a powerful giant,” etc., down to the words, “a prudent hearer.”[2] Now, He who is the Christ may have taken the synagogue to wife and cohabited with her, but it may be that afterwards she found not favour in His sight; and the reason of her not having found favour in His sight was, that there was found in her an unseemly thing; for what was more unseemly than the circumstance that, when it was proposed to them to release one at the feast, they asked for the release of Barabbas the robber, and the condemnation of Jesus?[3] And what was more unseemly than the fact, that they all said in His case, “Crucify Him, crucify Him,” and “Away with such a fellow from the earth”?[4] And can this be freed from the charge of unseemliness, “His blood be upon us, and upon our children”?[5] Wherefore, when He was avenged, Jerusalem was compassed with armies, and its desolation was near,[6] and their house was taken away from it, and “the daughter of Zion was left as a booth in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and as a besieged city.”[7] And, about the same time, I think, the husband wrote out a bill of divorcement to his former wife, and gave it into her hands, and sent her away from his own house, and the bond of her who came from the Gentiles has been cancelled about which the Apostle says, “Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances, which was contrary to us, and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;”[8] for Paul also and others became proselytes of Israel for her who came from the Gentiles.[9] The first wife, accordingly, not having found favour before her husband, because in her had been found an unseemly thing, went out from the dwelling of her husband, and, going away, has become joined to another man, to whom she has subjected herself, whether we should call the husband Barabbas the robber, who is figuratively the devil, or some evil power. And in the case of some of that synagogue there has happened the former thing which was written in the law, but in the case of others, that which was second. For the last husband[10] hated his wife and will write out for her some day at the consummation of things a bill of divorcement, when God so orders it, and will give it into her hands and will send her away from his dwelling; for as the good God will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between his seed and her seed,[11] so will He order it that the last husband shall hate her.

[1] Ps. 74:9.

[2] Isa. 3:1–3.

[3] Matt. 27:21.

[4] John 19:15.

[5] Matt. 27:25.

[6] Luke 21:20.

[7] Isa. 1:8.

[8] Col. 2:14.

[9] The text is corrupt.

[10] Deut. 24:3.

[11] Gen. 3:15.

Christ and the Gentiles

Now there are those in whose case it has happened that the man dwells with them without having hated them, because they abide in the house of the last husband, who took to himself their synagogue as wife. But also in their case the latter husband dies,[1] perhaps whenever the last enemy of Christ, death, is destroyed. But whichever of these things may happen, whether the former or the latter to the wife, the former husband, it says, who sent her away, will not he able to turn back and take her to be a wife to himself after she has been defiled, since “it is abomination,” it says, “before the Lord thy God.”[2] But these things will not seem to be consistent with this, “If the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, all Israel shall be saved.”[3] But consider if it can be said to this, that, if she shall be saved by her former husband returning and taking her to himself as wife, she will in any case be saved after she has been polluted. A priest, then, will not take to himself as a wife one who has been a harlot and an outcast,[4] but no other, as being inferior to the priest, is hindered from doing so. But if you seek for the harlot in regard to the calling of the Gentiles, you may use the passage, “Take to yourself a wife of fornication, and children of fornication,”[5] etc.; for, as “the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless,”[6] so he who, casting out his former wife, takes in due season “a wife of fornication,” having done it according to the command of Him who says, when it is necessary, and so long as it was necessary, “He shall not take a harlot to wife,” and, when it was reasonable, He says, “Take to yourself a wife of fornication.” For as the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath,[7] and not the slave of the sabbath as the people are, so He who gives the law has power to give it “until a time of reformation,”[8] and to change the law, and, when the time of the reformation is at hand, also 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.”[9] And let these things be said according to our interpretation of the law in regard to the bill of divorcement.

[1] Deut. 24:3.

[2] Deut. 24:4.

[3] Rom. 11:25, 26.

[4] Lev. 21:14.

[5] Hos. 1:2.

[6] Matt. 12:5.

[7] Matt. 12:8.

[8] Heb. 9:10.

[9] 2 Cor. 6:2.

Union of Angels and the Souls of Men

But some one may inquire whether the human soul can be figuratively called a wife, and the angel who is set over her and is her ruler, with whom as her sovereign she holds conversation, can be called her husband; so that according to this each lawfully dwells along with the soul which is worthy of the guardianship of a divine angel; but sometimes after long sojourning and intercourse a cause may arise in the soul why she does not find favour in the eyes of the angel who is her lord and ruler, because that in it there is found an unseemly thing; and bonds may be written out, as such are written, and a bill of divorcement be written and put into the hands of her who is cast out, so that she may no longer be familiar with her former guardian, when she is cast out from his dwelling. And even she who has gone away from her former dwelling may be joined to another husband, and be unfortunate with him, not only, as in the case of the former, not finding favour in his sight because an unseemly thing was found in her, but even being hated by him.[1] Yea, and even there might be written out from the second husband a bill of divorcement and it might be put into her hands from the last husband who sends her away from his dwelling. But whether there can be such a change of the life of angels with men, as to amount, so far as concerns their relation to us, to their death, one may put the question rash though it be; but be that as it may, she also who has once fallen away from the former husband will not return again to him, for the former husband who sent her away will not be able to turn back and take her as wife to himself, after she was defiled.[2] And if one should dare, using a Scripture which is in circulation in the church, but not acknowledged by all to be divine, to soften down a precept of this kind, the passage might be taken from The Shepherd, concerning some who as soon as they believe are put in subjection to Michael,[3] but falling away from him from love of pleasure, are put in subjection to the angel of luxury,[4] then to the angel of punishment,[5] and after this to the angel of repentance; for you observe that the wife or soul who has once been given to luxury no longer returns to the first ruler, but also besides suffering punishment, is put in subjection to one inferior to Michael; for the angel of penitence is inferior to him. We must therefore take heed lest there be found in us any unseemly thing, and we should not find favour in the eyes of our husband Christ, or of the angel who has been set over us. For if we do not take heed, perhaps we also shall receive the bill of divorcement, and either be bereft of our guardian, or go to another man. But I consider that it is not of good omen to receive, as it were, the marriage of an angel with our own soul.[6]

[1] Cf. Deut. 24:1–3.

[2] Deut. 24:4.

[3] Cf. Her. Sim. viii. 3.

[4] Cf. Her. Sim. vi. 2.

[5] Cf. Her. Sim. vi. 3.

[6] The text is probably corrupt. Perhaps it means the marriage of a second angel with our soul.

The Marriage of Church Dignitaries

But, while dealing with the passage, I would say that we will be able perhaps now to understand and clearly set forth a question which is hard to grasp and see into, with regard to the legislation of the Apostle concerning ecclesiastical matters; for Paul wishes no one of those of the church, who has attained to any eminence beyond the many, as is attained in the administration of the sacraments, to make trial of a second marriage. For laying down the law in regard to bishops in the first Epistle to Timothy, he says, “If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop, therefore, must be without reproach, the husbands of one wife, temperate, sober-minded,”[1] etc.; and, in regard to deacons, “Let the deacons,” he says, “be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,”[2] etc. Yea, and also when appointing widows, he says, “Let there be no one as a widow under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man;”[3] and after this he says the things superadded, as being second or third in importance to this. And, in the Epistle to Titus, “For this cause,” he says, “I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city as I gave thee charge. If any one is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children, that believe”[4]—of course—and so on. Now, when we saw that some who have been married twice may be much better than those who have been married once, we were perplexed why Paul does not at all permit those who have been twice married to be appointed to ecclesiastical dignities; for also it seemed to me that such a thing was worthy of examination, as it was possible that a man, who had been unfortunate in two marriages, and had lost his second wife while he was yet young, might have lived for the rest of his years up to old age in the greatest self-control and chastity. Who, then, would not naturally be perplexed why at all, when a ruler of the church is being sought for, we do not appoint such a man, though he has been twice married, because of the expressions about marriage, but lay hold of the man who has been once married as our ruler, even if he chance to have lived to old age with his wife, and sometimes may not have been disciplined in chastity and temperance? But, from what is said in the law about the bill of divorcement, I reflect whether, seeing that the bishop and the presbyter and the deacon are a symbol of things that truly exist in accordance with these names, he wished to appoint those who were figuratively once married, in order that he who is able to give attention to the matter, may find out from the spiritual law the one who was unworthy of ecclesiastical rule, whose soul did not find favour in the eyes of her husband because there had been found in her an unseemly thing, and she had become worthy of the bill of divorcement; for such a soul, having dwelt along with a second husband, and having been hated by such an one, can no longer, after the second bill of divorcement, return to her former husband.[5] It is likely, therefore, also, that other arguments will be found by those who are wiser than we, and have more ability to see into such things, whether in the law about the bill of divorcement, or in the apostolic writings which prohibit those who have been twice married from ruling over the church or being preferred to preside over it. But, until something shall be found that is better and able by the excessive brilliancy of the light of knowledge to cast into the shade what we have uttered, we have said the things which have occurred to us in regard to the passages.

[1] 1 Tim. 3:1, 2.

[2] 1 Tim. 3:12.

[3] 1 Tim. 5:9.

[4] Tit. 1:5, 6.

[5] Cf. Deut. 24:4.

Some Laws Given by Concession to Human Weakness

But, even if we have seemed to touch on things too deep for our capacity in the passages, nevertheless, because of the literal expression these things must further be said, that some of the laws were written not as excellent, but as by way of accommodation to the weakness of those to whom the law was given; for something of this kind is indicated in the words, “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives;”[1] but that which is pre-eminent and superior to the law, which was written for their hardness of heart, is indicated in this, “But from the beginning it hath not been so.” But in the new covenant also there are some legal injunctions of the same order as, “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives;” for example, because of our hardness of heart, it has been written on account of our weakness, “But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband;”[2] and this, “Let the husband render unto the wife her due, and likewise also the wife unto the husband.”[3] To these sayings it is accordingly subjoined, “But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment.”[4] But this also, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth, but if her husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord,”[5] was said by Paul in view of our hardness of heart and weakness, to those who do not wish to desire earnestly the greater gifts[6] and become more blessed. But now contrary to what was written, some even of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written, where it is said, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth,” and “So then if while her husband liveth, she shall be joined to another man she shall be called an adulteress,”[7] not indeed altogether without reason, for it is probable this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was from the beginning ordained by law, and written.

[1] Matt. 19:8.

[2] 1 Cor. 7:2.

[3] 1 Cor. 8:3.

[4] 1 Cor. 7:6.

[5] 1 Cor. 7:39.

[6] 1 Cor. 12:31.

[7] Rom. 7:3.

Jewish Criticism of the Law of Christ

But perhaps some Jewish man of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our Saviour will say, that when Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress,”[1] He also gave permission to put away a wife like as well as Moses did, who was said by Him to have given laws for the hardness of heart of the people, and will hold that the saying, “Because he found in her an unseemly thing,”[2] is to be reckoned as the same as fornication on account of which with good cause a wife could be cast away from her husband. But to him it must be said that, if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be stoned, clearly it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be understood. For it is not necessary for adultery or any such great indecency to write a bill of divorcement and give it into the hands of the wife; but indeed perhaps Moses called every sin an unseemly thing, on the discovery of which by the husband in the wife, as not finding favour in the eyes of her husband, the bill of divorcement is written, and the wife is sent away from the house of her husband; “but from the beginning it hath not been so.”[3] After this our Saviour says, not at all permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the wife, “Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.”[1] But it might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting away a wife, unless she be caught in fornication, for any other reason, as for example for poisoning, or for the destruction during the absence of her husband from home of an infant born to them, or for any form of murder whatsoever. And further, if she were found despoiling and pillaging the house of her husband, though she was not guilty of fornication, one might ask if he would with reason cast away such an one, seeing that the Saviour forbids any one to put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication. In either case there appears to be something monstrous, whether it be really monstrous, I do not know; for to endure sins of such heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or fornication, will appear to be irrational; but again on the other hand to act contrary to the design of the teaching of the Saviour, every one would acknowledge to be impious. I wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication, but says, “Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.”[1] For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, “when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;”[4] and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress. But as to whether her being caught in the act of poisoning or committing murder, furnishes any defence of his dismissal of her, you can inquire yourselves; for the husband can also in other ways than by putting her away cause his own wife to commit adultery; as, for example, allowing her to do what she wishes beyond what is fitting, and stooping to friendship with what men she wishes, for often from the simplicity of husbands such false steps happen to wives; but whether there is a ground of defence or not for such husbands in the case of such false steps, you will inquire carefully, and deliver your opinion also in regard to the difficult questions raised by us on the passage. And even he who withholds himself from his wife makes her oftentimes to be an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires, even though he does so under the appearance of greater gravity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more culpable who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires than he who, for other reason than fornication, has sent her away,—for poisoning or murder or any of the most grievous sins. But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Saviour.

[1] Matt. 5:32.

[2] Deut. 24:1.

[3] Matt. 19:8.

[4] Rom. 7:3.

Chastity and Prayer

Now after these things, having considered how many possible accidents may arise in marriages, which it was necessary for the man to endure and in this way suffer very great hardships, or if he did not endure, to transgress the word of Christ, the disciples say to him, taking refuge in celibacy as easier, and more expedient than marriage, though the latter appears to be expedient, “If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”[1] And to this the Saviour said, teaching us that absolute chastity is a gift given by God, and not merely the fruit of training, but given by God with prayer, “All men cannot receive the saying, but they to whom it is given.”[2] Then seeing that some make a sophistical attack on the saying. “To whom it is given,” as if those who wished to remain pure in celibacy, but were mastered by their desires, had an excuse, we must say that, if we believe the Scriptures, why at all do we lay hold of the saying, “But they to whom it is given,” but no longer attend to this, “Ask and it shall be given you,”[3] and to that which is added to it, “For every one that asketh receiveth”?[4] For if they “to whom it is given” can receive this saying about absolute purity, let him who wills ask, obeying and believing Him who said, “Ask and it shall be given you,”[3] and not doubting about the saying, “Every one that asketh receiveth.”[4] But when there you will inquire who it is that asketh, for no one of those who do not receive has asked, even though he seems to have done so, since it is not lawful to say that the saying, “Every one that asketh receiveth,” is a lie. Who then is he that asketh, but he who has obeyed Jesus when He says, “If ye stand praying, believe that ye receive, and ye shall receive”?[5] But he that asketh must do everything in his power that he may pray “with the spirit” and pray also “with the understanding,”[6] and pray “without ceasing,”[7] keeping in mind also the saying, “And He spake a parable unto them to the end that they ought always to pray, and not to faint, saying, There was in a city a judge,”[8] etc. And it is useful to know what it is to ask, and what it is to receive, and what is meant by “Every one that asketh, receiveth,”[4] and by “I say unto you though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity, he will arise and give him as many as he needeth.”[9] It is therefore added, “And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you,” and so on. Further, let the saying, “All men cannot receive the saying but they to whom it is given,”[2] be a stimulus to us to ask worthily of receiving; and this, “What son is there of you who shall ask his father for a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent,”[10] etc. God therefore will give the good gift, perfect purity in celibacy and chastity, to those who ask Him with the whole soul, and with faith, and in prayers without ceasing.

[1] Matt. 19:10.

[2] Matt. 19:11.

[3] Matt. 7:7.

[4] Matt. 7:8.

[5] Mark 11:24, 25.

[6] 1 Cor. 14:15.

[7] 1 Thess. 5:17.

[8] Luke 18:1, 2.

[9] Luke 11:8.

[10] Luke 11:11.

Scripture Index

Every Scripture reference identified in this book, sorted in canonical Bible order. Tap a reference to jump to the verse where it appears.

Matthew
Matthew 13:36–22:33Introduction
Matthew 18:12–13Introduction
Matthew 21:35Introduction
Matthew 22:34–27:66Introduction

Colophon

Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
by Origen of Alexandria.

This edition was produced by
Royal Archives.

The text is set in Palatino and Georgia. Polytonic Greek is set in SIL Gentium.

The first edition of this ebook was released on
August 16, 2026.

Table of Contents

Title Page
Copyright
Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
Introduction

Origen's Commentary on Matthew.

- From the First Book of the Commentary on Matthew

- From the Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew

Book 10.

- The Parable of the Tares: the House of Jesus

- Exposition of the Parable

- The Shining of the Righteous. Its Interpretation

- Concerning the Parable of the Treasure Hidden in the Field. The Parable Distinguished From the Similitude

- The Field and the Treasure Interpreted

- The Exposition Continued

- The Parable of the Pearl of Great Price. The Formation and Difference of Pearls

- The Parable Interpreted is the Light of These Views

- Christ the Pearl of Great Price

- The Pearl of the Gospel in Relation to the Old Testament

- The Parable of the Drag-Net
- The Divine Scriptures Compared to a Net
- Relation of Men to Angels
- The Disciples as Scribes
- The Householder and His Treasury

- Parables in Relation to Similitudes. Jesus in His Own Country

- The Brethren of Jesus

- Prophets in Their Country

- Relation of Faith and Unbelief to the Supernatural Powers of Jesus

- Different Conceptions of John the Baptist

- Herod and the Baptist

- The Dancing of Herodias. The Keeping of Oaths

- The Withdrawal of Jesus

- The Diverse Forms of Spiritual Sickness

- Healing Precedes Participation in the Loaves of Jesus

Book 11.

- Introduction to the Feeding of the Five Thousand

- Exposition of the Details of the Miracle

- The Exposition of Details Continued. The Sitting Down on the Grass. The Division Into Companies

- The Multitudes and the Disciples Contrasted

- The Disciples in Conflict. Jesus Walks Upon the Waters

- Interpretation of the Details in the Narrative. Application Thereof to All Disciples

- The Healing of the Sick on the Other Side. The Method of Healing

- Concerning the Pharisees and Scribes Who Came and Inquired, Why Do Thy Disciples Transgress the Tradition of the Elders?

- Explanation of “Corban.”

- The Traditions of the Elders in Collision With Divine Law

- Exposition of the Prophecy of Isaiah Quoted by Jesus

- Things Clean and Unclean According to the Law and the Gospel

- The Offence of the Pharisees

- Why the Pharisees Were Not a Plant of God. Teaching of Origen on the “Bread of the Lord.”

- Eating With Unwashed Heart Defiles the Man

- Concerning the Canaanitish Woman. Meaning of the “Borders of Tyre and Sidon.”

- Exposition of the Details in the Narrative

- Concerning the Multitudes Who Were Healed. Comparison of the Mountain Where Jesus Sat to the Church

- Concerning the Seven Loaves. The Narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand Compared With That of the Five Thousand

Book 12.

- Concerning Those Who Asked Him to Show Them a Sign From Heaven

- Why the Pharisees Asked a Sign From Heaven

- The Answer of Jesus to Their Request

- Why Jesus Called Them an Adulterous Generation. The Law as Husband

- Concerning the Leaven of the Pharisees

- The Meaning of Leaven. Jesus' Knowledge of the Heart

- Relative Magnitude of Sins of the Heart and Actual Sins

- The Leaven Figurative Like the Water Spoken of by Jesus to the Woman of Samaria

- Concerning the Question of Jesus in Cæsarea, Who Do Men Say That I Am? Different Conceptions of Jesus

- The Answer of Peter

- The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him

- Every Sin—Every False Doctrine is a “Gate of Hades.”

- The “Gates of Hades” And the “Gates of Zion” Contrasted

- In What Sense the “Keys” Are Given to Peter, and Every Peter. Limitations of This Power

- Relation of the Former Commission Given by Jesus to the Disciples, to His Present Injunction of Silence. Belief and Knowledge Contrasted

- Gradual Growth in Knowledge of the Disciples

- Reasons for That Gradual Knowledge

- Jesus Was at First Proclaimed by the Twelve as a Worker and a Teacher Only

- Importance of the Proclamation of Jesus as the Crucified

- Why Jesus Had to Go to Jerusalem

- The Rebuke of Peter and the Answer of Jesus

- Importance of the Expressions “Behind” And “Turned.”

- Peter as a Stumbling-Block to Jesus

- Self-Denial and Cross-Bearing

- Reference to the Saying of Paul About Crucifixion With Christ

- The Less of Life; And the Saving of It
- Life Lost to the World is Saved
- The Exchange for One's Life
- The Coming of the Son of Man in Glory

- The Word Appears in Different Forms; The Time of His Coming in Glory

- The Simpler Interpretation of the Promise About Not Tasting of Death

- Standing by the Saviour

- Interpretation of “Tasting of Death.”

- Meaning of “Until.” No Limitation of Promise

- Scriptural References to Death

- Concerning the Transfiguration of the Saviour

- Force of the Words “Before Them.”

- The Garments White as the Light

- Jesus Was Transfigured—“As He Was Praying.”

- Discussion of the Saying of Peter

- Figurative Interpretation of the Same

- The Meaning of the “Bright Cloud.”

- Relation of Moses and Elijah to Jesus. The Injunction of Silence

Book 13.

- Relation of the Baptist to Elijah. The Theory of Transmigration Considered

- “The Spirit and Power of Elijah”—Not the Soul—Were in the Baptist

- Concerning the Epileptic
- Spiritual Epileptics
- The Deaf and Dumb Spirit
- Influence of the Moon and Stars on Men
- The Power of Faith

- Jesus' Prediction of His “Delivery” Into the Hands of Men

- Satan and the “Delivery” Of Jesus

- Concerning Those Who Demanded the Half-Shekel

- The Freedom of Sons
- The Stater Allegorized
- The Sacred Half-Shekel

- Concerning Those Who Said, Who is the Greatest? and Concerning the Child That Was Called by Jesus

- Greatness Varies in Degree

- Why the Great Are Compared to Little Children

- The Little Ones and Their Stumbling-Blocks
- Who Was the Little Child Called by Jesus
- The Parallel Passages in Mark and Luke

- The World and Offences. Various Meanings of World

- The “Woe” Does Not Apply to the Disciples of Jesus

- What the “Occasions of Stumbling” Are
- In What Sense “Necessary.”
- The Offending Hand, or Foot, or Eye
- The Eye or Hand Allegorized
- The Little Ones and Their Angels
- When the Little Ones Are Assigned to Angels

- Close Relationship of Angels to Their “Little Ones.”

- The Little Ones and the Perfect
- The Sinning Brother
- The Power to Bind on Earth and in Heaven

Book 14.

- The Power of Harmony in Relation to Prayer
- The Harmony of Husband and Wife
- The Harmony of Body, Soul, and Spirit
- Harmony of the Old and New Covenants
- The Limit of Forgiveness

- Concerning the King Who Made a Reckoning With His Own Servants, to Whom Was Brought a Man Who Owed Ten Thousand Talents

- Exposition Continued: the King and the Servants

- The Principle of the Reckoning
- The Time Occupied by the Reckoning
- The Man Who Owed Many Talents
- The Servant Who Owed a Hundred Pence
- The Time of the Reckoning
- No Forgiveness to the Unforgiving
- How Jesus Finished His Words
- How Men Followed Jesus

- Concerning the Pharisees and Scribes Tempting Jesus (By Asking) Whether Was Lawful for a Man to Put Away His Wife for Every Cause

- Union of Christ and the Church
- The Bill of Divorcement
- The Divorce of Israel
- Christ and the Gentiles
- Union of Angels and the Souls of Men
- The Marriage of Church Dignitaries

- Some Laws Given by Concession to Human Weakness

- Jewish Criticism of the Law of Christ

- Chastity and Prayer

Scripture Index

Colophon