Origen: Commentaries & Homilies
The Plainspoken Classics - Scriptorium Press (First Edition, 2026)
An original AI translation made directly from the source language.
https://openscriptorium.com


======== Commentary on John, Book 1 ========

VOLUME ONE. Just as, I think, the people of old called "God's people" was divided into twelve tribes, and had, set above the rest of the tribes, the Levitical order, which itself, arranged in several priestly and Levitical divisions, served the divine, so I think that the whole people of Christ, according to the hidden man of the heart, who is called in secret a Jew and circumcised in spirit, has
these same distinctive marks more mystically than the tribes did — as one can learn more plainly from John in the Apocalypse, nor have the other prophets kept silent about such things to those who know how to listen. This is how John puts it: "Then I beheld yet another angel rising up from where the sun comes forth, bearing the seal of the living God, and with a loud voice he called out to the four angels who had been given power to bring harm upon the earth and
the sea, saying: 'Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees, until we have marked the servants of our God upon their foreheads.' And I heard the number of the sealed: a hundred forty-four thousand had been sealed, drawn from every tribe of the sons of Israel — of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand sealed, of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand." And after
the rest of the tribes have been listed apart from Dan, he goes on next, after several more, to add: "Then I looked, and there stood the Lamb upon Mount Zion, and gathered with him were the hundred forty-four thousand, bearing his name and his Father's name inscribed upon their foreheads. Then I heard a sound out of heaven resembling the roar of many waters,
and like the sound of loud thunder; and the voice I caught was like harpers striking their harps. Before the throne, and in the presence of the four living creatures and the elders, they sing a song that is new; and no one was able to learn that song except the hundred forty-four thousand, who had been redeemed out of the earth. These are the ones who, together with
women were not defiled, for they are virgins; these follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these were purchased from among men as firstfruits for God and for the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless." Now that these things are said by John concerning those who have believed in Christ, and who are of the tribes even though
their bodily descent does not seem to trace back to the seed of the patriarchs, one may reason thus: "Do no harm," it says, "to the land, the sea, or the trees, until we have marked the servants of our God with a seal upon their brows." Then I heard how many were sealed — a hundred forty-four thousand marked with the seal, drawn from every tribe of Israel's sons."
Therefore those who are sealed on their foreheads out of every tribe of the sons of Israel number a hundred and forty-four thousand; and these same hundred and forty-four thousand are described further on, in John, as bearing the Lamb's name together with his Father's, inscribed upon their brows — these being virgins, undefiled by contact with women. Who
There would then be another seal on the foreheads, or rather the Lamb's name joined with his Father's, since in both passages the foreheads are said to bear, in one case, the seal, and in the other, letters spelling out the Lamb's name together with his Father's name. But we should also consider whether "those from the tribes" are the same
as "the virgins," as we have shown before, and rare is the one who believes from Israel according to the flesh, so that someone might even dare to say that the number of the hundred and forty-four thousand is not completed from those who believe from Israel according to the flesh, but it is clear that the hundred and forty-four thousand are made up of those who come to the divine word from the nations, together with
women who are not defiled - so that one who says that the virgins of each tribe are its firstfruits would not fall away from the truth. For indeed it is written: "These were purchased from among men as firstfruits for God and for the lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found; for they are blameless." But it must not be overlooked that the discourse concerning the hundred and forty-four thousand
virgins admits of an elevated interpretation. But it would now be superfluous, and not in keeping with the argument before us, to set out prophetic sayings that teach us the same thing concerning those from the nations. What then do all these things mean for us? You will say, as you read, O Ambrose, Ambrose, truly "man of God," and "man in Christ," and hastening to be "spiritual," no longer a man. Those from the tribes
bring up tithes and firstfruits to God through the Levites and priests, not having firstfruits or tithes for everything; but the Levites and priests, using tithes and firstfruits for everything, bring up tithes to God through the high priest, and I think firstfruits as well. Now among us who approach the teachings of Christ, most, occupying themselves greatly with life and
devoting few of their deeds to God, might perhaps be those from the tribes, having little fellowship with the priests and nourishing the service of God in a small measure; but those who are devoted to the divine word and become intent solely on the service of God, in genuine accord with the difference of the movements directed to this end, will not unfittingly be called Levites and priests. Perhaps
those who bear all things and, as it were, hold the first place of their own generation, will function as high priests in Aaron's order, not in Melchizedek's order. For if someone should raise an objection to this, thinking that we are being impious in assigning the name of high priest to men, since in many places Jesus is foretold as a great priest — for scripture tells us of one "who has passed through the heavens as a mighty high priest, Jesus
the Son of God" - it must be said to him that the apostle pointed out, saying that the prophet had spoken concerning Christ: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," rather than in Aaron's order. Taking our cue from this, we too say that according to the order of Aaron men can be high priests, but according to the order of Melchizedek, the Christ
of God. Since, then, every action of ours and our whole life is dedicated to God—for we press on toward the better things—and since we wish to have the whole of it as a single firstfruits of our many firstfruits (if indeed we are not mistaken in thinking so), what ought to be the activity that stands apart from all others, once we had been separated from one another in body, other than the inquiry into the gospel? For one must be bold enough to say that the gospel is the firstfruits
of all the scriptures. What else, then, ought to have been the firstfruits of our activity from the time we took up residence in Alexandria, than that which leads to the firstfruits of the scriptures? But we must know that firstfruits and first-produce are not the same thing: for the firstfruits is offered up after all the other fruits, while the first-produce comes before all of them. Among the scriptures, then, that are in circulation and believed by all the churches of God to be divine, one would not be wrong
to call the law of Moses the first-produce, and the gospel the firstfruits. For after all the fruits of the prophets, up to the Lord Jesus, the perfect Word sprang forth. III. But if someone should raise the counter-objection, on account of the notion of the unfolding of the firstfruits, saying that after the gospels come the Acts and the
epistles of the apostles in circulation, and that on this account what was stated earlier about the firstfruits—that the gospel is the firstfruits of every scripture—can no longer stand, one must reply that it is either the mind of wise men benefited in Christ, expressed in the epistles in circulation, requiring, in order to be believed, to be believed on the strength of testimonies laid down in the legal and prophetic writings; so that the apostolic writings, while wise and credible and altogether
successful, are nevertheless not comparable to “Thus says the Lord Almighty.” And in view of this, consider whether, when Paul says, “All scripture is God-breathed and profitable,” he includes his own writings as well; or whether “I say this, and not the Lord” and “I give this instruction in all the churches” and “What I suffered in Antioch, in
Iconium, in Lystra” and things similar to these, sometimes written by him, do not show [...] apostolic [...] authority, yet not the unmixed purity of words that come from divine inspiration. 1 that 2 first-produce 10, 12 first-produce 22 credible: [variant readings] ... or not the [variant: or thus the],
or not the ... 28 the authority — indeed the whole apostolic — yet not the pure ... having been written and by authority ... not the unmixed purity — the authority granting the apostolic — not indeed the — presenting only — not indeed the — possessing firmly apostolic — appearing to have — apostolic all the — the whole
apostolic — presenting — not not the etc. Or this too must be shown: that the old covenant is not gospel, since it does not display “the one who is coming” but only proclaims him beforehand, whereas the whole of the new covenant is the gospel—not only because, echoing how the gospel opens, it declares, “See, the Lamb of God, who lifts away the world's sin,” but also because it contains various doxologies
containing also the teachings of him because of whom the gospel is called gospel at all. Further, if God set within the church apostles and prophets and evangelists, along with pastors and teachers, when we examine what the work of the evangelist is, we find it is not simply to narrate in what manner the savior healed one blind from birth, raised a stinking corpse, or performed any of his wonders,
we will not hesitate, since the evangelist is also characterized by an exhortatory discourse aimed at giving assurance concerning the things about Jesus, to call, in a sense, the writings of the apostles a gospel. But as far as concerns the second explanation, in reply to the objection that, because the letters are not entitled "gospel," it was not right for us to call the whole New Testament our gospel, it must be said that in many places of scripture
when two or more things are called by the same name, the name is applied more properly to one of the things so called. For instance, when the savior says, "Call no one teacher on earth," the apostle says that teachers too have been appointed in the church. These, then, will not be teachers so far as concerns the strict sense of the term. Likewise, that which is according to the letters will not be a gospel—
every piece of writing, that is, when it is set beside the narrative of the deeds and sufferings and words of Jesus. Nevertheless the gospel is the firstfruit of all scripture, and of all the acts we are to perform in accordance with prayer we make a firstfruit offering toward the firstfruit of the scriptures. Now I think that, there being four gospels, which serve, so to speak, as elements of the church's faith, out of
these as elements the whole world has been constituted, having been reconciled to God in Christ, as Paul states: “God, in Christ, was reconciling the world to himself”—not that Jesus took away the sin of the world in the ordinary sense; for the word that has been written concerns the world of the church: “See, the Lamb of God, who lifts away the world's sin.” The firstfruit of the gospels, I think,
is the one that has been assigned to us by you to investigate to the best of our ability, the Gospel according to John, who spoke of him whose genealogy is traced yet begins from him who has no genealogy. For Matthew, writing to the Hebrews who were expecting the one from Abraham and David, says, “The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham,” and Mark, who understood well what he was setting down, recounts the “beginning” of the
gospel," perhaps because we find its end in John [...] the "Word who was in the beginning, God the Word." But Luke too [...] yet he reserves for the one who reclined on the breast of Jesus the greater and more perfect sayings about Jesus; for none of the others revealed
his divinity as undilutedly as John did, presenting him as saying: “I myself am the world's light,” “I myself am the road, the truth, and the life,” “I myself am the resurrection,” “I myself am the gate,” “I myself am the good shepherd”; and in the Revelation, “
‘I myself am the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end alike, first and last together.’ One must therefore dare to say that the firstfruits of all the scriptures are the gospels, and the firstfruits of the gospels is the Gospel according to John, whose meaning no one can grasp who has not leaned on the breast of Jesus, nor received from Jesus the Ma
ry who comes to be also his mother. And the one who is to become another John must become so great that John is shown, as it were, to be Jesus, by Jesus. For if, according to those who hold sound views about her, no one is the son of Mary except Jesus, yet it is Jesus who tells his mother, ‘Behold your son,’ and not ‘Behold, this one too is your son,’
he has said what is equal to ‘Behold, this is the Jesus whom you bore.’ For everyone who has been made perfect ‘lives no more’ himself, but instead ‘Christ lives’ in him, and since it is ‘Christ’ who ‘lives’ in him, this is what gets said to Mary about him: ‘Behold your son’ — the Christ. How great, then,
a mind we need, so that we may be able to take up, in a manner worthy of it, the word laid up in the cheap earthenware treasuries of ordinary language — the word that is a letter read by everyone who comes upon it, and a sense-perceptible thing heard through the voice by all who offer their bodily ears — what need is there even to speak of it? For the one who is going to grasp these things accurately, speaking with truth, must say: ‘But we
have the mind of Christ, so that we may know the things granted to us by God.’ It is also possible to bring this forward from what Paul says about the whole of the new dispensation being gospel, when he writes somewhere, ‘according to my gospel’; for in Paul’s writings we do not have a book customarily called ‘gospel,’ but everything that he proclaimed and
said, this was the gospel. And what he proclaimed and said, this he also wrote; and so what he wrote was gospel. And if Paul’s message was gospel, it follows to say that Peter’s too was gospel, and simply all the writings that establish Christ’s coming and prepare his arrival and bring it about in the souls of those who wish to receive the one who stands at
the door and knocks and wishes to enter into souls — the word of God. But what the name ‘gospel’ means to signify, and why these books bear this title, it is now time to examine. The gospel, then, is a discourse containing an announcement of matters that, being reasonable, gladden the hearer through their benefit, once he has accepted what is announced;
and such a discourse is no less a gospel even when it is examined in relation to the disposition of the hearer. Or: the gospel is a discourse containing the presence of a good thing for the one who believes, or a discourse announcing that the expected good thing is present. Now all the definitions we have stated apply to the writings entitled gospels. For each gospel, being a compilation of things beneficial to the one who believes and does not reject them,
producing benefit, in keeping with “it gladdens, it gladdens,” teaching, for the sake of human beings, the saving arrival of the “firstborn of all creation,” Christ Jesus. But also that each gospel is an account teaching the arrival of the good God the Father in the Son to those willing to accept it is clear to everyone who believes. And that it also announces, through these books, the good thing
that was expected is not unclear. For John the Baptist, taking up virtually the voice of the whole people, sends word to Jesus and says: “Are you the one who is coming, or should we expect another?” For the Christ was the good thing expected by the people, concerning whom, as the prophets proclaimed even down to ordinary people, everyone living beneath the law and the prophets had pinned their hopes on him,
as the Samaritan woman testifies, saying: “I know that a Messiah is coming—the one termed Christ; once that one arrives, he will report everything to us.” But also Simon and Cleopas, conversing with one another about all the things that had happened concerning Jesus, not yet knowing that the Christ himself had been raised, though he had already risen, say: “Are you the only one staying in Jerusalem who
does not know what has happened there during these days?” When he asked, “What sort of things?” they reply: “The matters concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who became a man, a prophet mighty in deed and speech in the sight of God and the whole people; and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to a sentence of death
and crucified him. But we were hoping that he is the one who is going to redeem Israel.” In addition to these, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, having found his own brother Simon, says: “We have found the Messiah,” which, translated, is Christ. And a little later Philip, having found Nathanael, says to him: “The one whom
Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also, we have found — Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.” Someone might seem to raise an objection to the first definition, since even the gospels that are not so entitled fall under it; for the law and the prophets are believed to be “words” containing an announcement that, by reasonable account, is beneficial by gladdening
those who hear it, whenever they receive what is said. To this one might respond that prior to Christ's arrival, the law and the prophets—inasmuch as the one who clarifies the mysteries within them had not yet come—did not carry the claim of the definition concerning the gospel; but the Savior, having arrived and having wished the gospel to take bodily form, made everything, as it were, gospel by means of the gospel. And it would not
be beside the point for me to use the example: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Because [...] the sons of men by his divinity, having removed the veil lying upon the law and the prophets, he demonstrated the divine element in all of them, plainly presenting to those willing to become disciples of his wisdom what the true things concerning Moses
of the law, of which the people of old were servants under «a pattern and a shadow,» and what the truth is of the matters recorded in the narratives, things that «occurred to them as a type, yet were written» for our sake, we upon whom the culmination of the ages has arrived. Everyone, then, to whom Christ has come, worships God neither in Jerusalem nor upon the Samaritans' mountain, but having learned that «God is
spirit,» worships him spiritually, «in spirit and truth,» and no longer worships the Father and maker of all things typologically. Therefore, before the gospel that came about through Christ's coming, none of the ancient things constituted a gospel. Yet the gospel—being the new covenant—having removed us from the oldness of the letter, shone out with the light of knowledge the never-aging newness of the spirit, which belongs properly to the new
covenant, and which lies stored up in all the scriptures. And it was fitting that the thing productive of what was reckoned a gospel even in the old covenant should be called, in a special sense, “gospel.” Yet one must not fail to recognize that Christ's coming — even before his coming in the body — took place intelligibly for the more perfect, who are not infants and are no longer under «tutors» and «guardians,» those for whom the
intelligible fullness of time had already arrived, as it had for the patriarchs and for Moses the attendant, and for the prophets to whom Christ's glory was revealed. And just as before his visible, bodily coming he had come to the perfect, so also, after the proclaimed presence, he comes to those still infants, inasmuch as they are «under guardians» and «stewards» and have not yet reached the fullness of time; for whom
the forerunners of Christ have come, words fitted to childlike souls, who might rightly be called “tutors.” The Son himself, however — God the Word in his glory — has not come to them yet, waiting for the necessary preparation to take place in the men of God who are to become capable of receiving his divinity. And this too one ought to know: that just as there is a «law holding a shadow of good things yet to arrive,» made clear by the law proclaimed in truth and by the things it
signifies, so too the gospel — the one that is thought by all who encounter it to be readily understood — sets forth a mere shadow of Christ's mysteries as teaching. And what John calls the “eternal gospel,” which might fittingly be called spiritual, plainly sets before those who understand «all things» concerning the Son of God himself, both the mysteries presented by his words and the realities of which his deeds were riddles.
From these things it follows that we should understand that, just as one is a Jew openly and circumcised . . . and another circumcision is in secret, so too there is a Christian and a baptism that are open, and another that is hidden. And Paul and Peter, who were formerly openly Jews and circumcised, later received from Jesus to be such also in secret — their being openly
Jews serving, by way of economy, the salvation of the many, confessing this not only in word but also demonstrating it through deeds. And the same must be said also concerning their Christianity. And just as it is not possible for Paul to benefit those who are Jews according to the flesh, unless — when reason so requires — he circumcises Timothy, and — when it is fitting — has his head shaved and makes an offering,
and altogether became, to the Jews, as a Jew, so as to win them over, so also, in the case of what is set forth for the benefit of many, it is not possible through the hidden Christianity alone to improve those being given their first instruction in the visible Christianity and to lead them forward to what is better and higher. For this reason it is necessary to practice Christianity both spiritually and bodily; and where it is necessary to proclaim the bodily gospel, saying,
"to know nothing" among fleshly things "but Jesus Christ, and him crucified," this must be done; but when they are found to have been fitted together in spirit and to be bearing fruit in it, and to be in love with heavenly wisdom, the word must be shared with them once it has returned, from having become flesh, to that state in which it "was in the beginning with God." In examining these matters concerning the gospel, we do not think we have spoken in vain, distinguishing in thought, as it were, a perceptible
gospel from an intelligible and spiritual one. For indeed our present task is to transpose the perceptible gospel into the spiritual. For what is the value of the narrative of the perceptible gospel, if it is not transposed into the spiritual? It is either none at all, or slight, and belongs only to ordinary people who have persuaded themselves to grasp what is signified from the bare wording. But the whole struggle before us lies in attempting to reach the depths
of the gospel's mind and to search out in it the truth stripped bare of its figures. Now among those who preach good news — good things being understood in the announcing — the apostles preach Jesus as good news; yet they are also said to preach the resurrection as a good thing, and this is in some way Jesus himself; for Jesus says, "I am the resurrection." And Jesus preaches as good news to the poor the things laid up for the saints, calling them
to the divine promises. And the divine scriptures bear witness to the good tidings proclaimed by the apostles and to that proclaimed by our savior, David speaking of the apostles — and perhaps also of the evangelists — when he says: "The Lord will give a word to those who preach good news with great power; the king of hosts, of the beloved," at the same time also teaching that it is not the composition of speech and the utterance of words and
practiced elegance of diction that achieves persuasion, but the supplying of divine power. This is why Paul too says somewhere: "I will come to know not the discourse of those who are puffed up, but their power; for God's reign consists not in talk but in power," and elsewhere: "And my word and my proclamation were not delivered in wisdom's persuasive phrases, but were shown forth in demonstration of
spirit and power." Bearing witness to this power, Simon and Cleopas declare: "Did our heart not burn within us while on the road, as he opened up the scriptures to us?" But the apostles, since there is also a quantity of the power supplied by God that differs among those who speak, possessed it according to what is said in David: "The Lord will give a word to those who preach good news with great power" —
meaning much power — while Isaiah, saying, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good things," understands the timely beauty as the preaching of the apostles as they traveled the road of the one who declared, "I am the way," and praises as "feet" those who walk by the intelligible road of Christ Jesus, and enter through the door to God as well. And these preach "good things" as good news, of which
feet, Jesus. And let no one be surprised that we have understood Jesus to be announced under the plural name of "good things." For if we grasp the realities to which the names belong that the Son of God is called by, we shall grasp just how many good things Jesus is, the one these announce, those whose feet are beautiful. For one good thing is life, and Jesus is life.
And here is a further good thing: “the light of the world,” shown to be genuinely “true” light and also “the light of men” — the Son of God is called each of these. Beyond life and light there is, conceptually, still another good, namely truth, and a fourth beyond these three, the road that carries one toward it — our Savior teaches that he is every one of these, declaring, “I am the
way; I am truth; I am life." And how could it not be a good thing to shake off dust and deadness and rise — something one obtains from the Lord precisely as he is resurrection, since he himself declares, “I am the resurrection”? So too the door, the passage by which someone enters supreme blessedness, counts as good; and it is Christ who says, “I am the door.”
But why must we say anything further about wisdom, whom "God founded as the origin of his ways, meant for his own works," in whom her father took delight, rejoicing in her richly varied intelligible beauty, seen only by intelligible eyes, and calling the one who contemplates the divine beauty on to a heavenly love? For the wisdom of God is a good thing, which is announced together with the aforementioned by those whose feet are
beautiful. But the power of God too is now counted for us as an eighth good thing, which is Christ. Nor should we pass over in silence that Word, who is God, ranked after the Father of all things; for this good thing too is inferior to none. Blessed, then, are those who have made room for these good things and have received them from the beautiful feet of those who announce them.
Yet even if someone, being a Corinthian, since Paul had resolved to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ, and him crucified, learns of and accepts the man who came to be for our sake, he comes to be "in the beginning" of the good things, becoming through the man Jesus a "man of God" and dying to sin by his death; for that one too, in that he "died, died to sin once for all." And from
his life, since Jesus, in that he "lives, lives to God," everyone who has come to share the form of his resurrection receives the living to God. And who doubts that righteousness-itself is a good thing, and sanctification-itself, and redemption-itself? These too the very ones who announce Jesus announce, saying that he became for us righteousness from God, and sanctification, and redemption. It will be possible from these things
that have been written about him, hard as they are to enumerate, to show how great a multitude of good things Jesus is — conjecturing, from the things hard to enumerate and written down, at those that exist in him, in whom "the whole fullness of deity was pleased" to dwell "bodily," though not in such a way as to be contained by writings. And why do I say "by writings," when even about the whole world John says, "I do not suppose even it"
The world could contain the "books" that are written. It is therefore the same thing to say that the apostles preach the good news of the savior and that they preach the good news of good things. For he is the one who received from the good Father the being of good things, so that each person, receiving through Jesus what he can contain, or as much as he can contain, may find himself among good things. But the apostles were not able to do this on their own—those whose "feet are beautiful"—
nor could their emulators preach the good news of good things, unless Jesus had first preached the good news of these things to them, as Isaiah says: "I myself am present, speaking; like a season upon the mountains, like the feet of one preaching the good news of a report of peace, like one preaching the good news of good things, because I will make your salvation heard, saying to Zion: Your God shall reign." For what are the mountains upon which
he himself, the one speaking, confesses to be present, if not those who are inferior to none of the highest and greatest things upon the earth? These are the ones who must be sought out by the competent ministers of the new covenant, so that they may keep the commandment that says: "Go up upon a high mountain, you who preach good news to Zion; lift up your voice with strength, you who preach good news to Jerusalem." It is not surprising that to those who are about to preach
the good news of good things, Jesus preaches the good news of good things, these being nothing other than himself; for it is himself that the Son of God announces as good news to those able to learn him not through others. Yet the one who goes up upon the mountains and preaches the good news of good things to them has been taught by the good Father, who causes "his sun to rise on both the wicked and the good" and who sends rain down "on both the righteous and the unrighteous," and does not disdain the poor in spirit.
For to these too he preaches the good news, as he himself testifies, taking up Isaiah and reading: "The Spirit of the Lord rests upon me, because he anointed me to announce good news to the poor; he has sent me to proclaim release to captives and recovery of sight to the blind." For having "rolled up" the book and "given it back to the attendant, he sat down," and while all were gazing intently at him, he said: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your
ears." It is necessary to know that within so great a gospel is comprised also every good deed done toward Jesus, just as also the fragrance of the woman who had done evil deeds and had repented, and who was able, through her genuine turning away from evil, to pour out upon Jesus and upon the whole house the breath of the ointment so as to be perceived by all who were in it—
for this reason it is also written: "Wherever this gospel is preached among all the nations, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." It is plain, moreover, that whatever is accomplished on behalf of those who have become his disciples happens on behalf of Jesus himself; for indeed, pointing out those who had been well treated, he says to those who had done it: "Whatever you did for these, you did for me"—so that every good deed
done by us toward our neighbor is referred back to the gospel that is written on the tablets of heaven and read by all who have been deemed worthy of the knowledge of all things. But conversely, it is also part of the gospel for the accusation of those who committed the sins done against Jesus. For instance, the betrayal of Judas and the outcry of the impious people saying, "Away
...from the earth such a one," and "Crucify, crucify" him, along with the mockery poured on him by those who wove the crown of thorns for his head, and other things of this kind are set down in the gospels. It follows from this to understand that everyone who betrays a disciple of Jesus is reckoned a betrayer of Jesus. At any rate, to Saul, who was still persecuting, he said: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" and "I am
Jesus, whom you persecute." But who are they that have the thorns with which they crown Jesus, dishonoring him? Those who, being smothered under the anxieties, wealth, and pleasures "of life," having taken in the word of God, "never bring it to maturity." We must therefore be on guard lest we too, crowning Jesus with our own thorns, be recorded as such and be read about by those who learn of the Jesus who is in all and among all
rational or holy beings, and learn in what manner he is anointed with myrrh and feasted and glorified, or, on the contrary, is dishonored and mocked and struck. These things have of necessity been said by us to show that our good deeds, and the sins of those who stumble against the gospel, are recorded either "unto eternal life or unto reproach and everlasting shame." But if
among human beings there are those honored with the ministry of evangelists, and Jesus himself brings good news, and brings good news to the poor, should not those who were made by God "spirits, angels," and those who exist as "a blazing fire," serving as "ministers" to the Father of all things, be deprived of also being evangelists themselves? For this reason too an angel, standing before the shepherds, speaks, having made glory shine around
them: "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy, which shall be for all the people, because there has been born to you today a savior, the Lord Christ himself, in David's city" — at a time when human beings did not yet understand the mystery of the gospel, those superior to them, being the heavenly army of God, praising God, said: "Glory in the highest to God, and on earth peace, among
human beings, good will." And having said these things the angels depart from the shepherds into heaven, leaving it for us to understand how the "joy" announced to us through the birth of Christ Jesus is "glory" "in the highest to God," while those who had been humbled to dust turn back "to their rest," and are about, "in the highest," to glorify God through Christ. But the angels also marvel
at the peace on earth that was to come through Jesus, in that region of warfare into which the "morning star, rising early," having fallen "from heaven," is crushed by Jesus. In addition to what has been said, this too must be known about the gospel: that the gospel belongs first to the head of the whole body of those being saved, Christ Jesus, exactly as Mark puts it: "The beginning of the gospel of Christ
Jesus." But it already belongs to the apostles as well; hence Paul says: "According to my gospel." Yet the beginning of the gospel — for it has magnitude, having a beginning and what follows, and a middle, and an end — is either the whole of the old covenant, of which John is a type, or, on account of the connection of the new with the old, the ends of the
...of the old testament, which we are presenting by means of John. For that same Mark writes: “Thus begins the gospel of Jesus Christ, exactly as the prophet Isaiah recorded it in writing: See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, and he will clear your road. A voice calling out in the desert: Get the Lord's way ready, straighten out the paths he will walk.” Hence it occurs to me to wonder how by two
gods the heterodox attach both testaments, being refuted no less by this very saying. For how can there be a “beginning of the gospel,” as they suppose, when John belongs to another god, being the man of the demiurge and, as they think, ignorant of the new deity? Nor is it a single and small evangelical ministry that is entrusted to angels, nor one directed only to
the shepherds alone; but rather, at the end, an angel suspended aloft and flying, holding a gospel, will preach the gospel to every nation, the good Father not wholly abandoning those who have fallen away from him. At any rate John the son of Zebedee writes in the Apocalypse: “Then I beheld a flying angel, up in mid-heaven, having an eternal gospel to proclaim to those seated on the earth, and to every nation and
tribe and tongue and people,” crying out in a mighty voice: “Stand in fear of God and render him glory, since his hour of judgment has arrived; bow down before the one who made heaven and earth and sea and springs of water.” Since, then, we have set forth, according to one interpretation, that the whole “beginning of the gospel” is the old testament, signified through the name
of John, in order that this interpretation not be without witness, we shall adduce what is said in Acts concerning that eunuch who served the queen of the Ethiopians, together with Philip: “For,” it says, “Philip, beginning from the scripture of Isaiah, ‘As a sheep he was brought to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer,’ preached to him the Lord Jesus.” For how, beginning from the prophet,
does he preach Jesus as good news, unless Isaiah was, in some sense, one piece of the gospel's opening? At the same time, what we said at the outset concerning the possibility that all divine scripture can be gospel can also be made clear from this. For if the one who brings good news “brings good things,” and all who lived before the bodily coming of Christ bring the good news of Christ, who is “the good things,” as we have shown, then in some way all of them
are somehow part of the words of the gospel. And this gospel, which is said to be spoken in the whole world, we understand to be announced in the whole world — not only in the earthly region, but in the whole system composed of heaven and earth, or of the heavens and earth. And what need is there to dwell any longer on the discussion of what the gospel is?
Since these things have been said sufficiently, and from them those who are not lacking in discernment are able to gather similar points from the scriptures and to see what the glory is of the good things that are in Christ Jesus, as it comes forth from the gospel through the service rendered by men and by angels, and, I think, likewise by rulers, powers, thrones, and dominions—together with every title that can be given a name, not only in
in this age but also in »the age to come«, if indeed by Christ himself — there, somewhere, we shall bring to a close the matters that precede our reading through together what has been written. And now let us ask God to work together with us, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, toward the unfolding of the mystical sense stored up in the words. Not only do the Greeks say that there are many things signified by the term »beginning«; but
for if someone should take care to gather this word from every quarter and wish to examine precisely, understanding in each place of the scriptures what it is applied to, he will find, according to the divine word too, that the term has many senses. For one sense is that of a transition, and another is that of a road and a length; which is shown from »The beginning of a good road is to do
what is just.« For since »the good road« happens to be the greatest, one must understand that at the first stages it is the practical, which is set forth through »to do what is just«, and in what follows, the contemplative; at which, I think, its end also arrives, in what is called the restoration, because at that time no enemy is left, if indeed it is true that »he must reign, until
he puts all his enemies under his feet; and the last enemy to be abolished is death.« For then there will be one activity for those who have come, through the word directed toward him, into relation with God — that of contemplating God, so that they may thus become, in the knowledge of the Father, all shaped † precisely as the son, as now the Son alone has known the
Father. For if someone should carefully examine when they will come to know — those to whom the Son who has known the Father reveals the Father — and should observe that the one who now sees »through a mirror and in a riddle« sees, not yet having known even as »one ought not yet know«, he would not be wrong to say that no one has known the Father, whether he be apostle or prophet, but only when they become one, as
the Son and the Father are one. But someone might suppose that we have digressed, in clarifying one meaning of »beginning« and having said these things; we must show that the digression was necessary and useful for the matter before us. For if »beginning« is used in the sense of a transition and of a road and a length, and »the beginning of a good road is to do what is just«, one may know that every good road
in a certain way has »as its beginning« »to do what is just«, but after the beginning, contemplation, and in a certain manner, contemplation. There is also »beginning« in the sense of coming-into-being, which one might suppose applies to »At the outset God fashioned the sky and the earth«; but I think this meaning is proclaimed more clearly in Job, according to the text, »This
is the beginning of the Lord's creature, made to be mocked at by his angels.« For one might suppose that, among the things that came to be in the coming-into-being of the world, »in the beginning« »heaven« and »earth« had been made beforehand; but it is better, with reference to the second saying, since many bodily things had come to be, that the first of the things in a body is the one called the dragon, being also named somewhere
"the great sea monster," which the Lord subdued. And it is necessary to consider whether the one called the dragon, having fallen from the pure life—the utterly immaterial and incorporeal life which those who live in the blessedness of the saints live—became worthy, before all others, of being bound to matter and body, so that for this reason the Lord, speaking through the whirlwind and the clouds, might say: "This is the beginning of the Lord's creation, made to be mocked
by his angels." It is possible, though, that the dragon is not simply and without qualification "the beginning of the Lord's creation," but rather that, among the many made "to be mocked" in a body "by the angels," he stands as the beginning of such ones—for some are capable of existing in a body without being of this sort; indeed the soul of the sun exists in a body, and so does all creation, concerning which the apostle says: "All
creation groans and travails together until now." And perhaps it is concerning that creation that the saying applies: "Creation was subjected to futility, unwillingly, yet on account of the one who subjected it, in hope." so that the bodies are the futility, and the doing of bodily things—which is necessary [...] for the one in the body [...]—exists. The one who
is in a body does the things of the body not willingly; for this reason creation was subjected to futility, not willingly. And the one who does the things of the body unwillingly does whatever he does on account of hope, just as we might say that Paul wished "to abide still in the flesh" against his own preference but on account of hope; for although in himself he preferred "to depart and be with Christ," it is not unreasonable
that he willed to "remain in the flesh" for the benefit and advancement of others in the things hoped for, not only his own advancement but also that of those benefited by him. And in accordance with this meaning—"beginning" understood as of origin—we shall also be able to understand what is said by Wisdom in Proverbs: "For God," it says, "founded me as beginning of his ways, unto his works."
It can, however, also be referred to the first sense, that is, "beginning" as of a road, because it is said: "God founded me as beginning of his ways." And it would not be absurd, speaking plainly and going further, to call the God of all things "beginning" as well, since it is the Father who is beginning of the Son, and the Creator who is beginning of the things created, and, simply, God who is beginning of the things that exist. And he will find support through
the saying "In the beginning was the Word," understanding by "Word" the Son, since being in the Father is called being "in the beginning." A third sense is "that from which," as in "from underlying matter"—a "beginning" for those who hold matter to be ungenerated, but not for us who are persuaded that God made the things that exist out of things that did not exist, as the mother of the
seven martyrs in Maccabees taught, and the angel of repentance in the Shepherd. In addition to these, "beginning" is also used in the sense of "according to which," as, for instance, in this way: given that the firstborn of all creation is icon of the unseen God, it is the Father who is his beginning. And likewise Christ is beginning of those brought into being according to God's image. For if human beings exist "according to the image,"
But the image is patterned after the Father: in one respect the Father is the beginning of Christ, in another respect Christ is the beginning of human beings, who came into being not in accordance with the one whose image he is, but in accordance with the image itself. And the phrase ‘In the beginning was the Word’ will fit this same illustration. There is also a beginning in the sense of learning, according to which we say the elements
are the beginning of grammar. It is in this sense that the apostle says, ‘Though by this time you ought to be teachers, you again have need of someone to instruct you as to what the elements are of the beginning of the oracles of God.’ Now the beginning of learning is twofold: one by nature, the other in relation to us — as, for instance, if we should say concerning Christ, that by nature his beginning is
his divinity, but in relation to us — since we are not able to begin from his greatness toward the truth about him — it is his humanity, according to which Jesus Christ is proclaimed to infants, and him crucified; so that on this account one may say that the beginning of learning is, by nature, Christ inasmuch as he embodies God's wisdom and power, yet in relation to us it is the fact that 'the Word became flesh'
and ‘dwelt among us,’ since only in this way are we able to receive him at first. And perhaps for this reason he is not only ‘firstborn of all creation,’ but also Adam, which is interpreted ‘man.’ That he is Adam, Paul says: ‘The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’ There is also a beginning in the sense of an action, in which action there is some end after the beginning. And consider
whether wisdom, being the beginning of God’s actions, can likewise be understood as a beginning in this sense. Since so many meanings of ‘beginning’ have now occurred to us, we ask in which of them we ought to take the phrase ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ And it is clear that it is not in the sense of transition, or of a road and its length; and it is no less evident that it is not in the sense of coming-into-being.
Yet it is possible to take it in the sense of that under which the maker produces, given that God gave the command and so they came into being. For Christ is in a sense the craftsman, the one to whom the Father speaks: let light come to be, and let a firmament come to be. And Christ is craftsman as beginning, insofar as he is wisdom, being called beginning precisely by being wisdom. For wisdom, in Solomon, says: 'God
created me as a beginning of his ways, for the sake of his works,' so that the Word might exist as beginning, in wisdom — wisdom being understood with respect to the framing of the contemplation and concepts concerning the totality of things, while the Word is taken with respect to the communication, to rational beings, of the things contemplated. And it is not surprising if, as we said before, the Savior, being many good things conceived at once,
has within himself things first, second, and third. John, at any rate, went on to say concerning the Word: ‘What came to be in him was life.’ Life, then, came to be in the Word; and the Word is none other than Christ, the God-Word, who is with the Father, through whom all things came into being; nor is life other than the Son
of God, who declares: I myself am the way, the truth, and the life. Just as, then, the life came to be in the Word, so the Word was in the beginning. But consider whether it is possible for us to understand 'In the beginning was the Word' also according to this meaning, namely that in accordance with the wisdom and the types
of the arrangement of the thoughts contained within it, all things come to be. For I think that, just as according to the architect's plans a house or a ship is built or fashioned—the house and the ship having their beginning in the plans and rational principles present in the craftsman—so also all things came to be according to the rational principles of what was to be, made manifest beforehand by God in wisdom. «For he made all things in wisdom.»
And it must be said that God, having created—if I may put it this way—a living wisdom, entrusted to her, on the basis of the patterns within her, the task of providing to the things that exist, and to the whole, <both> their shaping and their forms; though I myself hesitate whether their substances as well. It is not difficult, then, to put it more crudely and say that the Son of God is the beginning of the things that exist, since he says: «I
am the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.» But it is necessary to know that he is not, in every sense in which «beginning» is spoken of, himself that beginning. For how, in respect of his being life, can he be the beginning—seeing that this life came to be in the Word, the Word evidently being its beginning? And still more clearly, in respect of his being «firstborn»
«from the dead,» he cannot be the beginning. And if we examine carefully how many his conceptions (epinoiai) are, it is only in respect of his being wisdom that he is beginning; not even in respect of his being Word is he beginning, if indeed «the Word was in the beginning»—so that one might say with confidence that wisdom is older than all the things conceived under the names «the firstborn of all creation.»
God, then, is altogether one and simple; but our Savior, on account of the many, since God «set him forth» as a means of atonement and as firstfruits of all creation, becomes many things—or perhaps even all these things—according to what all creation, capable of being set free, has need of him for. And for this reason he becomes the light of men, when men, darkened by wickedness,
have need of the light that shines in the darkness and is never overtaken by that darkness; yet without men having existed in darkness, he would never have come to be the light of mankind. And one may understand the like also concerning his being firstborn from the dead. For suppose, hypothetically, that no deception had been worked upon the woman and Adam had not lapsed into transgression, but man, having been created for incorruption, had held fast to incorruption,
he would neither have gone down «to the dust of death» nor would he have died, sin not existing, for whose sake, because of his love for mankind, it was necessary for him to die; and had these things not come to pass, he would not have become «firstborn from the dead.» It must also be examined whether he would not have become shepherd either, had man not been compared «to the senseless cattle» nor been made like
»...to them.« For if God saves both men and cattle, he saves as cattle those whom he saves, having granted them a shepherd — namely those who cannot make room for the king. We must therefore examine, by gathering together the names of the Son, which of them would not have come into being for those who began and remained in blessedness, being so many as they are. For perhaps only wisdom would have remained, or also word, or also life, but certainly
also truth; but not, however, the other things which he has taken on for our sake. And blessed indeed are as many as, having had need of the Son of God, have become such that they no longer need him as physician healing those who are unwell, nor as shepherd, nor as redemption, but rather as wisdom and word and righteousness, or whatever else there is for those who, through their perfection, are able to make room for what is most beautiful in him.
So much, then, concerning »In the beginning.« Let us look more carefully at what the word in it is. It often occurs to me to marvel, as I consider what is said about him by some who wish to believe in Christ, why on earth, though names hard to number are assigned to our Savior, they pass over most of them in silence, and even if ever mention is made of them, they take them up not properly but figuratively,
as though he were to be named by these only in a manner of speaking, while, standing fast on the title »Word« alone, they say that Christ of God is only »Word,« and do not, in keeping with the rest of the things he is named, search out the force of what is signified from the word »Word.« Now what I say I marvel at concerning the many — for I shall put it more clearly — is this. The Son of God says somewhere:
»I am the world's light«; and elsewhere, »I am the resurrection.« And again he says, »I am the way, I am the life.« And it is written also, »I am the door.« It is said too, »I am the good shepherd«; and to the Samaritan woman who said, »We know that a Messiah is coming, the one called Christ; when
he comes, he will announce to us all things,« he answers, »I am he who is speaking to you.« Besides this, when he washed the feet of the disciples, he confesses through these words that he is their Lord and Teacher: »You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you say well, for I am.« But he also plainly proclaims himself to be the Son of God, saying: »He whom the Father sanctified and sent
into the world — you say, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘Son of God’«; and: »Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son, that the Son may glorify you.« We find him also proclaiming himself king, as when, answering Pilate's question, »Are you the king of the Jews?« he says, »My kingdom is not of this
world; if my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would have fought so that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, my kingdom is not from here.« We have also read, »I am the true vine; my Father tends it as the vinedresser«; and again: »I am the vine, you
Let “the branches” also be numbered among these, and “I am the bread of life”; and again, “I am the bread that lives, having come down out of heaven, giving life to the world.” These, then, are the things that have occurred to us for the present and that we have set out from what is found in the Gospels—so many things does the Son of God say he himself is. But also
in the Revelation of John he declares: “I am first and last, the living one; I died, and see, I am alive for ages upon ages.” And again: “I have become Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end.” There are no few things that one who reads through the other books with attention could gather similarly also from the prophets—
for instance, that he calls himself a “chosen arrow” and “servant of God” and “light of the nations.” So Isaiah says: “From my mother’s womb the Lord called my name, and made my mouth like a sharp sword, and hid me under the shelter of his hand; he set
me as a chosen arrow, and hid me in his quiver, and said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, and in you…’” And after a little: “My God will himself be my strength.” Thus he spoke to me: it is a great matter that you should be called my child, so as to raise up the tribes of Jacob and turn back Israel's dispersion;
behold, I have made you a light of the nations, that you may be for salvation as far as the end of the earth.” But also in Jeremiah he likens himself thus to a lamb: “I was like an innocent lamb led to be sacrificed.” These things, then, and things similar to these, he says of himself; and it is possible to gather countless further titles from the Gospels and from the apostles and through the
prophets by which the Son of God is called—whether it is the writers of the Gospels setting forth their own understanding concerning what he is, or the apostles, out of what they have learned, glorifying him, or the prophets proclaiming beforehand his coming sojourn and announcing the things concerning him under various names. For instance, John proclaims him
“lamb of God,” proclaiming: “Behold, God’s lamb, the one lifting away the world’s sin”; and “man,” through these words: “This is the one about whom I said, ‘Coming after me is a man who has come to exist ahead of me, since he ranked before me’; and I myself did not know him.” And in the catholic epistle John calls him “advocate” on our souls’ behalf
before the Father, saying: “And should anyone sin, an advocate stands with us before the Father — Jesus Christ, the righteous one.” He then adds that “he himself is propitiation concerning our sins.” In similar fashion Paul calls him a “propitiatory,” declaring: “whom God set forth as a mercy-seat, through faith, in his own blood, for the passing over
of the sins previously committed, "in the forbearance of God." And it has been proclaimed, according to Paul, that he is wisdom and power of God, as in the letter to the Corinthians, that Christ is power and God's wisdom; and besides these, that he is also "sanctification" and "redemption": "For he became for us, it says, wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption." But also that he is a
great high priest he teaches us he is, writing to the Hebrews: "Since, then, we possess a high priest of great rank who has passed clear through the heavens — Jesus, God’s own Son — let us hold fast to our confession." The prophets, besides these, call him by other names as well: Jacob, in the blessing of his sons, calls him Judah; for the words "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hands shall be
on the neck of your enemies; the sons of your father shall bow down to you; Judah is a lion's whelp; from the shoot, my son, you have gone up; you have lain down and slept like a lion, and like a lion's whelp; who will rouse him?" — it is not fitting for the present occasion to set forth word for word how the things said to Judah refer to Christ. But there is also
an objection that can reasonably be brought forward: "A ruler out of Judah shall not be lacking, nor one who leads, sprung from his loins," which will be treated more fittingly elsewhere. And Isaiah knows that the Christ is also named Jacob and Israel, saying: "Jacob my servant, I will lay hold of him; Israel my chosen, my soul has accepted him; he will announce judgment to the nations. He will not strive nor cry out, nor will anyone hear
his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings forth judgment to victory, and in his name the nations will hope." That he of whom these things are prophesied is the Christ, Matthew clearly shows in the Gospel, recalling part of the passage, saying: "that what was spoken might be fulfilled: He will not
strive nor cry out," and so on. And the Christ is also called David, as when Ezekiel, prophesying to the shepherds, adds, speaking in the person of God: "David my servant I will raise up, and he shall shepherd them as their guardian" — for it is not David the patriarch who will rise up to shepherd the saints, but Christ. Further, Isaiah calls the Christ "rod" and "flower" in the passage:
"A rod shall spring forth from Jesse's root, and a flower shall rise up from that root, and upon him the Spirit of God will rest, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and might, a spirit of knowledge and piety, and he shall fill him with the spirit of the fear of God." And our Lord is also called "stone" in the psalms, thus: "The stone which the builders rejected,
this became the head of the corner; this came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes." Both the Gospel and Luke's Acts make it clear that this stone is none other than the Christ himself: the Gospel puts it thus: "Have you not read this: The stone the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner? Everyone who falls
"whoever falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and on whomever it falls, it will crush him." But in the Acts Luke writes: "This is the stone rejected by you builders, that has become the head of the corner." One, then, of the names assigned to the Savior — though not spoken by him but recorded by John — is also:
"The Word, who in the beginning was with God, God the Word." And it merits attention that those who pass by so many of the names given to him instead make exclusive use of this one, and who, when it comes to those other names, look for an explanation if someone brings them forward, but when it comes to this one accept as self-evident what it even means for the Son of God to be called Word — especially since
they constantly make use of "My heart belched forth a good word," supposing that the Son of God is a kind of paternal utterance laid out, as it were, in syllables, and on this basis, if we inquire of them precisely, they do not grant him a subsistence of his own, nor do they clarify his substance — we are not yet saying of what particular kind, but simply that he has some substance at all. For to conceive of a word that is uttered as being a son is something impossible even for the ordinary person.
And such a word, living by itself — either not separated from the Father, and on this account, not having its own subsistence, not even being a son at all, or else separated and possessed of substance — let them declare to us as God the Word. It must be said, then, that just as with each of the aforementioned names one must unfold the concept of the one named starting from the naming itself, and fit it together with a demonstration of how
the Son of God is said to bear this name, so too must one proceed in the case of his being named Word. For what warrant is there for not standing still, in the case of each individual term, on the mere wording, but rather, for instance, inquiring how he is to be understood as "door" and in what way as "vine" and for what reason as "way," while in the case of "Word" alone, not doing the
same thing? So then, in order that we may accept what is about to be said concerning how the Son of God is Word in a more compelling way, we must begin from the names of his that were proposed to us at the outset. And we are not unaware that such a procedure will seem to some to be quite a digression; nevertheless, upon reflection it will also prove useful for the matter at hand, to examine thoroughly the concepts according to
which the names are set, and that beforehand there be an understanding of the things that follow. Once we have fallen into theology concerning the Savior, we must of necessity, insofar as we are able, discover through inquiry what pertains to him, so that we may understand him more fully not only as he is Word but also in the rest. He used to say, then, that he himself is "the light of the world"; and the things adjoining
this designation must be squeezed out together with it — things that might seem to some not merely adjoining but actually identical. Now there is "the light of men," "the true light," and "a light for the nations" — light of men appearing at the very opening of the Gospel before us: "That which came to be, he says, in him was life, and that life was the light for men; and the"
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness “has not overcome it.” But “true light” is written a little further on in the same scripture: “It was the true light, which enlightens every man, coming into the world.” And “light of the nations” occurs in Isaiah, as we said before when we quoted, “Behold, I have set you as a light of the nations, that you might be for salvation
unto the uttermost part of the earth.” The sun is, in a perceptible sense, the light of the world, and it would not be inapt if the moon and the stars, coming after it, were called by that same name. But those things which Moses speaks of as having come into being on the fourth day, being merely perceptible light, since they give their light to things upon the earth, are not the true light; whereas the Savior, shining upon the rational and
governing beings, so that their mind may see what is properly its own to see, is the light of the intelligible world. I mean of the rational souls that are in the perceptible world, and if there is anything besides these that completes the world of which the Savior teaches that we are, perhaps that is its most sovereign and distinguished part, and, so to speak, the maker of a great day's
sun belonging to the Lord. On account of that day he says to those who share in his light: “Labor while it is day; night comes when no one is able to labor any more.” “While I remain in the world, I serve as its light.” He also tells the disciples, “You are this world's light,” and, “Let your light be seen before men.” The
corresponding role for the moon and stars we take to belong to the bride, the church, and the disciples, who possess a light of their own, or one acquired from the true sun, so that they might give light to those who have not been able to establish within themselves a source of light. For instance, we will call Paul and Peter “light of the world,” but those who happen to be among the disciples taught by them are themselves illumined, yet are not able to illumine others,
the world, of which world the apostles were the light. But the Savior, being “light” of “the world,” illumines not bodies but, by an incorporeal power, the incorporeal mind, so that each of us, illumined as if by the sun, might also be able to see other intelligible things. And just as, when the sun shines, the ability of the moon and stars to give light is dimmed, so those who are illumined by Christ and have received his
rays need nothing from any ministering apostles or prophets — for one must dare to speak the truth — nor from angels, and I will add, not even from the superior powers, being disciples directly of the first-begotten light itself. But for those who cannot receive the solar rays of Christ, the saints who minister supply an illumination far less than the one just described, since even this they can scarcely receive, and are
filled by it. XXVI. Now Christ, who is the world's light, stands as the true light in contrast to the perceptible light, since nothing perceptible is true. But it does not follow that, because the perceptible is not true, the perceptible is false; for the perceptible can have an analogy to the intelligible, yet “false” cannot soundly be predicated of everything that is not true. And I inquire whether this is the same as
"light of the world" with "light of men," and I think that a greater force is presented for the light when it is called "light of the world" rather than "light of men." For "world," on one understanding, is not only "human beings." And Paul will show that the world is something more, or other, than human beings, when he says in his First Letter to the Corinthians:
"We have become a spectacle to angels and men, and to the world." Now consider whether, on one understanding, the world is the creation that is being set free "from bondage to decay, into the liberty of the glory belonging to God's children," whose "eager expectation awaits the revealing of the sons of God." We added "consider" because of the passage that can be set alongside it, capable of being joined with "I am the light of the
world," said by Jesus about his disciples: "You are the light of the world." For there are those who suppose that the human beings who have genuinely become disciples of Jesus are lesser than the other created beings — some of these having become such by nature, others also in reason, through the harder struggle. For the toils are more numerous and life more precarious for those in
flesh and blood than for those in an ethereal body — since none of the luminaries in heaven, on taking on earthly bodies, would pass through life here without danger and altogether without sin. But those who advance this argument, standing by the words of Scripture that pronounce the greatest things concerning human beings, saying that the promise reaches man without delay, do not,
however, report this same thing about the creation, or, as we have understood it, about the world. For "I and you are one, so that they too may become one within us," and "My servant shall be wherever I am," are clearly written concerning human beings; but concerning the creation, it is written that it is set free from the bondage of corruption "into the
freedom of the glory belonging to God's children." And they will add that, if it is set free, it does not yet on that account share in the glory belonging to "God's children." Nor will these people pass over in silence the fact that the firstborn of all creation, because of the honor above all things given to man, became a man, not indeed some living being of the ones in heaven; but that a second one too,
a servant and slave of the knowledge of Jesus, the star that appeared in the east, was made — being either like the rest of the stars, or perhaps even greater, inasmuch as it became a sign of him who surpasses all things. And if the boasts of the saints are in afflictions, since they know that "affliction produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope, and hope
does not put to shame," then the creation that has not been afflicted will have neither endurance nor character nor hope — the same hope, but a different one — since "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of the one who subjected it, in hope." But whoever does not dare grant such great things to man will, in grappling directly with the problem, say that the creation, subjected to futility, is afflicted — groaning rather than
Those who are in the tent groan, since it is enslaved to vanity for a time that is very great indeed, many times over the human struggle. For why does it do this ‘not willingly,’ except because it is contrary to its nature to be subjected to vanity itself and not to have the prior condition of life, which it will receive back when it is set free, in the destruction of the world and the
of bodies, being released from vanity? But since we seem to be going on to more matters than the problem before us allows, we will return to where we began, recalling why the Savior is called ‘the light of the world’ and ‘the true light’ and ‘the light shining on humanity.’ For it has been shown that because of the sensible light of the world he is called ‘the true light,’ and whether it is the same
light of the world as the light of men, or whether it admits of examination as not the same. This has been investigated out of necessity, on account of those who have grasped nothing from the fact that the Savior is the Word, so that we may be persuaded not to settle by mere chance on the notion of ‘Word,’ †...† arriving at that which is without any participation in what is capable of being participated in, but rather to lead the expression ‘light of the world’ up to a higher sense and to allegorize it,
along with the rest of the many things we have set out. Just as, from illuminating and shining upon the ruling faculty of human beings, or simply of rational beings generally, he is called light shining on humanity, and called the genuine light, and called the light that fills the world, so too, from bringing about the putting away of all deadness and the life properly so called, as those who have genuinely received him rise from the dead,
he is called ‘the resurrection.’ And he works this not only in the present, for those able to say, ‘We were buried with Christ through baptism’ and ‘we rose with him,’ but much more when someone, having utterly put away all deadness, walks in newness of life of the Son himself: ‘we always carry about here in the body the dying of Jesus,’ when we have been notably benefited, ‘so that’
‘the life of Jesus may be manifested in our bodies.’ But also the progress made in wisdom and the practical conduct that comes about in those being saved in him, following the excursions concerning truth in the divine word and the outcries in accordance with true righteousness, bring us to understand how he himself is the way — a way on which one must carry nothing, neither bag nor cloak,
but must not even travel holding a staff, nor have sandals bound on the feet. For this way itself suffices in place of every provision, and everyone who walks upon it is in need of nothing, adorned with the garment with which it is fitting for the one going to the wedding invitation to be adorned, since nothing harsh can meet him along this way. For it is impossible to find the tracks of a serpent upon a rock,
according to Solomon — or, I would say, the tracks of any beast whatsoever. Hence a staff is not needed on a way that has no traces of adversaries and, being firm — for which reason it is also called a rock — admits nothing worse. And the truth is the Only-begotten, who has embraced within himself everything concerning the whole, according to the will of the Father, with all clarity
word, giving to each according to his worth, in which truth consists. But if someone asks whether our savior knows everything that has been known by the Father, reaching down into the depth of his wealth and wisdom and knowledge, or whether, out of a fancy for glorifying the Father, he declares that certain things known by the Father are unknown by the
Son -- as though it were sufficient for the truth to be equal to the comprehensions of the unbegotten God -- he must be shown, from the fact that the savior is truth, and it must be added that, if truth is whole and entire, it is ignorant of nothing true (so that truth does not limp, lacking the things it does not know, which on their view happen to be in the Father alone) -- or else let someone demonstrate that there are things known which do not attain to the name of truth but are above it.
It is clear, however, that the beginning of the sincere life, unmixed with anything else, properly belongs to the firstborn of all creation; from him those who share in Christ, receiving it, truly live the life -- while those thought to live apart from him, just as they do not have the true light, so too do not have the true life. And since
it is not possible to come to be in the Father, or to be with the Father, without first, ascending from below, arriving at the godhead belonging to the Son, the means by which one can be led by the hand also to the blessedness of the Father, the savior has been recorded as a door. And being a lover of humanity, and accepting the inclination, however it comes about, toward the better of the souls of those who do not hasten toward the Word but, like
sheep -- not examined but irrational -- possess the tame and gentle disposition, he becomes their shepherd, since it is written, "the Lord preserves both man and beast"; likewise Israel and Judah are sown as offspring not of men alone but of beasts too. In addition to these things, one must examine from the beginning the title "Christ" and take up alongside it "king," so that by the comparison the difference may be understood. It is said, then, in
the forty-fourth psalm that he who loved righteousness and hated lawlessness received, beyond those who share in him, the cause of being anointed by having thus approached righteousness and having hated lawlessness -- as though he did not receive the anointing coexisting with and co-created with his being from the outset, which anointing is a symbol of kingship over begotten beings, and sometimes also of priesthood. Is, then, the kingship of the
Son of God something acquired afterward, and not connatural with him? And how is it possible that the firstborn of all creation, not being a king, later became a king because he loved righteousness -- and this though he is righteousness itself? But perhaps it escapes us that the man who is his Christ is understood according to the soul, on account of the human element, having become troubled and deeply grieved in particular, while the
king is understood according to the divine. And I find support for this from the seventy-first psalm, which says: "O God, give your judgment to the king, and your righteousness to the king's son, to judge your people in righteousness and your poor in justice." For the psalm, clearly inscribed with reference to Solomon, is prophesied concerning Christ. And it is worth seeing by what
The prophecy prays that judgment be given by God to the king, and asks to which son of a king, and of what kind of king, righteousness belongs. I think, then, that "king" refers to the preeminent nature of the firstborn of all creation, to whom judgment is given because of its superiority; while the man he has assumed, formed by that nature and stamped according to righteousness, is called "the king's son." And I am led to
accept that this is so from the fact that the two are brought together into a single account, and what follows is no longer reported as concerning two beings but as concerning one. For the Savior has "made the two one," having made them, in the firstfruits of both, one in himself before all things. And by "both" I mean also in the case of human beings, in whom each one's soul has been mingled with the Holy Spirit,
and each of those being saved has become spiritual. Just as, then, there are some who are shepherded by Christ because of their own gentleness and steadiness, as we said before, though more lacking in reason, so too there are those ruled as king in the more rational way, through reverence for God. And there are differences among those ruled as king, some being ruled in a more mystical and ineffable and godly manner, others in a lesser way. And I would say that those who have contemplated the
things beyond bodies, which Paul calls "invisible" and "not seen," having come to be, in their reasoning, outside everything perceptible by sense, are ruled as king by the preeminent nature of the Only-begotten; while those who have advanced only as far as the account of things perceptible by sense, and through these glorify their Maker, are themselves also ruled by reason, being ruled as king by Christ. Let no one take offense that we distinguish the
conceptions applied to the Savior, supposing that we thereby make us the same as him in substance. It is quite clear even to ordinary people how our Lord is both teacher and interpreter of the things that tend toward reverence for God, and Lord of the servants who have "a spirit of servitude unto fear" — but of those who are advancing and hastening toward wisdom and being counted worthy of it — since "the servant does not
know what his lord wants" — he does not remain their lord, but becomes their "friend." And he himself teaches this: in one place, while those listening were still servants, saying, "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so"; but in another place: "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what the will of his lord is; but I have called
you friends," because you have remained "with me in all my trials." Those, then, who live in the fear which God demands from servants who are not good, as we find written in Malachi -- "if it is I who am Lord, where then is the fear owed me?" -- turn out to be servants of the Lord who is called their Savior. But through all these things the nobility
of the Son is not clearly set forth; whereas when it is said to him by God, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you" — by whom "today" always is (for there is no evening for him, and I think there is no morning either, but the time that extends alongside his unbegotten and eternal life is, so to speak, "today" for him) — in that "today,"
the Son has been begotten — the beginning of his generation being no more discoverable than that of "the day." To what has already been stated one must add an account of how the Son is "the true vine." This will be clear to those who understand, in a manner worthy of prophetic grace, the saying "Wine makes glad a man's heart." For if the heart is the seat of understanding, and what gladdens it is the most drinkable Word, setting it
outside of merely human things and making it inspired and causing it to be drunk with a drunkenness that is not irrational but divine — the drunkenness which I think he also caused Joseph's brothers to experience — then rightly he who brings the wine that gladdens the heart of man, the "vine," is "true." It is "true" for this reason: it has as its cluster the truth, and as its branches the disciples, who are themselves imitators of him and themselves bear the fruit of truth. But it is a task to set forth the difference
between bread and the vine, since he says he is not only the "vine" but also the "bread of life." Consider whether, just as bread nourishes and strengthens and is said to establish the heart of man, while wine gives pleasure and gladdens and diffuses, so too the moral teachings, which procure life for the one who learns and practices them, are the bread of life — and these would not be called the produce
of the vine — while the things that gladden and produce inspiration, the ineffable and mystical contemplations that arise in those who feast luxuriously on the Lord and desire not only to be nourished but also to revel in delight, are the things that come from the "true vine" and are called "wine." Beyond these matters, [there is the question] of how he is recorded in the Apocalypse as "first and last," being, on the one hand, other than the first insofar as he is the
Alpha and the beginning, and, on the other hand, as regards being last, he is not identical with the Omega, that is, the end. I hold, then, that among rational beings, who are characterized in many species, there is a first among them, and a second, and a third, and so on in order down to the last. And to state precisely what is first, and what the second is, and of whom the third is truly said,
and so on up to reaching the very last, is not altogether a human thing but lies beyond our nature. But we shall attempt to stand our ground and speak around the matter as far as we are able. There are certain gods of whom God is the God, as the prophecies say: "Confess to him who is God over the gods," and "The Lord, God over the gods, has spoken, and he has summoned the earth";
but God, according to the Gospel, "is not god of the dead, but rather of the living" — so those gods, too, of whom God is God, are living. And the apostle also, writing in the letter to the Corinthians, "just as there are many gods and many lords," has taken up the name "gods" from the prophetic writings, as though they really exist. And besides the gods of whom God
is God, there are certain other beings called "thrones," and yet others termed "principalities," together with "dominions" and "powers" beyond these, and still others beyond them. And on account of "[the name] named above every name, not in this age only but in the age to come as well," and other things besides these not very familiar to us in name, one must believe that there exist rational beings, of which he called one class
"Sabai" is Hebrew, from which "Sabaoth" is formed, he being their ruler and not other than God. And at the very bottom, man is a mortal rational being. The God of all, then, has made a first rational kind in point of honor, which I think are those called gods; and a second — for the present let them be called "thrones"; and a third, without drawing too sharp a distinction, "principalities." And thus, by degrees, one must descend by the rational
to the last rational being, which is perhaps nothing other than man. The savior, then, became "all things to all" far more divinely than Paul did, so that he might either "gain" or perfect "all," and he clearly became a man to men and an angel to angels. And concerning his having become man, none of the believers would doubt; but concerning his having become an angel, let us be persuaded, taking note of
the appearances and words of angels, whenever, in certain places of scripture, angels are seen speaking with the authority of angels — as in the case of, "An angel of the Lord was seen in a burning flame from within the bush," and he declared himself the God of Abraam, Isaac, and Iakob. But Isaiah too says: "His name shall be called Messenger of great counsel." The savior, then, is first and last,
not because the things in between do not exist, but he is named from the extremes, so that it might be shown that he himself became "all things." But weigh whether man constitutes the "last," or rather the beings called the netherworld, among whom the demons too are numbered, whether all or some. One must inquire into the things which the savior himself, having become them, speaks of through the prophet David, saying: "And I became like a man without help, free among"
the dead" — as though, just as he had something more than men in his birth from a virgin and in the rest of his life spent among wonders, so too among the dead, in that he alone there is free: "his soul was not abandoned to Hades." Thus, then, he is "first and last." But if there are letters of God, as indeed there are — which the saints, in reading, say they have read
the things on the tablets of heaven, those elements, so that through them the heavenly things might be read — the concepts in question turn out to be divided into Alpha and so on in order, up to Omega, that is, the Son of God. Again, he is himself both beginning and end, but not the same according to the various senses in which he is conceived. For "beginning," as we have learned in Proverbs, applies insofar as he happens to be
wisdom; for it is written: "God created me as a beginning of his ways, unto his works"; but insofar as he is Word, he is not beginning: "for in the beginning was the Word." Therefore the senses in which he is conceived have a beginning, then a further second beyond that beginning, then a third, continuing thus until the end; as though he were saying, I am beginning insofar as I am wisdom, and second,
should it so happen, insofar as I am invisible, and third insofar as I am life, since "that which was made in him was life." And if anyone is capable, by probing the mind of the scriptures, of seeing it, he will perhaps find much of this order, even down to the end — though I do not think he will find everything. But the beginning and the end seem clearer, according to ordinary usage
as said of something unified, just as the foundation is the beginning of a house and the coping is its end. And this must be fitted to the fact that Christ, being the "cornerstone," is the pattern for the whole united body of those being saved. For the only-begotten Christ is "all things and in all," as beginning in the human being he has taken up, but as end in the last of the saints,
manifestly, and also in those in between; or as beginning in Adam, but as end in his coming among us, according to what is said: "the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." This saying, however, will fit the account of "first and last," while we still hold to what has been said about "first and last" and about "beginning and end" — in one place we referred them to
the kinds of rational beings, in another to different conceptions of the reason of the Son of God, and we have the distinction between "first" and "beginning," and "last" and "end," and further also between "Alpha" and "Omega." Nor is it unclear about "living" and "dead," and, after being dead, living forever and ever. For since we were not helped
by his life that came before, we having come to be in sin, he came down to our deadness, so that, he having died to sin, we, carrying about the deadness of Jesus in the body, might in due order pass on to his life after that deadness, into the ages of ages. For those who always carry about the deadness of Jesus in the body will also have the
life of Jesus made manifest in their bodies. XXXII. These things, then, were said by him about himself from the books of the New Testament. Yet in Isaiah he declared that the Father had made his mouth like "a sharp sword," and had been hidden "under the shelter of his hand," being likened to a choice arrow, "and in the quiver" of the Father hidden away,
called by him a "servant" of the God of all, and "Israel," and "a light of the nations." A sharp sword, then, is what the mouth of God's Son amounts to, since "the word of God, being alive and at work, cuts more keenly than any blade sharpened on both edges, reaching through to where soul and spirit divide, joints and marrow alike, and discerning the thoughts and
intentions of the heart." Besides, he also came bringing not peace upon the earth — that is, upon bodily and perceptible things — but a sword, and cutting apart that harmful union binding body to soul, in order that, giving herself over to the spirit warring against the flesh, the soul might be made a friend of God; a sword, or, as a sharp sword according to the prophetic word, his mouth had —
but also seeing so many wounded by divine love, in like manner to her who confesses to have suffered this in the Song of Songs, through the words "For I am wounded with love" — the wounding arrow of the souls of so many toward love of God will find nothing else than him who said, "He made me as a choice arrow." And further, everyone who understands how, by those...
...being discipled, Jesus became not as the one reclining at table but as the one serving, the Son of God taking on a servant's shape so that those enslaved to sin might be set free. He will not be unaware in what manner the Father says to him, "You are my servant," and shortly after, "It is a great thing for you to be called my child." For one must dare to say greater and more divine things
and that truly, according to the image of the Father, the goodness of Christ is shown, when "he lowered himself, made obedient all the way to death, death indeed upon a cross," or if "he did not consider being equal to God a thing to be seized," and was unwilling, for the salvation of the world, to become a servant. Wishing therefore to teach us that he has received a great gift from the Father by having served in this way, he says: "And
my God will be my strength. And "he told me, 'It is a great thing for you to be called my child.'" Had he not taken on servanthood, he would never have set upright "the tribes of Jacob," nor gathered back "the dispersion of Israel," nor indeed would he have become "a light to the nations," so that "salvation might reach to the end of the earth." And it is indeed a modest thing for him
to have become a servant, even though this is said by the Father to be a great thing, by comparison with a harmless lamb and a sheep. For just as a harmless lamb is led to be slaughtered, so the Lamb of God became such, so that the world's sin might be lifted away by him — he who is the provider of the word to all — having been made like a lamb "silent before its shearer," so that by his death we might all be cleansed, being administered like a remedy against
the opposing powers, and against the sin of those who are willing to receive the truth. For the death of Christ has rendered powerless the powers warring against the human race, and [text corrupt] the life in each of those who believe to go forth from sin by unspeakable power. And since, until every enemy of his is abolished, and death last of all, he takes away sin, so that
the whole world may become one without sin, for this reason John, pointing him out, says: "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" — not one who is only about to take it away but is not yet taking it away, nor one who has taken it away but is no longer taking it away; for the taking away is at work upon each and every one of those in the world,
until sin is removed from the whole world and the Savior hands over the kingdom, made ready, to the Father — since not even the least sin has room to be present where the Father's rule holds, and since it again receives all things of God in its whole self and entirely, when that is fulfilled which says, "that God may be all in all." But he is also called "a man"
in addition to these things, he is said to be coming after John, though he had come into being before him and existed prior to him, so that we might be taught that the man belonging to the Son of God, blended together with his divinity, is older than his birth from Mary — a man of whom the Baptist says that he "did not know" him. But how did he not know him, he who leapt for joy while still an infant in the womb
...of Elizabeth, when "the sound of the greeting" of Mary "came into the ears" of Zachariah's wife? Consider, then, whether "I did not know him" can be said with reference to the time before his embodiment. But if he did not know him before that time, when he had come into a body — while he himself was still a body in his mother's womb — perhaps he learns something about
him beyond what he already knew: that "he on whom the Spirit descends and remains, this is the one who baptizes in Holy Spirit and fire." For even if he already knew him while still in his mother's womb, he certainly did not know everything about him; and perhaps he was also ignorant that "this is the one who baptizes in Holy Spirit," and again when
he had seen "the Spirit descending and remaining upon" him, except that he had not at first known him to be a "man" of fire. John did not know this at first. None of the names mentioned above makes clear his advocacy on our behalf before the Father, in his interceding on behalf of human nature and offering atonement, as do the terms "the Paraclete," "propitiation," and "the place of propitiation." "The Paraclete" is spoken of in John's
epistle: "For if anyone sins, Jesus Christ the righteous is the advocate we hold before the Father, and he himself stands as propitiation for our sins"; and "the propitiation" is spoken of in the same epistle as being a propitiation concerning our sins, and likewise also in the letter to the Romans, "the mercy-seat": "whom God set forth as a mercy-seat through faith, by his blood" — of which mercy-seat, into the innermost
part, even of the Holy of Holies, there existed a certain shadow: the golden place of propitiation, set upon the two cherubim. How could he have been able to be Paraclete and propitiation and place of propitiation apart from a power of God that annihilates our weakness, flowing in upon the souls of believers, ministered by Jesus, of whom it is the first, being itself the very power of God, on account of which one might say, "I am able for all things in him who empowers me, Christ Jesus"?
Christ Jesus? For this reason we know that Simon the magician, who proclaimed himself to be the great power of God, so named, went to destruction together with his silver; but we, confessing Christ to be truly "the power of God," believe that all things anywhere that are empowered participate in him, in respect of which he is "power." And let it not be passed over by us in silence that he is also fittingly called, and for
this reason said to be, "the wisdom of God." For the wisdom belonging to God, the Father of all, does not rest on bare fancies, on phantasms shaped after human conceptions. But if anyone is able to conceive of an incorporeal subsistence, living and as it were animate, comprising the various principles that embrace the rational structures of all things, he will know the wisdom that is above all creation,
the wisdom of God, speaking well concerning herself: "The Lord founded me as the beginning of his ways, unto his works." Because of this creation, all creation too has been empowered, not being incapable of the divine wisdom in accordance with which it came to be. For, as the prophet David says, God fashioned everything in wisdom. But many things have come to be by participation in wisdom without apprehending her, in accordance with whom they were created, though very much
few things, grasps not only the wisdom concerning themselves but also that concerning many other things, since Christ is the whole of wisdom. And each of the wise, to the extent that he has capacity for wisdom, to that extent shares in Christ, insofar as he is wisdom; just as each of those who possess greater power, to the extent that he has been allotted power, to that extent has had a share in Christ, insofar as he is power. And the same thing must be understood also concerning
sanctification and redemption. For Jesus himself has become for us sanctification, the source from which the holy are sanctified, and redemption; and each of us is sanctified by that sanctification and is redeemed according to that redemption. Consider whether the apostle has not idly added the word "for us" when he says, "who became for us wisdom from God, righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption";
and whether elsewhere, concerning Christ, insofar as he is "wisdom," this was said without qualification, and likewise insofar as he is "power," since Christ is both God's power and God's wisdom — in which case we would have supposed that he is not simply "wisdom" nor "power of God," but rather "for us"; whereas now, in the case of "wisdom" and "power," both the phrase "for us" and the unqualified statement have been recorded, while in the case of
"sanctification" and "redemption" the same unqualified statement has not been made. For this reason observe: since scripture says "the one who sanctifies and the ones sanctified all come from one source," we must ask whether the Father is, for our own sanctification, himself its sanctification, just as, Christ being our head, the Father is his head. And Christ is our redemption for those of us who, because we had been taken captive, stood in need of redemption; but for him
I do not seek redemption, since he has been tested in every respect according to likeness "apart from sin" and has never at any time been held captive by the enemies. But once the distinction has been drawn between "for us" and "absolutely," so that "sanctification" and "redemption" belong to him for us and not absolutely, while "wisdom" and "power" belong to him both for us and absolutely, the account concerning righteousness must not be left unexamined.
That Christ is righteousness for us is clear from the text, "who became for us wisdom from God, righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." But if we do not find that he is "righteousness" absolutely, as he is absolutely "wisdom" and "power of God," it must be examined whether, just as the Father is "sanctification" even for Christ himself, so too the Father is "righteousness" for him; for indeed there is no injustice
with God, and "the Lord is righteous and holy, and his verdicts are given in righteousness"; being righteous, he governs everything in a righteous manner. As for the fact that those from the heresies took a hint toward saying that the righteous one is other than the good one — a hint not clearly worked out by them, who supposed that the demiurge is the righteous one, and the Father of Christ the good one — I think
that, when examined and tested carefully, this can be said of the Father and the Son: it is the Son who is righteousness itself, he who received authority to render judgment, seeing that he is Son of Man and is destined to judge the inhabited world with righteousness; while the Father benefits those who have been instructed in the righteousness of the Son after the kingdom of Christ, and will show the title "good" in deeds, when there comes to be
"God [is] all in all." And perhaps by his own righteousness the Savior prepares all things at fitting times, both by word and by order and by chastisements and by his, if I may put it so, spiritual medicinal remedies, so that in the end they may make room for the goodness of the Father; and it was this that the Only-begotten had in mind when, to one who said to him, "Good Teacher," he replied, "Why do you call me good? No one
is good except one, God, the Father." We showed the like thing elsewhere too, concerning someone being greater than the Demiurge, understanding the Demiurge to be Christ, and the one greater than him to be the Father; he himself, then, who happens to be all these things — "the Paraclete," "the propitiation," "the mercy seat" — having sympathized "with our weaknesses" by having been tested "in every respect" as regards human things
"in the likeness [of us], without sin," is a "great high priest," having offered up himself as the sacrifice brought once for all, not on behalf of human beings only but of every rational being as well; for "apart from God he tasted death on behalf of everyone," which in some copies of the letter to the Hebrews reads "by the grace of God" instead. But whether it is "apart from God he tasted death on behalf of everyone" — meaning that he died not only on behalf of human beings, but also on behalf of
the rest of the rational beings; or "by God's grace he tasted the death owed on behalf of everyone," meaning that he died on behalf of all, apart from God — since "it was by the grace of God that he tasted death for the sake of everyone." Indeed it would make no sense to claim he tasted death only for human sins and not also for some other being, distinct from man, that had fallen into sin — for instance on behalf of the stars — the stars not being altogether pure
in God's sight either, as we have read in Job: "the stars are not pure in his sight" — unless indeed this is said by way of exaggeration. For this reason, he holds the office of "great high priest," for he brings all things back into the Father's kingdom, arranging for whatever is lacking in each created being to be made complete, so that they may make room for the Father's glory. This high priest, according to some other
notion besides those mentioned, is named "Judas," so that those who are Jews in secret may be styled Jews not on the basis of Jacob's son Judah, but on the basis of him — being his brothers and praising him, laying hold of the freedom into which they have been freed by him, having been rescued from their enemies, he having laid his hand on their neck and subjected them. But he has also tripped up the opposing power by the heel, and alone
sees the Father, and, when he became man, he is "Jacob" and "Israel"; from whom, just as we become light, since the world is light, so too, when Jacob is called, he is "Jacob," and when Israel is named, he is "Israel." Further, he receives the kingdom from a king, whom the sons of Israel made king over themselves, and †not through God, having set him to rule and not having made him known to God, and wars
of the Lord he prepares peace for his son, the people; and perhaps it is for this reason that he is called "David," and afterward "rod" for those who need a laborious and harsher discipline and who have not offered themselves to the love and gentleness of the Father. For this reason, if he is called "rod," it will go forth; for it does not remain in him, but seems to be outside the preceding condition. And having gone forth
And having become 'a rod,' he does not remain 'a rod,' but after 'the rod' he becomes 'a flower' springing up, and the flower is shown to be the end of his being 'a rod' for those who have obtained a visitation through his having become 'a rod'; for God will visit 'with a rod,' that is, with the Christ, 'their transgressions,' those whom he will visit. But his mercy he will not scatter away from him; for he shows mercy to him, whenever the Father shows mercy to those whom
the Son wishes to be shown mercy. It is possible also not to take it that he becomes 'rod' and 'flower' with reference to the same persons, but rather 'rod' for those who need chastisement, and 'flower' for those being saved; but I think the former is better. Except that this must be added at this point, that perhaps, on account of the end, if for someone he becomes 'a rod,' he will certainly also become 'a flower' for him — though it is not true that
if for someone he is 'a flower,' for that one he will certainly also be 'a rod' — unless indeed, since there is a flower more perfect than the flower, and 'flowering' is spoken of those not yet perfectly bearing fruit, the perfect advance beyond the flower of Christ, while those who have had experience of his rod will, together with the rod, partake not of his perfection but of the flower that comes before his fruits.
Finally, before ‘the Word,’ Christ was ‘a stone,’ rejected by the builders and set as the head of the corner; for since living stones are built upon a foundation laid together with other stones — namely those belonging to the apostles and to the prophets, with Jesus Christ our Lord serving as the cornerstone — he too is termed ‘a stone,’ inasmuch as he forms one piece of that structure, raised from living stones, standing ‘where the living dwell.’
All this has been said by us because we wish to refute the random and untested opinion of the many, that though so many names are referred to him, they stand only on the name 'Word,' without examining why in the world, although it is written that the Word was God in the beginning with the Father, through whom all things came to be, he is also recorded as '<the> Son of God.' Just as, then, alongside the activity of
illuminating the world, of which he is the light, he is called 'the light of the world,' and alongside causing those who genuinely come to him to lay aside deadness and, in rising, to take up newness of life, he is called 'resurrection,' and in accordance with another activity, 'shepherd' and 'teacher' and 'king,' 'a chosen arrow' and 'servant,' and besides these, 'advocate' and 'propitiation' and 'mercy seat' — so too 'Word,' stripping away every irrationality
from us and making us truly rational, so that we do all things for the glory of God, down to eating and drinking, accomplishing on account of the Word even the more ordinary and the more perfect works of life for the glory of God. For if by partaking of him we rise and are illumined, and perhaps are also shepherded or ruled as kings, it is clear that we also become divinely rational, since he
removes the irrational things within us and our deadness, in accordance with which he is 'Word' and 'resurrection.' Consider, though, whether all human beings somehow partake of him, insofar as he is Word. For this reason the apostle teaches us that he is not sought beyond the reach of those who choose to find him, saying: 'Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into ...?"' — that is, 'Christ'
to bring down; or, "Who will descend?" means to raise Christ up out of death. But what does scripture say? "The word is near you, very near, in your mouth and in your heart" — as though the Christ being sought and the word were one and the same. But also, on the occasion when the Lord himself declares: "Had I not arrived and spoken with them, no sin would have been theirs; but as things stand
they have no excuse for their sin," nothing else is to be understood except that the word, he says, is such that those in whom it has not yet been brought to completion do not have sin, while those are liable to it who, having already had a share in it, act against the thoughts by which it is brought to completion in us — and only thus does it hold true that "had I not arrived and spoken with them,
they would have had no sin." Consider, for let this be examined with reference to the visible Jesus, as most will suppose: how is it true that these have no sin, to whom he has not come? For all who lived before the sojourn of the Savior would be released from all sin, since the Jesus seen according to the flesh had not yet come. But also all those to whom nothing whatever was announced about him would not
have sin, and it is plain that those who do not have sin are not subject to judgment. But "word" among human beings — of which we have said our race has a share — is spoken of in two ways: either according to the completion of the thoughts, which occurs in everyone who has passed beyond infancy (setting aside prodigies), or according to its highest degree, which is found only in the perfect. According to
the former, then, the saying is to be understood: "Had I not arrived and spoken with them, no sin would have been theirs; but as things stand they have no excuse for their sin." But according to the second: "Everyone who came before me is a thief and a robber, and the sheep paid them no heed." For prior to the word reaching its completion, everything found in human beings deserves censure,
inasmuch as it is needy and deficient, to which the irrational elements within us — called "sheep" in a rather figurative sense — do not perfectly submit. And perhaps according to the former sense, "The Word became flesh," but according to the latter, "The Word was God." Following from this it is worth inquiring whether there is something between "The Word became flesh" and "The Word was God" to be observed among human
affairs — as it were the Word being resolved back, from the point of its having become flesh, and gradually refined, until it becomes what it was in the beginning: God the Word who is with the Father, whose glory John truly saw, as of an only-begotten from a father. But the Word can also be "the Son," by virtue of announcing the hidden things of that Father, in a manner analogous
to the one called son, since it is a "word" belonging to "mind." For just as the word within us serves as messenger of what the mind perceives, so likewise the Word of God, having come to know the Father — since nothing among created things is capable of drawing near him without a guide — discloses the Father he has known. "For no one has known the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son reveals him." And
Insofar as he is “Word,” it is he who is “the angel of great counsel,” “whose government came to be upon his shoulder”—for he reigned by having suffered the cross. And in the Apocalypse it is said that upon a white horse sits a word faithful and true, representing, as I think, the clarity of the utterance on which the Word of truth who has come to dwell among us is carried. It is not the task of the present
occasion to show that in many places of scripture—the scripture in which lie the passages before us, from which we derive benefit by receiving divine instruction—the term “horse” is used. Only one or two examples need be recalled: “A horse is a false hope of safety,” and “These trust in chariots and these in horses, but we will be made great in the name of the Lord who is our God.” As for “My heart belched forth
a good word; I speak of my works to the king,” written in the forty-fourth psalm—constantly repeated by the many as though its meaning were settled, it should not go unexamined by us. Let it be granted that it is the Father who says this. What, then, is his heart, such that the “good word” might appear in accordance with the heart? For if the “Word” needs no explanation, as
those people suppose, it is clear that neither does the “heart”—which is most absurd, to think that the heart, just as in our own body, is likewise a part of God. But they should be reminded that just as hand and arm and finger are said of God, without our fixing our understanding on the bare wording but instead examining how all these things must be understood soundly and in a manner worthy of God, so too
the heart of God must be taken to mean his intellective and purposive power concerning all things, and the word to mean the faculty within it that announces. And who announces the Father’s counsel to those among the created who are worthy of it, having himself come to be alongside them, if not the Savior? And perhaps it is not without purpose that it says “belched forth”; for countless other things could have been said instead of
“belched forth”—“my heart put forth a good word,” “my heart spoke a good word.” But perhaps, just as a belch is the coming forth into the open of some hidden breath, as it were the exhalation of the one belching, so too the Father, unable to contain the contemplations of truth, belches them forth and forms their impress in the Word, and for this reason the Word is called the image of the
invisible God. I say this so that, going along with the understanding held by most, we may accept that “My heart belched forth a good word” is spoken by the Father. Yet this should not be conceded to them altogether, as though it were agreed that God is the one announcing these things. For why should it not be the prophet who speaks, filled with the Spirit and uttering a good word concerning the prophecy about Christ, unable to contain
himself, saying, “My heart belched forth a good word; I speak of my works to the king; my tongue is the pen of a scribe who writes swiftly; you are beautiful in form beyond the sons of men”—and then, addressing Christ himself, “Grace has been poured out upon your lips”? For how, if the Father were saying these things, could it go on to say “Grace has been poured out upon your
’...your’ ‘For this reason God has blessed you forever,’ and shortly after, ‘For this reason God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’ But someone might object, wishing the words in the psalm to be reported as spoken by the Father: ‘Hear, daughter, and see, and incline your ear, and forget the...’
’...your people and your father’s house,’ for the prophet would not say to the church, ‘Hear, daughter.’ It is not hard to show also from other psalms that changes of speaker occur repeatedly, so that here too it would be possible for the Father to be speaking from ‘Hear, daughter.’ One must also set alongside the inquiry concerning the Word the verse: ‘By the’
’word of the Lord the heavens were made firm, and by his breath all their power,’ which some suppose to be set down concerning the Savior and the Holy Spirit, since it can indicate that by the word of God the heavens were made firm — just as if we were to say that a house came into being by architectural reason and a ship by shipbuilding reason, so likewise the heavens by the word of God, being possessed of a more divine body
and for this reason called solid, not having the extensive fluidity and easy dissolution of the remaining, lower things, were made firm, and this because they had, in a distinctive way, a special relation to the divine Word. Since, then, it is our aim to see clearly ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘beginning’ has, with testimonies drawn from Proverbs, been shown to be said of Wisdom, and Wisdom is conceived of as prior to the
Word that declares her, one must understand that the Word always exists in the beginning—that is, always exists within Wisdom; and being within Wisdom, called ‘the beginning,’ he is not thereby prevented from being ‘with God,’ being himself God as well, and not being ‘with God’ nakedly, but being ‘in the beginning,’ that is Wisdom, he is ‘with God.’ Accordingly it goes on to say:
‘He was in the beginning, with God’; for it could have said, ‘He was with God,’ but just as he existed ‘in the beginning,’ so likewise ‘in the beginning’ he existed ‘with God,’ and ‘through him all things came into being,’ since he existed ‘in the beginning’; for according to David, God made ‘all things’ ‘in wisdom.’ And further, so that we may accept that the Word has its own particular
circumscription, as though he lived, so to speak, by himself, one must speak also of powers, not merely of a single power; for ‘What then does the Lord of powers say’ occurs in many places, certain rational divine living beings being called ‘powers,’ of whom Christ was the one set above and superior, being addressed not only as ‘wisdom of God’ but also as ‘power.’ Given, then, that God possesses multiple powers, each one marked off by its own circumscription, and among which
the Savior stands apart, so too the ‘Word’ — even though the word that is in us has no existence outside us marked off by its own circumscription — will, on the grounds already examined, be understood as Christ, having his subsistence ‘in the beginning,’ that is, in Wisdom. Let this suffice for us for the present concerning ‘In the beginning was the Word.’

======== Commentary on John, Book 2 ========

Sufficiently, according to our present capacity, holy brother Ambrose, formed according to the gospel, we grasped in what preceded this what the gospel is, what the beginning is, in which was the Word, and what that Word was that existed within the beginning; we now consequently examine how “the Word was with God.” It is useful, then, to gather together for this purpose an account recorded as having occurred
toward certain persons, such as “The Lord's word, given to Hosea, son of Beeri,” and “The word given to Isaiah, son of Amoz, concerning Judea and concerning Jerusalem,” and “The word given to Jeremiah concerning the withholding of rain.” How then did the Lord's word come upon Hosea, and is it the same word given to Isaiah, son of Amoz, and
again “the word to Jeremiah concerning the withholding of rain” — this must be examined, so that it may be found lying alongside our text, how “the Word was with God.” Now the majority will take what is said about the prophets more simply, as the word of the Lord, or as the word that came to them. But perhaps, just as we say that a certain person comes to be with another, so also the one now theologically termed “Son,
Word,” came to be with Hosea, sent by the Father to him — according to the historical sense, to Beeri's son, Hosea the prophet; but according to the mystical sense, to the one being saved, for Hosea is interpreted “Saved,” son of Beeri, which is interpreted “Wells”; for since a spring wells up from a depth, the wisdom of God, each of those being saved becomes a son of it. And it is nothing to marvel at
that the holy one should thus be a son of wells, being named son in many ways from his noble deeds: from the fact that his “works shine before men,” he is son “of light”; and from possessing the “peace of God that surpasses all understanding,” he is son “of peace”; and further, because of the benefit received from wisdom, he is “child of wisdom,” for it says, “Wisdom is justified by her children.”
So then, the one who searches all things by the divine Spirit, even the depths of God, so as to cry out, “O depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God,” can be a “son of wells,” one upon whom the Lord's word comes to rest. In like manner the word comes also to Isaiah, teaching him what will befall Judea and Jerusalem in the last days; and likewise also to Jeremiah,
lifted up by divine exaltation, for it is interpreted “Exaltation of Yahweh.” But it is to men — who previously had no room for the sojourn of the Son of God, that is, for the Word — that the Word comes to be; but “with God” it does not “come to be,” as though it previously were not with him, but rather, because it is always together with the Father, this is what is stated: “the Word, and with God was that Word.” For it was not said,
“it came to be with God.” And the very same verb, “was,” is predicated of the Word both when it “was in the beginning” and when it “was with God,” neither separated from the beginning nor forsaking the Father, and again neither coming to be “in the beginning” from previously not being, nor coming to be “with God” from previously not being “with God.”
...coming to be; for before all time and age, "in origin was the Word," and "with God was that Word." Since, then, in order to find the meaning of the phrase, God's presence with the Word from the start — the Word abiding with God — we adduced prophetic sayings — how the word "came" to Hosea and Isaiah and Jeremiah — and observed that it is no ordinary difference between "was made" (egenethe) and "came to be" (egeneto), as against
"was," we shall add this: that in its coming to the prophets it enlightens the prophets with the light of knowledge, making them, as it were, see beforehand what they had not perceived before it; whereas toward God, [the Word] is "God" precisely by virtue of being with him. And perhaps it was because John saw some such order in the Word that he did not place
"the Word was God" before "the Word was with God" — since, so far as the propositions themselves are concerned, nothing would have prevented the sequence, for the purpose of seeing the force of each proposition in itself; for one proposition is "In the beginning was the Word," and a second is "the Word was with God," and next in order "and God was the
Word." But since it perhaps indicates a certain order that "In the beginning was the Word" is placed first, and then in this sequence "and the Word was with God," and third "and God was the Word" — for this reason, so that it might be possible to understand the Word as becoming God from being "with God," it says: "and
the Word was with God," and then, "and God was the Word." II. And it is with great precision, and not out of ignorance of Greek exactness, that John uses the articles in some places and omits them in others — in the case of "Word" adding the article "the," but in the case of the appellation "God" sometimes placing it and sometimes taking it away. For he places
the article when the name "God" is applied to the uncreated cause of all things, but is silent about it when the Word is named "God." And just as "the God" and "God" differ in these passages, so too, perhaps, "the Word" and "Word" may never differ in the same way. For just as the God over all is "the God" and not simply "God," so also the source
of the reason (word) present in each rational being is "the Word," whereas the word present in each individual would not properly be given, in a manner matching the first instance, the title "the Word." And as for what troubles many who wish to be devout, being wary of proclaiming two gods and thereby falling into false and impious opinions — either denying the Son any distinct identity apart from that of the Father, while confessing that the one
called "Son" among them is God only in name, or denying the deity of the Son while positing that his distinct identity and essence are, by circumscription, other than the Father's — this can be resolved from what has been said. For one must say to them that in the one sense God is God-in-himself (autotheos), which is exactly why the Savior, praying to his Father, declares: "that they may come to know that
of the divinity, not being deified as ‘the God’ but rather could more properly be called ‘God’ — he of whom without qualification ‘the firstborn of all creation’ is true, since, being first, by being with God, to have drawn divinity into himself, he is more honored than the rest of the gods beside him (of whom God is God, according to what is said: ‘God of gods, the Lord, has spoken, and has called the earth’), having ministered to their becoming gods,
drawing from God for their being deified, sharing it ungrudgingly with them too according to his own goodness. God, then, is the true God, while the ones shaped in his likeness are gods, as images of an archetype; but again, of the many images, the archetypal image is the Word who is with God, who ‘was in the beginning,’ remaining always ‘God’ by being ‘with God,’
and he would not have had this had he not been with God, nor would he have remained God had he not remained in the unceasing contemplation of the Father’s depth. III. But since it is likely that some will stumble at what has been said, one true God, the Father, being proclaimed, while alongside the true God several gods come to be by participation in God, being wary lest the glory of him who transcends all
creation be made equal with the rest who happen to receive the title ‘God,’ in addition to the distinction already given, according to which we said that the God Word is a minister of divinity to all the rest of the gods, this too must be set forth. For the word that is in each rational being has this relation to that Word, present with God at the very beginning, being God, the Word which the
God Word has before God; for as the Father, being very-God and true God, stands in relation to an image and to the images of that image (wherefore human beings, too, are called ‘made according to the image,’ not ‘images’ outright), so the Word-in-itself stands in relation to the word that is in each. For both hold the place of a spring: the Father, of divinity; the Son, of the word. As, then, there are many gods, but for
us there is ‘one God, the Father,’ and many lords, yet for us a single Lord exists, Jesus Christ; so likewise there are many words, yet we pray that there may be present to us the Word who was in the beginning, who was with God, the God Word. For whoever does not make room for this Word, the one in the beginning with God, will either attend to him who became flesh, or will partake of one of
those who have partaken of something wholly alien to the Word, or, having fallen away from partaking in one who has partaken, will be called by a word wholly alien to the Word. What has been said will become clear from the examples concerning God and the God Word and gods — those who either partake of God or are so called but are in no way gods — and again concerning the Word of God and the Word
that became flesh, and words that in some way partake of the Word, words second or third beside the one before all, reputed to be words but not truly words but, so to speak, altogether irrational words — just as, in the case of those who are called gods but are not, one might set in place of ‘irrational words’ the term ‘not-gods’
...of gods. The God of the universe, then, is God of the elect, and much more so God of the Savior of the elect; next he is God of those who are truly gods, and simply put is God of the living, not of the dead at all. But God the Word is perhaps God of those who set the whole in him and who consider him their Father. And the sun and moon and
the stars, as some of those before us have explained, were allotted to those not worthy to have it inscribed of them that the God of gods is their God. They arrived at this understanding, moved by the passage in Deuteronomy that runs thus: "Lest you lift your eyes to the sky and, catching sight of the sun, the moon, and the whole array filling the heavens, you go astray and worship them
and serve them, which the Lord your God allotted to all the nations. But to you the Lord your God has not given it so." For how did he allot the sun and moon to all the nations, but not to Israel? It was so that those unable to run up to the intelligible nature, being moved toward divinity through perceptible gods, might gladly at least stand firm even at this level
and not fall into idols and demons. So then, some still hold as god the Son of God, that is, his Christ; while a third group takes as gods the sun, the moon, and the entire array of heaven — having strayed from God, though with an error markedly different from, and better than, that of those who name as gods the works of human hands — gold and silver, mere products of craftsmanship. Last of all
are those devoted to so-called gods who are by no means gods at all. In this way, then, some share in that very Word who is "in the beginning" and the Word who is "with God" and the Word who is "God," as Hosea and Isaiah and Jeremiah did, and anyone else who presented himself as such, so that it was said of him, "the Lord's word came to be" or a "word" reached him; others
know nothing "except Jesus Christ, and him crucified," and having considered the Word who became flesh to be the whole of the Word, know Christ only according to the flesh; such is the multitude of those who are supposed to have believed. And a third group share in some measure of reason inasmuch as they have devoted themselves to whatever reason surpasses everything, and perhaps these are the ones who follow the sects held in esteem and
distinguished in philosophy among the Greeks. Fourth beyond these are those who have put their trust in reasonings wholly corrupt and godless, who do away with providence — a thing manifest and almost perceptible to the senses — and who accept some end other than the good. Even if we may seem to have digressed, I think it was fittingly done, for the sake of seeing clearly, that we have made four ranks with respect to the name "God" and four with respect to the
name "Word." For there was "the God" and "God," and then "gods" in two senses, one of whom is God over all things, ruling the universe entire. And again there was "the Word," and perhaps also "Word" without the article, in the same way as "the God" and "God," and "words" in two senses, both proper and human — the ones belonging to the Father, being portions of him; and those set alongside these, which the Word now more clearly
presents to us — those who have arrived at the savior and who fix the whole in him. And third are those already mentioned, who consider sun, moon, and stars to be gods and are fixed upon them. And beyond all these, in the lower region, are those devoted to lifeless and dead idols. We find the analogous thing also among those concerned with the word. Some
are adorned by the very word itself, while others are adorned by something set alongside it that seems to be the first word itself — those who know nothing "except Jesus Christ, and him crucified," those who see the word as flesh, and who seem to be those we mentioned a little before. But what need is there to speak of those who are supposed to be within the word, yet have fallen away not only from the
good itself but even from the traces that partake of it? Having taught us three ranks through the three propositions already stated, the evangelist sums up the three into one, saying, "He was with God, in the beginning." Now of the three we have learned, first, in what the word was — that it was "in the beginning" — and with whom this one was, that it was "with
God," and what the word was, that it was "God." As though, then, pointing to the God-word already spoken of by means of "This one," and gathering into a fourth proposition both "The word existed in the beginning" and "With God was the word, and the word was divine, was God," he says: "With God, this one existed in the beginning." It is possible, however,
for the name "beginning" to be taken also of the beginning of the world, as we learn through the statement that in age the word preceded the things that came into being from that beginning. For if it was "in the beginning" that God fashioned the heaven and the earth, then "He existed in the beginning" is plainly earlier than what was fashioned at that starting point — not only of the firmament and the dry land, but of heaven
and earth too the word is older. And perhaps one might not unreasonably ask why nowhere do we read: "At the origin the word" of God "existed, and the word" of God "was present with" — the word is. And perhaps one might not unreasonably ask why nowhere do we read: "with God, and God was the word" of
God. And it follows that one who asks why nowhere is it written, "At the origin was found the word belonging to God," and who asks why nowhere is it written, "At the origin was found the word belonging to God," [should consider] whether there is on the one hand a word of God, and on the other, say, a word of angels, and another of men, and likewise for the remaining words. And if word, then perhaps also "wisdom" and
"righteousness." But it is absurd to say that several things properly bear the name "word," and "wisdom," and "righteousness." And we shall be driven to see that one must not seek several words and wisdoms and righteousnesses, properly so named, apart from the truth. For anyone whatsoever would admit that truth is one; for not even concerning it would anyone dare to speak of another
...is the truth of God, and another is the truth of others, and yet another is the truth of human beings; for in the nature of things there is one truth about each thing. And if truth is one, it is clear that its formulation and its demonstration would reasonably be thought to be one wisdom as well, since no so-called wisdom that fails to grasp the truth could properly be called wisdom either.
If, then, truth is one and wisdom is one, the word that declares the truth and the wisdom plainly and openly to those capable of receiving it would likewise be one. And we do not say this by denying that truth and wisdom and the word belong to God, but by showing the usefulness of the fact that "of God" was passed over in silence, and was not written: "At the origin the word already existed, belonging to God."
John himself, however, in the Revelation, and with the addition, names him "of God," saying: "Then I beheld heaven standing open; and there, a white horse, and its rider was called faithful and
true, and he judges and wages war in righteousness; his eyes flashed like fire's flame, and upon his head sat many diadems; he bears a name inscribed that none but he himself has known, and he was arrayed in a robe drenched with blood, and he was called by the name 'The Word of God.' And the armies stationed in heaven were following him upon
white horses, clothed in fine linen, clean. And out of his mouth goes forth a sharp sword, so that with it he might strike the nations, and with a rod of iron he will shepherd them; and he himself treads the winepress of the wine of the wrath of the anger of God the Almighty. And he has on his
robe and upon his thigh a written name: 'King of kings and Lord of lords.'" It was necessary, and it is stated absolutely, both "word" and, with the addition, "word of God"; for if either of the two had been passed over in silence, we would have had occasion to misunderstand and to fall away from the truth concerning the word. For if "word" had been written but "word of God" had not been said, we would not clearly have learned that this
word is "the word of God." And again, on the other hand, if "word of God" had been supplied, but "word" had not been said absolutely, then, fashioning many words for ourselves according to our relation to each rational being, we would in vain have taken up many things properly named in this way. But the apostle and evangelist, describing well the matters concerning the word of God in the Revelation—
and he is now also the prophet of the Revelation—says that he has seen the word of God riding on a white horse in the opened heaven. What, then, is signified by the fact that heaven was opened, and the white horse, and the fact that the one called the word of God sits upon it, in addition to being the word of God, both faithful and true, and judging in righteousness—
and said to be waging war, must be considered, so that we may be advanced still further by grasping the things concerning "the word of God." I hold that heaven is closed to the ungodly, to those carrying the likeness of the earthly man, yet stands open to the righteous, adorned with the likeness of the heavenly man; because the former, being still below and dwelling in flesh, are barred from apprehending the greater things
its beauty either, since they are unwilling to consider it, bending down and not giving themselves over to looking up; but to those who excel, since they have their citizenship in the heavens, the heavenly things have been opened to be seen by David's key, the divine word opening them and making them clear by riding a horse, with voices that report the things signified, a white horse because of the
manifest and white and luminous quality of knowledge. And seated upon the white horse is the one called "faithful," established more firmly and, if I may put it so, more royally, upon voices that cannot be turned back, running swifter and faster than any horse and surpassing in its course every rival who is reckoned a word only in mimicry and a supposed truth only in appearance. And he is called "faithful," the one
who sits upon the white horse, not so much because he believes as because he is to be believed, that is, worthy of being trusted; for according to Moses, the Lord is faithful and true. And ‘true’ marks him off from shadow, from type, from image — that is his character, the Word dwelling in the heaven now opened; whereas the Word upon earth is not of the same kind as the one in heaven, since he became
flesh and spoke through shadows and types and images. But the multitudes of those who are supposed to have believed are made disciples of the shadow of the Word and not of the true Word of God who exists in the opened heaven. For this reason Jeremiah declares: "Christ the Lord is the breath before our face, concerning whom we said, 'We shall live under his shadow among the nations.'" This, then, is the Word of
God who is called faithful and is also called true, and judges and makes war in righteousness, having received from God the ability to assign and judge what is due to each of the things that are, by his own self-righteousness and self-judgment. For none of those who share in righteousness and in the power of judging a people will be able to impress upon his own soul so completely the forms of righteousness and of judging,
that in nothing he falls short of self-righteousness and self-judgment, just as one who paints an image will not be able to convey to the painting all the properties of the thing painted. It is for this reason, I hold, that David says, "No one living shall be justified before you"; for he did not simply say "every man" or "every angel," but "everyone living," because even if someone
partakes of life and shakes off deadness entirely, not even so will he be able to be justified before you in a manner equal to Life itself, nor is it possible for one who partakes of life, and is on this account called living, to become Life itself, nor for one who partakes of righteousness, and is on this account called righteous, to be made wholly equal to Righteousness itself. Now the work of the Word is, just as to judge in righteousness, so also
to war in righteousness, so that, from the irrational enemies and injustice being thus destroyed and put to death by reason and by warring so in righteousness, he may come to dwell within and to render righteous, casting out the things contrary to the soul of the one who, so to speak, has been taken captive for salvation by Christ. Still more can one see the war which the Word wages, when he himself pleads on behalf of truth,
while the one that pretends to be reason, not being reason, and the one that proclaims itself truth, though it is not truth but falsehood, asserts itself to be truth itself. For then, having armed himself against the falsehood, the Word 'destroys it by the spirit issuing from his mouth, and renders it powerless through the manifestation of his presence.' And see whether these things can be shown, in their spiritual sense, from
what is set forth by the apostle in his letter to the Thessalonians. For what is destroyed by the spirit issuing from Christ's mouth, Christ being reason and truth and wisdom itself, other than falsehood? And what is that which loses its force through the manifestation of Christ's presence, Christ being understood as wisdom and reason, other than everything that professes to be wisdom while actually being one of those things which
God catches 'in their craftiness'? Further, John, most admirably, in speaking of the one borne upon the white horse, says also this: 'his eyes were like a flame of fire.' For just as flame has both brightness and illuminating power, and also fieriness and a power to consume the more material things, so too the eyes, so to speak, of the
Word, by which everyone who partakes of him also sees, besides apprehending, through the intelligible realities subsisting within him, they also consume and make vanish the more material and coarser of thoughts; for all things that are in any way false altogether escape the fineness and subtlety of the truth. And very fittingly, after 'judging in righteousness' and warring in accordance with judging in righteousness, and next after
warring, illuminating, there is added the statement that upon his head are many diadems. For if the falsehood were one and of a single form, the crown of which the defeated one lost when the 'faithful and true' Word conquered, then it would reasonably have been recorded that one diadem was set upon the Word of God who had prevailed over the opposing power. But as it is, since the falsehoods professing to be the truth are many,
against which the Word has made war and is crowned, many diadems come to be set upon the head of the one who conquers all things; and prevailing over each rebellious activity, he sets upon himself many diadems through his conquering. Next after the diadems it is recorded that he has 'a name written which no one knows except himself'; for this living Word alone knows certain things, because of the inferiority in
subsequent created beings, none of whom is able to comprehend all that that one grasps in contemplation. And perhaps too those who partake of that Word, alone among those who do not partake, know the things that do not reach the others. But the Word of God is not seen by John, riding upon the horse, unclothed; for he is wrapped in a garment † stained with blood, since there cling to him the traces of the one who became—
...the Word is flesh, and because he became flesh he died, so that his blood too was poured out on the ground when the soldier pierced his side - that suffering belongs to him. For perhaps even if we should somehow attain to the loftiest and highest contemplation of the Word and of the truth, we will not entirely forget the introduction that came to us, through him, while we were in the body. To this
word of God all the armies in heaven follow, all of them, following the Word as their leader and imitating him in everything, and especially in this, that they too are mounted, like him, on white horses; for all things are visible to those who understand. And just as "grief and sorrow and sighing fled away" at the end of all things, so too, I think, obscurity and perplexity flee away, once all the mysteries of God's wisdom fall carefully and
clearly before us. Consider too the white horses of those who follow the Word, clothed in "fine linen, white and clean" - unless, since linen comes from the earth, the linen garments happen to be types of the earthly languages in which the voices that signify things clearly are clothed. These matters have been
discussed at greater length on the basis of what the Revelation teaches about the Word of God, so that we might understand what concerns him more precisely. I,2. He was in the beginning with God. IX. To those who do not attend closely to the different clauses in what is being reported, the evangelist will seem to be repeating himself, saying nothing more in "He was in the beginning with God" than in "And the Word was with God."
But it must be observed that in "The Word was with God" we do not learn the when, or in what, he "was with God," according to the fourth proposition added; for there are four propositions here, which some call clauses, of which the fourth reads that this one existed with God from the very beginning. And "The Word was
with God" is not the same as "He was" - not simply "with God," but when or in what he was with God. For the text states that this one existed with God from the very beginning. But also "He," expressed as a demonstrative, will be thought to refer either to the Word or to God by someone who does not examine the matter more closely, so that he might also find the combination of the
earlier terms occurring in the designation "He," of both the concept "Word" and that of "God," so that the demonstrative might gather into one the things that differ in concept; for "God" does not lie within the concept "Word," nor does "Word" lie within "God." Perhaps, though, it is a summing-up of the three propositions into one, namely, "He was in the beginning with
God"; for insofar as "the Word was in the beginning," we had not yet learned that he existed alongside God; and insofar as the Word was "with God," we did not clearly know that from the very start he was already with God; and insofar as "the Word was God," it was not shown either that he existed "in the beginning" or that he happened to be "with God." But in
In the report "With God was this one in the beginning," with "this one" being understood of the Word and God, and "in the beginning" thus joined to it, and "with God" added, nothing is left out of what is contained in the three clauses that is not summed up when they are gathered into one. But see whether, given that "In the beginning" is used in a twofold sense, it is possible for us
to learn two things from it: one, that "in the beginning was the Word," as though he were also by himself and not entirely in relation to someone; the other, that "in the beginning" he "was with God." And I think it is not false to say of him that already in the beginning he existed, and already in the beginning he was found "with God," neither being merely "with God"
since he also "was in the beginning," nor being merely "in the beginning" and not "with God," since "with God was this one in the beginning." 10. The phrase "through whom" never occupies the first place, but always the second; for example, in the letter to the Romans: Paul, he says, a servant of Christ Jesus, "called an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand
by means of his prophets, set down in the sacred writings, touching his Son -- who, according to the flesh, sprang from the offspring of David, and, according to the Spirit of holiness, was marked out as Son of God with power by rising from among the dead -- namely Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom favor and a mission to bring about faith's obedience among every nation came to us, for his name's sake. For
God promised his own gospel beforehand through the prophets, the prophets serving him and holding the position expressed by "through whom," and once more, it was through him that God bestowed favor and a mission for the obedience owed to faith among every nation, granting it to Paul and the rest, and gave it through Christ Jesus the savior, who holds the position expressed by "through whom." And in the letter to the Hebrews the same
Paul says: "Now at the end of these days, he has addressed us through a Son, whom he set as heir of all things, and through whom he also made the ages," teaching us that God made the ages through the Son, since in the coming-to-be of the ages it is the only-begotten who holds the position expressed by "through whom." So then here too, if all things came to be through the Word,
they did not come to be by the Word, but by one who is greater and superior to the Word. And who could this other one be, if not the Father? But it must be examined, since "All things came to be through him" is true, whether the Holy Spirit too came to be through him. For I think that for the one who asserts that it is a created thing and puts forward "All things came to be through him," it is necessary to grant
that the Holy Spirit too came to be through the Word, the Word being older than it. But for the one who does not want the Holy Spirit to have come to be through Christ, it follows that he must call it unbegotten, if he judges the statements in this gospel to be true. And there will also be a third position besides these two, one that admits the Spirit through the Word
...that it had come to be holy and supposing it to be unbegotten, holding it as doctrine that the Holy Spirit does not subsist as any distinct substance of its own apart from the Father and the Son, but is rather, perhaps, added to them. If he thinks the Son is other than the Father, in that he is not the very same as the Father, then admittedly a distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Son is shown in...
...the saying: ‘If anyone utters a word against the Son of Man, he will be pardoned for it; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit shall find no pardon, neither in this present age nor in the age about to come.’ We, however, hold the conviction that there exist three hypostases — Father and Son and Holy Spirit — and believe that none besides the Father is unbegotten,
we accept as more reverent and true the view that, of all the things that came to be through the Word, the Holy Spirit is the most honored of all, and in rank the first of all the things brought into being by the Father through Christ. And perhaps this is the reason why it too is not styled a son of God, since only the only-begotten is by nature a son from the beginning, and of him the Holy Spirit appears to have need,
since he ministers to its subsistence — not only for it to exist, but also to be wise and rational and just and whatever else one must understand it to be — by participation in the aforementioned conceptions of Christ we have discussed. And I think that the Holy Spirit supplies, so to speak, the matter of the gifts that come from God to those who, on its account, are also called partakers of it,
the holy ones — the aforesaid matter of the gifts being activated by God, ministered by Christ, and subsisting according to the Holy Spirit. And what moves me to suppose that this is so is Paul, writing somewhere about the gifts as follows: ‘There are distinctions of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are distinctions of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are distinctions
of activities, but it is the same God who works all things in all.’ But there is a difficulty here, both because of the text ‘All things came to be through him,’ and because it follows that the Spirit, being something that came to be, came to be through the Word — as to how it is, so to speak, given precedence over Christ in certain scriptures: in Isaiah, for instance, where Christ confesses that he was sent not by the Father alone, but
also by the Holy Spirit — for he says, ‘And now the Lord has sent me, and his Spirit’ — whereas in the Gospel he promises forgiveness for sin committed against himself, but declares concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that there will be no forgiveness for the one who has spoken evil against it, not only ‘in this age,’ but not even ‘in the
age to come.’ And perhaps it is not at all because the Holy Spirit is more honored than Christ that there is no forgiveness for the one who has sinned against it, but because all rational beings partake of Christ, and to those of them who turn away from their sins pardon is given, whereas it is not reasonable that those who have been deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit should obtain any pardon, given so great and so intimate a communion of...
still falling away from the good and turning aside from the counsels of the Spirit dwelling within them. But if, according to Isaiah, our Lord says that he was dispatched by the Father together with his Spirit, here too it is possible to give an account concerning the Spirit who sent the Christ — not as differing from him in nature, but with reference to the economy that took place in the incarnation of the Son of God, who was made lesser
than the Savior himself. But if anyone stumbles at this, at saying that the Savior, having become incarnate, was made lesser than the Holy Spirit, he must be brought to the statements in the letter to the Hebrews, where Paul declares that Jesus was made lower than the angels because of the suffering of death. For he says: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels,”
“on account of his suffering unto death, wreathed with glory and honor.” Or perhaps one may also say this: that creation needed to be set free from the slavery of corruption, and likewise the human race needed a blessed and divine power to become incarnate, one that would also set right the things on earth; and this task fell, as it were, in some sense to the Holy Spirit,
a task that, being unable to bear it, he puts the Savior forward in his place, as the one alone able to carry so great a contest; and just as the Father, as leader, sends the Son, so the Holy Spirit is sent together with him and escorts him on his way, having promised that in due time he would come down upon the Son of God and cooperate in the salvation of mankind. And this he did when he flew down upon him in bodily form like a dove
after the washing, and having settled on him, does not pass by — perhaps having done this for the sake of the people who were not able to bear his glory without interruption. This is why John points to knowing who the Christ actually is not merely by the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, but, in addition to that descent, by the Spirit's continuing to abide upon him. John himself is recorded as having spoken thus:
that “The one who sent me to baptize said: ‘On whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is the one who baptizes in Holy Spirit and fire.’” For it is not said, “on whomever you see the Spirit descending” alone — since it may perhaps have descended on others too — but “descending and remaining upon him.” These matters have been examined at length, more clearly, for those who wish to see
how, if all things came to be through him, and the Spirit too came to be through the Word, then the Spirit, being one among all things, is understood to be lesser than the one through whom it came to be — even if certain expressions seem to draw us toward the opposite view. XII. But should anyone give credence to the Gospel entitled According to the Hebrews, in which the Savior himself declares: “Just now my mother, the
Holy Spirit, seized me by a single hair of mine and bore me off to the great mountain Tabor,” he will raise the difficulty of how the Holy Spirit, which came to be through the Word, can be the “mother” of Christ. But this too is not hard to explain: for if the one who does “the will of the Father who is in the heavens” is his “brother and sister and mother,”
And if the title ‘brother of Christ’ reaches beyond the human race alone to embrace also the more divine beings above it, it will be nothing absurd for the Holy Spirit to be ‘mother’ — more so than any woman who bears the title ‘mother of Christ’ by doing the will of the Father in the heavens. We must also inquire into the following points concerning ‘All things came into being through him.’ By
conception the Word is distinct from the Life, and ‘that which had come into being in the Word was Life, and this Life was mankind's light.’ Is it, then, the case that, just as all things came into being through him, so too Life came into being through him — that very light belonging to men — together with the Savior's other conceptions as well, or is it rather with the exception of those conceptions in him that we must
understand ‘All things came into being through him’? This latter seems to me the better view. For even if it be granted that, because Life came into being, it is the light of men, what must be said about the Wisdom that is conceived of prior to the Word? For surely what is beside the Word did not come into being through the Word. So then, apart from the conceptions ascribed to Christ, all things came into being through the Word of God,
the Father having made them in Wisdom; for it says, ‘You made all things in wisdom,’ not ‘through wisdom you made them.’ Let us also inquire why the phrase ‘and without him not one thing came into being’ has been added. To some it might seem that ‘without him not one thing came into being,’ following upon ‘all things came into being through him,’ turns out to be superfluous. For if absolutely everything whatsoever came into being ‘through the Word,’ then nothing
came into being ‘without the Word.’ Yet it does not follow, from the fact that nothing came into being without the Word, that all things came into being through the Word; for it is possible, while nothing has come into being without the Word, not only that all things came into being through the Word but also that some things came into being by the Word. We must therefore know how one ought to understand ‘All’ and how ‘Nothing.’ For it is possible
that, from not having clearly grasped both expressions, one might suppose that, if all things came into being through the Word, and evil and the whole outpouring of sin and wicked things belong among ‘all things,’ then these too came into being through the Word. But this is false; for it is not absurd to hold that all created things came into being through the Word—and indeed that through the
Word the noble deeds and all the right actions of the blessed must necessarily be understood to have been rightly accomplished—but not, however, sins and falls as well. Some have therefore taken it, since evil has no independent subsistence (for it neither existed from the beginning nor will exist forever), that these are the ‘nothing’; and just as certain of the Greeks say that there are genera and
species even of the ‘not-somethings,’ such as the animal and the man, so too they have supposed that ‘nothing’ is everything that has not received its apparent constitution from God nor through the Word. And let us take pains, if it is possible, to demonstrate these points most forcefully from the scriptures. As far, then, as concerns what is signified by ‘nothing’ and ‘non-being,’ it will seem that there is a synonymy, since ‘non-being’ would be called ‘nothing,’ and
Of “No one”, “Not being.” The apostle evidently names “the things that are not” not with reference to things that in no way whatsoever exist, but with reference to the wicked, regarding evil things as “not being.” For, he says, “God called the things that are not as though they were.” But Mordecai too, in the Esther according to the Seventy, calls the enemies of Israel “those who are not,”
saying, “Do not hand over your scepter, Lord, to those who are not.” And one can point out how, because of their wickedness, the wicked are addressed as “those who are not,” taking this from the name of God written down in the book of Exodus, where the Lord told Moses: “He Who Is—this is my name.” But as for us, who pray to belong to the church, the good
God says these things—he whom the Savior glorifies when he says, “No one is good but one, God the Father.” Therefore “the good” is the very same as “he who is.” But opposed to the good is evil or wickedness, and opposed to “he who is” is “that which is not”; from which it follows that the wicked and the evil are “not being.” And this is what showed
those who said that the devil is not a creation of God to be wrong. For insofar as he is a devil he is not a creation of God, but insofar as it has befallen him to be a devil—he being something that has come into being, and nothing that is created existing apart from our God—he is a creature of God; it is much like claiming that the murderer, too, is no creation of God, though this denies nothing of the fact that, insofar as he is a human being, he has been made by God. For while positing
that insofar as he is a human being he has indeed received his being from God, we do not posit that insofar as he is a murderer he has received this from God. All, then, who participate in “he who is”—and the saints do participate in him—might rightly be styled “those who are”; but those who have turned away from participation in “he who is,” by being deprived of “he who is,” have become “those who are not.”
We said earlier that “that which is not” and “nothing” are synonymous, and for this reason those who are not are “nothing,” and all wickedness is “nothing,” since it too happens to be “not being,” and being called “nothing,” it has come to be apart from the Word, not being counted together among “all things.” We, then, have set forth to the extent possible what are all the things that have come to be through the Word,
and what it is that has come to be apart from him, and yet never is, and is for this reason called “nothing.” But I think that Heracleon, said to be an acquaintance of Valentinus, in expounding the phrase “all things came to be through him,” has forcibly, and without any proof, taken “all things” to mean the world and what is in it, excluding from “all things,” so far as his hypothesis allows, the things of the world and of the
things that differ within it. For he says that the aeon, or the things within the aeon, did not come to be through the Word, things which he supposes to have come to be before the Word. But standing more shamelessly still against the text “and apart from him not even one thing came to be,” not heeding the warning “do not add to his words, lest he convict you and you be found a liar,” he adds to “not even one thing” the qualification “of the things
to the world and the creation. And since what is said by him is plainly very forced and reported contrary to what is evident, if the things he considers divine are excluded from ‘all things,’ while the things that, as he supposes, are wholly perishable are properly called ‘All,’ there is no need to linger over refuting things whose absurdity is evident of itself — such, indeed, as also what Scripture says: ‘Without
him ‘not one thing came to be’’; adding, without any support from Scripture, ‘of the things in the world and the creation’; and declaring this not even with plausibility, yet claiming to be believed just as the prophets or apostles, who with authority and unaccountably leave behind, for those of their own time and those after them, writings of salvation. Further, he has also understood in his own peculiar way the statement that ‘All things came to be through him,’ saying:
that the one who supplied the cause of the coming-to-be of the world to the craftsman, being the Word, is not the one ‘from whom,’ or ‘by whom,’ but the one ‘through whom’ — taking what is written contrary to its customary sense. For if it were as the truth of the matter holds, it would have had to be written that all things came to be, by the Word, through the craftsman, not
conversely, through the Word, by the craftsman. And we, in using ‘through whom’ in accordance with customary usage, have not left our interpretation without support; whereas he, besides not having drawn support for his own view from the divine writings, also appears to have suspected the truth and shamelessly looked it in the face; for he says: that it was not as though the Word, another acting through him, was himself making,
but that, while he himself was at work, another was making — so that ‘through him’ might be understood in this way. It is not the task of the present occasion to refute the claim that the craftsman did not become the Word’s servant in making the world, and to demonstrate that the Word, having become the servant of the craftsman, fashioned the world. This follows the prophet David’s witness: ‘God spoke, and they came to be; he commanded, and they were created.’
For the unbegotten God gave a ‘command’ to the firstborn of all creation, and by it everything ‘was brought into being’ — not merely the world and what lies within it, but everything else besides, ‘whether these be thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers’; since it is through him and unto him that all things have their creation, and he himself exists prior to everything. Further, as regards ‘Without him not one thing came to be,’ one must not
leave unexamined the argument concerning evil either; for even though it may seem very much out of place, it does not seem to me altogether to be despised. For one must inquire whether evil too came to be through the Word — the Word here being taken specifically as the word that is in each person, just as he himself has come to be in each from the Word that was ‘in the beginning.’ The apostle, accordingly, says: ‘Apart from law sin is dead,’
and adds: ‘but at the commandment’s coming, sin sprang to life’ — teaching a general truth about sin, namely that it had no single activity of its own before law and commandment; but how the Word could be law and commandment, [is unclear,] and there would be no sin if there were no law (‘for sin is not counted as such where no law exists’); and, once more, apart from law there could be no
sin, since there was no word ("For if I had not come and had not spoken to them, sin would not be theirs"). For every pretext is taken away from one who wishes to make a defense concerning his sin, whenever, though word is present within him and pointing out what must be done, someone does not obey it. Perhaps, then, everything up to and including the worse things has come to be through the word, and "apart from him," if we take "nothing" more simply,
"nothing came to be." And the word is not at all to be blamed, if "all things came to be through him" and "apart from him not one thing came to be," just as the teacher who has pointed out to the learner what is needful is not to be blamed, whenever, because of his teachings, no place is any longer left to the one who sins for a defense on the ground of ignorance — especially if we understand the teacher to be inseparable from the learner. For, as it were, inseparable from the one who
learns is the word inherent in the nature of rational beings, always suggesting what must be done, even if we disregard its commands, giving ourselves over to pleasures and dismissing its best counsels. And just as we make use of the eye, which has been given to us as a servant for better purposes, even for the things we do not see rightly, so too with hearing, whenever we give ourselves over to listening to useless
songs and to forbidden things heard, thus insulting the word within us and not using it for what is needful — through it we transgress the law to our own condemnation, since it is present in us, sinning, and for this reason it judges the one who has not honored it above all things. Hence he also says: "The word which I have spoken, that will judge you," teaching the equivalent of: I, the word, who always resound within you,
will myself condemn you, since you have absolutely no place left for a defense. This interpretation, however, will seem rather forced, if we take one word to be the "word in the beginning ... with God," the God-word, and understand it differently on another occasion, when we said that "all things came to be through him" is spoken not only of the primary created things, but also of everything
done by rational beings, apart from word we sin in nothing. And it must be inquired whether the word within us is to be called the same as the word "in the beginning" and "with God" and "God," especially since the apostle does not seem to teach that this is other than the word "in the beginning, with God," when he says: "Do not say in your
heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' that is, to bring Christ down; or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' that is, to raise Christ up again out of the dead. But what does the scripture say? 'Very near you is the word, in your mouth and in your heart.'" There are certain doctrines among the Greeks called paradoxes, to which they attach very many things
— very many things — together with some demonstration, or apparent demonstration, according to which they say that the wise man alone, and he alone among all men, is a priest, since he alone, and he alone among all men, possesses knowledge of the service of God; and that he alone, and he alone among all men, is free, having received from the divine law the authority of self-determination; and they define authority as lawful oversight. And
What need is there for us now to speak about the so-called paradoxes, since there is much labor involved in them, and they require a comparison with the intention of Scripture regarding what is reported by them concerning their paradoxes, so that we may be able to show on which points the reasoning of true piety agrees with them, and on which points it wishes to establish the opposite of what is said by them? Now a mention of these has
been made by us, in inquiring into the saying, 'What was made in him was life,' because it belongs, as it were, to the character of paradoxes and, if one must say so, is more paradoxical than what is said by those others; and one who follows Scripture would be able to show many further such things. For if we understand the Word who was in the beginning, who was with God, the God Word, we shall perhaps be able to say only of him, in so far as
he is such, that whoever partakes of him should be called 'rational,' so that one could even declare that only the holy one is rational. Again, if we grasp the life that came to be in the Word, the one who said, 'I am the life,' we shall say that no one outside the faith of Christ lives, but that all who do not live to God are dead, and that their living is a living in sin, and because of
this, if I may put it so, to attain life is to attain death. Consider whether the divine Scriptures do not establish this in many places: on the one hand, where the Savior says, 'Have you not read that which was said concerning the bush: I am Abraham's God, Isaac's God, and Jacob's God? He is God not of the dead but of the living'; and, 'No one living shall be justified before you.'
But what must we say about this—whether it belongs to God or to the Savior? For it is disputed to which of the two belongs the voice that speaks among the prophets: 'I live, says the Lord.' And let us first look at the phrase 'God not of the dead, but of the living,' which has the same force as 'not the God of sinners, but of the holy ones.' It counts as no small gift to the patriarchs, that God should attach
their name to his own title 'God,' in accordance with which Paul also says, 'For this reason God feels no shame at being called their God.' He is, then, the God of the fathers and of all the holy; and nowhere would one find it written down that any of the impious has God as his God. If, then, God belongs to the holy and is called the God of those who live,
then the holy are living and the living are holy, there being no holy one outside the living, nor any living one who is merely called so without, along with living, also happening to be holy. The same thing can be seen in the case of 'I will find favor with the Lord in the region of the living,' as though it said 'in the rank of the holy' or 'in the place of the holy,'
since being well-pleasing in the proper sense occurs either in the rank of the holy or in the place of the holy; and one who has not passed into the rank of the holy, or has not come to be in the place of the holy, is not yet perfectly well-pleasing—into which place everyone who has already taken up in this life what is, as it were, a shadow and image of the true being well-pleasing will need to pass.
And “no living being shall be justified before God” shows that, as regards God and the righteousness found in him, not one of even the most blessed will be justified—as if we were also to say something like this using another example: not every lamp gives light before the sun; for every lamp does give light, but only when it is not being outshone by the sun; and likewise every living being will be justified,
but not before God—when, that is, it is compared with those below, who are mastered by darkness, and among whom its light will shine. And see whether the saying in the gospel should also be understood along these lines: “Let your light shine before men.” It does not read, “Let your light shine before God”; had that been the command given, it would have been impossible
for him to give such a command, just as if he were giving a command to lamps, as though they were animate beings, to shine their light before the sun. So it is not only the ordinary among the living who will fail to be justified before God, but also those who, among the living, surpass the lesser; or rather—what is more to the point—the righteousness of all the living together will not be justified as measured against
the righteousness of God; just as if, having gathered together at once all the nocturnal lights upon the earth, I were to say that these could not give light when measured against the rays of this sun. And by an ascent from what has been said, one must also understand “I live, says the Lord”—since perhaps, from what has been said about living, living in the proper sense belongs above all to God alone.
And see whether it is for this reason that the apostle, having grasped the surpassing pre-eminence of the life of God and understood in a manner worthy of God the words “I live, says the Lord,” could be said to have spoken concerning God: “he who alone has immortality”—since none among those who live apart from God has the wholly unchangeable and unalterable life. And why do we hesitate concerning the rest, when not even
Christ possessed the immortality of the Father? For he tasted death on behalf of everyone. But in examining together the matters concerning the living God, and concerning life, which is Christ, and concerning those living beings who happen to occupy their own proper realm, and those living beings not justified before God, we shall, consistently with these points, when we set beside them the phrase “he who alone has immortality,” take up together the implications concerning every rational being whatsoever,
namely that it does not possess blessedness essentially, as an inseparable accident. For if it possessed blessedness and primary life as inseparable, how then would the statement made about God still be true: “he who alone has immortality”? One must know, however, that the savior is certain things not for himself but for others, and certain things both for himself and for others; and one must inquire whether there is anything he is for himself and
for no one else. For clearly he is for others a “shepherd,” not receiving benefit for himself from his shepherding, as human shepherds do—unless indeed one should reckon that the benefit of those he shepherds is, through his own love of humanity, his own benefit. But he is likewise “way” for others, and equally “door,” and admittedly also “rod”; and for himself and for others he is “wisdom,” and perhaps also “word.” One must inquire further
if, there being in him a system of contemplations according to which he is "wisdom," there are certain contemplations that cannot be contained by the rest of the nature begotten alongside him, which he knows to himself. And the argument should not be left unexamined, out of reverence concerning the Holy Spirit. For that it too is discipled to him is plain from the statement made regarding the Paraclete, that is, regarding the Holy Spirit: "For he will take from what is mine
and will announce it to you." But if, being discipled, it contains all that the Son knows as he gazes upon the Father from the beginning, this must be sought out more carefully. If then the Savior gives certain things to others, but perhaps certain things to himself alone, and either to no one or to one or to a few, according to what he is as "life," which came to be in the Word, it must be examined whether he is life for himself and for others as well,
or for others, and if for others, for which of them. If indeed "life" and "the life of men" are the same thing — for it says, "What has come to be in him was life; and that life was the light of mankind" — and the light of men is the light of certain men, and this not of all rational beings, so far as concerns the placement of the word "men,"
but it is the light "of men," then it would also be the life of men, of whom it is also the light. And insofar as he is life, the Savior would be said to be life not for himself but for others, of whom he is also the light. This life, indeed, supervenes upon the Word, becoming bound to him inseparably once it has come upon him. For the Word must have pre-existed as that which purifies the soul, in the soul,
one and the same as this, and the purification that comes from him, so that when all deadness and weakness has been removed, unblemished life may come to be present in everyone who has made himself capable of receiving the Word insofar as he is God. And the two occurrences of "in" must be observed, and their difference examined; for the first occurs where it says the Word existed in the beginning, and the second in "life was in the
Word." But the Word "was in the beginning" — it did not come to be; for it was not the case that there was a time when the beginning was wordless, and this is why it says: "In the beginning was the Word"; but life was not in the Word — rather, life came to be, since "the light of men is life." Given that no man yet existed, neither was the light "of men" yet present, that light being understood as belonging to men.
Let no one press hard upon us, supposing that we are reporting these things in a temporal sense, since the order requires a first and a second and so on in sequence, even if no time can be found when the third and fourth things put forward by the Word did not yet exist at all. In the manner, then, that "all things came to be through him," and yet not all things were of him,
and "without him not even one thing came to be," yet it is not the case that without him not even one thing existed, so too what came to be in him — which was distinct from what already existed in him — was life. And again, the Word was not identified with what came to be in the beginning, but rather what already existed in the beginning was the Word. Some copies, however, have — and perhaps not implausibly — "What has come to be in
life is «in him«. Yet granting that life amounts to the same reality as the light of men, it follows that no one dwelling in darkness lives, nor is anyone among the living found in darkness; rather, everyone who lives likewise exists in light, and everyone who exists in light lives. Hence it is the one who lives who alone, in every respect, counts as a son of light — and a son of light is one whose works shine
before men. Again, since what has been left unsaid about a pair of opposites can be understood from what has been said about that pair, and since what was said concerned the life and light of men, while death is opposite to life and the darkness of men opposite to the light of men, one can see that whoever dwells among men in darkness has death as his portion, and whoever does the deeds of death is nowhere else
than in darkness. But the one who remembers God — if indeed we understand what it means to remember him — is not in death, according to what is said: «There is no one who remembers you in death.« But whether it be the darkness of men or death, these are not such by nature — [gap: another argument] — «We were once darkness, but now are light in the Lord,« even if
we are now most especially reckoned as holy and spiritual. But just as Paul, being receptive though he was darkness, came to be light in the Lord, so likewise whoever is darkness, whoever he may be. But according to those who suppose there exist spiritual natures, as with Paul and the holy apostles, I do not know whether one can still maintain that a spiritual man had once been darkness before subsequently becoming light. For if
the spiritual person was once darkness, what then is the earthly person? And if it is true that darkness came to be light, what is the ground for allotting that not all darkness can become light? For if it were not said in reference to Paul that «we were once in darkness, but are now luminous in the Lord,« but rather in reference to those natures they suppose to be perishing — that they were darkness, or are
darkness — then the hypothesis about natures would have some standing. But as it is, Paul says that they were «darkness formerly, yet now light in the Lord«, as though it were possible for darkness to change into light. And it is not difficult, from what has been said, to see carefully the things concerning all the darkness of men and concerning death, which is the very same thing as the darkness of men, once one perceives what is possible
in the way each thing may change for the worse and for the better. XXI. But Heracleon, treating this passage with great violence, has taken «What came to be in him was life« to mean, instead of «in himself,« «in the spiritual men,« as though he supposed the Word and the spiritual men to be the same thing — even though he has not said this plainly — and, as though giving the reason, he says: He himself
gave them their first shaping, the one at their birth, taking what another had sown and bringing it into shape, into light, and into a boundary of its own, and displaying it. But he failed to note what is said about the spiritual in Paul — that Paul passed over in silence the fact that they are human beings: «A soulish man does not welcome what belongs to the Spirit of God; to him such things are folly«
is; but the spiritual person examines all things. For it is not without reason that we say he did not add ‘man’ in the case of the spiritual person; for the spiritual person is better than ‘man,’ since man is marked out by soul, or by body, or by the two together, yet not also by the more divine spirit beyond these, in accordance with a predominant participation in which the spiritual person is so called. And at the same time
he sets forth the claims of such a hypothesis without even an apparent proof, since he was unable to attain even to the ordinary degree of plausibility in the argument concerning these matters. So much, then, concerning that man. But come, let us also inquire into this: whether it was only men whose light the life had been, and not that of anyone at all who reaches blessedness. For supposing ‘life’ and ‘men's light’ turn out to be one and the same thing,
and the light of Christ belongs to men alone, then the life too belongs to men alone. But to suppose this is both foolish and impious, given that the other scriptures speak against such a reading, if indeed, when we make progress, we shall be equal to angels. The difficulty must be resolved thus: it is not the case that, if something is said of certain beings, what is said belongs to those alone. So then, it is not the case that if
it is called the light of men, it is the light of men alone; for it could have been added, ‘the life was the light belonging to men.’ Nothing, however, prevents the light of men from belonging equally to beings other than men, just as these animals and these plants, though serving men as food, may likewise serve as food for creatures besides men. This, then, is the example taken from ordinary usage;
but it is worth setting beside it a similar example drawn from the God-inspired words. Here, then, we are inquiring whether there is nothing to stop the light of men from belonging also to others, and we say that it is not the case that, because it is called the light of men, it is thereby already shut off from being the light also of others besides men who are greater than or unlike men. Now it is recorded that God is God of ‘Abraham and
God of Isaac and God of Jacob’; the one who wishes, since it has been said, ‘The life was the light of men,’ to hold that the light belongs to none other than men, will, on the same reasoning, suppose that the one styled God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob is God of none but these three fathers alone. But he is also God of Elijah, and, as
Judith says, of Symeon her father, and God of the Hebrews. In the same way, if there is nothing to stop him from being God of others as well, there is likewise nothing to stop the light of men from belonging also, besides men, to others. And someone else, further making use of the passage where God says, ‘Let us fashion man according to our image and after our likeness,’ will say that everything that comes to be ‘according to the image and
likeness’ of God is man, employing countless examples to this end, arguing that it makes no difference for scripture to say ‘man’ or ‘angel’; for upon the same subject lie both the designation ‘angel’ and ‘man,’ just as with the three who were entertained as guests by Abraham, of whom two came to be in Sodom; and throughout the whole sequence of scripture, at one point they are called men, at another
...are said to be angels. Yet the one who holds this view will say that, just as among acknowledged human beings there are angels, as Zechariah says: "Angel of God, I am with you, says the Lord Almighty," and John, concerning whom the text reads, "See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you," so also the angels of God are designated by this term on account of this work,
and are not called "men" by nature. And he will find further support in this: that in the case of the superior powers the names are not names of natures of living beings but of ranks, to which this or that rational nature has been assigned by God. For "throne" is not the form of a living being, nor is "dominion," nor is "authority," but they are names of functions, over which were appointed those
so designated, whose underlying subject is nothing other than a human being, and it has befallen that subject to bear the name throne, dominion, principality, or authority. And in the book of Joshua son of Nun it stands written: "A man appeared to Joshua in Jericho," who says, "I have now come as commander-in-chief of the power of the Lord." On this reasoning, then, as capable of equal application,
he will take "the light of men" also as the light of every rational being, since every rational being is a human being by virtue of bearing God's image and likeness. It is, however, the same thing named in three ways: "light of men," and simply "light," and "true light." "Light of men," then — either, as has been shown above, nothing preventing it, one is to understand "light" as belonging also to others besides man,
or as belonging to all rational beings, called "men" because they have come to be "according to the image of God." Now since "light" simply, here, refers to the Savior, while that same John, in his catholic letter, says that God is light, one person thinks that from this too it can be established that the Father is not separated in substance from the Son; another,
observing more carefully — and speaking more soundly — will say that the light shining in darkness, never mastered by it, differs from the light in which darkness has no place whatsoever. For the light that shines in the darkness comes upon the darkness, as it were, and being pursued by it and, so to speak, plotted against, is not overtaken; whereas the light
where darkness has no place whatsoever neither shines in darkness nor is pursued by it at all, so that it may also be recorded as victor by not being overtaken by the darkness that pursues it. The third thing said of this light was "true light"; and by the reasoning by which the Father, the God of truth, surpasses truth in greatness, and, being the Father of wisdom,
is better than and different from wisdom, by this same reasoning he surpasses being called "true light." We shall know still more plainly from what follows, on the authority of David, that the Father and the Son are a pair of lights: he says as much in the thirty-fifth psalm, "In your light we shall see light." And this very thing — the light of men, the light shining in the darkness, the true light — in
In what follows in the gospel he is proclaimed "the light of the world," Jesus saying, "I am the light of the world." Let us not leave this unremarked either: although it was possible to have written, "What came to be in him was light of men, and that light belonging to men was life," he has done the opposite; for he sets life ahead of the light belonging to men, even though "life"
and "light of men" are the same thing, because he is meeting us in advance in the case of those who share in life -- life which also happens to be the light of men -- with the point that their living the aforesaid divine life comes before their being enlightened. For living must underlie it, so that the one who lives may become enlightened; it would not have followed for one not yet conceived of as living to be enlightened, and for living to come upon the one enlightened afterward. For even if
life and the light of men amount to the very same thing, still the concepts are taken according to one aspect and another. This same light of men is also called "light of the nations" by the prophet Isaiah, according to the text, "Behold, I have set you for a covenant of the race, for a light of the nations." And trusting in this light David declares in the twenty-sixth psalm, "The Lord
is my light and my savior; whom shall I fear?" As for those who have fashioned the myth about the aeons in their pairings, and who suppose that reason and life -- not implausibly -- have been put forth by mind and truth, let them also be at a loss over this. For how, according to them, does life, the consort of reason, receive the fact of having come to be in its consort? For it says, "What came to be in it" -- namely, in the
aforesaid reason -- "was life." Let them tell us, then, how life, the consort of reason, came to be in reason, and how it is rather the life of reason, and not reason itself, that is the light of men. It is likely that the more reasonable among them, overturned in their inquiries and stung by this difficulty, will turn the question back on us, and that they too will be hard pressed if we cannot find the reason why it was not "reason" that was said to be the
light of men, but the "life" that came to be in reason. To these we will answer as follows: that "life" here is not meant in the common sense shared by rational and irrational beings, but the life that comes upon the reason completed in us, its participation being received from the primary Reason. And insofar as we turn away from the life that seems to be, but is not truly, life, and long to make room for
the true life, we first share in it; and this life, having come to be in us, becomes also the substance of the light of knowledge. And perhaps this life is, in some, light in potentiality and not in actuality -- namely, in those who do not make it their ambition to examine the things of knowledge -- while in others it becomes light in actuality as well; and it is light wherever what Paul enjoined is accomplished: "Be zealous for
the greater gifts" -- and greater than the gifts is that which is set before all of them, namely, "the word of wisdom," and that which follows it, "the word of knowledge." As for the difference between them, since the meanings of "wisdom" and "knowledge" lie close to one another, it is not for the present occasion to say. Further, concerning the light of men, since it has been placed first, we inquire -- and I think also concerning its opposite, which is called "darkness."
...but if, tested in this way — I mean 'of men' — because perhaps "the light of men" is a general term for two particular things, and likewise also their darkness. For it is possible for the one who has acquired the light of men and shares in its rays to accomplish "works of light" and, being illuminated, to know the light of knowledge; and the corresponding thing must also be understood from the
opposites — both the practice of wicked deeds and the so-called knowledge that is not true according to reality, which have the character of darkness. And that the sacred word knows the commandments as light, Isaiah says: "For your commandments are light upon the earth," and David in the eighteenth psalm: "The commandment of the LORD is radiant, enlightening the eyes." And that...
besides the commandments and the precepts there is also a light that belongs to knowledge, we found in one of the Twelve: "Sow for yourselves unto righteousness, reap unto the fruit of life, kindle for yourselves the light of knowledge." For as though there were also another light besides the commandments, the text says of knowledge, "Kindle for yourselves a light" — not simply "light," but a particular kind of light, namely "of knowledge." For if...
every light that a person kindles for oneself counted as "light of knowledge," the addition "kindle for yourselves a light of knowledge" would have been pointless. Again, that darkness applies to wicked deeds is taught by this same John in his epistle, where he states: "Should we claim to have fellowship with him while going about in the dark, we would be lying and not doing the truth," and again:
"The one who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now," and further: "But the one who hates his brother is in darkness, and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." For to walk in darkness signifies
blameworthy conduct; and hating one's brother is a falling-away, though not from what is properly called knowledge. And that the one who is ignorant of divine things, by that very ignorance, walks about in darkness, David says: "They did not know nor understand; they walk about in darkness." Now consider the statement, "God is light, and darkness has no place in him whatsoever" —
unless this is said because darkness is not one, but either because the general term is two, or because, according to each of the particulars, there are many wicked deeds and many false doctrines, and so there are many darknesses, none of which is in God — something that could not be said of the holy one, to whom the Savior says, "You are the
light of the world," that the holy one belongs to the world as "light," "and no darkness whatsoever dwells in him." But someone will ask: if the statement "no darkness whatsoever dwells in him" is set down concerning the Father, how shall we say that this is something exceptional belonging to him — given that we also understand the Savior to be wholly without sin, so that it could be said of him too, "He is light and
"no darkness whatsoever dwells in him." We have, then, in part above set out the distinction; but we shall now add, even more boldly than before, that if God "made the one who never knew sin to become sin for our sake" — that is, the Christ, if God made him to be sin on our behalf — it could not be said of him, "No darkness whatsoever dwells in him."
For if Jesus, having condemned sin "in the likeness of sinful flesh," does so precisely by having taken on the likeness of sinful flesh, then the statement made about him, "There is no darkness in him at all," will no longer hold in every respect without qualification. We shall add further that "he himself took our weaknesses and bore our sicknesses" — both the weaknesses of the soul and the sicknesses
of the hidden man of our heart. Because of these weaknesses and sicknesses, having borne them away from us, he confesses that his soul is deeply grieved and troubled, and it is recorded in Zechariah that he was clothed in filthy garments — which, when they were about to be stripped from him, are said to be sins. He adds there, indeed: "Behold, I have taken away your sins." For it was by taking upon himself the sins belonging to the people of those who trust
in him, he says in many places: "My salvation lies far off, on account of the words of my transgressions," and, "You know my folly, and my offenses are not hidden from you." Let no one suppose that in saying these things we speak impiously against the Christ of God. For in the sense in which the Father alone possesses immortality, since the Lord, out of love for humanity,
has taken upon himself death on our behalf, in that same sense it is the Father alone who possesses the statement "No darkness whatsoever dwells in him" — since the Christ, on account of his benefaction toward men, has taken upon himself our darknesses, so that through his power our death would be brought to nothing and the darkness within our soul would be wiped away, so that what is said in Isaiah might be fulfilled: "The people who
sitting in darkness beheld a great light." This same light, having come to be within the Word and being in truth also life, "gives light amid the darkness" that fills our souls, and it has taken up residence there where the world-rulers of this darkness reside — those who, wrestling against humankind, labor to drag under darkness's sway those unwilling in every respect to hold their ground, so as to keep them from being counted, once enlightened,
sons of the light. And this light, shining in the darkness, is indeed pursued by it, but is not overtaken. But if anyone should think that we are adding something not written — namely, that the light is pursued by the darkness — let him hear that the statement "the darkness did not overtake it" is said in vain if the darkness nowhere pursued the light. But as one with a mind able
to grasp, consistent with what stands written, matters supposed to have gone unmentioned, John set down: "the darkness laid no hold upon it" — for if it "laid no hold" upon it, then having given chase, still "it laid no hold." And that darkness gave chase to the light is evident both from what the Savior endured and from what those who took up his teachings, his very own children, likewise endured, since darkness was at work against the sons of light and
wished to chase the light away from humankind. Yet since, granted that "God stands on our side," no one — however much he might wish it — will have power "to stand against us," the more they abased themselves, the more their numbers swelled and their strength grew ever mightier. Now darkness has failed to grasp the light in a twofold sense: either it lags far behind the light and, owing to its own sluggishness, cannot match the swiftness of the light's course, not even to some degree,
or, if the light ever wished to lie in wait for the darkness and, by way of dispensation, allowed it to go on approaching, then the darkness, on drawing near the light, vanished. In either case, then, the darkness did not overtake the light. But having come to this point, we must note that it is not always the case that, wherever “darkness” is named, it is taken in the worse sense; sometimes it is recorded also of
the better one — a distinction the heterodox failed to make, and so, having accepted most blasphemous doctrines about the Demiurge, fell away from him, giving themselves over to fabricated myths. How then, and when, the name of darkness is applied also to the better sense must now be shown. Darkness, gloom, and storm are said in Exodus to surround God, and likewise in Psalm 16: “God made darkness
his hiding place, round about him is his tent, dark water in clouds of the air.” For if one considers the multitude of contemplations concerning God, and how his knowledge is ungraspable by human nature — and perhaps even by other begotten beings besides Christ and the Holy Spirit — he will understand how there is darkness surrounding God, in the sense that the account of him that is worthy and rich is unknown.
in that darkness “he made his hiding place,” having done this because the matters concerning him, being incapable of being contained, are unknown. But if anyone stumbles at interpretations of this kind, let him be led on from the dark sayings and from the treasures given by God to Christ that are dark, hidden, unseen; for I think the dark treasures revealed in Christ are nothing other than the “Darkness
God made his hiding place,” or “the holy one will understand a parable and a dark saying.” It may be for this reason that the Savior says to the disciples: “What you have heard in the darkness, say in the light.” For as to the mysteries handed down to them in secret, not heard by many, hard to know and unclear, he commands them — since they are being enlightened and are for this reason said to be
in the light — to declare them to everyone who is coming to be in the light. But I would say something even more paradoxical about the darkness that is praised: that it hastens toward the light and overtakes it, and it happens at times that, because it is unrecognized as darkness, it so changes for the one who does not perceive its power that the one who has come to learn declares that what was once known to him as darkness has become light. Anyone who hears more precisely the word
"One sent forth," since whoever is sent forth is dispatched from some place to some place, will inquire whence John was sent and whither. The "whither" being plain — according to the historical sense, that it was toward Israel and those wishing to give him a hearing while he lingered in the desert of Judea and administered baptism beside the river Jordan — but according to a more searching account, that it was into the world, "world" being understood as
the region below the heavens, where humans dwell), he will inquire how the term "whence" ought to be understood. Probing the wording still further, he perhaps also declares that, just as it stands written concerning Adam: "And the Lord God sent him forth out of the garden of delight to till the ground from which he had been taken," in like manner John too was sent, whether out of heaven or out of
paradise, or from wherever else besides this place on earth, and he was sent so that he might testify concerning the “light.” But the argument admits of a rejoinder not to be despised, since Isaiah too has this passage: “Whom shall I send — who will go to this people?” to which the prophet, in reply, says: “Here am I; send me.” For the one who presses the deeper
sense implied here will say that just as Isaiah was sent, not from some other place besides this world, but after he had seen “the Lord seated on a high and exalted throne” toward the people, so that he might say, “You will hear by hearing and will not understand,” and so on, so also John, the beginning of whose mission is passed over in silence though it bears an analogy to the mission
of Isaiah, is sent to baptize and to prepare “for the Lord a people made ready,” and to testify “concerning the light.” Now when these things have been stated in this way in reply to the first argument, such resolutions are brought forward as draw one toward agreement with the deeper meaning supposed concerning John. From this very point it is added: “This man came for a testimony, that he might testify concerning the light”; for if he came, he came from somewhere. And one must say, in answer to
the one who has trouble accepting what John says further on about having seen the Holy Spirit descending upon the Savior like a dove — for he says, “He who sent me to baptize in water, he said to me: The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit” — and then, when
did the one who sent him give him this instruction? But it is reasonable to answer this question by saying that whenever it was that he sent him to begin baptizing, it was then that the one who commissioned him spoke this word to him. Still more strikingly in support of John’s having been sent from somewhere else and taken on a body, having no other purpose for his sojourn in life than the testimony concerning the light, is the fact that he
was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb, as Gabriel said in bringing the good news, announcing to Zechariah the birth of John, and to Mary announcing the sojourn among human beings of our Savior, and: “Behold, as the sound of your greeting came into my ears, the infant leapt for joy in my womb.” For to one who holds fast
to the principle that nothing is done unjustly, nor by chance or by lot, it is necessary to accept that John’s soul was older than his body and had existed beforehand, and had been sent for the service of testifying concerning the light. In addition to this, one must not disregard “He himself is Elijah who is to come.” But if the general doctrine about the soul prevails, that it is not sown together with the body,
But since he exists before it and, for various causes, is clothed with flesh and blood, "sent by God" will no longer seem to be something exceptional said about John. At any rate the worst of all beings, “that man of sin, that son of destruction,” is described by Paul as sent by God: "for this reason," he says, "God sends them a working of error, leading
them to believe the lie, so that all may be judged who did not believe the truth but took pleasure in wickedness." But observe whether we will be able to resolve the question raised in this way: that just as, more simply, every man is a man of God by having been created by God, but not every man is properly called a "man of God"—rather only the one devoted to God, in the way Elijah and those
recorded in the scriptures are called "men of God"—so too, in the more general sense every man can be said to have been sent from God, but properly said to have been sent by God is no one other than the one who, for divine service and for the ministry of the salvation of the human race, comes to sojourn in this life. At any rate we have not found "to be sent from God" applied to anyone other than the saints—in the case of
Isaiah, as we set out before; and in the case of Jeremiah: "to all to whom I send you, you shall go"; and in the case of Ezekiel: "behold, I send you to the nations that have revolted and rebelled against me." It will seem, however, that these examples of sending do not bear on the question before us—namely the sending into life that we are inquiring about—since they speak of a sending that is not, in the plain sense, a sending from outside life into
life. Nevertheless, even so it is not implausible to transfer the argument to the matter under inquiry, by saying that just as God is said to send only the saints, in whose case we have set out the examples, so too the same must be understood in the case of those sent into life. And since we are, generally speaking, engaged in the discussion concerning John, inquiring into his sending, this is a fitting moment to add our own
conjecture, which we hold concerning him. For since we have read the prophecy concerning him: "behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you," we raise the question whether he, being one of the holy angels, is sent down for a ministry as forerunner of our Savior. And it is nothing to marvel at that, when the firstborn of all creation became embodied out of love for humanity, certain zealous ones should have become imitators of Christ,
loving to serve, through a like body, his kindness toward mankind. And who would not be moved by the one who leapt in exultation while still in the womb, as one surpassing the common nature of men? And if someone also accepts, among the apocryphal writings current among the Hebrews, the one entitled the Prayer of Joseph, he will find this very doctrine stated there plainly and clearly,
namely that those who from the beginning possessed something exceptional beyond other men, being far superior to the rest of souls, have descended into human nature from being angels. At any rate Jacob says: "For I who speak to you, Jacob and Israel, am an angel of God and a governing spirit; Abraham and Isaac, moreover, were brought into being before every work; but I, Jacob,
"the one whom men called Jacob. Yet my name is Israel, the one whom God called Israel, a man beholding God, for I am firstborn of every creature to whom God gives life." And he adds: "As I journeyed from the Mesopotamia of Syria, the angel of God Uriel came forth and declared that he had descended upon the earth and made his dwelling among men, and
that I was called by the name Jacob; he was jealous and fought with me, and he wrestled against me, saying that his name would come before my name and before that of every angel. And I made known to him his own name and his rank among the sons of God: 'Are you not Uriel, eighth after me, whereas I am Israel, an archangel of power belonging to the Lord and hold rank as chief captain amid God's sons? Am not
I, Israel, the first minister before the face of God, and have I not called upon my God by an unquenchable name?" For it is likely that, since these things were truly spoken by Jacob and for that reason recorded, the words "In the womb he supplanted his brother" were also spoken with understanding. Consider whether an answer can be found to the well-known problem concerning Jacob and Esau,
since "though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad, in order that God's electing purpose might remain fixed, not from works but from him who calls, it was said, 'The elder shall serve the younger,' just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.' What then shall we say? Is there injustice with God? May it never be." Though they were not yet born
and had done nothing good or bad, in order that God's electing purpose might remain fixed, not from works but from him who calls, it was said.] Since, then, we are not running ahead to the deeds prior to this life, how is it true that there is no injustice with God when the elder serves the lesser and is hated before doing the things worthy of servitude and
the things worthy of being hated? But we have digressed rather too far by taking up the matter concerning Jacob and calling to witness on our behalf a scripture not to be despised, so that the argument concerning John might become more persuasive, establishing him, according to the voice of Isaiah, to have become an angel in a body so as to testify on the light's behalf. That, then, is what may be said of John the man. But I think that
just as among us voice and reason differ—since a voice signifying nothing can at times be uttered apart from reason, while reason too can be reported to the mind apart from voice, as when we reason things through within ourselves—so too, the Savior being in a certain sense reason, John differs from him in this way: in proportion to Christ, who is reason, John turns out to be a voice.
And to this very point John himself invites me, whoever he may be, when he answers those who inquire: "A voice am I, crying out in the desert: Prepare the Lord's road, straighten out the paths he will walk." And perhaps for this reason Zechariah, disbelieving at the coming-to-be of the voice that displays the Word of God, loses his voice, receiving it back when the forerunner is born
the voice of the word. For one must first take in a voice with the ear, so that afterward the mind may be able to receive the word that is pointed out by the voice. This is also why John is, as to his birth, somewhat older than Christ; for we apprehend a voice before a word. But John also points out Christ; for it is by a voice that the word is presented. But Christ is also baptized by John,
Christ, who confesses that he has need to be baptized by him; for in the case of human beings, the word is purified by a voice, though by its own nature the word purifies every voice that signifies it. And in short, when John points out Christ, a man points out God, and one who is incorporeal points out the Savior, and a voice points out the word. Now it would be useful, just as in many cases the clarity of names is useful, so also
in this passage, to see what John and Zacharias signify. For, as though there were something not to be despised in the giving of the name, the relatives wish him to be called Zacharias, being astonished that Elizabeth wants to name him John; but Zacharias, by writing "John shall be his name," is released
from his laborious silence. We have found, then, in the interpretation of names, that "John" is rendered as "Ioan" without the "-es," which we consider to be the same as "John"; since the New Testament has also Hellenized other Hebrew names, giving them a Greek form, just as instead of "Jacob" it gives "Jacobus," and instead of "Symeon," "Simon" ("Zacharias," for its part, is said to mean "memory,"
while "Elizabeth" means "the oath of my God" or "the sabbath-week of my God"). From God, then, comes "grace," out of the "memory" concerning God, according to the "oath" of our God made to the fathers; and so John was born, preparing "for the Lord a people made ready," having come into being at the end of the old covenant, which is the crowning point of sabbath-keeping; and for this reason he could not have been born apart from the "seventh" of "our
God" - the rest that comes after the sabbath, belonging to our Savior, who brings about his own rest in those who have become conformed to his death, and therefore also to his resurrection. Some of those holding heterodox opinions, while claiming to believe in Christ, and because they fashion another <god> alongside the Creator, consequently do not accept that his coming was
foretold beforehand by the prophets; they try to overturn the testimonies concerning Christ given through the prophets, claiming that God's Son requires no witnesses at all, since he possesses in himself what makes him worthy of belief, both in the saving words he proclaimed, which are filled with power, and in his marvelous works, which are of themselves able to astound anyone whatsoever. And they say: "If Moses was trusted because of his teaching and his mighty deeds, without needing witnesses
among those before him who had proclaimed him beforehand, and if each of the prophets too was accepted by the people as one sent from God, how is it not all the more possible that he, being superior to Moses and the prophets, can accomplish what he wills and benefit the human race without prophets bearing witness to what concerns him?" They think, therefore, that it is superfluous to hold that he was foretold beforehand by the prophets, having contrived this in order that,
This is what those who do not wish believers in Christ to accept the novelty of a deity would say, but who instead insist that they arrive at the very same God whom, even before Jesus, Moses and the prophets taught. It must be said to them, then, that since many causes can arise that invite people to belief, sometimes certain persons are not struck by this proof but by another,
namely that God has more starting-points to offer human beings, so that it may be accepted that the God who is above all created things became human. Indeed, one can plainly see some people, coming from the prophetic predictions, arriving at wonder before Christ, astonished at the voice of so many prophets before him, which established the place and region of his birth, the power of his teaching, the working of marvelous deeds, and
his human suffering dissolved by the resurrection. And this too must be examined: that the miraculous powers were able to invite those who lived in the time of the Lord to belief, but did not preserve their persuasive force after many years had already passed and they had come to be suspected as myths. For the prophecies, examined together with the powers, have greater strength to persuade now than the powers that occurred then,
since they prevent even those powers from being disbelieved by those who examine them. Perhaps, too, the prophetic testimonies do not merely proclaim that Christ was to come, nor do they teach us this alone and nothing else, but teach us to learn a great theology, and the relation of Father to Son and of Son to Father, no less from the prophets, through whom they announce the things concerning him, than from the apostles narrating
the majesty of the Son of God. One may, indeed, even venture beyond this to say something like the following: that they are witnesses of Christ, adorned by their bearing witness concerning him, and not at all conferring some favor on him by bearing witness concerning the Son of God — as all would agree regarding those specifically called witnesses of Christ. What wonder is it, then, if just as
many of Christ's genuine disciples were adorned by being witnesses of Christ, so also the prophets, having understood that they were to proclaim Christ beforehand, received this as a gift from God, teaching not only those who lived after Christ's coming what one must think concerning the Son of God, but also those in the generations before them? For just as one who has not known the Son now does not have the Father either,
so it must be understood in the same way for the earlier time as well. That is why "Abraham rejoiced to look upon Christ's day, and he beheld it and rejoiced." Whoever wishes that the prophets need not bear witness concerning Christ thereby wishes to deprive the chorus of prophets of their greatest grace. For what would prophecy inspired by the Holy Spirit have of such magnitude, if the matters concerning the economy of our Lord had been withdrawn from it?
For just as piety toward God is adorned for those who approach the God of all through a mediator and high priest and advocate, and † in a knowing manner, and would go limping if one did not enter to the Father through the Gate, so too the piety of the ancients was sacred, through their understanding, faith, and expectation of Christ, and acceptable before God.
Since we have observed that God confesses to being a witness, and declares the same concerning Christ, calling everyone to become imitators of him and of Christ by bearing witness to the things to which they must bear witness — for he says, «Become my witnesses, and I too am a witness, says the Lord God, and the servant whom I have chosen» — and everyone who bears witness to the truth, whether
by words or by deeds or however else standing forth as a witness, might reasonably be so called. But by now, in the proper sense, as the custom of the brotherhood, struck with admiration at the disposition of those who contended even unto death for the truth or for courage, has come to name only those «witnesses» in the strict sense who testified to the mystery of true worship by the shedding of their own blood — the savior nonetheless calls «a witness» everyone who bears witness to the things
proclaimed concerning him. At any rate, being taken up, he says to the apostles: «You shall be witnesses to me, both throughout Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and unto the farthest part of the earth.» Further, just as the leper, once cleansed, brings the offering prescribed by Moses, making this «a testimony» to those who have not believed in Christ, so too as a testimony to the unbelieving
the witnesses bear witness, and all the saints, whose works shine «before men.» For they conduct themselves boldly in the cross of Christ, bearing witness concerning the true light. And so John came, that he might bear witness concerning the light; he, bearing witness, «cried out, saying»: «He who comes after me has come before me, because he was before
me. Because from his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace; because through Moses the law was given, but through Jesus Christ came grace and truth. God has no one ever seen; the only-begotten God, who exists in the Father's bosom — that one has made him known.» Now this entire discourse is spoken in the person of the Baptist bearing witness
to Christ — a point that escapes some who suppose that from «From his fullness we have all received» up to «He has made him known» is spoken in the person of John the apostle. Now in addition to the aforementioned testimony of the Baptist, beginning from «He who comes after me has come before me» and ending at «He has made him known,»
this is the testimony of John, second after that one, when, to those sent from Jerusalem — priests and Levites, sent by the Jews — he confesses, not denying the truth, that Christ he is not, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, but «a voice crying out in the desert: Straighten the Lord's road, just as Isaiah the prophet declared.»
After this there comes yet another testimony of that same Baptist concerning Christ, still further teaching his preeminent subsistence as extending to the whole world in respect of rational souls, when he says: «Among you stands one whom you do not know, coming after me, of whom I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal.» And consider whether through
That the heart is situated at the body's center, and within the heart the ruling faculty resides, can be understood, in keeping with the reasoning found in each case, as the sense of “In your midst stands one whom you do not know.” A fourth testimony of John concerning Christ, in addition to these, already outlining also his human suffering, is when he declares: “Behold, there is the Lamb of God, who takes away”
“the sin of the world. He is the one of whom I said, A man comes after me who came to be ahead of me, since he existed before I did; and I myself did not know him, but so that he might be revealed to Israel, it was for this that I came baptizing in water.” And a fifth testimony is recorded, according to: “I have beheld the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven,”
“and it remained upon him; and I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize in water, that one said to me: Upon whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in Holy Spirit. I have seen this myself, and I have given testimony that he is God's own Son.” And sixth, John testifies to the Christ
before two disciples, when, having fixed his gaze on Jesus walking by, he says: “See there, the Lamb of God.” Following that testimony, once the two disciples of John had heard him and had followed Jesus, Jesus turned and, seeing the two following, answers, saying: “What are you seeking?” And perhaps it is not without purpose that, once he has testified six times, John ceases testifying, while Jesus,
for the seventh, puts forward: “What are you seeking?” And fitting for those who had been benefited by John's testimony is the utterance that proclaims the Christ as teacher and confesses a longing to see where God's own Son dwells; for it is to him they say: “Rabbi” (which, translated, means “Teacher”), “where are you staying?” And since “everyone who seeks finds,” to John's disciples, who had sought Jesus' dwelling,
he shows it, saying to them, “Come and you will see,” perhaps by the word “Come” summoning them to the practical life, and by the word “you will see” indicating that the contemplation which follows upon the successful accomplishment of deeds will certainly come to those who are willing, taking place in the dwelling of Jesus. And it lay before those who had sought where Jesus was staying, once they had followed the teacher and had seen, to remain with Jesus
and to spend that day together with the Son of God. And since the number ten is observed as holy, no few mysteries being recorded in connection with the decad, one must understand that it is not without purpose that in the Gospel the tenth hour is recorded for the lodging of John's disciples with Jesus, since Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one who, having been benefited
by having remained with Jesus, upon finding Simon, his own brother—it seems he had not found him earlier—says that he has found the Messiah, which, translated, is Christ. For since “he who seeks finds,” and he had sought where Jesus was staying, and having followed, and having beheld his dwelling, remains with the Lord through the tenth hour and there finds God's own Son, the
word and wisdom, and comes under his rule, that for this reason he declares: "The Messiah is what we have found." Indeed anyone who has found the Word of God and stands ruled by his divinity might utter this very same cry. And he immediately brings his brother forward as fruit to the Christ - to Simon, to whom Jesus granted the gift of looking upon him, which is, through the
act of looking upon him, to oversee and to illuminate his governing faculty. And because Jesus had looked upon him, Simon was able to be made firm, so that he came to be named after the work of firmness and solidity, and to be called "Peter." But someone will say: why on earth, when the intention was to narrate "This man came for testimony, that he might testify concerning the light," have we gone through all these things? It must be said
that it was necessary to set forth John's testimonies concerning the light, and to lay out their order, as well as the benefit that followed for those to whom he testified - a benefit that came about from Jesus after John's testimony, so that the effectiveness of John's testimony might be shown. And even before the testimonies here, there was the leaping for joy of the Baptist in the womb of
Elizabeth at Mary's greeting - this was a testimony concerning Christ, testifying to the divinity of his conception and birth. For indeed, what else is John everywhere but a witness and forerunner of Jesus, anticipating his birth, and dying shortly before the Son of God himself met his death, so that not only for those in the process of being born but also for those
who were awaiting the freedom from death that comes through Christ, he might, by his sojourn before Christ, everywhere prepare for the Lord a people made ready? And John's testimony reaches even to the second and more divine coming of Christ: "For if you are willing to accept it," he says, "this is Elijah who is to come. Let the one who has ears to hear, hear." Now, there being a beginning in which the Word was (which we have shown from Proverbs to be wisdom),
and the Word existing, and life having come to be in him, and life being the light of men, I ask why on earth the man who came to be, sent from God, whose name was John, "came for testimony, that he might testify concerning the light." Why then not "that he might testify concerning life," or "that he might testify concerning the Word,"
or "concerning the beginning," or concerning any other of Christ's conceptions whatsoever? But consider whether it is not because "the people who dwelt in darkness beheld a great light," and because "the light shines in the darkness" without being grasped by it, that those who happen to be in darkness need light - that is, human beings. For if it is the light of men that shines in the
darkness, where there is in no way any activity of darkness, we shall have a share in the conceptions of Christ, though at present we do not properly and precisely partake of them. For how do we, who are still clothed with the body of death, partake of life, whose life "is concealed along with the Anointed One within God"? For once the Anointed is revealed - our very life - then along with him we too,
we shall be made manifest in glory, it was not possible, then, for the one who came to bear witness concerning the life that still lies hidden together with Christ within God; but neither did he come for witness, in order to bear witness concerning the Word, when we understand the Word as the one existing in the beginning face to face with God, God himself as Word; for on earth "the Word was made flesh." And there was
testimonies, even if it seemed to be concerning the Word, since the one that would properly be spoken as a testimony about the Word would be about the Word once it had become flesh, rather than about God as Word; and for this reason he did not come, in order to bear witness concerning the Word. But how could testimony be given concerning wisdom to those who, even if they seem to have come to know it, do not perceive the purely true reality but see through a mirror and in a riddle? It is likely, however,
that John or Elijah will come to testify concerning life before the second, more divine coming of Christ — shortly before our life, that is Christ, is revealed — and will then testify concerning the Word, and will offer testimony concerning wisdom. But it requires scrutiny whether it is possible that John's testimony is a forerunner to each of the conceptions of Christ. These matters, then,
pertain to “This man arrived as a witness, so as to testify about the light.” Next we must examine what is to be understood by “that all might believe through him.”

======== Commentary on John, Book 4 ========

On the Solecisms and the Cheap Diction of Scripture. FROM THE FOURTH VOLUME OF THE COMMENTARY ON JOHN. After three folios from the beginning.] He who distinguishes for himself between the utterance, the things signified, and the realities to which the things signified refer, will not stumble over a solecism of language whenever, upon investigation, he finds the realities to which the words refer to be sound — and especially when
the holy men themselves confess that their word and their proclamation are “not with the persuasiveness of wise words, but with a demonstration of Spirit and power.” [Then, having spoken of the evangelist's solecism, he adds:] Since the apostles are not unaware of the points at which they stumble, and of the matters in which they have received no training, they say that they are “unskilled in speech, but not in knowledge.” It must be supposed
that this could be said not only by Paul but by the rest of the apostles as well. And we ourselves have also understood the saying “we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power may be God's and not from us,” taking “treasure” to mean that treasure of hidden knowledge and wisdom spoken of elsewhere, and “earthen vessels” to mean
the cheap diction of the scriptures, held in contempt among the Greeks — the surpassing greatness of God's power being truly displayed in this: that the mysteries of the truth and the power of what is said prevailed, unhindered by the cheapness of the expression, to reach the ends of the earth and to bring not only the world's foolish things, but at times even its wise things, under subjection to Christ's word.
For we observe the calling — not that none wise according to the flesh is called, but rather “not many are wise according to the flesh.” Yet Paul is likewise a “debtor” in his proclamation of the gospel, obligated to deliver the word to “Greeks” as well as “barbarians,” and to the “wise” as well as to the foolish who assent more easily; for God had rendered him competent to be a “minister”
“of the new covenant,” employing “proof of Spirit and power,” so that believers’ assent would rest “not on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” For perhaps, had scripture possessed a beauty and elaborateness of diction like the things admired among the Greeks, one might have suspected that it was not the truth that had mastered men, but rather the coherence displayed and the
beauty of the diction that had captivated the hearers, and that it had won them over by deception.

======== Commentary on John, Book 5 ========

What verbosity is, and what the many books are; and that all divinely inspired scripture is one book. FROM THE FIFTH VOLUME OF THE COMMENTARIES ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN. [On the preface.] Since you are not content that I have taken up the present work among God's taskmasters, but even in my absence you think it right that I devote much of my time to you and to what is owed to you, I,
shrinking from the labor and avoiding the danger that besets those who have given themselves over to writing on divine matters, might plead on my own behalf by excusing myself from Scripture for making many books. For Solomon declares in Ecclesiastes: "My son, guard against making many books; there is no end, and much study is a wearying of the flesh." For we, unless
the passage before us has some hidden sense still unclear to us, have plainly transgressed the commandment by not guarding against making many books. [Then, having said that four volumes were completed by him on a few sayings of the Gospel, he adds.] For as far as the wording goes, two things are signified by "My son, guard against making many books": one, that one must not possess many books; the other,
that one must not compose many books. And if not the first, then certainly the second; but if the second, not necessarily the first. Yet from either reading we shall seem to be taught that one must not make more books than necessary. Now I could, standing on the point that has now come before us, write to you citing the saying as a defense and, having built up
the case from the fact that not even the saints occupied themselves with composing many books, cease henceforth — in accordance with the agreements we made with one another — from dictating to you the things that are to be sent; and perhaps you, struck by the saying, would have granted us this for the future. But since Scripture must be examined in good conscience, without rashly indulging oneself in the belief that one has grasped its meaning from
having taken hold of the bare wording, I cannot forbear from setting out the defense that appears to me on my own behalf, which you might use against me were I to act contrary to our agreements. And first, since the historical record seems to support the saying — none of the saints having published a great number of compositions or set out his thought in many books — this must be discussed. But the one who charges me with
proceeding to compose more books will say that so great a man as Moses left behind only five books. [And in the fifth volume of the commentaries on John this same author says the following about the apostles.] Paul, who was made sufficient to become a servant of the new covenant — not of letter, but of spirit — and who fulfilled the gospel from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum, did not
write to all the churches in which he taught; and even to those to which he did write, he sent only a few lines. Peter, meanwhile, the one on whom Christ’s church is built, against whose gates Hades’ own will not prevail, left one epistle that all acknowledge; let there be a second too, since it is disputed. As for the one who leaned back against the breast of Jesus — John, who left one gospel behind, admitting he was able
such great things as even the world could not contain. He also wrote the Apocalypse, having been commanded to keep silent and not write down the voices of the seven thunders, and he has also left behind an epistle of very few lines — let there also be a second and a third, since not everyone calls these genuine — yet both together do not run to a hundred lines . . . . [Then, having enumerated
the prophets and apostles, each having written little or even nothing, he adds after this:] Again after this a dizziness comes over me, as my head spins, wondering whether, in obeying you, I have not obeyed God, nor imitated the saints. If then I am not mistaken in pleading my own case, because I love you very much and wish to grieve you in nothing, I find such excuses as these for the matter. Before
of all these we cited that saying out of Ecclesiastes: "My son, guard yourself against making many books." Against it I set, side by side, a saying drawn from the Proverbs of that same Solomon, who declares: "By much speaking you will not escape sin, but by sparing your lips you will be prudent." And I inquire whether saying many things of whatever kind is "speaking much," even if one is saying many holy and salutary things.
For if this is so, then even one who recounts many beneficial things speaks too much, and Solomon himself has not escaped sin, having spoken "three thousand parables and five thousand songs," and having discoursed concerning the trees, beginning from the cedar planted in Lebanon down to the hyssop springing forth from the wall; and moreover also concerning the cattle and concerning the birds
and concerning the creeping things and concerning the fish. For how can teaching accomplish anything apart from that which, more simply understood, is much speaking - Wisdom herself saying to those perishing, "I extended my sayings, and you paid no heed"? Paul too is seen to have gone on teaching until midnight, when also Eutychus, overcome by deep sleep, fell down and threw the listeners into confusion
as though he were dead. If then it is true that "by much speaking you will not escape sin," and it is also true that Solomon did not sin in speaking at length about the things mentioned above, nor Paul in prolonging his discourse until midnight, then we must inquire what "much speaking" is, and from there move on to see what the many books are. Now the whole word of God, the Word who in the beginning was with
God, is not much speaking; for it does not consist of "words" - for it is one word composed of many considerations, of which each consideration is a part of the whole word. But those things reported outside of this, said to contain a narrative and a report of whatever kind - even if they are discourses concerning truth, and I will say something still more paradoxical, none of them is a word, but each of them is words. For nowhere in them is there unity, and
nowhere is there concord and oneness, but because that which was one has been torn apart and set at war with itself, the one has perished and numbers have come to be, and perhaps infinite numbers; so that on this account we might say that whoever utters anything alien to piety speaks much, but whoever speaks the things of truth, even if he says all things so as to omit nothing, always speaks one single word.
And the saints do not multiply words on any matter, holding fast to the one account. If, then, prolixity is judged by doctrines and not by the delivery of many words, see whether in this way we are able to call all the sacred writings one book, while the writings outside them are many. But since I need testimony from divine scripture,
examine whether I can establish this most forcefully, by showing that what concerns Christ, in our understanding, is not written in one book - if we take "books" in the more common sense. For it is written also in the Pentateuch; it has been spoken also among each of the prophets, in the psalms as well, and, quite simply, as the Savior himself says, in all the scriptures, to which he sends us back, saying: "Search
the scriptures, for you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that testify concerning me." If, then, he sends us to "the scriptures" as testifying concerning him, he does not send us to this one but not to that one, but to all those that report concerning him — which in the psalms he calls the "head" of a book, saying: "In
the head of the book it is written concerning me." For whoever wishes to take "in the head of the book" simply, as referring to whichever one of the books containing what concerns him, let him explain by what reasoning he prefers this book to another. For should someone suppose that we are referring the statement to the book of Psalms itself, one must say to him that it ought rather to have been said: "in this
book it is written concerning me." But as it is, he says that all is one "head," in that the account concerning himself, which has come to us, is summed up into one. And what of the book that was seen by John, written on the front and on the back, and sealed, which no one was able to read and to loose its seals, except the lion from the tribe of Judah,
the root of David, who holds the key of David, and opens, and no one will shut, and shuts, and no one will open? For the whole of scripture is what is signified by the book - inscribed on its face for the sake of the sense readily grasped, and on its reverse for the sake of the sense withdrawn and spiritual. Alongside these things, one must observe whether it can be demonstrative of the sacred writings being one
book, while those of the opposite sort are many, that in the case of the living there is one book, from which those who have become unworthy of it are blotted out; thus stands the writing: "Let them be blotted out from the book of the living"; while in the case of those subject to judgment, books are brought forward — for Daniel says: "the tribunal sat, and books were opened." And to the singular number of the divine book Moses also
testifies, saying: "If indeed you forgive the people their sin, forgive it; but if not, blot me out of your book which you have written." I also take the passage in Isaiah in the same way; for his prophecy is not alone in having the words of the book sealed, nor in having them read by one who does not know letters, on the ground that he does not know
...letters, nor by one who understands them, because the book has been sealed. But this too holds true of every scripture, which needs the word that closes and the word that opens: "for this one will shut and no one will open"; and once he has opened it, no one can any longer bring a difficulty against the clarity that comes from him — for this reason it is said that "he will open and no one will shut." I take something similar to apply also to the
book spoken of in Ezekiel, where lamentation and song and woe stood written. For every book contains the "woe" concerning those who are perishing, and the "song" concerning those who are being saved, and the "lamentation" concerning those in between. But John too, eating the one little scroll, on which was written "the things behind and the things before," understood the whole of scripture as one
book, seeming sweetest at first, when one chews on it, but appearing bitter through the self-awareness of each person who comes to know it, concerning himself. I will add further, toward proving this point, an apostolic saying not understood by the followers of Marcion, who for this reason reject the gospels: for because the apostle, speaking in Christ Jesus, says "according to my gospel," and does not
say "gospels," they, fastening on this, say that the apostle would not have spoken of "the gospel" in the singular if there were more than one gospel — not understanding that just as he who is preached by the many is one, so too the gospel that has been written by the many is one in power, and the gospel that truly consists of four is one. If, then, these considerations can persuade us what the
one thing is that a book is, and what the many things are, I am now concerned more, not because of the quantity of what is written, but because of the force of what is understood, lest I fall into transgressing the commandment, if I should set down anything contrary to the truth as though it were truth, even in one of the things I write; for there I will have written many books. And now, since the heterodox are rising up under pretense of knowledge
against the holy church of Christ, and bringing forward compositions filling many books, promising an exposition of the sayings both of the gospels and of the apostles, if we keep silent and do not set against them the true and sound doctrines, they will get the upper hand over greedy souls, who for lack of saving food hasten after forbidden and truly unclean and abominable foods. For this reason it seems necessary to me that the one who is able to plead the case, without
falsification, of the ecclesiastical teaching, and to plead it and to refute those who ply the falsely-named knowledge, should take his stand against the fabrications of the heretics, setting over against them the loftiness of the gospel proclamation, filled with the harmony of doctrines common to what is called the old covenant and to what is named the new. You yourself, then, for lack of those pleading the better cause, unable to bear the irrational and unlettered faith, because of your love for Jesus,
had once given yourself over to arguments, from which, later, making use to good purpose of the understanding given you, having condemned them, you departed. I say these things according to what appears to me, pleading on behalf of those able to speak and write, but pleading on my own behalf, lest I perhaps not be of the disposition that the one made sufficient by God as a servant of the new covenant — a covenant not of letter but of spirit — ought more boldly...
I give myself over to dictating.

======== Commentary on John, Book 6 ========

BOOK 6. Every house that is to be built as sturdily as possible is built in calm, still weather, so that it may not be hindered from acquiring the firmness it needs, so that it can become such as to withstand the onslaught of a flood and the battering of a river and whatever a storm, when it comes, tends to expose — the rotten parts of buildings — while showing which structures have kept their own proper strength.
But especially the structure that is receptive of the doctrines of truth — a rational structure, so to speak, in both delivery and writing — is then built well above all, when God joins in building it together with the one who has set out to accomplish this most excellent work, whenever the soul, enjoying the peace that surpasses all understanding, is calm, estranged from all disturbance, and in no way tossed by waves. These things, it seems to me, have been precisely understood by
the attendants of the spirit of prophecy and those who minister to the proclamation of the gospel, having shown themselves fit to obtain the peace hidden away, given by him who from ages past bestows it on those who are fit, who declared: "My own peace I give to you, peace I leave with you; not as the world gives peace do I give it to you." Consider whether the history concerning David and Solomon regarding the temple hints at something of this sort.
For David, fighting the wars of the Lord and standing against many enemies of himself and of Israel, though wishing to build a temple for God, is prevented by God through Nathan, who says to him: "You shall not build me a house, because you are a man of blood." But Solomon, having seen God in a dream and having received wisdom in a dream
(for what he saw waking was kept in reserve for him who says, "Behold, something greater than Solomon is here"), came to be in the deepest peace, so that at that time each man rested under his vine and under his fig tree. And being, in accordance with the times in which he lived, true to his name — for Solomon is interpreted as "peaceful" — because of this peace he had leisure to build the renowned temple for God. And in the days of Ezra
when truth overpowers wine, the enemy king, and the women alike, God's temple is raised up anew. These things have been said by us in our defense to you, holy Ambrose, since, wishing in accordance with your holy exhortation to build the evangelical tower in writing, we sat down and calculated the expense, whether we have what is needed to complete it, so that we might not be mocked
by those who observe us, condemned as men who lay a foundation but are unable to finish the work — having calculated, we did not find ready at hand for us the means to complete the building, but we have trusted in God, who enriches in every word and all knowledge, that as we strive to keep the spiritual laws, he will enrich us, and that, advancing through what is supplied by him,
in building we shall reach even the battlement of the structure, which prevents the one who has gone up onto the roof of the discourse from falling — since it is only those who lack the battlement who fall, those who fall because of the incompleteness of the buildings, causing deaths for those who happen to be in it, and collapses occurring. And up to the fifth volume, even though the storm at Alexandria
seemed to be working against us, we dictated what was given to us, even as Jesus rebuked the sea's waves and the winds; and having advanced some way into the sixth book, we were pulled out of the land of Egypt, rescued by the God who brought his people out from it. Then, since the enemy campaigned most bitterly against us through his new writings, truly hostile to the gospel, and stirred up all the
winds of wickedness in Egypt against us, reason urged me rather to stand firm for the contest and to guard my governing faculty, lest wicked reasonings should prevail as a storm and bring themselves upon my soul, rather than, out of season, before my mind had regained calm, join together what follows in the writing; and my usual shorthand-writers, not being present, prevented me from continuing the
dictations. But now that God, extinguishing the many fiery darts hurled against us, has blunted them, and our soul, having become accustomed by the heavenly word to bear what has happened, more easily forces itself to endure the plots that occurred, as though having laid hold of some measure of fair weather, we no longer wish to put off dictating what follows, praying that God our teacher be present, resounding in the inner sanctuary of our soul, so that an end
may be reached in the building of the exposition of the Gospel according to John. May God grant to hear our prayer, that we may be able to join together the body of the discourse, no circumstance any longer intervening to bring about any interruption whatsoever of the writing. Know that it is out of great eagerness that I am making this second beginning of the sixth volume, because what had previously been dictated by us
in Alexandria has, I do not know how, failed to reach me. For I judged it better, so that this time too might not pass by unproductively for me in this work, to begin now on what remains, rather than, waiting uncertainly for the previously dictated material to be found, lose no small part of the intervening days. Let this much serve sufficiently as a preface; and now let us
take hold of the text. Here is that second recorded witness John the Baptist gave concerning Christ, the first having begun from "This was he who said, He who comes after me," and ending at "God the only-begotten, who exists in the Father's bosom, that one has revealed him." Heracleon, however, does not soundly suppose that "No one has ever seen God," and what follows,
is said not by the one baptizing but rather by the disciple himself. For if, according to him too, it was the Baptist who spoke "Of his fullness we have all partaken, and grace in place of grace; because the law was given by way of Moses, whereas grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ," how is it not consistent that the one who from the
fullness of Christ has received, and who confesses a second grace in place of a former grace, acknowledging that the law was given through Moses, but that grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ, should have understood, from those things that came to him from the fullness, how "no one has ever seen God," and that it is the only-begotten, being in the bosom of the Father, who has made the exposition
to him and to all who had received from the fullness? For it was not now for the first time that he who dwells within the father's bosom expounded, as though no one had previously become fit to receive the things he related to the apostles - if indeed, teaching us that before Abraham came to be, Jesus is, he teaches us that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, and that he came to be in joy. And the saying 'From
his fullness we all received,' and 'grace upon grace,' as we have said in what preceded, shows that the prophets too received the gift from the fullness of Christ, and that they received the second grace in place of the first; for they too had already arrived, being led by the hand of the spirit, after the types, at the
vision of the truth. This is why not all the prophets but 'many' desired to see what the apostles were seeing. For had there existed some distinction among the prophets, those who were superior and brought to perfection would not have longed to behold what the apostles beheld, since they had already witnessed it themselves; but those who had not likewise managed to rise to that height of the word came to be in longing for the things known to the apostles through
Christ. For we have understood 'to see' as not spoken in a bodily sense, and we have grasped 'to hear' as declared spiritually, for it is only the person possessing ears who stands ready to hearken to Jesus' sayings - which does not happen altogether all at once. Further, concerning the fact that the saints before the bodily coming of Jesus had grasped something more of the mysteries of divinity than the many who believe,
since the word of God was teaching them even before it became flesh (for he was always at work, being an imitator of the father, concerning whom he says, 'My father is working until now'), one may reason this also from the following words. He says somewhere to the Sadducees who disbelieved the doctrine about the resurrection: 'Have you not read...' - and the saying spoken at the bush by God: 'I am the God
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob'; for he is God, not of the dead, but of the living ones. So then, since God 'is not ashamed to be called' the God of these men, and they are numbered among the living by Christ, and all who believe are sons of Abraham, since in faithful Abraham, who was set by God as father of nations, all the nations are blessed - do we hesitate to accept
that the living have known the lessons of the living, having become disciples of Christ, who came to be before the morning star, before he became flesh? And they were alive for this reason, that they partook of him who said, 'I am the life'; and, as heirs of such great promises, they made room for the manifestation not only of angels but also of God in Christ, and perhaps, seeing the image of the invisible God, since the one who has seen
the son has seen the father, they are recorded as having known God and having heard the words of God in a manner befitting God, as having seen God and having heard him. But I think that those who are perfectly and genuinely sons of Abraham are sons of his spiritually understood deeds and of the knowledge revealed to him, the things known and done by that man coming to be present in those who are reckoned as sons of the patriarch, according to which
He teaches those who have ears, saying: "Were you children of Abraham, Abraham's works you would perform." And if "a wise man will grasp the words issuing from his own mouth, and upon his lips he shall bear understanding," it is necessary either rashly to declare that some of the prophets were not wise, if they failed to grasp "what came from their own mouth," or, accepting the reverent and true position, that
the prophets were wise, and to confess that they understood "the things" that came "from their own mouth" and wore discernment on their lips. And it is clear that Moses saw with his mind the truth of the law and the anagogical allegories of the histories recorded by him; and Joshua understood the true inheritance that came about after the destruction of the twenty-nine kings,
being able to discern, more than we can, of what realities the things accomplished through him were shadows. And plainly Isaiah also beheld the mystery of the one seated on the throne, together with the two Seraphim and their wings, and of the altar and the tongs, and of the covering of the face and of the feet that was done by the Seraphim; and Ezekiel saw the Cherubim
and their movement, and the firmament above them, and the one seated upon the throne. What could be more glorious and exalted than these things? And so that I not draw out my discussion at length by speaking of them one by one, wishing to establish that those who were made perfect in former generations knew no less than what was revealed to the apostles by Christ, since the one who also taught the apostles
the unspeakable mysteries of piety had revealed these things to them as well, I will add still a few more points and leave it to my readers to judge and to consider as they wish about these matters. For Paul says in his letter to the Romans: "Now to him who has power to make you stand firm, in accordance with my gospel and the unveiling of a mystery hushed through ages everlasting, yet now disclosed both by prophetic writings and through the manifestation of"
our Lord Jesus Christ." Now, if the mystery that had of old been kept silent has been disclosed to the apostles through prophetic writings, and the prophets understood "the things from their own mouth," inasmuch as they were "wise," then the prophets already knew what was later disclosed to the apostles. But since it was not revealed to the many, Paul therefore says: "To generations of old it was kept unknown among the sons of men, in a way it now"
it has been disclosed to his holy apostles and to prophets by the Spirit — namely, that the nations are joint heirs and joined into one body." Consider, however (if it be even possible in this way to forestall an objection that will be raised in reply by those who reject this argument, taking the expression "being revealed" in such a sense) — consider whether "being revealed" may perhaps be understood in two ways: in one sense, when it is grasped mentally; and in another, if this
is being prophesied, so that it comes to pass and reaches fulfillment; for it is disclosed at the moment it is brought to completion. As for the statement, then, that "the nations" are "joint heirs, joined into one body, and sharers together" of the promise in Christ — so far as concerns the foreknowledge that the nations would one day be joint heirs, joined into one body and sharers together, and when this would happen, and why, and what they were, and how they had been strangers to the covenants
And the prophets knew that those who were strangers to the promise would later become ‘fellow members of the body and fellow partakers,’ this having been revealed to them. But to those who understand yet do not see the things prophesied being fulfilled, the future has not been revealed in the same way as to those who behold their outcome before their eyes — which is what happened in the case of the apostles. For in this way, as I think, their understanding of these matters went no further than that of the fathers and prophets,
though what is truly said of them is: ‘what was not revealed to other generations as it now has been to the apostles and prophets — that the nations are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ’ — inasmuch as they, in addition to understanding the mysteries, also came to perceive their clarity through the matter being accomplished in fact. And it is also possible to relate ‘Many prophets and righteous people desired to see what
you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it’ to a similar account — as though they too had desired to see the mystery of the embodiment of the Son of God being administered, and his descent for the dispensation of the saving suffering he underwent for the sake of the many. As an example, let us also take up something else of this kind: suppose one of the apostles, who understood the
‘unutterable words which it is not permitted for a man to speak,’ yet who would not see the second bodily and glorious coming of Jesus proclaimed among believers, and desired to see it; and suppose another, who not only had not grasped and understood the same things as precisely as the apostle, but who also clung to the divine hope far less than he did, were to attain to the second coming of our Savior — which, following the
example, the apostle desired but did not behold. It would be no falsehood for us to say that these two have beheld what the apostle — indeed what the apostles themselves — longed to see; yet this by no means compels us to call them wiser in understanding or more blessed than the apostles were. So too the apostles are not to be reckoned wiser than the fathers, nor than Moses and the prophets, and above all than those who through
their virtue were deemed worthy of divine manifestations and appearances and revelations of great mysteries. We have spent rather a long time examining these matters, because, under the impression that the coming of Christ makes the apostles far wiser than the fathers and the prophets, some have gone so far as to fabricate another, greater god, while others, though not daring to do this, as far as their own reasoning goes, because of the unexamined character of their
doctrines, cheat the fathers and the prophets of the gift given to them by God through Christ, through whom ‘all things came into being’; and if all things, then clearly also the good things revealed to them, and the deeds accomplished as symbols of the holy mysteries of true worship of God. Since, then, the noble soldiers of Christ must be fortified on every side on behalf of the truth, allowing no opening, so far as possible, for
the plausibility that comes from falsehood to creep in — come, let us also examine these points. For perhaps they will say that the first testimony of John concerning Christ is: ‘He who comes after me has come to be before me, because he was before me’; but that the words ‘For from his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace’ and what follows are spoken from the person of the disciple. And it is necessary also
...refuted as forced and inconsistent, this interpretation; for it is quite violent to suppose that the Baptist's discourse is suddenly and, as it were, untimely interrupted by the disciple's discourse, and to anyone who knows how to attend even to some degree to the context of what is said, the sequence of the wording is clear — the wording of him who said, "He who comes after me has come before me, because he was before
me." The Baptist teaches how Jesus came to be before him, in that he is first in relation to him (since he is "firstborn of all creation"), through the words "because from his fullness we have all received." For this is why, he says, ‘he came to be before me, since he was earlier than I.’ And this is why I understand him to be prior to me and held in greater honor by the Father, since from
his fullness both I and the prophets before me have received the grace that is more divine and greater and prophetic, in place of the grace received from him according to our own choice. And this is why also "he has come before me, because he was before me," since we have also come to understand, having received it from his fullness, that it was through Moses that the law was given, not by Moses,
and that the truth through Jesus Christ was not only given but also came to be, since God the Father gave the law by means of Moses, while producing grace and truth, which came upon mankind, through Jesus Christ. For if we hear more graciously the wording that says, "grace and
truth came to be through Jesus Christ," we will not be disturbed, as if this saying were opposed to the words, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." For Jesus is the one who declares, "I am the truth" — so how then does the truth come to be through Jesus Christ? For nothing comes to be through itself. But it must be understood that the truth itself, the
essential truth, and, if I may put it this way, the archetype of the truth that is in rational souls, from which truth images, as it were, of that truth have been imprinted upon those who are minded toward the truth — this did not come to be through Jesus Christ, nor at all through anyone, but was begotten by God; just as the Word too, who in the beginning was with God, did not come to be through anyone, nor did the Wisdom, which "God created as the beginning
of his ways" — did not come to be through anyone; so too the truth did not come to be through anyone. But the truth found among human beings came to be through Jesus Christ; for instance, the truth found in Paul and in the apostles likewise came to be through Jesus Christ. Nor is it strange, since truth is one, to say that many truths have, so to speak, flowed forth from it. At any rate the prophet David knows this, when he speaks of many truths:
"The Lord seeks out truths" — for the Father of truth seeks not a single truth, but the many truths through which those who hold them find salvation. And we find the same thing said about righteousness and righteousnesses as about truth and truths. For righteousness itself, the essential righteousness, is Christ: "who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification
"and redemption." From that righteousness the righteousness that is in each person is shaped, so that there come to be many righteousnesses among those who are being saved. That is why Scripture also states: "The Lord is righteous, and righteousnesses he has loved" — for this is how we found it in the accurate copies, and in the other editions besides the Seventy, and in the Hebrew. Consider whether the same thing may hold, in like manner, for the other cases as well,
whatever things Christ is called in the singular are likewise named, by a corresponding plural, when multiplied — thus "Christ is our life," as the Savior himself states, "I am the way, the truth, and the life"; and the apostle writes: "When Christ, your life, appears, then you too will appear with him" in glory; and once more in the psalms it stands written: "Your mercy is better"
than — for on account of the Christ who exists in each person, lives are multiplied. Perhaps this is also how one should inquire into "If you seek proof of the Christ speaking in me"; for as it were, Christ is found in each saint, and it is because of that single Christ that many | Christs come into being — those who imitate him and, being themselves an image of God, are formed according to him. Hence God,
through the prophet, says, "Touch not my Christs." What, then, we seemed to have passed by when expounding "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," this we have now unfolded as it happened to arise; and at the same time we have shown that it is still the voice of John the Baptist, testifying through these words too to the Son of God. Let us now, then, look at the second testimony of John.
testimony. The Jews from Jerusalem, being kin to the Baptist since he was of priestly lineage, send priests and Levites to ask who John might be. He, in saying "I am not the Christ," has by this very statement made a confession of the truth, and has not, as one might suppose, denied anything by saying "I am not the Christ" — for it is no denial
to say, for the glory of Christ, that one is not the Christ. Once the priests and Levites sent from Jerusalem heard that he was not the expected Christ, they inquire about the second honored name they hoped for, that of Elijah, whether he might be that one. He says that he is not Elijah, again confessing the truth through "I am not." Since
many prophets had arisen in Israel, one in particular was expected, the one prophesied by Moses according to the saying that declares: "The Lord our God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen. And every soul that will not give heed to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among his people" — a third question follows, not whether he is a prophet,
but whether he is "the prophet." And this name, since those asking did not assign it to Christ but supposed it to belong to someone other than the Christ himself, he — knowing that the one whose forerunner he is, is both the Christ and this prophet who was foretold — says "No." Perhaps he would have answered "Yes," had they asked without the article; for being a prophet, he was not ignorant of it.
And in all these answers, John's second testimony is not yet complete, until, to those who were asking for an answer to be reported back to those who had sent them, he proclaimed it from the prophetic voice of Isaiah, which runs thus: “A voice crying out in the desert: level the Lord's road.” It is worth inquiring whether the second testimony is completed here and a third begins with those sent from the Pharisees, and
who wished to learn why on earth he baptizes, since he is not the Christ, and not Elijah, nor even the prophet, in the words “I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, he who comes after me, of whom I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal”—or whether this too is part of the second testimony, namely what is reported to the Pharisees.
For my part, so far as one can conjecture from the wording, I would say that the discourse addressed to those sent from the Pharisees is a third testimony. It should be observed, however, that the first testimony establishes the savior's divine nature, the second removes the suspicion of those who doubted whether John might be the Christ, and the third proclaims the one who is present to human beings invisibly, inasmuch as he
has not yet come. But before the testimonies that follow, according to which he is testified to as he is pointed out, let us examine each phrase of the second and third testimonies, first noting this: that two delegations are sent to the Baptist—one from Jerusalem, the Jews sending “priests and Levites, that they might ask him, Who are you?”; the other sent by the Pharisees, also in response to the answer that had been given to the
priests and Levites, who were perplexed by it. Observe, then, how, in keeping with the priestly and levitical character, the words are spoken with gentleness and eagerness to learn: “Who are you?” and “What then? Are you Elijah?” and “Are you then the prophet?” and, besides these, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” For there is nothing
self-willed or brash in their questioning, but everything befits scrupulous servants of God. But those sent from the Pharisees, taking no trouble at all over what had been said by the Levites and priests, bring to the Baptist words that are, so to speak, insolent and rather foolish, in the question “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, and not Elijah, and not the prophet?” and
almost as if not wishing to learn, as the aforementioned priests and Levites had been sent to do, but rather, perhaps, thinking to prevent him from baptizing, supposing that baptizing was the task of none other than the Christ, Elijah, and the prophet. And everywhere the one who intends to engage the scripture accurately must exercise care, since it is necessary to observe by whom and when the things said are said, so that we may find what
words are fittingly assigned to each character throughout the whole of the holy books. And whom ought elders to have been sent to John by the Jews, and from where, but those reputed by God's choice to be preeminent, from Jerusalem, the place chosen out of the whole of what is called the good land, where the temple of God was? They inquire of John, then, with such great honor; but concerning the Christ, nothing
No such thing is recorded as having happened at the hands of the Jews; but what the Jews do toward John, this John does toward Christ, inquiring through his own disciples: "Are you the one who is coming, or should we look for another?" And John, having confessed to those who had come to him and not denied it, later states, "A voice of one crying out in the wilderness — that is what I am"; but Christ makes his answer as having a greater testimony
than John's, in words and deeds, saying: "Go and report to John what you see and hear: the blind recover their sight, the lame walk about, lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, the poor have the good news preached to them." Concerning these things, God granting it, we shall treat more fittingly in their proper places. But perhaps one might not unreasonably wonder why, when the priests and Levites were questioning John, they did not ask whether he himself was the Christ, but rather
"Who are you?" The Baptist answers not what would have been fitting in response to "Who are you?" — "I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness" — but what would properly have been said if they had asked, "Are you the Christ?" For "I am not the Christ" would have suited "Are you the Christ?"; whereas to "Who are you?" the fitting answer was "I am the voice of one crying out
in the wilderness." One must say in response to this that, as is likely, he perceived from their questioning the caution of the priests and Levites, who were betraying a suspicion — a hint that the one baptizing might perhaps be the Christ — while guarding against naming this more openly, so as not to appear rash. Hence it was reasonable that, in order that every false suspicion of theirs about him be removed first, and only then
the truth be set forth, he declares before all else that he is not the Christ. And that they had suspected something of this sort is shown by the second question, and further by the third. For since they also supposed that the one expected second in honor — honored among them after Christ — was Elijah, when John had declared that he was not the Christ they asked, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he said,
"I am not." The third thing they wish to learn is whether he himself is the prophet. When he answered "No," having no longer any specific name left for the one they were hoping would come to them, they say, "Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?" — meaning by this: you are not any of those figures expected to come to Israel, but who you are, that you baptize, we do not know. Therefore
teach us this, that we may have something to report to those who sent us to you for this purpose." And further, we shall add this too, which bears on the matter before us: that the time of Christ's coming was already stirring the people up somewhat, around the years from Jesus' birth and a little earlier, up to the manifestation of his preaching. Hence, as is likely, among the scribes
and lawyers, who had worked out from the divine scriptures the time of the one expected and were already anticipating him, there arose Theudas, who gathered, I suppose, no small multitude as though he were the Christ, and after him "Judas the Galilean, in the days of the census." Reasonably, then, since Christ's coming was expected and spoken of with heightened warmth, the Jews sent from Jerusalem the priests and Levites to John
through "Who are you?" wanting to learn whether he himself would confess to being the Christ. (1:21) "And they asked him: What then? Are you Elijah? He says: I am not." Who among those who hear Jesus saying about John, "If you are willing to accept it, he himself is Elijah who is to come," would not inquire how, when those who asked him "Are you Elijah?" John says, "I am not"?
And how must one understand that John himself is the Elijah who is to come, in accordance with what was said by Malachi, which runs thus: "And behold, before the great and glorious day of the Lord arrives, I am sending to you Elijah of Tishbe, who will turn back the heart of a father toward his son, and turn a man's heart toward the one who dwells beside him, lest I come and strike the
land utterly"? And the word of the angel of the Lord who appeared to Zechariah, positioned on the right-hand side of the incense altar, spoken to Zechariah, shows something similar to what was said by Malachi, through these words: And your wife Elizabeth "will bear you a son, and John is the name you shall give him"; and shortly after: "He himself shall go on before him, in the spirit"
and power of Elijah, so as to turn back the hearts of fathers toward their children, and the disobedient toward the good sense that belongs to the just, and to prepare for the Lord a people made ready." Now with regard to the first point, someone will say that John did not know himself to be Elijah; and perhaps those who advocate on this basis the doctrine concerning transmigration of souls will make use of this, on the ground that the soul changes bodies like garments and does not necessarily remember its former
lives. And these same people will also say that certain of the Jews, who assented to this doctrine, said concerning the Savior that he was one of the ancient prophets, risen not from the tombs but from birth. For how could they, given that his mother Mary was plainly known, and given that Joseph, a carpenter by trade, was reputed to be his father, think that he, being one of the
prophets, had been raised from the dead? And making use also of what is written in Genesis, "I will blot out every rising up," these same people will set up as a contest for one who has taken care to refute the deceptive plausibilities brought forward from the scriptures, standing in opposition to the doctrine. XI. But another person, an ecclesiastical man, spitting out the doctrine of transmigration of souls as false, and not admitting that the soul
of John had at some time been Elijah, will make use of the aforesaid word of the angel, who did not name the soul of Elijah at the birth of John but "spirit and power," through the words "And he himself shall go on before him, clothed in the might and spirit that were Elijah's, so as to turn back the hearts of fathers toward children," being able to demonstrate, through countless scriptures, that the spirit is one thing and the soul another, and that what is called a power of the
spirit is also distinct from the soul; concerning which it is not opportune to set forth at length at present, lest we distract the discussion too much. For the present it will be enough, to show that a power of the Spirit is distinct from the Spirit, to cite "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you"; and, as to the spirits that are in the prophets, since they have been granted to them by God as, so to speak, their own,
to be called possessions: "prophets' spirits yield to the prophets," and "Elijah's spirit has settled upon Elisha." For in this way, he says, there will be nothing strange about John, who, clothed in the might and spirit that were Elijah's, turns back the hearts of fathers toward their children, being for this reason said to be, in spirit, Elijah who is to come. And for the comfort of these people he will also use this argument: if
the God of all, having made the holy ones his own, becomes their God, being thus called God of Abraham, Isaac's God, and Jacob's God, how much more will the Holy Spirit, having made the prophets its own, be able to be styled their spirit, so that this same spirit is called now the spirit of Elijah and now the spirit of Isaiah? This same churchman will say that those who have supposed Jesus, once he was raised from the dead, to be one among the prophets, can be mistaken both according to the doctrine stated before and according to their taking him for one among the prophets; and that, besides erring in thinking him one among the prophets, they can also be mistaken and speak falsely both in their ignorance of the man said to be his father and of his actual mother, and in supposing him
to have been raised from among the tombs. And in reply to the passage in Genesis concerning "the raising up," the churchman will meet the objection by using the text: "for God has raised up for me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew," where "raising up" is used also with reference to "begetting." This man, then, in answering the first difficulty, will, unlike the one who supposes transmigration of bodies, say in reply, on account of what has just been established by a certain argument,
that John is the Elijah who is to come, by virtue of a certain reasoning, but that he answered the priests and Levites, "I am not he," having guessed at the intent of their question. For the prior inquiry made to John by the priests and Levites did not want this, namely to learn whether the same spirit happened to be in both, but rather whether John himself was the Elijah who had been taken up
and was now appearing again, in accordance with what the Jews expected, apart from a birth — a birth which perhaps even those sent from Jerusalem were unaware of. To this question he fittingly answers, "I am not he"; for it was not Elijah who had been taken up, having changed his body, who had come, being named John. XII. But the first man, whose reasoning we set forth as supposing that the transmigration of bodies is established from this passage, dwelling further on the scrutiny of the wording, will say to the second,
that it is not consistent that the son of so great a priest as Zacharias, born to both his parents in old age against all human expectation, should be unknown to so many Jews in Jerusalem and to the Levites and priests sent by them, who did not know that he had been born in this way — especially since Luke testifies that "fear came upon all those who dwelt around them" (and it is clear that this refers to
Zacharias and Elizabeth), "and all these sayings were talked about throughout the whole hill country of Judea." But if the birth
of John from Zacharias was not unknown, and yet the Jews from Jerusalem sent, through the Levites and priests, to ask, "Are you Elijah?" — it is clear that they were saying this because they supposed the doctrine concerning the transmigration of bodies to be true, as being something traditional.
and not foreign to their teaching in secret matters. For this reason, then, John says, "I am not Elijah," since he is ignorant of his own former life. Now since these considerations carry no small plausibility, the churchman will in turn press a difficulty against the first speaker: whether he is, according to the prophet, <the one> illumined by the Spirit and prophesied by Isaiah, and by so great an angel
foretold, before he was begotten, to be born, having received from the fullness of Christ, having partaken of so great a grace, having understood that the truth came to be through Jesus Christ, having narrated such great things about God and the only-begotten one who dwells in the Father's bosom — that he did not know how to lie, and, if that were so, could not even hold his peace. For it was necessary to confess reserve about the more obscure matters, and neither... nor... nor... nor... the
proposition. And how was it not reasonable — since this was a doctrine held by many — for John to hold his peace about himself as to whether his soul had ever been in Elijah? And on the historical question too, the churchman will challenge the first speaker to inquire from those who profess to know the secret things among the Hebrews whether any such doctrine exists among them; for if it appears in no way to be so, it is clear that the first speaker's argument has been scattered to the winds.
None the less, the churchman will make use of the solution given beforehand, being himself also required to set forth the intention of those who asked the question. For if, as he has established, those who sent them knew that John was born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, and all the more those who were sent, being of priestly stock, to whom
the astonishing blessing of children granted to so illustrious a kinsman as Zechariah would not have gone unnoticed — with what thought in mind do they ask, "Are you Elijah?" — men who had read that he had been taken up as it were into heaven, and who were expecting his coming? Perhaps, then, since they expect Elijah before Christ at the consummation, and after him Christ, they appear to be asking, somewhat figuratively, "Are you the herald who announces in advance the figure destined to arrive, ahead of Christ, when the age reaches its close" —
that is the sense? And to this he answers knowingly, "I am not." Further, the churchman, standing firm against what has been examined by the other, who tries to demonstrate that the priests could not have failed to notice so conspicuous a birth as that of John, since "in the hill country of Judea all these matters were talked about" — will say that a similar deception befell many also concerning the Savior,
since "some declared him to be John the Baptist, while still others named him Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one among the prophets," just as the disciples too said when the Lord questioned them, having come into the region of Caesarea Philippi. And Herod, too, saying, "The one I beheaded, John — he has been raised from the dead," seems not to have known
the things said by those who declared, "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is his mother not named Mary, with brothers of his — James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? And are all his sisters not living here among us?" It is no wonder, then, that just as in the case of the Savior, many were aware that Mary had given him birth, yet others
...had been deceived, so too in the case of John, that some had not failed to notice his origin from Zechariah, while still others hesitated over whether the Elijah they awaited might have shown himself in the person of John (and indeed the perplexity about John — whether he might be Elijah — has more standing than that about the Savior, whether he might be John) — of these, [some derived] the character of Elijah from the wording alone, and not at all from perception...
...on account of "A hairy man, girded with a leather belt about his waist"; while the appearance of John, being perhaps foreknown, and by no means resembling the character of Jesus, nonetheless gave some occasion to certain people to suspect that John had risen from the dead, renamed Jesus. And concerning this change of name...
...for, as among secret matters — I do not know from what source they are moved to do so — the Hebrews hand down the tradition that Phinehas, son of Eleazar, whose life, by common consent, stretched onward through the era of numerous judges — a fact we found recorded in the book of Judges — was Elijah himself, and that in Numbers immortality had been pledged to him under the name of the covenant of peace; in return for which, stirred by a zeal for God, he pierced through the Midianite woman and the Israelite,
and stayed what is called the wrath of God, according to what is written: "Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron has turned back my wrath, because he was zealous with my zeal." It is no wonder, then, if those who supposed that Phinehas and Elijah were the same person (whether they spoke rightly or not — for it is not now our task to examine this) also thought that John and Jesus were the same person.
Or at least they were in doubt about this and wished to learn whether John and Elijah are the same. But this is a matter that must, in the first instance, be examined more carefully elsewhere, and the argument concerning the substance of the soul must be investigated more fully — concerning the origin of its constitution, its entry into the earthly body, the apportionments of each life, and its
departure from this life thereafter, and whether it is possible for it to enter a body a second time or not, and whether in the same cycle and the same ordering or not, and whether it enters the identical body or instead a different one — and supposing it is the identical body, whether it remains one and the same in substrate while undergoing change in quality, or whether it will turn out identical both in substrate and in quality, and whether
it will forever make use of that identical body, or will exchange it for another. In connection with these matters it will also be necessary to examine what reincarnation properly is, and how it differs from embodiment, and whether it follows for one who speaks of reincarnation that the world remains imperishable. In connection with these it will be necessary also to set forth the arguments of those who wish, in accordance with the scriptures, that the soul is sown together with the body, and the consequences that follow from their position. And in short,
the discussion concerning the soul, being extensive and difficult to expound, and having to be gathered from what lies scattered in the scriptures, requires its own separate treatise. For this reason, having now for the present examined the problem briefly on the basis of what has been inquired concerning Elijah and John, let us proceed to what follows. 1:21. "Are you the prophet?" To which he gave the reply, "No." "Supposing the law and the prophets [prophesied] until...
...of John — and what else could we say John is, but a prophet? As indeed his father Zechariah, filled with the Holy Spirit, says in prophecy: "And you, child, will be called a prophet of the Most High, for ahead of the Lord you shall go, making ready his paths" — unless perhaps someone will lay hold of the word "will be called," on the ground that "you will be" was not said, especially in view of what the Savior said to those who supposed
him to be a prophet: "But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet." Now it must be observed that by "Yes, I tell you" he establishes that John is a prophet, and does not deny that he is a prophet. But if, in addition to being a prophet, he is also said by the Savior to be "more than a prophet," how then, if
he is a prophet, did he answer "No" to the priests and Levites when they asked, "Are you the prophet?" To this it must be said that "Are you the prophet?" is not the same as "Are you a prophet?" We have observed similar things in examining how "the God" differs from "God," and "the Word" from "Word." Since, then, it is written in Deuteronomy, "The Lord your God will raise up for you
a prophet from among your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen; and every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among his people" — a certain prophet was expected in a special sense, one who would have something like Moses, namely, to mediate between God and men, and, having received a covenant from God, to give the new covenant to those being made disciples. And with regard to
each of the prophets, Israel's people recognized that none of them was the one prophesied by Moses. Just as, then, they were in doubt about John, wondering whether he might himself be the Christ, so too they wondered whether he might be "the prophet." And it is not surprising that, in their uncertainty about John, Israel's people failed to determine with precision whether he himself might be the Christ; for it follows
from this doubt about him that being the same person as "the Christ" and "the Elijah" — most people missed the distinction between "the prophet" and merely "a prophet," as did Heracleon, who, in these very words, [says] that John admitted he was neither the Christ nor even a prophet, nor Elijah. And though it was necessary for him, having so understood it, to examine the passages in question — whether he speaks truly in saying that he is neither
a prophet nor Elijah, or not — he, without attending to the passages, in the commentaries he has left behind, has passed over such important matters without examination, saying very few things about them, and those untested, in what follows, about which we shall speak presently. This is, in effect, what those who were sent say: "Since we suspected you to be [someone], we have come to learn; we have found you not to be [him]; it remains, then, that we hear from you
who you are, so that we may report your answer concerning yourself to those who sent us." Just as he who is properly the Son of God is not employing some word distinct from himself — for he himself was the Word in the beginning, the Word who was with God, the Word who was God — makes use of a word, so John, the servant of that Word, if we are to understand the scripture properly, being nothing apart from a voice, makes use of
by a voice that points to the Word. This man, understanding the prophecy spoken about himself in Isaiah, says that he is a voice — not crying out in the city, but ‘crying out in the wilderness,’ the one standing and shouting: ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink’; and saying also: ‘Straighten the road of the Lord, level his paths; every ravine shall be filled—
—with earth, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and all the crooked places shall become straight.’ For just as it is written in Exodus that God is said to have told Moses: ‘Behold, I have set you as a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet,’ so, in like manner, one must understand something analogous to this — even if not altogether the same — namely that the Word who was in the beginning is God, and John—
— well, John was a voice pointing to and representing that Word. That is why it is entirely fitting that Zechariah is subjected to no other punishment than this, having said to the angel: ‘By what shall I recognize this? For I am elderly, and my wife is far along in years’ — either as the deprivation of voice on account of his unbelief regarding the coming into being
of that voice, in keeping with what Gabriel said to him: ‘Behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day these things happen, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.’ This same Zechariah, when he asked for a tablet, wrote, saying, ‘John is his name,’ and all marveled — and he received his voice back: ‘For his mouth—
—was opened at once, and his tongue, and he spoke, blessing God.’ Just as, in discussing in what manner the Son of God is to be understood as Word, we have set forth the things put before us, so too, in fitting sequence, since John ‘came for testimony,’ ‘a man sent from God, to testify concerning the light, that all might believe—
—through him,’ one must understand that only a voice was able to hold, in a manner worthy of it, the Word being proclaimed — and that voice was John. And we shall understand this all the better if we recall what we set out earlier in explaining ‘that all might believe through him,’ concerning ‘He it is about whom the writing says: Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of your face, who shall make ready your way before you.’ And it is rightly said
that he is not the voice ‘saying in the wilderness,’ but rather ‘crying out in the wilderness.’ For the one who cries out, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ is also speaking; but it is possible for this same one to speak without crying out. He cries out and shouts so that both those far from the speaker may hear, and the hard of hearing may grasp the greatness of
what is said, through the greatness of the voice proclaiming it, coming to the aid of both those who stand far off from God and those who have lost the sharpness of hearing. This is why ‘Jesus stood and cried out, saying: If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.’ This is why also ‘John testifies concerning him and cries out, saying.’ This is why also God commands Isaiah
...to cry with the voice of one who says, "Cry out"; and I said, "What shall I cry?" But if the intelligible voice of those who pray is not entirely great and not small, then God, who says to Moses, "Why do you cry out to me?", does not hear the crying and shouting of those who pray in this way even if they increase the cry and the shout — not having cried out perceptibly, for this is not recorded in the
Exodus — but having cried out greatly with the voice that is heard by God alone, through prayer. For this reason David likewise declares, "I cried aloud to the Lord with my own voice, and he listened to me." There is need of the voice of the one crying out in the wilderness, so that the soul that is deprived of God and desolate of truth as well (for what other desolation of soul is harsher than being left desolate of God and of all virtue?), because of
still walking crookedly and needing instruction, may be exhorted to straighten the way of the Lord. This way is straightened by the one who in no way imitates the crookedness of the serpent's course, while the one opposed to him distorts it. For this reason such a person, together with others like him, is also rebuked by the words, "Why do you pervert the straight ways of the Lord?" The way of the Lord is straightened in two ways,
both with respect to contemplation, being made clear in truth unmixed with falsehood, and with respect to action, when, after sound contemplation of what is to be done, action in harmony with it is rendered in accordance with the sound reasoning about what is to be done. And so that we may grasp with greater precision the phrase, "Make straight the road of the Lord," a fitting moment arrives to set beside it what is said in Proverbs: "Do not turn aside either to the right or to the left"; for the one
who turns aside to either side has lost the straight course, and is no longer worthy of oversight once he departs from the straightness of the path; "for the Lord is righteous and has loved righteous deeds, and his face has looked upon uprightness." And what he looks upon, he illumines; this is why the one under such watch, perceiving the good that flows from being watched over, declares: "the light of your countenance, O Lord, was set as a sign upon us." Let us stand, then,
at the ways, according to what was said by Jeremiah, and having seen, let us ask for the eternal paths of the Lord, and let us discern what the good way is, and let us walk in it, just as the apostles stood and asked the patriarchs and the prophets about the eternal paths of the Lord, whose writings, having inquired of them, they later saw, by coming to understand them, to be the good way,
Jesus Christ, the one who declared, “I am the way”; and in it they walked. For a good way indeed is that which leads toward the good Father, the good man who from his good store brings forth good things, and the good and faithful servant. But this way is narrow, since the many—including those of great bulk—find no room to travel it, but it is also pressed upon by
those who force their way through it — for it is a way, since it is not said to be "pressing" but "pressed"; the one who does not loosen the sandals from his feet, nor genuinely accepts that "the place" in which he stands, or even which he walks, "is holy ground," presses upon the way, which is living and perceives the peculiarities of the one who travels it. And it will lead to life the one who is
the one who said, “I am the life.” For the Savior, in whom is all virtue, is manifold in his conceptions; on this account he is, for the one who has not yet arrived at the end but is still progressing, a way, and for the one who has already put off all deadness, life. The one who journeys on this way is taught to carry nothing onto it, since it has bread and the things needed for life, because
the enemies can do nothing on it, and it needs not even a staff, and since it is holy, not even sandals. Now it is possible that “I am a voice crying out in the wilderness,” and what follows, is equivalent to “I am,” concerning whom it is written, a voice crying out, so that John is the one crying out, and it is his voice that cries out in the wilderness: “Make straight the way
of the Lord.” But Heracleon speaks more blasphemously concerning John and the prophets when he takes the matter up, saying that the Word is the Savior, while the voice is the one in the wilderness understood through John, and the sound is the whole prophetic order. One must say to him that just as “if the trumpet gives an indistinct sound, no one prepares for war,” and the one without love
who has knowledge of mysteries or prophecy has become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal, so too, if the prophetic voice is nothing other than a sound, how does the Savior send us up to it, saying, “Search the scriptures, for you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness”; and “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for concerning me
he wrote”; and “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you when he declared: This people honors me with their lips”—for it is not the case that anyone will reasonably accept that an indistinct sound is being praised by the Savior, or that it is possible to be prepared from the scriptures, as from the sound of a trumpet, for the war against the opposing powers to which we are sent up, if the sound of the voice happens to be indistinct. In what
way, if the prophets did not have love and for this reason were sounding brass or a clanging cymbal, does the Lord send us up, to be benefited, to their sound, as those men have taken it? I do not know how, without any proof, he declares that the voice, being more proper to the word, becomes word, just as a woman is transformed into a man. And as though having authority
to lay down doctrine and to be believed and to make progress, he says that the change into voice will belong to the sound, granting the rank of disciple to the voice that changes into word, and that of slave to the change from sound into voice. And if this in some way carried plausibility toward establishing these things, we too would have contended for their overthrow; but the unsupported assertion suffices for its own overthrow. But that which
we deferred examining in what preceded, namely how it has been set in motion, come now let us take up. For according to Heracleon, the Savior calls him both prophet and Elijah, but he himself denies each of these. And when the Savior calls him prophet and Elijah, he says, the Savior is teaching not about him himself but about the things concerning him; but whenever he speaks of one greater than the prophets and among those born
of women, he then characterizes John himself; but, he says, John, when asked about himself, answers about himself, not about the things concerning him. And how great a scrutiny we ourselves have made of these matters, as far as we have been able, leaving none of the stated terms without comment, in order to compare them with what was declared by Heracleon—since he does not have license to say whatever he wishes. For how is it that concerning the things about...
...him it is said that he is Elijah and a prophet, and concerning him that he is the voice crying in the wilderness, he does not even attempt to demonstrate this in any ordinary way; rather he uses an illustration: the things said about him are, as it were, garments that were other than himself, and one who was asked about the garments, whether he himself were the garments, would not have answered 'Yes.' For how...
...could the garments—that is, being Elijah who is to come—belong to John? I do not at all see this, following his reasoning; perhaps, according to our own explanation, insofar as we have been able to expound the phrase 'in the spirit and power of Elijah,' this spirit of Elijah can somehow be said to be the garment of John's soul. Still wishing to establish why the priests and Levites who questioned him were sent from the Jews...
...he does not say badly that it was fitting for these men, who were devoted to God, to busy themselves with such matters and to inquire about them; but he does not examine very carefully the fact that John himself was of the Levitical tribe—just as we, raising the difficulty beforehand, inquired: if those who were sent knew John and his lineage, how could they have had occasion to ask concerning...
...whether he was Elijah? And again, concerning the question 'Are you the prophet?', supposing that something distinctive is signified by the addition of the article, he says that they asked whether he was a prophet, wishing to learn the more general point. Moreover, not only Heracleon, but, as far as my inquiry has found, all the heterodox as well, being unable to distinguish a trivial ambiguity, have supposed John to be greater than Elijah...
...and greater than all the prophets, because of the saying, 'Among those born of women no one surpasses John'—not seeing that the statement 'No one born of women is greater than John' can be true in two ways: not only by his being greater than all, but also by there being some equal to him; for it can equally be true, if many prophets are equal to him, according to the...
...grace given to him, that none is greater than he. He supposes that his being 'greater' is established by his having been prophesied by Isaiah, as though none of those who ever prophesied had been deemed worthy of this honor by God. But in truth, as one who despises the covenant called the old one, and who did not observe that Elijah himself too was prophesied, he dared to say this; for indeed Elijah is prophesied by Malachi...
...saying: 'Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite, who will turn back the father's heart toward the son.' And Josiah too, as we have read in the third book of Kingdoms, is prophesied by name by the prophet who came from Judah, saying, with Jeroboam also present: 'Altar, altar, thus says the Lord: Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah is his name.' And some say also that...
Samson was prophesied by Jacob in his declaration, "Dan will judge his own people, just like one other tribe in Israel"—since Samson, being from the tribe of Dan, judged Israel. And let this too be said in refutation of the rashness of the one who declared that no one except John is prophesied—a declaration he made while wishing to explain what "I [am]
"a voice calling out in the desert" means. Those who were sent from Jerusalem to question John — the priests and Levites — having learned both who John was not and who indeed he was, fall into a most solemn silence, as though by that silence agreeing and showing that they accept what has been said, namely that it suits the one calling out in the desert to baptize, so as to smooth the way of the
Lord. The Pharisees, however, being — true to their name — a divided and factious sort, display their disagreement with the Jews of the capital city, as well as with those who minister to God's service, the priests and Levites, by sending, as it were reproachfully and, so far as it depended on them, so as to hinder the baptizing, men to ask him: "Why do you baptize if
you are not the Christ, nor even Elijah, nor the prophet?" And perhaps, if we were to draw together into one body the things written in the gospels, we might say that they said this at that time, but that later — I do not know how — having given themselves over to be baptized, they heard from John: "Brood of vipers, who showed you how to flee from the wrath to come? Produce, then,
fruit worthy of repentance." For these words were spoken by the Baptist, according to Matthew, on seeing that many Pharisees and Sadducees were coming to the baptism, plainly without fruits of repentance and boasting among themselves in Pharisaic fashion about having Abraham as their father. For this reason they are rebuked by John, who possessed the zeal of Elijah in communion with the Holy Spirit. For the saying is a rebuking
one: "Do not presume to say among yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'"; and it is an instructive one concerning how even those who, because of their heart of stone, being unbelievers are called stones, can by the power of God be changed from stones into children of Abraham — since they have come to be within the sight of the prophet, not fleeing the divine gaze. This is why the saying "I tell you that God is able
to raise up children for Abraham from these stones" is spoken by him. And since they come to the baptism without having produced fruit worthy of repentance, it is most fitting that this be said to them: "Already the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" — as though
he were saying to them directly: Since you have come to the baptism without having produced fruit of repentance, you are a tree not producing good fruit, about to be cut down by the sharpest and most powerful axe of the living word, an axe both effective and keener than every two-edged blade. XXIII. Luke, too, set forth the Pharisees' self-praise through the saying, "Two men went up into
the temple to offer prayer, one a Pharisee, the other a tax collector. Standing there, the Pharisee prayed thus within himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, greedy, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector' — since, on account of these words, the tax collector rather than he goes down to his house justified,
-fied, and it is added that everyone who exalts himself will be humbled. As hypocrites, then, in accordance with the Savior's reproachful words against them, they come to the baptism, not escaping the notice of the one baptizing that they still have the venom of vipers under their tongues, and that of asps: 'For the poison of asps is under their lips.' And truly 'wrath was upon them, according to the'
'likeness of the serpent,' was being made manifest, both through this bitter question, 'Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, not Elijah, not even the prophet?' To whom I would say: as though Christ and Elijah and the prophet baptize, while the voice of one crying out in the wilderness has not received this authority. O you people, you inquire harshly
of the angel dispatched ahead of Christ's presence to make ready his path before him, being entirely ignorant of all the mysteries pertaining to his role. For the Christ, being Jesus, even if you do not wish it, did not himself baptize, but his disciples did, he himself being 'the prophet.' Yet on what basis do you believe that Elijah, the one who is coming, will baptize — did he not also, in
the times of Ahab, baptize the wood on the altar that needed washing so that it might be kindled, when the Lord appeared in fire? For he commands the priests to do this not only once — for he says, 'Do it a second time,' and they did it a second time, and 'Do it a third time,' and they did it a third time. He, then, who did not himself baptize at that time, but yielded the task to others, how, according to what is said by Malachi, having come to dwell among us,
was going to baptize? Christ himself, then, baptizes not with water; rather his disciples do. He keeps for himself the baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Heracleon, having accepted the Pharisees' argument as soundly stated regarding baptizing being owed to Christ and Elijah and every prophet, says, in these very words, 'to whom alone baptizing is owed,' and from the
things we have just said, is refuted, especially in that he has understood 'the prophet' too generically; for he is not able to show that even one of the prophets performed baptism. He says, not implausibly, that the Pharisees were inquiring in accordance with their own cunning, not as wanting to learn. Since it seems necessary to us to set the similar wordings of the gospels alongside the passages at hand, and to do this for each
one, all the way through, so that things seeming to clash may be demonstrated as agreeing, while things stated similarly in each case are clarified on their own — come, let us do the same here too. For the words 'A voice shouting in the desert: Straighten the Lord's road' are spoken, in the disciple John, from the person of the Baptist; but in Mark, as the opening of Jesus Christ's gospel,
it stands recorded thus, following Isaiah's writing: "Jesus Christ's gospel begins, just as Isaiah the prophet set down in writing: Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who shall make ready your road; a voice shouting in the desert: Get the Lord's road ready, straighten his paths." Yet it does not stand in the prophet as "Make straight the
the Lord's road," which Mark cited. Perhaps, then, John, shortening "Get the Lord's road ready, straighten the paths of our God," put it as "Straighten the Lord's road" -- whereas Mark, drawing together into a single statement two prophecies uttered in different places by two prophets, rendered it: "Just as Isaiah the prophet wrote: Behold
I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who shall ready your way. A voice shouting in the desert: Get the Lord's road ready, make his paths straight." For the phrase "a voice shouting in the desert" is written immediately after the account concerning Hezekiah's rising up from his illness, while "Behold, I send my messenger before your
face" is from Malachi. But what John did in shortening the saying he quoted, Mark himself likewise showed, using different wording: for the prophet says, "Get the Lord's road ready, straighten the paths of our God," but Mark says, "Get the Lord's road ready, straighten his paths." He has
made a similar abbreviation also in the case of "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way." For he did not include the phrase before it, "before me." Further, on the words "They had been sent from the Pharisees, and they questioned him," when examining this we placed the question of the Pharisees first, since it is passed over in silence by Matthew, [...]
[...] of what is recorded as having happened in Matthew, that "John, upon seeing a great number of the Pharisees and Sadducees approaching for the baptism, said to them, Offspring of vipers," and so on -- for it follows that one should first inquire, and then come. And this too must be noted, that Matthew, of those going out to John, to Jerusalem and all Judea
and all the region around the Jordan, to be baptized in the river Jordan, confessing their sins, says he heard no word of rebuke or reproof from the Baptist, but only that he watched a great number of the Pharisees and Sadducees having come, and heard the words "Offspring of vipers" and so on addressed to them; but Mark says nothing rebuking was spoken by John
to those who had come, being all Judea and all the people of Jerusalem, and being baptized by him in the Jordan and confessing their sins -- consistent with his not even having named the Pharisees and Sadducees. And this too we must set forth as necessary, that both Matthew and Mark say that, confessing their sins, all Jerusalem was baptized
"and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan" -- or, "all the Judean country and all the people of Jerusalem." Matthew, for his part, brings on stage the Pharisees and Sadducees drawing near for the baptism, yet not confessing their sins; and so it is likely that this too is a reasonable cause for their having heard "Offspring of vipers." Do not suppose
that we have set forth the material from the other gospels out of season, examining what comes from those who were sent by the Pharisees and who questioned John. For if we have rightly matched the Pharisees' question, as recorded by the disciple John, to their baptism as it stands in Matthew, it was consistent to examine the corresponding passages and to set out the observations that were found. Likewise
Luke too, like Mark, recalls "a voice crying in the wilderness," speaking in his own voice as follows: "The word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness, and he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance unto release from sins, just as stands written in the scroll of the sayings of Isaiah the prophet: A voice of one crying in the wilderness, get ready the way of the
Lord, make his paths straight." And Luke added also what follows in the prophecy: "Every ravine will be filled, and every mountain and hill will be made low, and the crooked will become straight ways and the rough places smooth roads; and all flesh will see the salvation of God" -- writing, like Mark, "Make his paths straight,"
abridging, as we said before, "Level the paths of our God." And instead of "all the crooked things will become a straight way," he set down the wording without "all," while also turning the singular "into a straight way" into the plural "straight ways." Further, instead of "the rough place into a plain" he made it "and the rough places into smooth roads," and he also left out "And"
"the glory of the Lord will be seen," and set alongside it what follows, namely "and every creature of flesh will look upon the deliverance that comes from God." Such comparisons are helpful for showing that the evangelists condense the prophetic writings. And this too should be observed further: that "Offspring of vipers" and what follows Matthew records as directed at the Pharisees and Sadducees as they approached the baptism -- people distinct
from those who confess their sins, and who were hearing nothing of the kind; whereas Luke records these words as having been spoken to the crowds going out to be baptized by him, not making two classes of those being baptized, which we found to be the case in Matthew. And this is reasonable in his case as well, since the crowds are not ranked among those praised, as will be clear to those who attend carefully -- he introduces the baptist as having addressed to the crowds
"Offspring of vipers" and what follows. Further, to the Pharisees and Sadducees it is said in the singular, "Produce fruit worthy of repentance," but to the crowds in the plural, "fruits worthy of repentance." For perhaps the Pharisees are required to produce the singular, exceptional fruit of repentance, which is nothing other than trust placed in the Son himself, while the crowds are not required even at the outset
having good things, all are required to give the fruits of repentance; and that is why the plural is used in addressing them. It is said to these Pharisees in addition: «Do not think to say among yourselves, 'We have Abraham as father.'» For the crowds now are at a beginning, seeming to be introduced into the divine word, of approaching the truth; that is why they begin to say among themselves, «We have Abraham as father»; but the
Pharisees do not begin, but have held this opinion for a long time. Yet both hear that the aforementioned stones, when pointed out, are able to be raised up as children for Abraham, since they will be raised from insensibility and deadness. Observe that for the Pharisees, according to what is said in the prophet, «You ate false fruit,» they have fruit, but false fruit; it is said: «Every tree therefore not bearing good fruit is cut down»; but for the
crowds, who do not bear fruit at all, it is: «Every tree therefore not bearing fruit is cut down.» For that which has no fruit does not have good fruit either; hence it is worthy of being cut down. But that which has fruit does not altogether have good fruit; hence it too is reasonably felled by the axe. If we examine the matters concerning the fruits more precisely, we shall find that it is impossible
for that which has only just begun to be cultivated, even if it bears fruit, to bring forth good fruit at first. But the farmer is content, first, that the fruits befitting a plant just beginning cultivation be brought forth by it; later, proceeding by way of the purifications proper to farming, after whatever fruits it may be, he will then also receive good fruits. And the law bears witness to us in this understanding, saying that the one who plants must
leave what has been planted unpruned for three years, its fruits not being eaten: «For during three years, it says, the fruit shall remain uncircumcised for you and shall not be eaten; yet when the fourth year comes, every bit of the fruit shall be consecrated, worthy of praise before the Lord.» Reasonably, then, to the crowds, without the addition of “good,” it is said: «Every tree therefore not bearing fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire»;
and that which bears fruit for a longer time, similar to the beginning, being a tree not bearing good fruit, «is cut down and thrown into the fire,» whenever, upon the onset of the introduction that comes after the triad, occurring in the tetrad, it does not bear holy fruit, praiseworthy to the Lord. All these things, even if said by us with a digression while we set out also the material from the remaining Gospels,
do not seem to me untimely, nor foreign to the inquiry now before us. For it is the Pharisees who dispatch envoys to John, coming after the priests and Levites who had been sent from Jerusalem, to ask him who he might be, questioning him: «Why then do you baptize, if you yourself are neither the Christ nor Elijah nor that prophet?»; and having pressed him on this point, they next come forward to be baptized, as Matthew records, and indeed they hear the things
befitting their arrogance and hypocrisy. Since what was said to these was similar to what was said to the crowds, it was necessary to make a comparison and clarification of the sayings; and doing this required us, following the sequence, to consider more matters. But we shall also fittingly add these things to what has been said: it is recorded that two groups were sent to John, one of the Jews from Jerusalem
were sending priests and Levites, and, in a second case, Pharisees who were raising the difficulty why he baptizes. And we have shown that it was after the questioning that the Pharisees come to be baptized. Perhaps, then, before these, the Jews from Jerusalem who had sent these earlier ones had accepted John's words, since, having sent before the Pharisees did, they also come before them. For “Jerusalem,” that is all Judea, and consequently all the region around the Jordan,
were baptized by him in the Jordan river, making confession of their sins—or, as Luke says, “All the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem, and in the Jordan river they received baptism from him, making confession of their sins.” Yet Matthew does not say this of the crowds, nor Luke of the Pharisees and Sadducees, to whom it is said, “Brood of vipers,”
the same rebuke, representing them as confessing their sins. But it is worth raising the difficulty how, when the whole city of Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan were being baptized in the Jordan by John, the Savior says, “John the Baptist has come neither eating nor drinking, and you say, He has a demon”—and to those who asked, “By what authority
do you do these things?” he says, “I also will ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, I too will disclose to you the authority under which I act—these things I do. The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?”—at which point, reasoning among themselves, they say, “If we say, From heaven, he will say, Why then did you not believe him?” The difficulty raised is resolved thus: the Pharisees, as we have observed before, who
had heard, “Offspring of vipers,” and had not believed in him, come to the baptism—likely because, fearing the crowd and, in keeping with their hypocrisy toward the people, thinking it fitting to be washed so as not to appear to be opposing such people. Since, then, they held that he had his baptizing from men and not from heaven, they fear, on account of the crowd, lest they be stoned, saying what they suppose they must say. So the things
said by the Savior to the Pharisees are not in conflict with what is recorded in the Gospels concerning the great number of those baptized by John. And it was owing to the brazenness of the Pharisees that they said John had a demon, and also said that Jesus performed his mighty works by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons. Now Heracleon supposes that John answers those sent
from among the Pharisees not in accordance with what they were asking, but with what he himself wished to say—not noticing that in doing so he is accusing the prophet of ignorance, if indeed, being asked about one thing, he answers about another; for this too must be guarded against, since it is a fault even in ordinary conversation. But we say that the answer is very much to the point; for to the question, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the
Christ?” what else was fitting to say than what shows baptism to be a rather bodily matter? “For I,” he says, “baptize in water.” And having said this in answer to “Why then do you baptize?” he goes on, in answer to the second question, “If you are not the Christ,” to set forth a doxology concerning the pre-eminent being of Christ, namely that he possesses such power that he is even invisible in his divinity, while present to everyone
extending equally to every human being and to the whole world—which is shown through ‘He stands in your midst.’ And since the Pharisees who were expecting the coming of Christ saw nothing so great in him, supposing him to be only a perfect, holy man, he fittingly exposes the Pharisees’ ignorance concerning his preeminence, adding to ‘He stands in your midst’ the words ‘whom you do not know.’ And so that
no one should suppose that the invisible one who extends to every human being—or indeed to the whole world—is someone other than the one who became human, appeared on earth, and lived among human beings, he joins to ‘He stands in your midst, whom you do not know’ the words ‘the one coming after me’—that is, who will be made manifest after me. And understanding his surpassing preeminence
beyond his own nature—a preeminence some doubted, wondering whether he himself might be the Christ—wishing to show how far short he falls of the Christ’s majesty, so that no one should reckon of him more than what they see or hear from him, he also says, ‘of whom I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal,’ hinting that he is not able
to loose and make clear the account of his embodiment, bound and hidden, as it were, from those who do not understand, so as to say something worthy of so great a visitation compressed into so brief a space. It is not out of place, as we examine ‘I baptize with water,’ to set beside it the similar words of the evangelists on this matter and compare them with the passage before us. Matthew, then, says: ‘When he saw many of the Pharisees
and Sadducees coming to the baptism’—after the words of rebuke we examined—‘I baptize you with water for repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry; with the Holy Spirit and fire is how he himself will baptize you.’ In harmony with the account in John is this confession of the one who baptizes in water
before those sent from the Pharisees, when he speaks. Mark, however, says: ‘John proclaimed, saying: After me comes the one who is stronger than I, whose sandal strap I am not fit to stoop and untie. I baptized you with water, but with the Holy Spirit he himself will baptize you’—teaching that these things were proclaimed to more people, to all who were listening. Luke, however, says
that ‘as the people were waiting and, concerning John, all were turning over in their hearts whether he himself might be the Christ, John answered, saying to all: I baptize you with water, but one stronger than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not fit to untie; with the Holy Spirit and fire is how he himself will baptize you.’ Having, then, the
similar words of the four, come, let us see as far as we can the sense of each individually and their differences, beginning with Matthew, who is also handed down as the first of the rest to have issued the gospel to the Hebrews, to those who believe from the circumcision. ‘I,’ he says, ‘baptize you with water for repentance’—as it were cleansing them and turning them away from worse things and calling them to repentance.
For I have come “to prepare for the Lord a people made ready,” and to make room, through the baptism of repentance, for the one who is coming after me, and for this reason he will benefit you much more powerfully and effectively than I am able to; for his baptism is not bodily, filling the one who repents with the Holy Spirit and with a more divine fire, which makes every material thing vanish and consumes everything earthly, not only
from the one who has received it, but also from the one who hears it from those who have it. And the one coming after me is so much stronger than I am that I am not even sufficient to carry the very outermost fringe of the garments of the powers surrounding him — not the bare ones set forth, so that even ordinary people could perceive them — I cannot endure to bear even these. I do not know which of the two I should say,
whether it is my own great weakness, unable to bear even the humble things of Christ by comparison with the greater things around him, or rather his surpassing divinity, greater than the whole world; since I myself, who have received so great a grace as to have been deemed worthy even of prophecy, foretelling the things concerning my coming into the life of human beings, in “I am a voice crying out in the
wilderness”—and, “Lo, I dispatch my messenger ahead of your face”; I, whose birth was proclaimed to my father, marvelously and in his old age, by Gabriel, “the one who stands in the presence of God”; I, at whose very name Zechariah regained his voice at once, together with the power of prophecy exercised through it; I, to whom my Lord bears witness as being indeed greater
than anyone born of women, yet not fit even to carry his sandals — for if not even the sandals, what must be said about his garments? Who is this who will be able to keep his cloak whole? Who will grasp the tunic from above, seamless because woven throughout, so as to comprehend the meaning it holds? It should be observed that, although
all four evangelists have said that John came confessing that he baptized in water, Matthew alone added to this “for repentance,” teaching that the benefit from baptism depends on the intention of the one being baptized, coming to be present for the one who repents, but for one who does not approach in this way it will turn into a harsher judgment. One must know that just as the marvelous powers manifested in the healings performed by the Savior,
being symbols of those forever freed by the word of God from every disease and infirmity, nonetheless, even when they occurred bodily, benefited by summoning to faith those who were healed, so too the washing through water, being a symbol of the purification of the soul as it washes away every stain of wickedness, nonetheless, even in itself, benefits the one who presents himself to the divinity of the power of the
invocations of the worshipped Trinity, this being the source and origin of the divine gifts; for “gifts come in varieties.” My statement is confirmed by the narrative set down in the Acts of the Apostles concerning how plainly the Spirit came at that time to rest upon those being baptized, the water having already made ready the path for those approaching in sincerity—so much so that even Simon the magician, struck with amazement, wanted
to receive this favor from Peter, yet wanted, quite unjustly, to purchase it with the mammon of unrighteousness. This too deserves notice: that the baptism of John ranked lower than the baptism given by Jesus through his disciples. Those, then, in the Acts who had received only the baptism of John, not having so much as heard whether a Holy Spirit exists, are baptized once more by the
apostle. For regeneration did not come about through John but through Jesus, for his disciples, and it is called a washing of rebirth, coming about with a renewal of the Spirit — the same Spirit that even now is borne, since it is from God, upon the water, though it does not come upon everyone after the water. So much, then, for the examination of the matters in the Gospel according to Matthew.
Let us now also consider the matters in Mark, who recorded that John, in his preaching, said this according to: "There comes he who is stronger than I, after me" — for this is equivalent to "He who comes after me is stronger than I" — but no longer the same in: "I am not fit, stooping down, to loosen the strap of his sandals." For it is one thing to carry
the sandals — evidently already loosened from the feet of the one wearing them — and another thing to stoop down and loosen the strap of the sandals. And it follows, since none of the evangelists is mistaken nor lying, as the faithful would say, that the Baptist said both things at different times, moved according to one thought and then another. For it is not, as some suppose, about the same events that
those who record them were carried along differently, failing to be precise in memory about each of the things said or done. It is a great thing, then, to carry Jesus's sandals, but it is also a great thing to stoop down over his bodily acts that occurred somewhere below, in order to behold the image below, and to loosen each of the obscure matters concerning the mystery of the embodiment, which are, so to speak, the strap of the sandals. For
there is one bond of obscurity, just as there is one key of knowledge, which not even the greatest among those born of women is able by himself to loosen or open, since only the one who bound and closed it grants to whomever he wishes the loosening and opening of the strap of the sandals and of the things that are closed. XXXV. But if the topic of the sandals is a mystical one, this too must not
be passed over. I think, then, that the becoming man — when the Son of God takes on flesh and bones — is one of the sandals, while the descent into Hades, whatever Hades may be, and the journey to the prison with the spirit, is the remaining one. Concerning the descent into Hades it is said, "You will not abandon my soul to Hades," in
the fifteenth Psalm; and concerning the journey made in spirit to those in prison, Peter says in his catholic epistle: "For put to death indeed in flesh, yet made alive in spirit; in that spirit he journeyed also and proclaimed word to the spirits kept in prison, those who once had disobeyed, back when God's patience stood waiting through the days when Noah was building the ark." He, then, who worthily accomplished both these visitations
...able to set forth these words, is worthy to loose the strap of Jesus' sandals—he himself in understanding bowing low and going down together with the one who went down into Hades, descending too from heaven and from the mysteries surrounding Christ's deity to that visitation among us which had to occur, when he took on humanity as a sandal. And the one who put on humanity as a sandal also took up the dead man
as a sandal. »For Jesus died and rose to this very end, so that of both the dead and the living he might become sovereign«; and it was for this reason that he put on both the living and the dead as a sandal, that is, the one on earth and the one in Hades, »so that of both the dead and the living he might become sovereign.« Who then is capable of stooping down to untie the strap of such sandals, and, having untied it, not to let it go but, by a second capacity,
take it up again and carry it by bearing about in memory what has been thought? And let it not go unexamined that the phrase without »having stooped down« is likewise found in both Luke and John. And perhaps it is possible both to stoop down and to untie, according to what was said before; but it is also possible, while keeping the elevation that comes from the loftiness of the word, to find the solution of the sandals
bound up in the matter under inquiry, so that someone, having untied these, might see the word, bare of the lesser things, by itself, apart from the sandals — the Son of God. Now John's account records that not being »capable« is not the same as not being »worthy.« For it is possible for one who is not worthy to become capable; and it is also possible for one who is worthy not yet to be capable. For if indeed the gifts are given for what is beneficial, and not only »according to«
the proportion of faith, it would be the work of a God who loves mankind — foreseeing the harm that would follow from conceit or from being puffed up — not to give the capability to the one who is worthy, at some point; but it is proper to the goodness of God to prevail in doing good to the one benefited, anticipating the one who will be worthy, and, before he becomes worthy, adorning him with the
capability, so that after the capability he may come to becoming worthy, and not, starting altogether from being worthy, outstrip the giver and anticipate his graces before coming to becoming capable. John, then, says that in the case of the three evangelists he was not »capable,« but in the Gospel of John he was not »worthy.« But he is not excluded who indeed said
that, not yet being capable, he had become capable, even though he was not yet worthy; and again, he who said he was not worthy, not being worthy, had not yet arrived at having become worthy. Unless indeed someone will say that, with respect to the mortal nature not making room for a loosing and a bearing worthy of it, † it comes at some point to hold as true that it never becomes capable of untying
the strap of the sandals and worthy of the same. But however much we may make room for, there still remain things not yet thought of, since »When a man has finished, then he begins, and when he ceases, then he will be at a loss,« according to the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach. Let us further discuss the sandals as named in this way by the three evangelists, comparing those with the one named in the singular by the disciple John.
"For I am not worthy," he says, "to loose the strap of his sandal." Perhaps, then, overcome by the grace of God, he received this as a gift, not yet being worthy, so far as it depended on himself, to loose the strap of one of the two sandals, having understood his sojourn among men, concerning which he also bears witness; but since he still lacked the
comprehension of what would follow — not knowing whether it was Jesus who was also coming there, where he was about to be beheaded as a result of his imprisonment, or whether he ought to expect another — for this reason, hinting now as well at the perplexity that will later be shown to us more clearly, he says: "I am not worthy that I should loose the strap of his sandal." But whoever thinks this was said with excessive precision will bring together as one
"of the sandals" and "of the sandal," as though he were saying: In no way am I worthy to loose the strap, not even from the outset, of even one sandal. Or in this way too it is possible to bring what is said by the four evangelists together into one. For if John understood the matters concerning his sojourn here, but was in doubt about what followed, he speaks truly in saying
that he is not sufficient to loose the strap of the sandals — for in loosing that of one he does not loose both — and he also speaks truly in saying "the strap of the sandal," since, as has been said, he is still uncertain whether it is he himself who is coming, or another whom one must expect there as well. And concerning "There stands one among you whom you do not know," this must be understood in reference to the Son
of God — the Word, through whom all things came to be, subsisting substantially according to its underlying reality, being the same as Wisdom. For this one has passed through the whole of creation, so that whatever comes to be always comes to be through him, and so that concerning absolutely anything it may always be true that "All things came to be through him, and without him not one thing came to be," and also "All
things you made in wisdom." And if he has passed through the whole of creation, it is clear that also among those who were inquiring, "Why then do you baptize, seeing you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet?" this same Word, being firm, stands "in the midst," established everywhere by the Father. Or let "He stands in your midst" be understood as meaning: in the midst of you human beings,
because you are rational beings, he stands in your midst, just as the ruling faculty is shown to be in the middle of the whole body, being found, according to the scriptures, in the heart. Those, then, who have the Word in their midst but do not grasp anything about his nature, nor from what source and origin he has come, nor how he ever came to be established within them — these, though having him in their midst,
do not know him. But John knows him. For the statement "whom you do not know," spoken reproachfully to the Pharisees, shows that the Word had come to be accurately known by him, though unknown to them. For this reason too the Baptist, knowing him, knows the one standing in the midst as coming after him — that is, after him — and knows also the
...coming with teaching in baptism to those who have washed themselves in accordance with reason. But the word “after” does not signify the same thing here as when Jesus sends us after himself. For there, it is so that, walking in his footsteps, we may arrive at the Father, that we are commanded to come after him; but here, it is so that what comes after John's teaching may be made clear (since he came “so that all might believe through
him”) to those who had made themselves ready in advance, having been purified beforehand by lesser things, so that the perfect Word might also come to them. Primarily, then, the Father stands, being unchangeable and unalterable; and his Word also stands, always engaged in saving, even should he become flesh, even should he be in the midst of men, not grasped, and indeed not even seen. And he stands also teaching, calling all to drink from
his unbegrudging spring: “For Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.’” [On the text] But Heracleon says that “he stands in your midst” means: he is already present and is in the world and among men, and is already manifest to all of you. By this he does away with what has been established concerning his having passed through
the whole world. For to him one ought to say: at what moment is he absent? At what moment is he not within the world? And yet the Gospel declares, “Within the world he was, and through him the world came into being.” And for this reason those to whom the word “whom you do not know” is addressed do not know him, since they have not yet
gone out from the world, “and the world did not know him.” For what span of time did he ever cease being among men? Was he not present in Isaiah, who declares: “Upon me is the Spirit of the Lord, for he has anointed me,” and “To those not seeking me I became manifest”? Let them say whether he was not also in David, who speaks of his own accord: “I have been established king by
him upon Zion, his holy mountain,” and all that is written in the Psalms as spoken in the person of Christ. And why must I demonstrate this point by point, when the things able to show clearly that he was always among men are too numerous to count, in order to refute what has been unsoundly said by Heracleon in his explanation of “he stands in your
midst”? Yet it is not implausibly said by him that “the one coming after me” shows that John is the forerunner of Christ; for he is truly like a servant running ahead of his master. But far more simplistically he has taken “I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal” to mean that
by these words the Baptist admits that he is unworthy of even the most contemptible service toward Christ. Still, after this interpretation, he has not implausibly added: I am not sufficient for him to descend, for my sake, from the greatness and take on flesh as a sandal, concerning which I am unable to give an account, nor to relate or explain the dispensation regarding it. But more grandly and more nobly this same Heracleon interprets the sandal as the world
...having taken this up, he shifted to the more impious position that all these things must be understood also concerning the person meant through John. For he supposes that the demiurge of the world, being lesser than Christ, confesses this through these words — which is the most impious thing of all. For it is the Father who sent him, none other than the God under whom the living have their life, as Jesus himself bears witness, who is the God of Abraham and
of Isaac and of Jacob — he who is Lord of heaven and earth for this reason, that he made them — this one alone is good, and greater than the one sent. And even if, as we said before, it has been understood more crudely, and the whole world is, for Heracleon, a sandal of Jesus, still I do not think we should agree with this. For how, with such an interpretation, will the saying be preserved:
"My throne is heaven, and my footstool is the earth," which is attested as having been spoken by Jesus concerning the Father? For he says, "Swear not by heaven at all, since it belongs to God as a throne, nor swear by the earth, since it belongs to him as something on which his feet rest." And how, together with understanding the world as a sandal of Jesus, will it be able to establish the saying, "Do I not
fill heaven and earth? says the Lord"? Still, it is worth pausing to consider whether the sayings must be understood in the sense that the Word and Wisdom have passed through the whole world, while the Father is in the Son, as we have set forth — or whether the one who primarily girded himself about with the whole creation granted, beyond the Son's being in him, to the Savior — as being, after him, a second one and God the Word — to have reached through the whole
of creation. And especially for those able to observe the unceasing motion of so vast a heaven, sweeping round with itself, out of the rising toward the setting sun, that vast throng of stars, it will be worth inquiring what is the power dwelling in it, so great and so vast, for the whole world. For to dare say that this is something other than the Father and
the Son is perhaps not pious. That it stands in nearly all the copies, "These things happened in Bethany," we are not unaware, and it appears that this reading is even the earlier one; indeed, in Heracleon too we read "Bethany." But we were persuaded that one should not read "Bethany," but "Bethabara," having gone to the places to investigate the traces of Jesus and of his
disciples and of the prophets. For Bethany, as the evangelist says, the home city of Lazarus and Martha and Mary, is fifteen stadia from Jerusalem; from which the Jordan river is far off, at a rough estimate about a hundred and eighty stadia. But neither is there a place bearing the same name as Bethany near the Jordan; rather, they say that Bethabara is shown by the bank of the Jordan,
where they record that John baptized. And the interpretation of the name corresponds to the baptism of the one preparing for the Lord a people made ready; for it is translated as "house of" [preparation — word missing in source], while Bethany is translated as "house of" [obedience — word missing in source]. For where else ought that angel, dispatched ahead of Christ to make his path ready before him, to have carried out his baptizing, than at the place of preparation
What fatherland could be more fitting for Mary, who chose the good portion that will not be taken from her, and for Martha, distracted by her hospitality toward Jesus, and for their brother Lazarus, called "friend" by the Savior, than Bethany, "the house of obedience"? One who wishes to understand the holy scriptures without omission, then, must not disregard precision concerning names. However,
errors regarding names have occurred in many places in the Greek copies, and one could be persuaded of this from the gospels themselves. The account of the pigs cast down the cliff by the demons and drowned together in the sea is recorded as having happened in the region of the Gerasenes; but Gerasa is a city of Arabia, having neither sea nor lake nearby. And
the evangelists, men who knew the affairs of Judea with care, would not have stated so obvious and so easily refuted a falsehood. But since in some copies we have found, "into the region of the Gadarenes," something must be said about this too. For Gadara is indeed a city of Judea, near which are the famous hot springs, but in it there is by no means any lake bordered by cliffs, still less a sea. Rather, it is Gergesa,
from which comes the name of the ancient city situated by what is now called the lake of Tiberias, beside which lies a cliff bordering the lake, from which the pigs are shown to have been cast down by the demons. "Gergesa" is interpreted "the dwelling of those who cast out," being named, perhaps prophetically, for what the townsfolk who owned the pigs did concerning him, when they begged him to depart from their borders. A similar
error concerning names can be seen in many places across the Law and the Prophets — a fact we have established with precision by learning it from the Hebrews and setting our own copies side by side with theirs, confirmed by the still-uncorrupted editions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. We will therefore set out a few examples, so that those fond of learning may become more attentive to these matters. One of the sons of Levi, the firstborn, is called Geson in
most of the copies, instead of Gershon, sharing his name with the firstborn of Moses, since the name was readily given to both of them because they were born as sojourners in a foreign land. Again, in our copies the second son of Judah is said to be Aunan, but among the Hebrews he is Onan, meaning "labor." Further, in the departures of the sons of Israel recorded in Numbers, we found that
"they departed from Sochoth and encamped at Bouthan"; but the Hebrew, instead of Bouthan, says "Etham." And why should I linger to set out further examples, when it lies open to anyone who wishes to examine and learn the truth about the names? One must be especially wary of the passages of scripture where there is a list of many names together, as in Joshua concerning the
allotment of the inheritance, and, in Chronicles book one, running consecutively from the outset to somewhere near the passage touching Anan, and likewise also in Ezra. And the names must not be disregarded, since matters useful for the interpretation of places are signified through them. But it is not the fitting occasion now to examine the discourse concerning the theory of names, setting aside the matters before us. Let us look, then, at the
of the gospel wording. Jordan is interpreted “Descent.” Neighboring this, so to speak, is the name Jared, which is likewise interpreted this way, since he was born to Mahalaleel, as the book of Enoch records it — supposing one is willing to accept that book as holy — in the days of the descent of the sons of God upon the daughters of men; which descent some have supposed to intimate
the descent of souls into bodies, having supposed that “daughters of men” is said more figuratively of the earthly tent. But if this is so, what river could be “Descent,” upon coming to which one must be cleansed, having descended not his own individual descent but that of mankind, other than the one at which our Savior marks off those allotted their portions by Moses from those who receive their own
portions through Jesus? The courses of this river, then, that has descended through him, gladden — so the Psalter tells us, speaking of the city of God — not the perceptible Jerusalem (which has no river lying alongside it), but the unblemished church of God, raised on the footing laid by the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as cornerstone, our Lord. The Jordan, however,
one must understand as the Word of God who came to be and tabernacled among us, and Jesus as the one who allotted what he had taken up, namely the human nature — which is also the “cornerstone” — who, having himself come to be within the deity of the Son of God by being taken up by him, is washed, and then makes room for the dove of the Spirit, innocent and without guile, joined fast to him and no longer able to fly away,
for he says, “Upon whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining, this is the one who baptizes in Holy Spirit.” For this reason, having received the Spirit remaining upon him, it was so that, with the Spirit remaining in him, he might have the power to give baptism to those who approach him. “Beyond the Jordan,” in the regions inclining toward the areas outside Judea, in Bethabara, John baptizes,
being the forerunner of the one who had come to call not “the righteous but sinners,” teaching that those who are strong have no need of physicians, but those who are ill — for indeed the washing is given “for the forgiveness of sins.” It is likely that someone who has not grasped the different conceptions of the Savior will stumble at the interpretation given concerning the Jordan, because John says: “I baptize in water, but the
one coming after me is stronger than I; he will baptize you in Holy Spirit.” To such a person one must say that, just as the Word of God, being drink, is for some water, for others wine that gladdens the heart of man, and for others blood, because of “Unless you drink my blood, you have no life in yourselves” — and again, being called food,
is not understood in the same respect as living bread and as flesh; so likewise the same one is baptism of water and of Spirit and of fire, and for some also of blood. Concerning this last baptism, as some say, he speaks in the passage where he asks, “There is a baptism I must undergo — and how great is my constraint until it reaches its completion?” In agreement with this, in his epistle the disciple John speaks of the Spirit and
water, and he recorded the three becoming one. And in some sense, one who confesses that he is both way and door is clear that he is not yet a door for someone for whom he is a way, nor still a way for someone for whom he is already a door. All, then, who are being instructed in the beginning of the sayings of God, at the voice of the one who cries out in the desert — “Prepare ye the path of the Lord, make it straight” — come forward,
to the place "beyond the Jordan" that lies by the "house of..." so that through this preparation they may be able to make room for the spiritual word that comes to be through the illumination of the Spirit. Continuing then with what lies before us, let us gather the matters concerning the Jordan and understand the river more precisely. God, then, through Moses brings the people across the Red Sea, making the very water for them
a wall on the right and on the left, and through Jesus (Joshua) the Jordan. Paul, having read the scripture -- no longer campaigning according to the flesh, since he knew the law to be a spiritual thing -- teaches us spiritually to understand the matters of the crossing through the Red Sea, saying in the first letter to the Corinthians: "For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that
every one of our fathers dwelt beneath the cloud, and every one of them passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses within that cloud and within that sea, and all ate one and the same spiritual food, and all drank one and the same spiritual drink; for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.
In keeping with these things, let us also ask to receive from God the ability to understand spiritually the crossing of the Jordan through Jesus (Joshua), saying that Paul would have said concerning this crossing too: "I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that our fathers all passed through the Jordan, and all received baptism into Jesus, within the spirit and within the river." A type, then,
was Jesus (Joshua), who succeeded Moses, of the one who succeeded the dispensation through the law with the evangelical proclamation of Jesus Christ. Therefore, even if all those were plunged into Moses within the cloud and within the sea, their baptism has something bitter and salty about it, since they were still afraid of their enemies and were crying out to the Lord and saying to
Moses: "Was it because there were no tombs in Egypt that you brought us out to die in the wilderness? Why have you done this to us, bringing us out of Egypt?" But the baptism into Jesus (Joshua), in the river that is truly sweet and drinkable, has many things distinguished beyond that other one, since the worship of God is now being made clear and taking on its fitting order; for the covenant-chest of the Lord God
God, and the priests and Levites, go before, while the people follow the ministers of God, and the people in turn follow those who are able to receive the commandment concerning purity. And Jesus (Joshua) says to the people: "Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow; the Lord will do wonders among us." And to the priests he gives instruction that, together with the chest of the covenant, they proceed ahead of the people, at the time when also the mystery of the
the Father's plan for the Son is displayed — the Son being highly exalted by him, who gives the gift, so that every knee should bend at the name of Jesus, of beings heavenly and earthly and beneath the earth, and every tongue should acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of the Father, God. For through these things it is shown, in what is written concerning Joshua: "And the Lord said to Joshua: On this day
I will begin to exalt you before the sons of Israel." And one must hear our Lord Jesus saying to the sons of Israel: "Come near here and hear the word of the Lord our God: by this you will know that a living God is among you." For in being baptized into Jesus we shall know that a living God is among us. And there, having kept the Passover in
Egypt, they made the beginning of the exodus, but with Joshua, after the crossing of the Jordan, on the tenth of the first month they encamped at Gilgal, when for the first time it was necessary, having taken the sheep, to designate those who would feast after Joshua's baptism. And by the sharp rock, under Joshua, the sons of Israel — as many of those who had come out of Egypt as were still uncircumcised — are circumcised; the
reproach of Egypt the Lord removed on the day of the baptism into Joshua, when Joshua purified the sons of Israel. As Scripture records: "And the Lord said to Joshua son of Nun: On this present day I have removed the reproach of Egypt from you." Then the sons of Israel observed the Passover on day fourteen of the month, far more joyfully than in Egypt, when also
they ate unleavened and new bread from the grain of the holy land, food better than the manna. For it is not when they had received the land according to the promise that God feasts them on lesser things, nor is it through so great a Joshua that they obtain inferior bread. This is clear to the one who has understood the true holy land and the Jerusalem above. For this reason also in the same Gospel it
stands written: "In the desert the fathers ate the manna, and they died; but whoever eats this bread shall live into the age." Even though it was given by God, the manna itself was a bread of advancement, bread furnished to those still under tutors, bread most fitting for those placed under guardians and stewards. But the new bread from the grain of the
land, reaped through Joshua's provision — others having labored, and his disciples reaping — was bread more life-giving than that one, given to those able, on account of maturity, to receive the paternal inheritance. Therefore the one still being trained by that former bread can, in respect of the word, receive death, while the one who has arrived at the bread after that one, having eaten it, will live forever.
All these things, I think, have not been set out inopportunely, since the baptism by the Jordan, taking place in Bethabara by John, is under examination. And this too must be observed: that Elijah, at the point when he was to be carried up as though into heaven amid a great shaking, took his mantle, rolled it together, and struck the water, which parted to one side and the other, and the two of them crossed over, namely he himself and Elisha.
For he became more suitable for being taken up by being baptized in the Jordan, since Paul, as we set forth earlier, called the more wondrous crossing through water “baptism.” Through this same Jordan, then, Elisha proceeds to receive the gift he wished to obtain through Elijah, saying: “Let there be, let there be a double portion of your spirit upon me.” And perhaps for this reason he received the gift double
in the spirit of Elijah resting upon himself, since he crossed the Jordan twice—once together with Elijah, and a second time when he took Elijah's mantle, struck the water, and cried out, "Where now is the God of Elijah?" and he struck the waters, and they parted to one side and the other. But if someone stumbles over the phrase "he struck the water" because of what has been handed down to us concerning
the Jordan, which was a type of the Word who descended to our descent, it must be said that in the apostle’s writing the rock was clearly Christ, which is struck twice by the rod, so that they might be able to drink from the “spiritual rock that followed” them. There is, then, also a kind of blow even for those who love, in their perplexity before learning what is sought, when things contrary to the conclusion of the argument are put forward—things from which
God, in freeing us, gives drink where they thirst, but where the matter is unattainable and incomprehensible to us because of its depth, he prepares it to be passed through by the division of the argument, since most things are made clear to us by the divisive method of reasoning. Furthermore, for the purpose of setting forth the interpretation concerning the most drinkable and most gracious Jordan, it is useful to adduce both Naaman the Syrian, who was cleansed of his leprosy, and
what is said concerning the rivers among the enemies of true worship. Concerning Naaman, then, it is written that he arrived by horse and chariot and took his stand before the doors of Elisha's house. Elisha then dispatched a messenger to tell him: go and bathe seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored to you and you shall be made clean. At which Naaman also became angry,
not understanding that it is our Jordan that releases those who are unclean because of leprosy from their uncleanness and heals them, and not the prophet; for it is the work of a prophet to send to that which heals. Not understanding, then, the great mystery of the Jordan, Naaman says: “Behold, I said that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon”
in the name of his Lord God, lay his hand over the spot, and so gather up the leprosy. For to lay the hand upon leprosy and cleanse it was a work belonging to my Lord Jesus alone, who not only said to the one who asked with faith, "If you are willing, you can cleanse me," the words "I am willing, be cleansed"; for besides the word he also touched him, and he was cleansed
of his leprosy. Yet still wandering, Naaman, not seeing how far the other rivers fall short of the Jordan in healing those who suffer, praises the rivers of Damascus, Abana and Pharpar, saying: “Are not Abana and Pharpar, Damascus’s own rivers, superior to every water Israel possesses? Should I not go and wash myself in them and so be made clean?” For just as no one
good except God the Father alone, so too among rivers none is good except the Jordan, which is able to change leprosy for the one who bathes his soul with faith into Jesus. And I think it is on account of this river that those remembering Shihor are recorded as weeping while seated beside Babylon’s rivers; for having tasted other waters after the holy Jordan, those who because of
wickedness had been taken captive come to remembrance and longing for their own saving river. That is why, concerning the rivers of Babylon, they say: "There we took our seat" — evidently because standing was not possible for them — "and wept." And Jeremiah too rebukes those who wish to drink Egyptian water and who abandon the water that comes down from heaven and bears the name of "This," the Jordan, saying: "What have you to do with
the road to Egypt, so as to drink the water of Geon, and so as to drink "river water"? Or, as the Hebrew has it, "so as to drink the water of Shihor"? — about which it is not our present purpose to speak. That the primary sense intended by the Spirit speaking in the God-inspired scriptures does not concern perceptible rivers can be seen also from what is prophesied in Ezekiel concerning Pharaoh, king of Egypt,
which runs thus: "Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great dragon crouching in the midst of his rivers, who says: The rivers are mine, since it was I who made them. I too will set hooks into your jaws, and I will fasten the fish of the river to your fins, and I will bring you up out of
the midst of your river, together with all the fish of ... and I will cast you down swiftly, and all the fish of the river; upon the face of your field you shall fall, and you shall not be gathered up, and you shall not be wrapped together." For what bodily dragon has ever been recorded as having been seen in the bodily river of Egypt? But perhaps this river of Egypt is a place belonging to our enemy the
dragon — the river of Egypt that was able to kill the infant Moses. And just as a dragon dwells in the Egyptian river, so God dwells in the river that gladdens God's city; for the Father is present in the Son. For this reason those who come to be in it in order to be washed set aside Egypt's reproach, and grow more suited to be taken up,
and are cleansed from the most defiling leprosy, and are made capable of a doubling of gifts, and grow prepared to welcome the Holy Spirit, since no other river has the spiritual dove alighting upon it. Therefore, having understood in a manner more befitting God the Jordan, the washing that takes place there, Jesus as he is washed within it, and that pertaining to its preparation, let us draw from the river as much of such benefit as we need. Earlier
the mother of Jesus, as soon as she had conceived him, went to visit the mother of John, who likewise happened to be pregnant, at the time when the one being formed grants the one being formed a more exact formation, making him become conformed to his own glory, so that, because of the commonality of form, John came to be suspected of actually being the Christ, and Jesus, having risen from the dead, was thought by those who did not dis-
They judge the image from what is according to the image. But here, after the testimonies of John about him already examined, Jesus himself is seen by the Baptist coming toward him. It should be noted that there, because of the sound of Mary's greeting that had come into the ears of Elizabeth, the infant John leaps in the womb of his mother; whereas here, as
from the voice, receiving the Holy Spirit: "It happened," it says, "when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the infant leaped within her womb, and the Holy Spirit filled Elizabeth, and she called out in a great voice and said" — here, by contrast: "John sees Jesus approaching him, and declares: Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the"
sin of the world." Now one is instructed first by hearing about the greater things, and only afterward becomes an eyewitness of them. That John indeed was aided toward his formation by the Lord — who was himself still being formed — having come, †...†, in the mother to Elizabeth, will be clear to one who has grasped what has been said about John's being a voice, and the
of Jesus being the Word will be evident; for a loud voice arises in Elizabeth when she is filled with the Holy Spirit because of Mary's greeting, as the very wording itself shows, running thus: "And she cried out with a loud voice" — namely, "and said." For the sound of Mary's greeting, occurring in the ears of Elizabeth, filled John from within her; and this is why John leaps, and
the mother becomes, so to speak, the son's own mouth, and turns prophetess, calling out in a loud cry and declaring: "Blessed are you among women, and the fruit of your womb is blessed." It can now become clear to us also why Mary makes her hurried journey into the hill country, her entrance thereafter into the house of Zechariah, and the greeting with which she greets Elizabeth;
for all this happens so that Mary, from the power she possesses by what she has conceived, might impart it to John, who is still in the womb of his mother, in order that he in turn might impart to his own mother the grace of prophecy which he had received from her. And it is most fitting that such dispensations are accomplished in the hill country, since nothing great can be contained by what, on account of their lowliness, will be called "valleys." And
here, after John's testimonies — the first delivered while crying out and speaking of God, the second spoken to the Levites and priests whom the Jews had sent from Jerusalem, and the third to those of the Pharisees who questioned more bitterly — Jesus is now seen by the one who testified, coming toward him, still advancing and becoming better; and of this advancement and betterment
the word "tomorrow" is the symbol; for it is as though, in a subsequent illumination and on a second day beyond the former one, Jesus comes, not merely recognized as someone positioned between even those who do not know him, but now also actually seen coming to the one who had earlier declared these things. On the first day, then, the testimonies occur, and John's coming to Jesus happens on the second day; and on the third John is standing with
...of the two disciples, seeing Jesus walking and saying, "Behold the Lamb of God," urges those present to follow the Son of God. And on the fourth day, wishing to go out into Galilee — he who had gone out to seek what was lost — he comes upon Philip and tells him, "Come, follow me." Then, on the third day counting from that fourth one, which is the sixth of the days we have listed from the beginning, the wedding takes place
in Cana of Galilee, concerning which we shall learn more when we come to that place. But this too should be noted, that the greater Mary comes to the lesser Elizabeth, and the Son of God to the Baptist, through which examples we are benefited toward eagerness to help those who are lesser, and toward moderation. But since it is not said in the disciple John from where the Savior comes to the
Baptist, we learn this from what Matthew has written: "Then Jesus arrives from Galilee at the Jordan, coming to John so as to be baptized by him." Mark also added the place, Galilee, saying: "In those days it happened that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized"
in the Jordan by John. Luke, however, passed over in silence the place from which Jesus comes, leaving that account to those who had already told it, but what we have not learned from them he himself teaches us, namely that after his baptism, as he was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form as a dove. Again, that John had tried to prevent the Lord, saying
to the Savior, "I have need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" — no one added anything to what Matthew had said, so as not to repeat the same words. And what was said by the Lord to him, "Permit it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness," Matthew alone recorded. Of five living creatures offered at the altar, three of them land animals
and two of them birds, it seems worthwhile to me to ask why the Savior is called by John "a lamb" and by none of the other names, even though, among the land animals too, when each was brought forward at three ages, he named the lamb from the class of sheep. These are the five creatures: calf, sheep, goat, turtledove, dove. And these are the three ages of each of the land animals: calf,
ox, young calf; ram, lamb, young lamb; he-goat, goat, kid. Of the birds, a pair of doves only as nestlings, a pair of turtledoves full-grown. One must therefore inquire, for anyone wishing to grasp accurately the spiritual account concerning the sacrifices, of what heavenly things these were a pattern and a shadow, and for what reason the law ordains that each of the animals be sacrificed; and separately one must gather together what concerns the lamb. And that
the account concerning the sacrifices ought to be understood as concerning certain heavenly mysteries, the apostle says somewhere: "who render service as a copy and shadow of the heavenly realities"; and again: "It is necessary, then, that the copies of what exists in the heavens be cleansed by these means, while the heavenly realities themselves require sacrifices better than these." But to be able, taking up each of these individually, to grasp the
...of Jesus Christ, being far greater than human nature, is the work of none other than the perfect one, who has “the faculties of perception trained” by habit for the discernment of good and evil, who is able from a truthful disposition to say, “But we speak wisdom among the perfect.” And truly one can say this of these things, and of
things similar to these: “which none of the rulers of this age has known.” Yet we find the lamb offered among the sacrifices of the continual offering. For it is written thus: And these are “the things you shall do at the altar: two unblemished yearling lambs daily at the altar continually, an offering of the continual sacrifice. The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the second lamb you shall offer”
“in the evening. And a tenth measure of fine flour mingled with a quarter hin of pressed oil; and a libation, a quarter hin of wine, for the one lamb. As for the second lamb, you shall prepare it in the evening, following the pattern of the first sacrifice and its accompanying libation; you shall present it as a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire to the Lord, a perpetual sacrifice for your generations, upon”
“the doors of the tabernacle of testimony, before the Lord, in which I shall become known to you there so as to speak with you. And there I will set in order the sons of Israel, and I shall be hallowed in my glory, and I will consecrate the tent of testimony.” What other sacrifice could there be for the rational being that is an intelligible sacrifice of the continual offering, other than the flourishing word, the word symbolically called “lamb,”
sent down together with the soul's being illuminated (for this would be the morning sacrifice of the continual offering), and again offered up at the close of the mind's engagement with the more divine things? For it is not possible for being among the better things to endure without interruption, to the extent that the soul has been allotted to be yoked to the earthly and burdensome body. But should anyone ask what he ought to do during the interval between dawn and dusk,
let the holy one transfer the account from the matters pertaining to worship, and then follow the same order in these matters too. For there too the priests offer, first among the sacrifices, that of the continual offering, and next, before the evening sacrifice of the continual offering, the remaining offerings prescribed by the law, such as those concerning trespass, or involuntary sins, or the peace offering, or the vow offering, or jealousy, or the sabbath, or the new moon,
and the rest, which it would take too long to speak of at present. So then, we too, having made the beginning of our offering from the discourse concerning the image, who is Christ, will be able to discuss many most beneficial matters. And again, having brought our discussion of Christ to a close, we will arrive at what is, so to speak, evening and night, coming also to bodily matters.
But if we examine the discourse concerning the Jesus pointed out by John according to what is said: “Behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” standing firm upon the very economy whereby the Son of God bodily sojourned into human life, we shall take the lamb to be none other than the man. For this one, as
He was led as a sheep to slaughter, and like a lamb before its shearer he was silent, as it says, "I was like an innocent lamb led to be sacrificed for me." On this account also, within the Apocalypse, a lamb appears "standing as if it had been slain." This lamb, then, having been slaughtered, became a purification, according to certain ineffable principles, for the whole world, on whose behalf, in keeping with the Father's love for humanity, he also undertook the slaughter,
buying us with his own blood back from the one who had been buying us while we were being sold into sin. And the one who brought forward this lamb for the sacrifice was the God who was in the man, the great high priest, who indicates this through the words: "No one takes away my life from me, but I myself lay it down. I possess authority to lay it down, [...] , and again I possess authority
to take it up." And akin to this sacrifice are the rest; the sacrifices of the law are a symbol of it. And the remaining sacrifices akin to this sacrifice appear to me to be the outpourings of the blood of the noble martyrs, who are seen, not without purpose, standing according to the disciple John beside the heavenly altar: "Who is wise, that he may understand these things, or discerning, that he may know them?"
But so as to touch even to some degree, in a more contemplative way, upon the account concerning such sacrifices, which purify those on whose behalf they are offered, we must consider the case of the daughter of Jephthah who was offered as a whole burnt offering, on account of that vow, against the sons of Ammon, to which she herself also agreed when she was offered as a whole burnt offering, saying to her father, who had said, "I have opened my mouth against you to the Lord," "And if you have opened your
mouth against me to the Lord, do your vow." Now through these words an impression of great cruelty is introduced, in that such sacrifices are carried out on behalf of the salvation of human beings. But we need a more noble mind, one that looks toward resolving what is said against providence, and we must offer, all at once, a single defense concerning all such things, on the ground that they are more ineffable and beyond human nature. For great are the
judgments of God, and hard to explain; for this reason uninstructed souls have gone astray. It is attested also among the nations that many people, when plague diseases had broken out, handed themselves over as sacrificial victims on behalf of the community. And the faithful Clement, who is attested by Paul, accepts that these things happened thus, not unreasonably trusting the accounts, since Paul says: "together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are
in the book of life." A similar incongruity is found also in the case of one who wishes to bring an accusation against the mysteries hidden from most people, and likewise in what has been ordained concerning the martyrs, since God is better pleased that we should undergo all the harshest torments in confessing his divinity than that we should be freed for a short time from so many supposed evils, being swept along in speech to what the enemies of truth wanted.
We must therefore suppose that a destruction of evil-working powers comes about through the death of the holy martyrs, in that, for instance, their endurance and their confession even unto death and their eagerness for piety blunt the sharpness of those powers' plot against the one who suffers, so that, their power being blunted and weakened, many others besides those who had been overcome are also released, being set free from the burden, the burden.
which the evil powers, pressing in upon them, weighed down and injured. But even those who suffered, if the powers that worked the worse things against others had not been weakened, would no longer fall into the same suffering, since the one who offered such a sacrifice has conquered this opposing power — as if I were using, in part, an image useful for the matters before us, such as this: that one who kills a venomous creature, or puts it to sleep by an incantation or some power,
emptying it of its venom, benefits many of those who would later suffer something from it, had it not been killed or put to sleep or emptied of its venom. And if it should also become clear to some of those who were bitten, concerning release from the harm of the bite, that if one should gaze intently upon the thing that harmed him now dead, or step upon its corpse, or touch the dead creature, or taste a part of it, healing and
benefit might come to the one who had previously suffered, from the one who had killed what harmed him. Something of this sort, then, must be understood to occur through the death of the most pious martyrs, many being benefited by some ineffable power from their death. We have lingered over this in order to see what is distinctive about the one led as a sheep to slaughter and as a lamb silent before its shearer, both in the discourse concerning the martyrs and
in the account concerning those who died on account of pestilential conditions. For if these things have not been recorded to no purpose by the Greeks, and it has been well said concerning those who become the purifications of the world — and for this reason all the apostles are called "the refuse of all" — what then must be supposed, and how great a thing, concerning the lamb of God who is for this reason sacrificed, so as to lift the sin of not a few but rather of the whole
world, on whose behalf he has also suffered? For "if anyone sins, an advocate stands with us before the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous man, and he himself is the propitiation for our sins — and this holds true not for our sins alone, but likewise for the whole world" — since he is the savior of all people, especially of the faithful — he who "blotted out the record of debt that stood against us" with his own blood, and
taken it out of the way, so that it might not even be found, though the sins have been erased, and "nailed it to the cross." He who, "having stripped off the rulers and the authorities, made a display of them in the open, triumphing over them" by the wood. And so we are taught to take courage when we are afflicted in the world, learning that the reason for our courage lies in this — the world has been overcome, and stands plainly subject to the one who overcame
it. For this reason all the nations, released from those who formerly held them in subjection, serve him, because "he delivered the poor from the one in power" through his own suffering, "and the needy man who had no helper." This same savior, having humbled the slanderer by having humbled himself, remains continually with the intelligible sun before the most radiant church, called, more figuratively, the moon, existing for generation upon generation. Having destroyed, through
his suffering, the enemies — the Lord mighty and strong in war — needing the purification that can be given him by the Father alone upon his acts of valor, he prevents Mary from touching him, saying: "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go and tell my brothers: I am ascending to my Father and your Father,
'and my God and your God.' But when he goes forth victorious and bearing trophies together with the body that rose from the dead — for how else must one understand 'I have not yet ascended to my Father' and 'I am going to my Father'? — then certain of the powers say, 'Who is this who comes from Edom, the redness of garments, from Bosor,
so beautiful?' And those escorting him say to those stationed at the gates of heaven, 'Lift up the gates, you rulers, and be lifted up, you everlasting gates, and the king of glory shall enter.' And they inquire further, as it were — if one must speak this way — seeing his right hand bloodied and filled with the deeds of his valor: 'Why is your
clothing red, and your garments like the trodden residue of a full winepress?' at which point he also answers, 'I have trodden them out.' For truly it was on account of these things that he needed to wash, washing his garment in wine, and his robe in the blood of the grape. For having taken up our weaknesses and borne our diseases, and having taken away the sin of the whole world, and having done good to
so many, perhaps it was then that he received the baptism that surpasses everything supposed by men, concerning which I think he spoke when he said, 'There is a baptism I must undergo, and how constrained I am until it is completed!' For in order that, examining the matter more boldly, I may take a stand against what most people suppose, let those who hold that the greatest baptism, beyond which no other baptism can be conceived,
is his martyrdom tell us why, then, after this he says to Mary, 'Do not touch me'? For it would rather have been fitting for him to offer himself to be touched, since he had received the perfect baptism through the mystery of the passion. But since, as we said before, having performed valorous deeds against the adversaries he needed to wash 'his robe in wine, and
his cloak in the blood of the grape,' he went up to the father, the farmer of the true vine, so that, having washed there, after ascending on high, having led captivity captive, he might come down bearing the various gifts — the tongues as of fire distributed to the apostles, and the holy angels who would be present in every action and would deliver them. For before these dispensations, since they were not yet cleansed,
they could not contain the arrival of angels among them — nor perhaps were the angels themselves yet willing to be present with those not made ready and cleansed by Jesus. For it belonged to the love for humankind of Jesus alone to eat and drink with sinners and tax collectors, and to offer his own feet to the tears of the repentant sinful woman, and to go down even to death on behalf of the ungodly, not considering it robbery to be equal
to God, but emptying himself, taking on the shape of a servant instead. And in accomplishing all these things he was carrying out rather the will of the father who handed him over for the sake of the ungodly, more than his own will; for the father is good, while the savior stands as the likeness of that goodness of his. Doing good to the whole world in turn, since God in Christ reconciles the world to himself, first because of the wickedness
having become an enemy, he benefits those who are benefited in an orderly and sequential manner, not taking all his enemies at once as a footstool for his feet. For the Father says to the Lord of each of us: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." And this continues until the last enemy, death, is abolished by him. But if we
are to understand what it means to be subjected to Christ, especially from the words "But when all things have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him," let us think worthily of the goodness of the God of all and understand the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. But the sin of not all is taken away by the Lamb without their suffering
or being tormented until it is taken away. For thorns not only sown but also deeply rooted in the hands of everyone intoxicated by wickedness and having lost sobriety — as Proverbs puts it, "In the drunkard's hand thorns spring up" — need I even say how much pain they will produce for the one who has received such plants into the body of his own soul? For
it is necessary that the one who has let wickedness advance to such a depth of his own soul as to become thorn-bearing ground be cut by the word of the living God, which is sharper than any two-edged sword, and effective, and more scorching than any fire. And it will be necessary for the fire that finds the thorns to be sent upon such a soul, and to stop at them because of its own divinity, and not
to go on to burn the threshing floors or the standing grain of the fields. For the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, beginning through slaughter, has several roads, of which some can be clear to the many, while others escape the notice of so many, being known only to those who are deemed worthy of divine wisdom. For why should I say by how many roads a person comes to believing among men,
while it is still possible, while present in such a body, for each to examine this for himself? Yet one of the roads to believing and having sin taken away is through scourges and evil spirits and the most severe illnesses and the most laborious infirmities. Who, then, knows what comes after these things? But it was necessary, so that the one who seems to be following the examination of the discourse of the one who says,
"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," might not be destroyed, to discuss these matters more fully, so that, knowing that one can be reproved by the wrath of God and disciplined by the anger of God — because, being exceedingly benevolent, he allows no one to go entirely unreproved and undisciplined — we may do everything so as not to need reproofs and the discipline that comes through the most laborious means. And the reader must examine
what we have said in the earlier parts, with the addition of more examples, concerning what is signified in Scripture by the word "world." For I did not think it reasonable to repeat what has been said. And we are not unaware that some have taken "world" to mean the church alone, a world of the world, since it too is called the light of the world: "It is you," he declares, "who are the light of the world." But "world"
...of the world, the church, the world becoming hers, Christ being the first light of the world. One must consider whether Christ and his disciples are said to be light of the same world; but at the moment Christ functions as the world's light, it may be that this same light belongs to the church; yet at the moment his disciples serve as the world's light, it may be that they are instead a light for those summoned to belief, these being others
...than the church, just as Paul said concerning these things in the preface of his first letter to the Corinthians, writing: "To the church of God, together with all who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." If, then, someone should assert that the church bears the name light of the world, as it were of the rest of the human race and of the unbelievers, then if
he takes this prophetically, on account of the discourse concerning the end, perhaps the statement has room; but if he takes it as something already happening, then, since the light of a thing illuminates that of which it is the light, let them show how the rest of the human race is illuminated by the church that sojourns in the world. And if they cannot show this, let them consider whether we have not soundly understood the church to be the light,
and the world to be those who are called. The saying found in the Gospel according to Matthew will make the exposition plain to the one who searches the scriptures most carefully: "For you," he says, "are the salt of the earth" - the earth being understood, perhaps, as the rest of mankind, of whom the believers are the salt, being the cause of the world's being preserved through their believing; for the end will come
"if the salt should become tasteless" and no longer be that which salts and preserves the earth, given how plain it is that once lawlessness multiplies, love too will grow cold upon the earth - so much so that even the Savior himself uttered a doubtful word concerning those present at his own coming, saying: "Yet when the Son of Man comes, will he indeed find faith upon the earth?"
then will be the end of the age. Let the church, then, be called "world" when it is illuminated by the Savior; but we are asking whether, according to "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world," "world" is to be soundly understood as the church, the taking away of sin being confined to the church alone. For how shall we explain what is said by the same disciple in his epistle concerning the Savior, that he is the propitiation for sins, which runs thus:
"And should anyone sin, an advocate stands ready for us before the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous one; he himself serves as atonement for our sins, not ours alone, but also for the whole world"? And what is said by Paul I think is similar to this, running thus:
"who is the savior of all people, especially of believers." Again, Heracleon, at this point, without any argument or citation of testimonies, declares that John says "Lamb of God" as a prophet, but "who takes away the sin of the world" as more than a prophet. And he supposes that the first statement concerns his body,
...to be said, and the second concerning the one in the body, in that the lamb is imperfect within the class of sheep, and so too the body, by comparison with the one dwelling in it. But if he had wished, he says, to bear witness to the perfection of the body, he would have named a ram as the one to be sacrificed. I do not think it necessary, after such extensive examinations as have already been made, to dwell needlessly upon the passage,
striving against what has been said cheaply by Heracleon. But this alone should be noted: that just as the world scarcely made room for the one who emptied himself, so too a lamb was required, not a ram, so its offense could be lifted away. [...]
[...]

======== Commentary on John, Book 10 ========

BOOK 10. "After this he went down to Capernaum, together with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples, and they stayed there just a few days. The Jewish Passover was approaching, so Jesus went up to Jerusalem, where he found people in the temple selling oxen, sheep, and doves, with money-changers seated there, and
making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple — both oxen and sheep — pouring out the money-changers' coins and overturning their tables; to those selling doves he said: Take these away from here; do not turn my Father's house into a marketplace. Then his disciples remembered that it is written, The zeal
of your house will consume me. The Jews then answered and said to him: What sign do you show us, that you do these things? Jesus answered and said: Tear down this sanctuary, and within three days I will restore it. The Jews then answered: This sanctuary took forty-six years to build, and you will restore it within three days? But he
was speaking about the sanctuary of his body. So once he had been raised from among the dead, his disciples recalled that he had said this, and they put faith in the scripture and in the word Jesus had spoken. Now during the feast of the Passover, while he was staying in Jerusalem, a great many put their trust in his name, as they observed the signs he
was doing; but Jesus himself did not entrust himself to them, because he knew them all, and had no need of anyone's testimony about mankind, for he himself understood what was within a person." [...] in it numbers have been recorded, deemed worthy of writing according to a certain proportion fitting to each matter of scripture. But it must be examined whether one of the books
of Moses, entitled Numbers, teaches especially, to those capable of tracking down such things, the reasoning concerning numbers. Now I say these things to you at the beginning of the tenth book because I have often observed, in the course of scripture, the number seven obtaining a particular privilege, as you too are able to note carefully, and because I hope to receive from God something further for this book as well; and in order that this
might come to pass, let us try to present ourselves, to the extent of our power, to God, who wishes to grant the finest things. Let the book begin here: "After this, Capernaum received him going down, along with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples, and there he remained not many days"; and the other three, having written their gospels, say that after the contest with the devil the
Lord withdrew into Galilee. But Matthew and Luke say that, having first been in Nazareth, he afterward left that place and went and settled in Capernaum. Matthew and Mark, however, also give a certain reason for his having withdrawn from there, namely that he had heard that John had been handed over. And the words of Matthew run thus: "Then the devil leaves him, and
"Behold, angels came and ministered to him." "But when he heard that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee, and leaving Nazareth, he went and settled in Capernaum by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, when he says: 'The land of Zebulun—'" and after the words found in Isaiah he says: "From that time Jesus began
to preach and say, 'Repent, since the reign of the heavens has drawn near.'" Mark, however, says: "And forty days in the wilderness he spent," being tempted by Satan, and he was among the wild beasts, and the angels ministered to him. And after John was handed over, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel
of God, saying, 'The season stands fulfilled, and God’s reign draws near; repent and believe in the gospel.'" Then, after relating also concerning Peter and Andrew, and likewise James and John, he records these things: "And entering into Capernaum, immediately on the sabbath he taught in the synagogue." Luke, on the other hand, says: "And when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from
him until an opportune time. And Jesus, in the Spirit’s power, returned into Galilee, and a report went out through the whole surrounding region concerning him. In their synagogues he taught, and everyone glorified him for it. Then to Nazareth he came, the place where he had been raised, and, following his usual custom, he went in on the sabbath day into the
synagogue." And having set forth the words spoken to him at Nazareth, and the rage of those in the synagogue against him, who cast him out of the city and led him up toward the ridge of the hill their city was built upon, meaning to hurl him down from the cliff, and how the Lord, "passing through the midst of them, went on his way," he adds these words: "And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee,"
and was teaching them on the sabbaths." III. [...] <It must be shown> that the truth concerning these matters lies in their spiritual meaning, <because many people>, when the disagreement is not resolved, abandon their faith in the Gospels, on the ground that they are not true, nor written by a more divine spirit, nor even accurately remembered; for the writing of these accounts is said to have been composed in either of these ways. Let
those who receive the four Gospels, yet suppose the seeming disagreement is not resolved by recourse to the higher, anagogical sense, must tell us—in addition to the difficulties we have already raised—about the forty days of the temptation, which can by no means find a place in John, as to when the Lord came to be in Capernaum. For if it was after the six days from when he was baptized, the arrangement of the wedding at Cana of Galilee having taken place on the sixth day, it is clear that
he had neither been tempted, nor had he been at Nazareth, nor had John yet been handed over. After Capernaum, then, where he stayed not many days, since the Passover of the Jews was near, he went up to Jerusalem, where he casts out of the temple both the sheep and the oxen, and pours out the coins of the money-changers. It appears
...and in Jerusalem, Nicodemus, ruler of the Pharisees, is said to have come to him by night, and to have heard the things that one may gather from the Gospel. ‘After this Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea, and there he stayed with them and baptized; at which time John also was baptizing in Aenon near
Salim, since there was abundant water in that place, and people kept coming and being baptized; for John had not yet been thrown into prison; at which time a dispute also arose between the disciples of John and certain Jews concerning purification, and these came to John, saying concerning the Savior, 'Look, this man baptizes and everyone comes to him'; they have heard from the
Baptist words that one may take more precisely from the scripture itself. But if, when we inquire when the Christ first came to be in Capernaum, those who follow the wording of Matthew and the other two say it was after the temptation, when he left Nazareth and came to dwell in Capernaum by the sea, how will they say that both this and what is said in
Matthew and Mark are true at once — namely, that because he had heard about John's being handed over he withdrew into Galilee — and also what is stated in John, along with other events besides his stay at Capernaum: his going up to Jerusalem, and from there his coming down into Judea, at a time when John had not yet been thrown into prison but was baptizing in Aenon
near Salim? And in many other instances too, if anyone should carefully examine the Gospels regarding their disagreement as to the historical record — which we shall try, in each case, to set forth as far as possible — he will grow dizzy with confusion, and will either fall away from holding the Gospels to be truly reliable, and attach himself by mere chance to one of them, not daring altogether to reject the faith concerning our Lord, or else, while admitting all
four to be genuine, will say that their truth does not lie in their bodily, literal features. Now, in order that we may gain some conception of the intent of the Gospels concerning such matters, we must say this as well. Suppose it were set before certain people who see by the spirit God and his words to the saints, and the presence with which he is present to them at the special times of their advancement,
appearing to them, being many in number and in different places, and not all receiving benefits of exactly the same kind — suppose each of them were to report, individually, what he sees by the spirit concerning God and his words, and concerning his appearances to the saints, so that one would report certain things said and done by God to a certain righteous man in a certain place, while another
would report the things spoken as oracles and accomplished for another, and yet another would wish to teach us about some third person besides the two already mentioned; and let there be also a fourth doing the like concerning someone, corresponding to the three; and let these four agree with one another concerning certain things suggested to them by the spirit, while differing slightly in a few particulars, so that their narratives are of the following sort:
God appeared to so-and-so, at such-and-such a time, in such-and-such a place, and did such-and-such things for him, appearing to him in such-and-such a form, and led him by the hand to such-and-such a place, where he did such-and-such things. Let the one who reports these things as having happened, at the same time as what has been said, in an earlier period, in some city, declare that God appeared — to someone whom he himself also has in mind — to a certain
second person, who was in a place set well apart from where the first one stood, and let him record that other words were spoken at the same time to the one whom we have taken, in our hypothesis, as the second. The same must be understood concerning the third and the fourth. And let these, as we have said before, agree with one another, since they report the truth about God and his acts of kindness toward certain persons,
with respect to certain accounts related by them. Now to one who supposes their writing to be history — a history that by means of a historical image would purport to set forth the facts — and who assumes that God exists in a place by circumscription, unable to produce more than one appearance of himself, at the same time, in several places to several people, and to say several things at once, it will appear impossible that the four I have posited
are telling the truth, on the ground that it is impossible for God to be, at any given fixed time — since he is conceived of as existing in a place by circumscription — saying such-and-such things to so-and-so and to another such-and-such things to someone else, and doing such-and-such things and also their opposites, and, to give an example, sitting and standing at the same time, if one account should say that at such a time he was standing and had said
such-and-such things or done them in such-and-such a place, while another account said he was sitting. Just as, then, in these cases which I have posited, if the intention of the historians is grasped — men who wished, by a distinctive style, to teach us the things observed by their own understanding — no discord at all would be found in them, provided the four were wise; so must it also be understood to hold in the case of the four evangelists, who made great use of many of the
events accomplished according to the marvelous and most extraordinary character of the power of Jesus, and who, wherever it occurred, also wove into the writing, in wording as if perceptible to the senses, what had been made plain to them in a purely intelligible way. And I do not, in some cases, condemn them for having transposed a piece of history that happened one way, adapting it somewhat for the usefulness of their mystical purpose, so as to say that what happened in one place
occurred as though in another, or what happened at one time as though at another, and to have reported what was thus told with a certain alteration. For it was their aim, wherever it was possible to speak the truth both spiritually and bodily at once, to do so; but wherever both together were not possible, to prefer the spiritual to the bodily, the true spiritual sense often being preserved within the bodily, as one might say,
within a falsehood. As, for example, if we should say, taking it from the narrative, that Jacob, when he said to Isaac, “I am Esau your firstborn son,” was speaking the truth spiritually, in that he had already received the birthright which was in the process of being squandered by his brother, and, by means of the garment and the skins of the kids, had taken on the outward character of Esau, and had become — apart from the voice, which praised God —
...Esau, so that a place might later be made for Esau to be blessed. For perhaps if Jacob had not been blessed as though he were Esau, Esau himself would not have been able to receive the blessing on his own account either. Jesus, then, is many things in his conceptual aspects, and it is likely that the evangelists, taking up different aspects of these, sometimes even in agreement with one another about certain points, have written the
gospels in this way. For instance, one can truly say things that seem, as far as the wording goes, to be opposed to each other concerning our Lord: that "he was born of David" and "he was not born of David." For "he was born of David" is true, as the apostle likewise says, "descended, according to the flesh, from David's offspring," if we take this of his bodily nature; but this same statement is false if we understand "descended from David's offspring" of his more divine
power - for "he was appointed Son of God in power." And perhaps for this reason the holy prophecies proclaim him in one place a servant and in another a son: a servant because of the "form of a servant" and being "of the seed of David," but a son according to his firstborn power. In this way it is true to say that he is a human being and also not a human being -
a human being insofar as he was capable of death, but not a human being insofar as he is more divine than a human being. I think that even Marcion, having taken hold of sound arguments in a distorted way, rejecting his birth from Mary in respect of his divine nature, declared that he was not born of Mary, and for this reason dared to excise these passages from the gospel. Something similar seems to have happened to
those who do away with his humanity and accept only his divinity, as well as to their opposites, who excise his divinity and confess only the human being, as the holiest and most righteous of all human beings. And likewise those who introduce docetism, not understanding him who "humbled himself unto death" and became "obedient unto the cross," but imagining only that which is impassible and
greater than any such suffering - as far as it lies in them, they want to deprive us of the most righteous human being of all, and thus we are unable to be saved through him. For just as "through one man" came "death," so also through one man comes the justification of life; we would not be able to receive the benefit that comes from the Word apart from the human being, since the Word remains such as he was from the beginning
in relation to God the Father, without having taken on a human being - that human being who is capable of receiving him more fully than anyone else, being the first of all, the most honored of all, and the purest of all; and after him we too shall be able to receive him, each one to such an extent and in such a manner as the place we make for him in our own soul. Now all this has been said by me because I wanted to show that the seeming disagreements
among the gospels are in harmony, by way of a spiritual interpretation. And on this same point one must also make use of an example of this kind: that Paul says the carnal person has been sold under sin, and was not able to judge anything, "but the spiritual person judges all things" and "is judged by no one." And of the carnal person are the words: "For I do not do what I want, but what
...I hate, this I do'; but of the spiritual man: 'What I want, I do, and what I hate, I do not do.' But also the one who was caught up 'to the third heaven' and heard 'unspeakable words' was different from the one speaking: 'About such a one I will boast, but about myself I will not boast.' And if to the Jews he likewise becomes as a Jew, so as to win over the Jews, and to those governed by law as
under the law, that he may win them, and to those without law as one without law—'not being without God's law but within the law of Christ'—that he may win those without law, and to the weak, weak, that he may win the weak—it is clear that his words must be examined separately: separately the Jews, separately when he is as one under the law, and at other times when he is as one without law, and sometimes again when he becomes
weak. For instance, the things he says 'by way of concession, not by way of command,' he says while being weak; for he says, 'Who is weak, and I am not weak?' But when he shaves his head and offers a sacrifice, or circumcises Timothy, a Jew is what he becomes; yet to the Athenians he declares, 'I found an altar on which was written, To an unknown god; what therefore you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you'—and the saying, 'As indeed some'
of your own poets have said: 'For we are also his offspring'—he becomes to those without law as one without law, bearing witness to piety among the most impious, and making use, for his own purpose, of the one who said, 'Let us begin from Zeus; for we are also his offspring,' turning it to what he intended. And perhaps there is also a place where he becomes, to those who are not Jews, as one under the law. But these examples are useful to us not only for the matters concerning
the Savior, but also for the matters concerning the disciples, about whom too there is a certain disagreement according to the letter. For perhaps Simon, found in thought by his own brother Andrew and hearing 'You will be called Cephas,' is, in the underlying conception, different from the one seen together with his brother by him who was walking beside the sea of
Galilee, Jesus, and hearing along with that same Andrew, 'Follow me, and fishers of men I will make you.' For it was fitting for the theologian, who reports in a more rational manner concerning the Word who became flesh, and who for this reason did not record the origin of the Word who, in the beginning, was with God, not to speak of the one found beside the sea and called from there, but rather of the one found by his
brother, having remained with Jesus at the tenth hour, and, because he was found in this way, immediately receiving the name 'Cephas.' For the one seen by him who was walking beside the sea of Galilee only barely, and later, receives the saying, 'You are Peter, and on this very rock my church I will build.' And the Jesus in John is known among
the Pharisees as baptizing—baptizing among his disciples, and among other exceptional things doing this also; but the Jesus in the three other Gospels does not baptize at all. Further, John the Baptist, in the Gospel of his namesake evangelist, continues for a long time not yet cast into prison; but in Matthew, almost at the time Jesus is being tempted, he is handed over to prison; on account of whom
And Jesus withdraws into Galilee, avoiding being put in prison; but neither is the Baptist found, in John's account, being handed over to prison. Who is so wise and so capable as to learn the whole of Jesus from the four evangelists, and to grasp and understand each one individually, and to see all his sojournings in each place
and words and deeds? Now with regard to the passage before us, we think it follows that the Savior, on the sixth day, when the arrangement concerning the wedding took place in Cana of Galilee, went down together with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples into Capernaum, which is interpreted "field of consolation." For it was fitting that, after the feasting in wine, also into
the "field of consolation" the Savior should have come together with his mother and the disciples, in order to console, over the fruits that were to come in the multitude of the field, those under instruction and the soul that had conceived him from the Holy Spirit, or those who were benefited there. Yet one must inquire why it is that his brothers receive no invitation to the wedding, and indeed were not there — for it is not
said — but into Capernaum they go down with him and his mother and the disciples. One must further examine why now they do not enter into Capernaum, nor go up into it, but go down. See, then, whether here the brothers should be understood in place of the powers that went down together with him — powers not summoned to the wedding feast under the terms we have already described.
given above, but below, among the lesser disciples who bear the name of Christ and are benefited in a different manner; for if his mother is called, there are some who bear fruit, to whom the Lord himself goes down together with the servants of the word and the disciples, benefiting such as these, with his mother present alongside him. Now those called Capernaum seem not to accommodate a longer stay with them
of Jesus and of those who go down together with him; hence they remain with them, but not for many days; for the "field" of the lower consolation does not accommodate the illumination concerning the greater teachings, being capable of receiving only fewer. And to observe the differences between those who receive Jesus more fully and those who receive him less, one must set alongside "There they remained not many days" the passage in
the Gospel according to Matthew, said by him who rose from the dead to those who had been made his disciples and were being sent out to make disciples of all the nations, which runs thus: "Behold, I am with you all the days, until the end of the age." For to those who are going to know all that it is possible for human nature, while still existing here, to know, the words "Behold, I am with you" are spoken pointedly; and concerning the whole
span of the things to be beheld — the dawning that creates more days for the most blessed — the words "all the days, until the end of the age." But concerning those in Capernaum, to whom, as inferior, not only Jesus goes down, but his mother too, and his brothers, along with the disciples: "There they remained not many days." 10. And it is likely, not without reason,
Some will ask whether, after all the days of this age, the one who said, “Behold, I am with you” will no longer be with those who have received him “until the completion of the age”; for the word “until” indicates, as it were, a certain limitation of time. But one must say to this as well: “I am with you” carries a different sense than “in you.” Perhaps, then, it would be more proper
to say that the Savior is not “in” those being made disciples, but “with” them, insofar as they have not yet, in mind, arrived at the completion of the age. But when, the world having been crucified to them, they perceive its completion as having come, so far as depends on their own preparation, then Jesus will no longer be with them but will have come to be in them, and they will say, “I no longer live,
but Christ lives in me,” and “If you seek proof of the Christ speaking in me.” We say these things while also keeping, in its own particular way, the interpretation now before us — that “all the days” are said to mean those “until the completion of the age,” according to what it is possible for human nature, still situated here, to grasp. For it is also possible, while keeping that interpretation, to fix attention on the word “I,”
so that, until the completion, the one who is with those sent to make disciples of all the nations is the one who poured himself out and assumed a servant's form; but as though someone else, being in the state he was in before he poured himself out, comes to be with them after the completion of the age, until all “his enemies are placed by the Father as a footstool for his
feet” — after this, when the Son hands over the kingdom to God the Father, the Father will say to them, “Behold, I am with you”; whether this signifies every day right up to that point in time, or simply every day without qualification, or not "all the days" at all but rather "the whole day" — this remains open for whoever wishes to consider it further. For the matter before us does not now require us to digress from our discussion
to that extent. Heracleon, however, in expounding “After this he himself went down to Capernaum,” says that this indicates the beginning of yet another dispensation, the word “went down” not being used without purpose; and he says that Capernaum signifies these last things of the world, these material things into which he went down; and he says that, because the place is unsuited to him, he is not recorded as having done anything
or spoken there. Now had no other Gospel likewise recorded our Lord as doing or saying anything in Capernaum, perhaps we would have hesitated to accept his interpretation. But as it is, Matthew says that our Lord, having left Nazareth, came and settled in Capernaum by the sea, and that from then on he made the beginning
of his preaching, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” Mark, on the other hand, tells us that after the temptation by the devil, and after John had been handed over, the Lord went into Galilee proclaiming God’s good news; and after choosing the four fishermen for apostleship, “they enter Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath he was teaching”
...into the synagogue, and they were astounded at his teaching. But he also records a deed of his that took place in Capernaum: ‘Immediately,’ he says, in their synagogue there was a man possessed by an unclean spirit, who cried out, saying: Ha! What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? We know who you are: you are God's own Son.’ Then Jesus rebuked him,
saying: ‘Be silenced and come out of him.’ When the unclean spirit had convulsed him and cried out with a loud voice, it departed from him, and amazement seized them all. And Simon’s mother-in-law is freed of her fever in Capernaum. In addition to this, Mark says that when evening had come in Capernaum, all who were sick and possessed by demons were healed. And Luke, for his part, reports
things similar to Mark’s concerning Capernaum, saying: ‘And he went down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching them on the Sabbaths, and they were astounded at his teaching, because his word was spoken with authority. In the synagogue was a man possessed by the spirit of an unclean demon, who shouted with a loud voice: Ha! What have we to do with’
you, Jesus of Nazareth? I know who you are — the Holy One of God.’ Jesus rebuked him with the words: ‘Be silenced, and come out of him.’ At that, the demon threw him down in their midst and departed from him without inflicting any harm on him.’ And after this he reports how the Lord, having risen up from the synagogue, entered the house of Simon. And having rebuked the
fever in his mother-in-law, he freed her from the illness. After she was healed, he says, ‘When the sun had set, all who had those sick with various diseases brought them to him; and laying his hands on each one of them, he healed them. And demons also came out from many, crying out and saying, You are the Son of God; and rebuking them, he did not
allow them to speak, since they had recognized that he was the Christ.’ Now all these things said and done by the Savior in Capernaum we have laid out in order to refute the interpretation given by Heracleon, who says: For this reason it is nowhere said that he did or spoke anything there. Either let him too supply two senses of Capernaum, and set them forth and persuade us which they are; or, if he is unable to do
this, let him cease saying that the Savior sojourned in some place in vain. And we too, God granting it, when we come in the course of our reading through such passages, where he might seem to have accomplished nothing in certain places, will attempt to make clear that his sojourn there was not in vain. Further, Matthew says that when the Lord had entered Capernaum, the centurion came up to him, saying:
‘My servant is lying paralyzed in the house, terribly tormented,’ and that after other things said, he heard from the Lord the word, ‘Go your way, and as you have believed, let it be done for you.’ And he too, in agreement with the other two, set forth the account concerning Peter’s mother-in-law. Now I think it is a labor of love and fitting for one who loves learning in Christ to gather together from the four Gospels everything
the things recorded about Capernaum, and the words and works of the Lord in it, and how many times he sojourned there, and when he is said to have gone down into it, and when to have entered it, and from where. For these things, set alongside one another, will not let us fall into a mistaken interpretation concerning Capernaum — except that also there the sick find healing and other displays of power occur there,
and the preaching “The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near” begins from there. This seems to be a symbol, as we indicated at the outset, of a certain lesser place, becoming, perhaps, exalted on account of Jesus, who called it to notice by what he taught and did there in that region. For we are aware that the names of places, too, are significant, corresponding to the events concerning Jesus — just as Gergesa,
where the citizens of the swine begged him to depart from their borders, is interpreted “sojourning.” We have also observed this further about Capernaum: that not only did he begin preaching there “The kingdom of heaven has drawn near,” but also, according to three evangelists, he performed his first works of power there. Yet none of the three, in the marvels he first recorded
as having occurred in Capernaum, has made note of it as the first work in the way the disciple John does, who says: “This beginning of signs Jesus made in Cana of Galilee.” For the sign performed at Capernaum was not, in fact, the first of the signs, since what stands foremost among the signs of the Son of God is joy; but on account of the circumstances that had befallen human beings, the Word does not
display its own beauty in healing, through the healing of those who suffered, to the same degree that it does in gladdening — with the sober drink — those who, because they are healthy, are able to devote themselves to festivity. Examining the precision of the most wise John, I asked myself what he means by the addition “of the Jews.” For of what other nation is the Passover a feast? It would therefore have been sufficient
had he simply said, “And the Passover was near.” But perhaps, since there is a Passover that is human — belonging to those who do not observe it according to the will of Scripture — and there is a Passover that is divine and true, wrought by those who bow before God in truth and spirit, energized through spirit and through truth, the one called “of the Jews” is set apart in contrast to the divine one. Let us then listen to the Lord
legislating the Passover, as to what he says when it was first named in Scripture: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, there in Egypt's land, saying: This month is to be your first among months, the opening one within your year's months. Speak to the whole gathered assembly of Israel's sons, saying: On this month's tenth day let each of them take a lamb according to their"
ancestral houses.” And shortly after, in a passage where the Passover had not yet been named by that name, he adds: “Thus shall you eat it: your loins girded, and your sandals on your feet, and your staffs in your hands, and you shall eat it in haste — it belongs to the Lord as Passover.” For rather than saying, “It is your Passover,” he speaks otherwise. And shortly after, a second time, thus—
He names the feast: "And it shall be, when your sons say to you, 'What is this service?' you shall say to them, 'It is the sacrifice of the Passover of the Lord, in that he covered the houses of the sons of Israel.'" And again a little later: "To Aaron and to Moses the Lord spoke, saying: here is the ordinance governing the Passover — no foreigner shall eat"
of it." And again a little later: "But if a proselyte comes to you and observes the Lord's own Passover, every male belonging to him must be circumcised." For it must be observed that nowhere in the legislation is it said "your Passover," but once, in the passage we set out above, without any addition, and three times it is called the Lord's own Passover. Now, in order to accept
that this is so concerning the difference between "the Passover belonging to the Lord" and "the Jews' Passover," let us also look at what is said in Isaiah to this effect: "Your new moons and the sabbaths and the great day I cannot endure; fasting and idleness, along with your new moons and your festivals—these my soul detests." For the Lord does not say that what is performed by sinners belongs to him,
nor that the things carried out by sinners—hated by his soul, if indeed there is such a thing—are the new moons, or the sabbaths, or the great day, or the fasting, or the feasts. In the legislation of Exodus, however, concerning the sabbath these things are said: "Moses spoke to them, saying: This is the utterance which the Lord declared: The sabbath is a holy rest to the
Lord." And a little later: "Moses said: Eat, for today is a sabbath to the Lord." And in Numbers, before these passages, concerning the sacrifices at each feast—since, according to the law of the continual offering, each day too is treated as a feast—these things are written: And the Lord spoke to Moses: Announce to the sons of Israel and say to them: My gifts, my presents,
my burnt offerings for a sweet-smelling savor you shall take care to offer to me at my feasts. And you shall say to them: These are the burnt offerings which you shall offer to the Lord." For he named them his own feasts, and not those legislated and set out in Scripture as belonging to the people, and his gifts and his presents. Something similar to this is also recorded concerning the people in Exodus,
which is called by God his very own when it does not sin; but disowning it at the making of the calf, he called it "the people of Moses." For to Pharaoh he says: "You shall say, Thus says the Lord: Send out my people, so that they may worship me in the desert. But if you are not willing to send out my people, behold, I am sending upon you
and upon your servants and upon your people and upon your houses the dog-fly, so that the homes of the Egyptians will be full of the dog-fly, and also the land on which they are. And on that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, on which my people stand, so that † there shall be no dog-fly there,
that you may know that I am 'the LORD, ruler of the whole earth. And between my people I will draw a distinction.' But the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 'Go, go down quickly, for your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, have broken the law.' Just as, then, the people, when not sinning, belongs to God, but when sinning is no longer
said to be his, so too the feasts: those that are hated by the soul of the Lord are the feasts of sinners, while those that the Lord ordains are called the Lord's own. Among the feasts, Passover too is one, which in the Gospel passage before us is said to belong not to the Lord but to the Jews. And elsewhere: 'These,'
he says, 'are the feasts of the LORD, which you shall call holy convocations.' Now from the Lord's own words it is impossible to contradict what we have set out. But someone might plausibly raise a question from the Apostle, who writes in the letter to the Corinthians: 'For indeed our Passover has been sacrificed, Christ.' For he does not say, 'The Passover of the Lord has been sacrificed, Christ.' To this too we must reply either that
he has spoken more simply of our Passover as sacrificed, meaning the one sacrificed on our behalf, or that every feast is truly the Lord's — of which the Passover is one — and that it will be accomplished not in this age nor on earth but in the age to come and in the heavens, once the kingdom of heaven has arrived. And regarding those very feasts, one of the twelve prophets asks, 'What
will you do in the days of festal gathering and in the days of the Lord's feast?' And Paul, writing to the Hebrews, states: 'But you have drawn near to Mount Zion, to the city of a living God, that heavenly Jerusalem, joined with countless angels in festive assembly, and with the congregation of the firstborn recorded in the heavens'; and in the letter to the Colossians: 'Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in matters of food or drink, or concerning a
feast, or a new moon, or sabbaths, all of which cast a shadow of what is coming.' In what manner, then, shall we keep festival among the heavenly things, of which there was a shadow among the bodily Jews, first being trained under the true law by guardians and stewards, until the fullness of time arrives there and we attain the perfection of the Son of God — a work of the wisdom hidden in a mystery which
it is possible to make manifest — and observe that the things legislated concerning foods are symbols of the things there that are going to nourish and strengthen our soul. It is likely that someone, dazed by the sea of so many thoughts, and wishing to grasp how the worship carried out in a particular place is a pattern and shadow of the heavenly things — wishing, that is, to understand the sacrificial offerings and the sheep — might stumble even against the apostle,
who wished indeed to raise our thinking above the earthly notions concerning the law, but did not fully explain how these things are to come about. But if the feasts too — of which the Passover is one — are referred to the age to come as well, we must all the more examine how even now 'our Passover has been sacrificed, Christ,' and will be sacrificed after these things as well. But let us say a few things about the
we should set out the difficulty of these doctrines, since they require their own special and voluminous treatment — both the whole mystical account concerning the law, and in particular the matters concerning the feasts, and still more particularly the matter of Passover. Now for the Jews, the Passover is a sheep that is sacrificed, taken by each household according to their ancestral families, and carried out with tens of thousands of lambs and kids being slaughtered, in greater numbers in proportion
to the number of the households of the people. But "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed." And again, theirs are the unleavened loaves, with all leaven cleared out of their dwellings; yet our festival is kept not in "stale leaven," nor in the leaven belonging to malice and evil, but "in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." But beyond the two things just mentioned there is a third, the Passover of the
Lord and the feast of unleavened breads, which must be examined more carefully, because those people served an example and a shadow of those heavenly realities, and not only foods and drinks and new moons and sabbaths, but the feasts as well stand as a shadow cast by what is yet to come. First then, since the apostle says, "Our Passover was sacrificed — Christ," someone might raise this difficulty against him: if the sheep among the Jews
is a type of Christ's sacrifice, then either it was necessary that one sheep, and not many, be sacrificed among them, just as Christ is one, or, since many sheep are sacrificed, we must accordingly inquire into the type as though many Christs were being sacrificed. But to let that pass for now — how does the sheep being sacrificed contain an image of Christ, since the sheep is sacrificed by those who keep the law, while Christ is put to death by those who
transgress it? And further, how does the statement "They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat unleavened breads with bitter herbs" apply to Christ? We must also interpret "You shall not eat any of it raw, nor boiled in water, but only fire-roasted — head, feet, and inward parts together. You shall leave none of it until morning, and you shall not break a bone
of it; and what is left of it until morning you shall burn with fire." It seems that John in the Gospel used the phrase "A bone of it you shall not break" as referring to the dispensation concerning the Savior, at the point where, in the law, those eating the sheep are commanded not to break its bone. He speaks as follows: "The soldiers therefore came, and"
"they broke the shins of the first man, and likewise of the second, the one crucified alongside him; yet coming to Jesus, once they saw he was by then dead, his shins they did not break. Instead one of the soldiers stabbed his side with a lance, and at once blood and water poured out. And the witness of the one who saw is true testimony; and that man knows that"
"he speaks the truth, so that you also may believe. For these things came to pass in fulfillment of the scripture: Not one of his bones shall be broken." And there are countless other things besides these that must be sought out concerning the apostle's statement, and examined concerning the Passover and the unleavened breads, but they require, as we said before, a preliminary treatise of their own. For now, having set these things forth summarily on account of the passage before us,
We will attempt to resolve the apparent difficulties as briefly as possible, recalling also the saying, "This is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," since also concerning the Passover it says, "You shall take it from the lambs and the goats." For the evangelist too will appear to be caught up, in agreement with Paul, in such perplexities as have been examined. But it must be said that if the word
has become flesh, and the Lord says, "If you do not partake of the Son of Man's flesh and take in his blood, you hold no life within you; whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood possesses life everlasting, and on the last day I myself will raise that one up; for my flesh truly is food, and my blood
is true drink; the one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him"— perhaps this is the flesh of the Lamb who takes up the world's sin upon himself, and this same blood is what must be put upon the two doorposts, and upon the lintel, in the houses where we eat
the Passover, and from the flesh of this lamb one must eat during the age of the world, that age being night; and the flesh is to be roasted over fire and eaten, together with bread made from unleavened things. For the word of God is not only flesh; indeed he says, "I am the bread "of life," and again, "Here is the bread come down from
heaven, so that whoever eats of it will not die. I am living bread, come down out of heaven; whoever eats from this bread shall live "forever." One must not fail to know, however, that all nourishment is called "bread" in a rather loose sense, as is written concerning Moses in Deuteronomy: "For forty days he ate no bread and
drank no water"— that is, he partook of neither dry nor liquid food. I have noted this because it is also said in the Gospel according to John: "And the bread I shall give, given for the life of the world, is my own flesh." Either, then, on account of the repentances for our sins, grieving with the grief that is according to God, which works in us a repentance unto
salvation not to be regretted, we consume the lamb's flesh together with bitter herbs and the unleavened bread; or on account of the trials, seeking and being nourished from the discoveries of the truth's contemplations. The flesh of the lamb, then, must not be eaten raw, as those do who are slaves to the letter, in the manner of irrational and brutalized animals, in contrast to those who are truly rational, through wishing to understand the
spiritual things of the word, partaking like wild beasts gone savage. But one who takes what is raw in Scripture over to boiling must take care not to render the things written more flabby and watery and enfeebled, as is done by those whose ears itch and who turn it away from the truth, while adopting for themselves, toward what is slack and more watery in their conduct, interpretations suited to themselves. But we, by the
...with a boiling spirit, and with the fiery words given by God, such as Jeremiah had received from the one who said to him, "Behold, I have given my words in your mouth as fire" — let us roast the meat of the lamb, with the result that its partakers may declare, as Christ speaks within us, "Our heart was burning within us on the road, as he opened to us the
scriptures." And to support our seeking to find that the meat of the lamb needs to be roasted with fire, we must adduce the confession of the suffering that Jeremiah underwent because of the words of God, when he says: "And it became like a burning fire, blazing in my bones, and I am weakened on every side and cannot bear it." One must begin eating from the head,
that is, from the most eminent and foremost dogmas concerning the heavenly things, and must finish at the feet, the last of the teachings, which inquire into the final nature among existing things, whether the more material beings, or the subterranean, or the evil spirits and unclean demons. For the account concerning them, being other than they are, and deposited in the mysteries of scripture, can more figuratively
be called the "feet" of the lamb. And one must not hold back from the entrails and the inward and hidden parts; and one must approach the whole of scripture as a single body, and must not shatter or cut apart the strongest and most solid joints in the harmony of its entire composition — which is exactly what those have done who, as far as it lay in them, have shattered the unity of the spirit that runs through all the scriptures.
Let this prophecy, then, spoken above concerning the lamb, nourish us only for the night of the darkness in this life; for until the dawn of the day of the things after this life, nothing will need to be left over for us of the food that is useful to us only for the present. For when the night has passed and the day that comes after it has arrived,
having nothing at all of leaven from the older things that ferment from below, we shall eat unleavened bread, which will be of use to us until the manna is given after the unleavened bread — the angelic and not the human food. Let each of us, then, sacrifice the sheep in every house of our family, and let it be possible for one person to transgress by not sacrificing the sheep, and another to keep the whole commandment
by sacrificing it and tending it carefully and not breaking its bone. And thus, in brief, in accordance with the apostolic teaching and with the lamb in the gospel, let the Passover that was sacrificed be rendered as Christ. For one must not suppose that historical realities serve as types for other historical realities and bodily things for other bodily things, but rather that the bodily things are types of spiritual things, and the historical of intelligible things. To ascend in our discussion also to the third
Passover, which will be accomplished in a festal gathering of myriads of angels, in a most complete and most blessed departure, is not necessary now, nor to say more and beyond what the reading before us required of us. But it must not be left unexamined, nor passed over, how it was "the Passover of the Jews" when the Lord was together with his mother and brothers and disciples in Capernaum.
In the Gospel according to Matthew, after he was left by the devil and angels had come and were ministering to him, having heard that John had been handed over "he withdrew into Galilee," and leaving Nazareth he went and settled in "Capernaum." Then, having begun to preach and having chosen the four fishermen as apostles, and having taught throughout every synagogue in all of Galilee, healing those brought to him, he goes up
up the mountain, where he pronounces the beatitudes together with what accompanies them; then, once that teaching was finished, he descends from the mountain and comes into Capernaum for a second time, and from there boards a boat and passes over into the region of the Gergesenes; and, being entreated to leave their territory, "he boarded a boat, made the crossing, and arrived in his own city." There, after completing certain healings,
he "went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues"; and a great many other things happen after this before Matthew notes the time of the Passover. And in the other evangelists as well, after the stay in Capernaum, it is nowhere found stated that the Passover is near. One can grasp the intent of these men if one considers
what has been said by us earlier concerning Capernaum. [the stay] happens to be close to the Passover of the Jews, being slightly better than it and superior to it, especially because, during the Jewish Passover, one finds inside the temple men trading in oxen, sheep, and doves; on account of whom it is set out all the more that it is not the Lord's
but the Jews' Passover: for just as the Father's house became a house of merchandise among those who do not sanctify it, so too the Lord's Passover becomes a human and Jewish passover among those who receive it in a more lowly and more bodily manner. It will be more fitting to consider elsewhere the matters concerning the time of the Passover, which occurs around the spring equinox,
and whatever else the problem requires working through. Heracleon, for his part, says: "This is the great feast, for it was a type of the Savior's suffering, in which not only was the sheep slaughtered, but it also provided rest when eaten; and being sacrificed it signified the suffering of the one in the world, while being eaten it signified the rest that is in the marriage."
We have set down his wording so that, seeing the man conducting himself in matters of such magnitude in a slipshod and watered-down way, with nothing to support it, we may rather hold him in contempt. It should be noted that John records as Jesus' second work the matter of the ones he discovered inside the temple trading oxen, sheep, and doves, while the rest of the evangelists place something similar near
the end, in the arrangement concerning the passion. Matthew does so as follows: "And when he had entered Jerusalem, the whole city was shaken, saying, 'Who is this?' And the crowds said, 'This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.' And Jesus entered the temple and cast out all those who were selling and
...those buying in the temple, and flung down the money-changers' tables and the benches of the dove-sellers. And he tells them: "Scripture says: 'A house of prayer is what my house shall be called,' yet you have turned it into a robbers' den." Mark, however: "And they come into Jerusalem. And upon entering the temple he set about driving out the sellers and the buyers there,
and he flung down the money-changers' tables and the benches of the dove-sellers, and he permitted no one to carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught them, saying: 'Is it not written, "my house shall be named a prayer-house for all the nations"? Yet you have turned it into a robbers' den.'" Luke, however: "And as he drew near, seeing the city he wept over it, saying that
'If you had known, even you, in this day, the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you, and your enemies will surround you and encircle you on every side, and they will raze you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave stone upon stone in you, because you did not know
the time of your visitation.' And upon entering the temple he set about driving out the sellers, telling them: 'Scripture says: "And a house of prayer is what my house shall be," yet you have turned it into a robbers' den.'" This too must further be observed: that to the things said by the three concerning the Lord's going up to Jerusalem, in the course of which he did these things in the
temple, John recorded similar things as having occurred after many events, belonging to another sojourn of his at Jerusalem distinct from this one. And the things said must be understood in this way — first, then, the things said by Matthew: "And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, Jesus at that point sent forth two disciples, telling them: 'Go into the village that lies
opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt beside her; untie them and lead them to me. And should anyone say something to you, tell him this: it is the master who needs them; and he will send them at once.' Now this took place so that what had been spoken through the prophet might come to fulfillment, when he said: 'Say to the daughter of Zion: Behold, your king is coming to you, gentle and
mounted on a donkey, even a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.' So the disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them, and brought the donkey and the colt, and placed their garments upon them, and he sat upon them. And the very great crowd spread their own garments on the road. [ [...] ] And the crowds going before him and
following cried out: 'Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in the Lord's name! Hosanna in the highest!'" Next after these is: "And when he had entered Jerusalem, the whole city was shaken" — which we have already set forth in what came before. Second are the words of Mark: "And when they draw near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount
of the Mount of Olives, he dispatches two of his disciples with these words: 'Go into the village opposite you, and as soon as you enter it you will find a colt tied, one on which no man has ever yet sat; untie it and bring it. And if anyone asks you, "Why are you doing this?" say that "His master has need of it," and he
sends it back here.' And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untie it. And some of those standing there said to them, 'What are you doing, untying the colt?' And they said to them just as Jesus had said, and they let them go. And they bring the colt to Jesus, and they throw their garments on it,
and others, cutting leafy branches from the fields, spread them on the road. And those going ahead and those following were crying out, 'Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; blessed is the coming reign of our father David—hosanna, high in the heavens.' He entered Jerusalem, into the temple, and having looked around at everything, since the hour was already late,
along with the twelve, he set out for Bethany. And on the following day, once they had left Bethany behind, hunger came upon him. Then, after the episode of the withering fig tree, 'They come to Jerusalem. And entering the temple he began to drive out those who were selling' and so on. [...] In Luke it goes this way: 'And it happened that, as he approached Bethphage and Bethany, near the
mount called Olivet, he sent off two of his disciples with these words: "Go into the village opposite, in which, as you enter, you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever yet sat; untie it and lead it here. And if anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' you shall say this, that 'The Lord has need of it.'" So the disciples went off and found it just as he had told them. And as they
were untying the colt, its owners said to them, 'Why are you untying the colt?' And they said, 'The Lord has need of it.' And they led it to Jesus, and throwing their garments on the colt they set Jesus upon it; and as he went, they were spreading their garments on the road. And as he was now drawing near, at
the way down from the Mount of Olives, a great crowd of the disciples came out to meet him, glad and praising God aloud for every mighty deed they had witnessed, crying, 'Blessed is the king who comes bearing the Lord's name; peace resting in heaven, and glory reaching to the highest.' And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him, 'Teacher, rebuke your disciples.'
And he answered and said, 'I tell you: were these people to fall silent, the very stones would shout aloud.' And as he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it,' and so on, which we have already set out. John, however, after a great many things, says, 'And Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those selling oxen and sheep,' narrating a different ascent of the Lord.
into Jerusalem, he says these things after recounting the supper at Bethany, held six days ahead of the Passover, a meal at which Martha waited on the table and Lazarus reclined among the guests: "On the next day the great crowd that had come for the feast heard that Jesus was on his way to the city, so they took up palm branches and set out to meet him, crying out: Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,
the king of Israel. And Jesus, finding a young donkey, sat on it, just as it is written: Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, seated on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Now I think that in setting these things out, even though I have gone beyond the wording of the evangelists at greater length, I have done so out of necessity, in order to bring out the disagreement that exists at the level of the letter: the three, on the one hand, speaking as though
it were one and the same visit of the Lord to Jerusalem that they describe, in what most people suppose to be the same events as those written by John as well; while John, on the other hand, reports that the matters here set out occurred during two visits, separated by many deeds recounted in between and involving the Lord's journeys up to Jerusalem on different occasions to different places. I myself, then, suppose it to be impossible for those who understand these things as nothing more than
history to show that the apparent disagreement is in fact harmonious. But if someone thinks that we have not grasped this soundly, let him write a reasoned reply against this declaration of ours. XXIII. But as for the considerations that move us toward the agreement of these accounts, having asked him who gives to everyone who asks, and who strives to seek with keenness, and knocking so that the hidden things of
scripture may be opened to us by the keys of knowledge, we shall set them forth in the same manner, according to the power given to us. And first, let us look at John's wording, beginning from "And Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Jerusalem, then, is, as the Lord himself teaches in Matthew's Gospel, "city of the great king" — not lying in a hollow or situated somewhere low, but built upon a high
mountain, and "mountains are round about it," "whose fellowship is joined together"; and "There went up the tribes belonging to the Lord, as a witness unto Israel." This city is also called Jerusalem, into which no one on earth goes up or enters; and indeed every soul that has a natural loftiness and a sharpness that discerns intelligible realities is a citizen of this city.
And it is possible even for the person of Jerusalem to fall into sin; for even those most naturally gifted are capable of sinning, if they do not turn back after their sin quickly enough, thereby destroying their good nature, and end up not merely sojourning in but even being enrolled as a citizen of one of the cities foreign to Judea. Jesus, then, goes up to Jerusalem after helping those in Cana of Galilee and after
having gone down to Capernaum, so that he might do in Jerusalem the things that are written. He found, at any rate, in the temple — which is also said to be the house of the Savior's Father, that is to say, in the church, or in the profession of ecclesiastical and sound teaching — certain people making the Father's house a house of trade. And Jesus always finds certain people in the temple.
For when is it not the case that in the church so called — the household belonging to the living God, pillar and foundation of the truth — there are some money-changers sitting, needing blows from the whip of cords that Jesus made, and coin-dealers who need to have their coins poured out and their tables overturned? And when are there not those who sell in a mercantile fashion whom it was necessary to keep
as oxen at the plow, so that, having put their hands to it and not turning back to what lies behind, they might become fit for the kingdom of God? And is there ever a time without people setting unrighteous mammon above the sheep who furnish them the very material of their own adornment? And there are always many, too, who despise the guileless and innocent dove, stripped of all bitterness and gall,
and for the sake of wretched gain betray the care owed to the doves spoken of in the more figurative sense. Whenever, then, the Savior finds in the temple, the house of the Father, people selling oxen, sheep, and doves, along with the money-changers seated there, he drives them out, using the whip he had made of cords, together with their commercial sheep and oxen, and he pours out
the coins, as not worth keeping, showing their uselessness; and he overturns the tables in the souls of the money-lovers, saying also to those selling the doves, “Take these things away from here,” so that they may no longer trade in the temple of God. XXIV. But I think he has also, through what has been said, made a still deeper sign, so that we should understand that a symbol has come about
in this, that the worship pertaining to that temple was no longer going to be carried out by the priests through sense-perceptible sacrifices, nor could the law any longer be kept, even as the bodily Jews wished it to be. For once Jesus had cast out the oxen and the sheep, and had commanded the doves to be taken away from there, oxen and sheep and doves were no longer going to be sacrificed for long
according to the customs of the Jews. And it is also a token that the coins — the bodily coinage, being impressions that do not bear the marks of God — were to be poured out, since the legislation that seemed venerable according to the letter that kills was, once Jesus had come and used the whip against the people, going to be dissolved and poured out, the oversight being transferred to those from the nations
who believe in God through Christ, and the reign of God being lifted from those and given instead to a nation that produces its fruits. And a soul that is by nature well-suited for reason can also itself be a temple by nature, on account of the reason inborn with it, situated higher than the body, into which — from Capernaum, which lies somewhat lower — Jesus goes up more humbly, in
which are found, before the instruction that comes from Jesus, earthly and senseless and harsh movements, and things that are held to be good but are not, which are driven out by Jesus with the reasoning woven together out of demonstrative and refutative doctrines, so that the house of his Father might no longer serve as a marketplace, but might recover, in accordance with the heavenly and spiritual laws,
...service of God being carried out for its own salvation and that of the many. Now the ox is a symbol of earthly things, for it works the land; the sheep is a symbol of the unintelligent and brutish, since that animal is more slave-like than most of the irrational creatures; the dove is a symbol of thoughts that are light and easily tossed about; and the coins are a symbol of things reckoned to be good. But if someone stumbles at
such an interpretation, because the animals brought into the account are clean ones, it must be said that the narrative would be implausible if it were reported as having happened according to a possible historical event; for in the temple of God it would not have been possible to report that a herd of any animals other than the clean ones had entered, nor that anything other than sacrificial animals had entered for sale. For this reason, to what
was done by the merchants at the seasons of the Jewish feasts, when they brought these animals into the outer precinct of the temple, the evangelist made use of, as I think, employing an event that had actually happened as well. And yet, whoever cares for the more precise inquiry will examine whether, given the standing Jesus had in this life, being reckoned to be the son of a carpenter, he would have dared to do so great a thing as to drive out a crowd
of merchants who had come up for the feast, when sheep to be sacrificed in the households of their families, numbering in the many myriads, were being sold to so great a people, and oxen were being sold to the wealthier who had made such great vows, and doves, which many, as at a festival gathering, would have bought in order to feast on them; and that the money-changers... would not have accused Jesus of insolence when they saw their coins being poured out and their
tables overturned. And who, being struck with the whip of cords by one considered by them to be of no account, and being driven out, would not have seized him and cried out and taken justice into his own hand—especially having so great a crowd of those who thought themselves insulted along with him working together against Jesus? Let us consider whether the Son of God taking cords and plaiting for himself a whip for the purpose of driving people out of the
temple does not display, along with self-will and excessive boldness, also disorderliness. One refuge alone remains for the defense against these objections, for anyone wishing to preserve the historical account: the more divine power of Jesus, who was capable, whenever he wished, both of quenching the kindled wrath of enemies and of prevailing by divine grace over myriads and of scattering troubled reasonings. For "the Lord
scatters the counsels of nations, and brings to nothing the reasonings of peoples; but the counsel of the Lord remains forever"—so that none of the things done by him in a manner exceedingly bold, and which called those who had beheld them to faith through his divinity, should appear to display a lesser power at work than the account concerning that place, if indeed this too actually happened. And it is possible to declare it greater than the
event that occurred concerning the water changed into wine at Cana of Galilee, in that there the matter transformed was lifeless material, whereas here the ruling faculties of so many myriads were enslaved. It should be observed, however, that at the wedding Jesus's mother is described as present, while Jesus and his disciples are described as having been invited; but into Capernaum he is said to have gone down
no one is listed except Jesus. But the disciples too appear later as present, if indeed they remembered that “The zeal for your house will consume me.” And perhaps Jesus was present in each of the disciples as he went up to Jerusalem, and that is why Scripture does not say, “Jesus, together with his disciples, went up to Jerusalem,” whereas it does say, “He went down to Capernaum,
he himself, along with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples.” XXVI. Now that the matters proper to this place have been noted — that those who made the temple a house of merchandise were forgotten — we must examine what lies in the other evangelists. And first the passages in Matthew, who says that when the Lord entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken, saying, “Who is this?”
Before this he relates the matter of the donkey and the colt, taken at the Lord’s command by two disciples sent by him from Bethphage to the village opposite it, where they are also found; there the donkey, previously tied, is untied by the two disciples, who had been instructed, if anyone should say anything to them, to answer that “their master has need of them; and
he will send them back at once.” And he reports that a prophecy was fulfilled by these events, the one that says, “Behold, your king comes to you, gentle and mounted on a donkey and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden,” which we find in Zechariah. And when the disciples had gone and done as Jesus had instructed them, “they brought the donkey and the colt. They placed,” it says, “upon them their garments,
” their own, and he sat upon them — the Lord, that is, clearly upon both the donkey and the colt — when also “the very great crowd spread their garments on the road, while others lopped branches off the trees and spread them on the road,” while the crowds going ahead and following cried out, “Hosanna to the son of David — he who comes in the name of the Lord — hosanna
in the highest.” Moreover, as a result of this, “as soon as he had entered Jerusalem, the whole city trembled, saying, ‘Who is this?’” — the crowds, plainly those going ahead and those following, answered those who asked who he was with, “This is Jesus, the prophet hailing from Nazareth in Galilee.” Then Jesus went into the temple, and drove out all who were selling
and buying in the temple, and overturned the tables of those exchanging money, along with the seats of those selling doves. And he says to them, “Scripture has it written, ‘My house is to be called a house of prayer,’ yet you are turning it into a den of robbers.” Let us then ask those who suppose that Matthew, in writing the gospel, intends nothing beyond the bare narrative, what was so urgent as to require sending two of the
disciples to the village opposite Bethphage, so that, having found there a donkey tied and a colt with her, they might untie them and bring them to him? And what was worth recording in what happened to the donkey and colt that was sat upon and brought into the city? And what besides does Zechariah, prophesying about the Christ, say: “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; proclaim, daughter of Jerusalem;
Behold, your king comes to you, righteous and saving, himself meek and mounted on a beast of burden and a young colt. For if this prophecy foretells only the bodily event indicated by the evangelists, let those who stand upon the letter preserve for us the sequence of the prophecy, which runs thus: And he will wipe out the chariots that come from Ephraim and the horse out of Jerusalem,
and the bow of war will be destroyed, and a great number, even peace, shall come from the nations, and he shall have dominion from one sea unto the other, and from the rivers as far as the outer limits of the earth, and so on. One must know, however, that Matthew did not set out the wording as it appears in the prophet's text. Rather than "Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; proclaim, daughter of Jerusalem," he has made it: "Say to the daughter of Zion,"
abridging the prophetic text; and he also passed over in silence "righteous and himself saving," and although he wrote "meek and mounted" as it stands, instead of "on a beast of burden and a young colt" he recorded: "on a donkey and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden." And the Jews, too, comparing the sequence of the prophecy with what has been written about Jesus, press us with objections not easily dismissed, demanding how Jesus destroyed chariots
from Ephraim and horse from Jerusalem, and destroyed the bow of war, and did the things that follow. So much, then, concerning the prophecy. But if they fault the length of the road, finding nothing worthy of the dispensation of the Son of God in the account concerning the donkey and the colt, first, since they are dealing with fifteen stadia, a brief distance, they will not
bring any reasonable objection at all regarding the road; and second, let them tell us how he needed two animals for so short a road. For, it says, he sat upon them; and further, "If anyone says anything to you, you shall say that their master has need of them; and he sends them at once" — this too, I think, is not befitting the greatness of the Son of
God's divinity, that a nature so great should be said to acknowledge need of a donkey being loosed from its bonds, with a colt coming along with it; seeing that whatever the Son of God has need of must needs be great, and worthy of his goodness. In addition to these things, the very great crowd spreading their garments in the road, with Jesus permitting this and not
rebuking it, as is clear from what stands in the other evangelists: "If these are silent, the stones will cry out" — I am uncertain whether this does not betray a kind of foolishness on the part of one who takes delight in such things, if nothing else is indicated by them; and moreover, branches cut from the trees being strewn in the road where donkeys are passing through would seem more likely to be an obstacle to the one being crowded than a reasoned welcome.
As for the difficulties we raised concerning those cast out of the temple by him, these same things, and even greater ones, must be stated here. For in the Gospel according to John he casts out those who are buying; but Matthew says that "he cast out all who were selling and buying in the temple" — and the number of buyers was presumably much greater than that of sellers. And let us consider whether
It was not the case that all the sellers and buyers were being cast out of the temple in keeping with the dignity of the one supposed to be a carpenter's son — unless, indeed, as we said there as well, he was subduing them all by a more divine power, this sounding harsher, as far as the rest of the evangelists go, than in John. For John says it was said to them by Jesus: ‘Do not make the house’
‘of my Father a house of trade’; but by the rest they are shown to have made a robbers' hideout out of the house of prayer — not that the Father's house goes so far as to become filled with a den of robbers, but that it is so corrupted by sinners as to become a house of trade. But a mere house of prayer, not altogether being the Father's house, if neglected, will also admit robbers, becoming not
their house, but a den — a thing not produced by architectural and rational skill. Now to see how these things stand belongs to one who has the true mind given to those who declare, ‘Yet we ourselves possess the mind of Christ,’ so that we may see that what has been granted to us by God is greater than we are persuaded ourselves to be. For our ruling faculty is not unclouded, nor
are our eyes such as the eyes of the beautiful bride of Christ ought to be, of which the bridegroom says: ‘Your eyes are doves’ — perhaps hinting at the perceptive power of spiritual persons, because the Holy Spirit also came upon the Lord <Jesus>, and upon the Lord within each person, as a dove. But even so disposed, we will not shrink
from feeling after the aforementioned words of life, in an attempt to grasp the power that flows from them to one who touches them with faith. Jesus, then, is the Word of God, who enters into the soul called Jerusalem, riding upon the colt loosed from its bonds by the disciples — I mean the simple letters of the Old Testament, made clear by the disciples who loose them,
two of them: the one who leads what is written up to the healing of the soul and allegorizes it with that end in view, and the one who sets forth the coming true goods through the things that lie in the shadow. And he also rides upon the new colt, the New Testament; for in both it is possible to find the word that purifies us in truth and drives out all the reasonings that buy and sell
within us. But he does not come alone into the soul that is Jerusalem, nor even with a few; for many things must come to precede in us, leading the way for the Word of God who brings us to perfection, and very many others must follow after him — all of them, however, hymning and glorifying him, and laying down before him their own world and covering, so that
the mounts that carry him may not touch the ground, since they have resting upon them the one who has come down from heaven. And that the old and new words of the scriptures that carry him may be found still higher above the earth, branches must be cut from the trees, so that they may walk upon what has reasonably been laid out. And the crowds who go before him and follow him can also signify the cooperating angelic powers, some of whom
...preparing his way in our souls, through which they themselves are adorned, while others follow upon his presence in us -- concerning which, having spoken often, we now have no need of testimonies for this point. And perhaps it would not be unreasonable to liken to a donkey the surrounding voices, and the word that leads them into the soul; for the animal is a beast of burden, and great
is the load and heavy burden signified by the word, especially the older word, as is clear to one who attends to what is done by the Jews. But the colt is not so much a burden-bearer as the donkey. For even though the whole burden of the letter is heavy -- the upward-tending and lightest element of the spirit being something those unable to bear it cannot hold -- nevertheless it has less weight, namely the
new letter, compared with the older. I know that some have understood the bound donkey as those who believe from the circumcision, being released from many bonds by those who have been genuinely and spiritually taught by the word, and the colt as those of the nations, unrestrained before they received the word of Jesus and having become, outside of any yoke laid upon them, unruly and pleasure-loving in disposition. Even if not
have these spoken of the crowds going before and following, it is not implausible to apply those going before to Moses and the prophets, and those following after to the holy apostles -- all of whom enter into the city of Jerusalem, insofar as this discourse must be examined, a city that has many sellers and buyers whom the Son of God drives out. And it may be that the Jerusalem above -- into which
which the Lord will go up, driving those who believe from the circumcision and from the nations, while either the prophets and apostles walk ahead of him and accompany him, or the angels who minister to him -- for these too can be signified by those going before and following him -- is now spoken of, the Jerusalem which, before his ascent, held what are called "the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places," or
the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the rest of the enemies of the people, and, in short, the foreigners -- the prophecy being able, in that case too, to be fulfilled, which says: "Your land lies desolate, your cities have been consumed by fire; strangers devour your country before your very eyes." For these are the ones who defile the Father's heavenly house, the holy Jerusalem, the house of prayer,
making it "a den of robbers" -- robbers of none other than themselves -- holding counterfeit silver and giving small coins and change to those who approach, cheap and contemptible currencies. These are the ones who, in wrestling with souls, take from them the more precious things, and plunder the better things, in order to give what is worth nothing. In any case, the disciples, having gone, find the bound donkey and untie it,
because, on account of the veil lying upon the law, it does not have Jesus. And the colt too is found with her, since both were lost before Jesus -- I mean those from the circumcision and those from the nations who believed later. But how these are immediately sent away again after Jesus, having sat upon them, has gone up to Jerusalem, it is not without risk to say, for it involves a mystical matter
...of the transformation of the holy ones into angels, who are to be sent out in the age after this one, in a manner similar to the ministering spirits sent for service on account of those who, in keeping with these things, are about to inherit eternal life. If the donkey and the colt should be the old and the new writings, on which the word of God is carried, it will not be at all difficult
to show how they are sent out when the word has appeared in them, but do not remain once the word, entering Jerusalem, has cast out every reasoning that buys and sells among those it finds there. I think it is not without purpose that this place, where the bound donkey and colt were, is also a village, and this one unnamed; for a village, in relation to the whole world that is in
heaven, is the whole earth, where the bound donkey and colt are, and the village is called sufficiently, without the addition of any other name. Matthew says that those sent to receive the donkey and the colt were sent from Bethphage, which place, being a priestly place, is interpreted "house of jaws." And these things must be said as far as possible concerning what is in Matthew,
it being more timely to speak of the complete and, beyond this, more precise account when it is given to us to speak on the Gospel according to Matthew, which will be said there. Mark and Luke say that a bound colt, on which no man had yet sat, was found by the two disciples in accordance with the Lord's command, whom they untied and led to the Lord. And Mark adds that "they found
the colt bound at a door outside, on the street." But who are "outside"? Those from the nations, who were "strangers to the covenants" and alien to the promise of God, resting on the street and not under a roof or house, bound by their own sins and being loosed by the aforementioned twofold knowledge of Jesus' acquaintances. The bonds
of the bound colt, and the sins committed contrary to the sound word, being reproved by him who is the door of that life (I mean that door), were not inside but outside; for perhaps within the door a decree of wickedness cannot come to be. And some stand by the bound colt, as Mark says—I think these are the ones who bound it.
But as Luke records, "the owners of the colt said to the disciples, 'Why are you untying the colt?'" For the owners are the lawless ones who subjected and bound the one who had sinned, and who are not able to look the true Lord in the face as he draws the colt away from their bond. Since, then, the disciples say, "The Lord has need of it," the wicked owners being able to answer nothing, they lead
the colt naked to Jesus, and they throw their own garment on it, so that the Lord, seated upon the garments cast on it by the disciples, might rest. As for the rest, from what has been said concerning Matthew, it will not be at all unclear in what manner "they come to Jerusalem, and having gone into the temple, he set about driving out the sellers and buyers there," or "as </content>
"...drew near, and at the sight of the city, he was moved to tears over it. And going into the temple, he set about driving out the sellers." For in some accounts of those who possess the temple story he casts out all who are selling and buying in the temple; in others, which do not so strongly follow the word of God, he only makes the beginning of casting out those who are selling and buying.
And apart from these there are third accounts, in which he set about driving out only the sellers, not also the buyers. But in John all of them together, along with the sheep and the oxen, are cast out with the whip plaited out of cords. Consider carefully, if it is possible, how the variations and discrepancies of what has been written are resolved according to the manner of the anagogical interpretation,
each of the evangelists describing different workings of the word in different characters of souls, accomplishing not the same things but things somewhat alike. And the seeming interruption of Jesus's ascents to Jerusalem, in the one who wrote the Gospel now in hand, differently from the three, as we have set out their wordings, can be preserved as sound only in this way: that John has come upon similar matters,
instead of the boughs cut from the trees, having taken branches of palm from the fields and strewn in the way, and mentioning that a great crowd had gone out to the feast, and had gone out to meet him crying out: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the king of Israel." Except that this one says that the donkey colt was found by Jesus himself,
on which the Christ sits, presenting something further about the little donkey signified in a more figurative way, as one who has attained a greater benefaction — one that comes not from human beings nor through human beings, but through Jesus Christ. Nor does John set out the prophetic word verbatim either, but in its place: "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, seated" — [...]
[...] in place of: "mounted [...] upon the colt of a donkey [...] upon a beast of burden and a young colt." But "Fear not, O daughter of Zion" is not spoken at all. Yet let us see, since the prophetic word has been set out by all of them, whether it is not necessary that the daughter of Zion rejoice greatly, while the daughter Jerusalem, who is better than she, must not only rejoice greatly but also proclaim,
since her king is coming, the just and saving and gentle one, by his having mounted the beast of burden and the young colt. Everyone, then, who receives him will no longer fear those of heterodox opinion armed with persuasive words — called by the Lord "the chariots of Ephraim," which are being utterly destroyed — nor the false horse for salvation, a desire mad for the female, made akin to the objects of sense, and doing harm to many
of those wishing to make their home in Jerusalem and give heed to the sound word. And it is fitting to rejoice that every "bow of war" is being utterly destroyed by him who is carried on the beast of burden and the young colt, the enemy's fiery arrows no longer prevailing over the one who has received Jesus into his own sanctuary. And afterward "a multitude" together with "peace" will also come from the nations in
to Jerusalem at the coming of the Savior, ruler of the waters, that he might crush the heads of the dragons upon the water, and that we might tread the waves of the sea, reaching as far as the outlets of all the rivers on earth. Mark, however, in writing about the donkey, that it was said by the Lord, “On which no one among men has yet sat,” seems to me to be hinting at the
fact that those who later came to believe had never yet subjected themselves to the word before Jesus’ coming among them. For perhaps no man had yet sat upon the colt, but some of the beasts, or of the powers foreign to the word, had sat upon it, since the wealth of the opposing powers is also said, in the prophet Isaiah, to be carried upon donkeys and camels, in these words:
“In the affliction and the distress, a lion and a lion’s cub, and from there also flying asps, who carried their wealth upon donkeys and camels.” But one must ask again, of those who attend only to the bare wording, whether on their reading “On which no one among men has yet sat” would not seem to have been written pointlessly. For who, apart from a man, sits upon a colt? These, then, are
our own remarks. Let us also look at those of Heracleon, who says that the going up to Jerusalem signifies the ascent from material things to the psychic place, which happens to be an image of Jerusalem — the Lord’s ascent. And he thinks that “he found in the temple” rather than “in the sanctuary” was said so that the calling might not be understood as only the one that is helped by the Lord without the Spirit; for
he holds that the Holy of Holies is “the temple,” into which the high priest alone used to enter, where I think he means the spiritual enter; while the area of the forecourt, where the Levites also were, is a symbol of those psychics who are found within salvation but outside the Fullness. Beyond this, he identified those discovered inside the temple selling cattle, sheep, and pigeons, and
those sitting as money-changers, to stand for those who give nothing out of grace, but who regard the entrance of strangers into the temple as trade and profit, and who, for the sake of their own profit and love of money, supply the sacrifices for the worship of God. And as for the whip having been made by Jesus out of cords, not received from anyone else, he reports it in his own peculiar way,
saying that the whip happens to be an image of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit, blowing out the worse ones; and he says that the whip and the linen and the linen cloth, and whatever else of this kind, are an image of the power and the activity of the Holy Spirit. Then he has added on his own something not written — that the whip was bound to a piece of wood; and taking this wood to be a type
of the cross, he says that by this wood the trafficking merchants and all evil were done away with and made to vanish. And I do not know how, in his idle talk, he says that the whip was fashioned out of these two things, when seeking to explain what Jesus did: for it was not, he says, out of dead hide that he made it, so that he might build the church no longer as a den of thieves and merchants, but a house of
...of his father. But it is necessary to say the most essential thing about his divinity from these very words as well, addressed to him. For if Jesus says that the temple in Jerusalem is the house of his own father, and this temple was built for the glory of the one who created heaven and earth, how are we not directly taught to consider the son of God to be the son of none other than the maker of heaven and earth?
Into this house of Jesus's father, then, as being a house of prayer, the apostles of Christ too (as we find in their Acts) are commanded by the angel to go and stand and speak "to the people all the sayings of this life." Yet they also went there to pray, through the Beautiful Gate.
as they approach it as a "house of prayer" — something they never would have done, had they not recognized this to be the very God worshiped by those who deified that temple. This is why Peter and the apostles, obeying God rather than men, declare: "The God of our fathers raised Jesus up, whom you murdered, hanging him upon a tree." For they know him to have been raised from the dead by no God other than the God of the fathers.
whom Christ himself also, glorifying him, calls the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying that they are not "dead but living." And how would the disciples too, unless the house belonged to the very God who is Christ's God, have recalled what is said in the sixty-eighth Psalm: "The zeal of your house
has consumed me"? For that is how it stands in the prophet, and not "will consume me." And Christ is especially zealous for the house of God within each one of us, not wanting it to be anything other than a house, nor the house of prayer to become a den of robbers, seeing that he is son to a God who is jealous — if we listen more attentively to such expressions from the scriptures, spoken metaphorically,
transferred from human things, to demonstrate that God wishes nothing foreign to his purpose to mingle with the soul of all human beings, and especially of those who wish to receive the most divine faith. Except that, as for the sixty-eighth Psalm, which contains "The zeal of your house has consumed me," and shortly after, "They gave gall for my food, and for my thirst
they gave me vinegar to drink" — both recorded in the Gospels — one must know that they are spoken in the person of Christ, without indicating any change of the speaking person. But Heracleon, quite unyieldingly, thinks that "The zeal of your house will consume me" is spoken in the person of the powers cast out and destroyed by the Savior, being unable to preserve the sequence of the
prophecy in the psalm, which is understood as spoken in the person of the powers cast out and destroyed. According to him it follows that "They gave gall for my food," recorded in the same psalm, is also spoken by them; but, as is likely, he was troubled by "will consume me," as though it could not be declared by Christ, not seeing the customary way scripture speaks of God in human terms.
and the words of Christ. The bodily people and those who are friends of the perceptible seem to me to be indicated now through the Jews, who, angered at the things being driven out by Jesus, make "a house of trade" of the house of the Father, being vexed at the affairs kept up by them, demand a sign, in accordance with which sign the word will appropriately appear — the word which those men do not accept, when he does these things. Now the Savior, joining
as one thing his statement about that temple and his statement about his own body, replies to "What sign do you show us, that you do these things?" with "Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will build it anew." For even if he was capable of showing countless other signs, still, not at any rate as bearing on the "that you do these things," the things concerning
the temple appropriately provided the answer, rather than signs unrelated to the temple. Both, however — the temple and the body of Jesus — according to one of the interpretations, appear to me to be a type of the church, in that it is built of living stones, becoming a spiritual house "for a holy priesthood," raised up on the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus
being the "cornerstone," making it function as a "temple." And through the saying "You are the body of Christ, and members individually," even though the harmony binding the temple's stones may appear undone and cast asunder — just as the [twenty-first] psalm records: "all the bones of the Christ" — through the schemes hatched amid persecution and hardship by those waging war upon the temple's oneness in times of persecution, the
temple will be raised and the body will rise on the third day, once the day of evil now standing in it has passed, and after this comes the day of the consummation. For a third day shall arise in the new heaven and new earth, when these bones — the entire house of Israel — shall be raised up on the great Lord's day, with death vanquished; so that the resurrection of the Christ that occurred, from
the suffering at the cross, holds within it the mystery whereby the whole body of Christ is raised. And just as that perceptible body of Jesus was crucified and buried and after this was raised, so too the whole body of the saints of Christ has been crucified with Christ and now no longer lives; for each one, like Paul, boasts in nothing else than "in the cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ," through which he himself has been nailed to the world, the world likewise nailed to him. It is not merely that he has been crucified alongside Christ and nailed to the world — he is buried with Christ as well: "for we were buried together," says Paul, "with the Christ." And as though having become in some sense a pledge of resurrection, he says "we were raised with him"; given that he now goes about in a life made new, as one who, in respect of the blessed and perfect
resurrection that is hoped for, has not yet risen. Either, then, he is now crucified, and afterward buried; or he is now buried, having been taken down from the cross, and at some point, insofar as he is now buried, he will rise. Great is the mystery of the resurrection, and hard to discern for most of us, which is spoken of also in many other places of the scriptures, not least in Ezekiel
This is declared through these words: 'And the hand of the Lord came upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit belonging to the Lord and set me down in the middle of the plain, and that place was crammed with human bones. And he took me around them on every side, in a full circle, and behold, exceedingly many were lying across that plain's surface, utterly dried out. And to me he said: Son of man, will’
these bones live?' And I said, 'Lord, Lord, you yourself know these things.' And he said to me: 'Prophesy over these bones, and say to them: You dry bones, hear the word of the Lord'; and after a little: 'And the Lord addressed me and said: Son of man, these bones — they are the whole house of Israel. And they themselves say: Our bones have grown dry
our bones, our hope has perished, we are cut off.' For to what sort of bones is it said, 'Hear the word of the Lord,' as to bones capable of perceiving the word of the Lord, inasmuch as they are the house of Israel or the body of Christ, concerning which the Lord said, 'All my bones were scattered' — though his bodily bones were not scattered, nor was any one of them broken? And when this
resurrection of Christ's true and more complete body takes place, then the members of Christ, which now, in comparison with what is to come, are dry bones, will be gathered together, bone to bone and joint to joint, with none of those lacking a joint arriving at the perfect man, 'at the measure of the stature of the fullness' of Christ's body. And then the members, many as they are
will become one body, the many members of the body becoming one body; and the judgment of hand and foot, of eye, of hearing, and of smell — of the parts which fill out, on the one hand, the head, and, on the other, the feet, along with the remaining members, both the weaker and lowlier ones and the unpresentable and presentable — belongs to God alone, who
will blend the body together, and then, even more than now, giving greater honor to the part that lacks it, so that there may be no division at all in the body, but the members may show one another that same concern,' and if one member has some good experience, all the members share the good experience with it, or if it is glorified, all rejoice together with it. These remarks are not out of keeping, in my judgment, with the temple and with those driven out
from it, concerning which the Savior says, 'The zeal of your house will consume me' — this has been said both with reference to the Jews who were asking for a sign to be shown to them, and to the Lord's answer to them, in which he joined together the statement about the temple and the statement about his own body, saying: 'Tear down this sanctuary, and within three days I will make it rise again.' For from this temple
which is the body of Christ, these irrational and mercantile things must be driven out, so that it will be a house of trade no longer. And this shrine has to be pulled down by those plotting against God's word, and once pulled down it must rise again on the third day, as we said above — at which time the disciples too will recall what the Word had said before the shrine of God was pulled down
...he was not saying] and they will believe, since their knowledge and their faith are then perfected, not by the scripture alone but also by the "hill" of which Jesus spoke. And each of those of this kind, once Jesus has purified him and he has put away the irrational animals and the sellers, will be dissolved on account of the zeal for the word within them, upon being raised up by Jesus, not on the
third day, so far as concerns the passage before us; for it is not written, "Destroy this temple and on the third day I will raise it up," but "In three days." For the raising of the temple gets underway on day one after its destruction and proceeds through day two, yet its rising reaches completion across the full span of three days. For this reason there has been a resurrection
and there will be a resurrection, if indeed we were buried together with Christ and rose together with him. And since "we rose together with him" does not suffice for the whole resurrection—"In Christ all will be made alive, but each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ at his coming, then the end"—for it belonged to the resurrection also that it took place on the
first day, in the paradise of God, but it belonged to the resurrection that when he appeared he says, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father"; and the completion of the resurrection was when he comes to be with the Father. Now since those who confuse the matter of Father and Son gather together the text "We are found even to be false witnesses of God, because we have testified
against God that he raised the Christ, whom he did not raise," and other such statements, which show that the one who raised is other than the one who was raised—and also "Tear down this sanctuary, and within three days I shall raise it up again"—they supposed that from these it is established that the Son does not differ numerically from the Father, but rather that the two are one not only in essence but in substrate as well, being called Father and Son
substrate, being called Father and Son according to certain different conceptions, not according to hypostasis. One must say to them, first, the sayings that are primarily constructive of the fact that the Son is distinct from the Father, and that the Son must necessarily be a father's son, and the Father a son's father. After this, it is not absurd for one who confesses that he can do nothing unless he
sees the Father doing it, and who says that whatever the Father does, these things likewise the Son also does, to have raised the dead man (that is, the body), the Father granting him this favor—of whom it must primarily be said that he raised the Christ from the dead. Heracleon, however, says that "in three" means "on the third," without investigating the matter, even though
he had focused on "in three," how the resurrection is effected in three days. Further, he says that the third day is the spiritual day, in which they suppose the resurrection of the church is signified. It follows from this to say that the first day is the earthly day and the second the psychic (soulish) day, since the resurrection of the church has not taken place in them. It seems...
Now then, the things recorded by the false witnesses in the Gospel as set down by Matthew and by Mark, near the end of the Gospel, who accuse our Lord Jesus Christ, have their reference to: "Tear down this sanctuary, and within three days I shall raise it up again." For he was speaking about the temple of his body, but they, supposing that
the things said here were said about the temple built of stones, kept saying in their accusation: “This fellow declared, ‘I have power to tear down God's sanctuary and raise it up again within three days,’” or, in Mark's version: “We heard him say, ‘This temple made by hands I will tear down, and within three days I will build another, not made by hands,’” at which point the high priest, standing up,
said to him, “Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify against you?” But Jesus was silent; or as Luke tells it: the high priest rose and stood in their midst, questioning Jesus, “saying, ‘Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify against you?’ But he was silent and answered nothing.” I think it necessary to have set these passages side by side as well, since they bear a reference to the saying now in
hand. How the Jews can say the temple was built in forty-six years, we are not able to say, if we are to follow the historical record. For the Third Book of Kingdoms records that “they prepared the stones and the timber for three years”; then, when the fourth year came, in its second month, while Solomon the king was reigning over Israel, the king commanded, and they take up
great, costly stones for the foundation of the house, together with unhewn stones. Solomon's sons together with Hiram's sons hewed them, and in the fourth year they set them in place, laying the foundation of the Lord's house that month, Nisan, the second month; and in the eleventh year, in the month Baal, which is the eighth month, the house was finished in every particular
of it and in every arrangement of it. So then, in order that we may also reckon the time of preparation together with the time of the building, eleven years in all are not completed for the building of the temple. How then do the Jews say that this sanctuary was raised up over a span of forty-six years? Unless someone, straining the matter, will make an effort to establish the period of forty-six years as reckoned from
the time when David, deliberating with Nathan the prophet about the building of the temple, says: “See, I am housed in cedar, while the ark of God sits in the midst of a tent.” For even if he was prevented from building it, as a man of blood, he nevertheless seems to have busied himself with gathering the material for the temple. At any rate he says in the First Book of
Chronicles, David the king, to the whole assembly: “Solomon my son, the one the Lord has chosen, is young and untried, yet the task before him is vast, since this building is not for a man but for the Lord God. To the utmost of my strength I have gathered, for my God's house: gold, silver, bronze and iron, timber, stones of shoham and of settings, and stones of great price and varied stones, and”
every precious stone, and much Parian marble. “Moreover, in my delighting in the house of my God, I have gold and silver that I have acquired for myself, and behold, I have given it to the house of my Lord for its height, apart from what I prepared for the house of the holy things: three thousand talents of gold from Sophir, and seven thousand talents of tested silver, for overlaying with them
the houses of God by the hand of craftsmen.” For David's reign lasted seven years at Hebron, then thirty-three more at Jerusalem. If, then, someone is able to demonstrate that the beginning of the construction concerning the temple occurred when he was gathering the suitable material, from the fifth year of his reign, he will be able, by forcing the matter, to speak of the forty-six years. But someone else will say
that the temple now pointed to is not the one built by Solomon — for that one was destroyed at the time of the captivity — but the one built under Ezra, concerning which we do not clearly have grounds to demonstrate that the account of the forty-six years is true. And it seems that in the time of the Maccabees too there was much disorder affecting both people and temple. Whether that disorder bears on our question, I cannot say for certain
the temple was rebuilt at that time over so many years. Heracleon, however, without paying any attention to the history, says that Solomon constructed the temple in forty-six years, the temple being a figure of the Savior, and he refers the number six to the matter, that is, to the molded form, while the forty — which, he says, is the tetrad “unentangled” — he refers to the inbreathing and the
seed in the inbreathing. But consider whether it is possible to take the forty as referring to the four elements of the world that are, so to speak, arrayed and marshaled into the temple, and the six because man came to be on the sixth day. Since the body of Jesus is said to be his temple, it is worth inquiring whether this ought to be understood in the simpler sense, or whether each
of the things recorded about the temple must be zealously referred to the account concerning the body of Jesus — either the body he received from the virgin, or the body said to be his church, just as we too are named members of his body by the apostle. Now one person, freeing himself from the difficulty by despairing that each of the details concerning the temple can be referred
to the body — whichever way it is — will take refuge in the simpler explanation, saying that for this reason the temple was so named because the body, understood in either sense, was called a temple, since the temple once held the indwelling glory of God resting within it, and in like manner the body or the church, bearing as its image the firstborn of all creation, who is the image and glory of God, is reasonably said to be a temple of God. But as for us, concerning each
of the things in the Third Book of Kingdoms about the temple, seeing that it is difficult to explain and far exceeds our capacity of speech, and besides is not the subject of the present writing, we defer discussion of it. Yet in such matters especially, being persuaded that, because it exceeds human nature, the distinctive character of the divinely inspired scripture is manifested according to the wisdom of God — wisdom in a mystery
the hidden wisdom, which none of the rulers of this age has known, and understanding that we ourselves need a special spirit of wisdom in order to think about matters of such magnitude in a manner befitting their sacredness, we shall attempt, as far as possible, to sketch in a few words the deeper meaning belonging to the passage, learning from Peter that the church is a body and a house of God, built from stones that live, a house of the Spirit set apart for sacred priestly service, coming from
Peter, so that he who built the temple, the son of David, is in this respect a type of Christ, building the temple to the glory of God in the earthly Jerusalem after the wars, once the deepest peace had come about, so that worship might no longer be carried out in a movable structure, the tabernacle. We shall attempt to refer each of the details concerning the temple to the church. For perhaps if
all the enemies become a footstool for the feet of Christ, and the last enemy, death, is done away with, the most perfect peace will exist, when Christ will be Solomon — which is translated 'Peaceable' — the prophecy concerning him being fulfilled, which says: 'With those who hated peace I was peaceable.' And at that time every one of the stones that live will become, in keeping with the value of his earthly life, a stone within the temple,
one, positioned in the foundation itself — an apostle or a prophet — supporting those resting above him, another, after those in the foundation, being borne by the apostles and himself, together with the apostles, jointly bearing up those beneath him; and one will be a stone of the innermost parts, where the ark and the cherubim and the mercy seat are; another of the enclosure, and another
still further out, beyond where Levites and priests stand, a stone belonging to the altar of whole burnt offerings. Holy powers — God's angels — will be given charge of the ordering and service pertaining to these matters, certain of them being dominions, thrones, principalities, or authorities, others ranked beneath them, and their types are the three thousand six hundred supervising officers set over Solomon's works,
and the seventy thousand bearers of burdens, and the eighty thousand quarriers in the mountain, who carried out the labor and made ready both stones and timber. It should be observed that those recorded as bearing burdens belong to the family of the number seven, while the quarriers, who cut the stones into shape so that they might be harmonious for the temple, are allied to the number eight; while the
overseers, being three thousand six hundred, are connected with the perfect number six, as it were multiplied by itself; while the matter of the preparation of the stones, as they were quarried and made ready for the building, being accomplished in three years, seems to me to signify the whole span of the interval that is akin to the Trinity in eternity. And this will come to pass when peace has been perfected, after the years of
the administration of the affairs connected with the exodus from Egypt — four hundred and thirty — and of what was administered in Egypt after the four hundred and thirty years from the covenant given by God to Abraham, so that, reckoning from Abraham up to the point where the temple's construction began, there are two sabbatical numbers, that of seven hundred and seventy, when also our king shall command the
Christ, that among the seventy thousand porters they should not take just any stones for the foundation of the house, but large, precious, unhewn stones, so that they might be hewn not by common workmen but by Solomon's own sons — for that detail we found set down in the Third Book of Kingdoms. At that time, because of the great peace, Hiram king of Tyre also
cooperated in the building of the temple, giving his sons over to work alongside Solomon's, jointly hewing the large and costly stones meant for the sanctuary, stones set in place during the fourth year for laying the foundation of the Lord's house. In the eighth year, however, the house is completed, in the eighth month counting from its foundation. It will be nothing strange, in the meantime,
for those who suppose that nothing beyond the historical account is signified by these things, to bring forward some challenging remarks, so as to make it worthwhile to seek, as of a spirit of letters, the mind of the spirit in these matters. For did the sons of kings really occupy themselves with the hewing of the large and precious stones, taking up a craft foreign to royal nobility? And has the number of the porters and the stonecutters and the overseers, and the
time of the preparing of the stones and the marking of similar ones, been recorded as it happened, at random? Yet it was fitting that the holy house, being built in peace for God, should be built without hammer and axe and any iron tool, so that nothing tumultuous might be heard in the temple of God. Again I am at a loss, faced with those enslaved to the letter, as to how it could be that, with eighty thousand stonecutters at work
cutting rough, unworked stones, the house of God is built, with hammer and axe and every iron tool not being heard in his house while it was being built? But perhaps the stones being quarried are quarried living, silently and without disturbance, outside in relation to the temple, so that they might come ready to the place fitting for them in the building. And there was also a certain ascent
around the house of God that was not loudly resounding, having bendings of straight lines. For thus it stands written: "A spiral ascent leads to the middle, and from the middle up to the third stories" — for it was fitting that the going-up in the temple of God be spiral-shaped, the ascent of the spiral imitating the most equal circle. And in order that this house might be as secure as possible, bindings are built into
it, the height of the whole house being five cubits to the cubit, so that the ascent from things perceptible by sense to what are called the divine senses might be signified, occurring in height for the understanding of intelligible things. But the place of the more blessed stones seems to be the one called the Debir, the place where the chest holding the Lord's covenant stood — so to speak, it was the handwritten document of God, God's, the
tablets written by his finger. And the whole house is gilded: for it says, "He overlaid the whole house with gold, until the completion of the whole house." The two Cherubim, moreover, were in the Debir, a term which those who translate the things of the Hebrews into Greek have not been able to render properly. Some, using the word rather loosely, have called it "the temple," though it is more honored than the temple. Yet all of it was gold —
the things concerning the house have taken place, as a symbol of the mind that is altogether being perfected with respect to the exact ... setting apart of the intelligible realities. But since they are not at all accessible and knowable, a veil of the court is built, the innermost things not being disclosed to the majority of the priests and Levites. It is worth inquiring how, on the one hand, king Solomon is said to build the temple, while on the other hand it is the
architect whom Solomon sent for and brought, "Hiram from Tyre, son of a widow woman; a man sprung from the tribe of Naphtali, whose father, a Tyrian by birth, was a worker in bronze, and filled with understanding and knowledge, to do every work in bronze, who was brought in to king Solomon, and made all the works." I am inclined to think that Solomon
can be taken as referring to the firstborn of all creation, while Hiram refers to the man whom he assumed, having his race by nature from the confinement of men (for "Tyrians" is interpreted as "those who confine"), who, filled with every skill and understanding and knowledge, was brought in, working together with the firstborn of all understanding, so that he might build the temple, in which hidden windows peering out are also constructed, for
the illuminations of the light of God to be able to be received unto salvation — and what need is there for me to speak of each detail? — so that the body of Christ, the church, might be found to possess the account of that spiritual dwelling and sanctuary belonging to God. For as I said before, we need the wisdom that is hidden in mystery, which is capable of being received only by the one who can declare: "Yet we ourselves possess the mind
of Christ," so that, according to the will of him who arranged for these things to be written spiritually, we might understand each of the things said in a spiritual sense. But otherwise, and not within the scope of the present reading, is it possible to unfold each of these matters in full. These remarks, then, are sufficient to see how "He was speaking about the temple of his body." It is worth seeing after this whether it is possible for the things recorded to have happened concerning
the temple to have ever occurred or to be going to occur with respect to the spiritual house. Now the argument will seem to be pressed from both sides: for whether we say that it is possible for some account to hold, or to have held, for the things concerning the temple according to the history, hearers will reluctantly accept a transposition of such great goods, first because they are unwilling, and second because it seems inconsistent for there to be
a turning of the good things. But if, wishing to keep unchanged those blessings granted once for all to the saints, we do not apply the details of the history, we will seem to be doing something similar to those from the heresies, not preserving the coherence of the narrative of the scriptures from beginning to end. If, however, we are not going to understand, in an old-womanish and Jewish manner, the promises recorded among the prophets, especially in Isaiah,
as though they were going to be fulfilled concerning the Jerusalem on earth, it is still necessary, if once the captivity had passed and the temple lay overthrown certain glorious things must be understood as bearing on raising up the sanctuary anew and bringing the people back from their captivity, for us to say that the temple has since been rebuilt and the people, having been carried off, will return to Judea and Jerusalem and
that Jerusalem will be built with precious stones. But I do not know whether, in long cycles of ages revolving again, it is possible for similar things to happen again for the worse. The promises are given in Isaiah as follows: ‘Behold, I will lay your stone as carbuncle, and your foundations as sapphire, and I will make your battlements jasper, and your gates
your stones of crystal, and your surrounding wall of choice stones, and all your sons taught of God, and your children in much peace, and you shall be built in righteousness.’ And a little further on, addressing Jerusalem: ‘To you shall come the glory of Lebanon, with cypress and pine and cedar together glorifying the place of my
holiness. And the sons of those who humbled you and provoked you shall come to you in fear; and you shall be called the city of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel, because you have become forsaken and hated, with no one to help; and I will make you an everlasting exultation, a joy of generation upon generation. And you shall suck the milk of nations, and eat the wealth of kings, and you shall know that I am the Lord who saves you and
delivers you, the God of Israel. And instead of bronze I will bring you gold, and in place of iron silver shall be brought to you, and instead of wood I will bring you bronze, and instead of stones, iron. And I will appoint your rulers in peace, and your overseers in righteousness. And injustice shall no longer be heard in your land, nor ruin
or wretchedness within your borders, but your walls shall be called salvation, and your gates, praise. No longer will the sun serve you as daylight, nor will moonrise light your night; but the Christ shall be for you an everlasting light, and God shall be your glory. For the sun shall not set for you, and the
moon shall not fail you; for the Lord shall be for you an everlasting light, and the days of your mourning shall be fulfilled.’ These things, then, are clearly prophesied concerning the age to come, to the sons of Israel who were in captivity, to whom he came, having been sent, who says: ‘My mission was only to Israel’s stray, perishing sheep.’ But if, while they were captives, they are to receive these things
in their homeland, at a time when proselytes too shall come to them through the Christ and shall take refuge with them, according to what is said: ‘Behold, proselytes shall come to you through me, and shall take refuge with you’ — it is clear that those who were taken captive, once belonging to the temple, shall again return there to be rebuilt, having become most precious stones; for indeed the one who conquers has, in John as well, in the
Revelation, the promise that he shall be in the temple of God, and shall not go out. But all this has been said by me so that we might arrive at least at a brief, general grasp of the matters touching the temple, God’s house together with it, the church, and Jerusalem, ‘about which it is not now possible to speak in detail.’ But the most precise account
and one must make a careful examination of these matters, even to whatever degree falls within reach, for those who do not grow weary of the labors involved in searching out the spiritual sense within the prophecies as one reads them. So much, then, for the temple of his body. But since "after his resurrection from among the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this, and they believed the
scripture, and the word that Jesus had spoken" — one must understand, taking it according to the letter, that the disciples, after the Lord had been raised from the dead, grasped that what had been said about the temple refers to his passion and resurrection, having been reminded that "In three days I will raise it" signified the resurrection, at which point "they also believed the scripture and the
word that Jesus had spoken, since they had not previously been attested as believing the scripture, nor this word that Jesus had spoken; for faith, properly speaking, belongs, in keeping with baptism, to the one who receives with the whole soul what is believed. Now as regards the anagogical sense, since we have already spoken above of how the Lord's whole body was raised up from among the dead, one must know that the disciples, having been reminded
through the outcomes of the scripture, which, while they were in this life, had not been accurately grasped by them, coming before their sight and being made manifest of which heavenly things it was in fact a pattern and shadow, believe things they did not believe before, and also the word of Jesus, which before the resurrection, as he who spoke it intended, they did not understand. For how can anyone properly believe that what is called scripture is scripture without perceiving in it
the mind of the Holy Spirit that is within it, which God wishes to be believed rather than the will of the letter? On this basis one must say that not one of those whose conduct follows the flesh puts faith in the spiritual things of the law, things they do not even picture to themselves in the first place. Yet they say that those who never saw yet came to trust are counted happier than the ones who saw and trusted, misappropriating what is said
at the end of the Gospel according to John to Thomas by the Lord: "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." For it is not so that those without sight who have believed surpass in blessedness those who saw and believed. At any rate, on their own interpretation, those who come after the apostles would be more blessed than the apostles themselves, which is the silliest thing of all. But the one who is to be blessed like the apostles must see with the mind the things
that are believed, being able to hear "Blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear," and "Many prophets and righteous people desired to see what you see and did not see it, and to hear what you hear and did not hear it." It is also welcome, however, to receive the lesser beatitude that says: "Blessed are those
who have not seen and have believed. For how are the eyes that are blessed by Jesus for the things they have beheld not more blessed than the eyes of those who have not yet arrived at the sight of such things? Simeon, at any rate, having taken the salvation of God into his arms, loved it, and having beheld it said: "Now you dismiss your servant, Master, according to your word, in peace,"
"for my eyes have seen your salvation." For this reason we must be zealous to open our eyes as Solomon says, that we may be filled with bread; for he says: "Open your eyes and be filled with bread." And let this much be said by me on account of "They believed the scripture and the word that Jesus spoke," so that we may grasp the perfection of faith from what has been examined concerning faith,
that we shall find it given to us in the great resurrection of the whole body of Jesus, his holy church, from the dead. For what is said concerning knowledge, "Now I know in part," this I think is right to say also of every good thing; and faith is one of these other things. Hence "now I believe in part; but when that which is perfect" of faith "comes, that which is in part"
"will be done away with" — faith through form differing greatly, if I may put it so, from faith "through a mirror and in a riddle," which is like the present knowledge belonging to faith. One might inquire how Jesus did not entrust himself to those who had believed on the testimonies given. To this it must be said that Jesus does not fail to entrust himself to those who believe in him, but to those who believe in his name;
for believing in him differs from believing in his name. At any rate, the one who is not to be judged on account of faith is not judged because he believes in him, not because he believes in his name; for the Lord says, "He who believes in me is not judged," and it is not "whoever puts faith in my name escapes judgment" that he says. Nor again does he say, "He who be-
"-lieves in me is already judged"; for perhaps the one trusting in his name does indeed believe, and therefore is not yet worthy of judgment, though he ranks below the one who trusts in him directly. For this reason Jesus withholds himself from the one who trusts in his name. It is to him, then, rather than to his name, that we ought to cling, so that, working wonders by his name,
we may not hear the things said to those who boasted in the name alone, but rather, becoming imitators of Paul, let us have the courage to say: "I am strong for all things in Christ Jesus who empowers me." This too should be noted: that above it says, "Now the Passover of the Jews was near," whereas here it was not "the Passover of the Jews" but "the Passover in Jerusalem" that
Jesus was at — for there it is called the Passover of the Jews, and no feast is mentioned there; here, however, Jesus is recorded as present "at the feast," since being in Jerusalem during the Passover, he was likewise present at the feast, many having come to belief, even if only in his name. One should further observe that many are described as believing, not in him, but "in his name."
But those who believe in him are the ones journeying the narrow, constricted path leading to life, a path discovered by only a few. Yet it may be that a great number among those trusting in his name shall be rekindled alongside Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob within the kingdom of the heavens, since "Many shall arrive from east and west, taking their place at table with Abradata and
Isaac, and Jacob within the kingdom of the heavens,' that house of the Father containing many dwelling places. This too deserves notice: many who put faith in his name do not come to that faith the way Andrew, Peter, Nathanael, and Philip believed, but instead are won over by John's testimony, 'Behold, the lamb of God,' or by the Christ whom Andrew discovered,
or by him who bid Philip, 'Follow me,' that is Jesus, or by Philip's declaration, 'We have found the one Moses and the prophets wrote of, Jesus, Joseph's son, from Nazareth.' These placed faith in his name upon seeing the signs he performed; and † it is the signs they trust, not him himself, but 'in his name' — and Jesus did not entrust
himself to them, since he knew all and had no need that anyone should testify concerning man, because he knew what was in each of the men. And the phrase ‘He had no need that anyone should testify concerning man’ must be used, at the fitting point, to show that the Son of God, from himself, is capable of discerning each of the men, and has no need whatsoever of testimony from any source.
But the phrase ‘He had no need that anyone should testify concerning man’ must be set against ‘He has no need that anyone should testify concerning anyone.’ For if we take ‘man’ to mean every being fashioned according to God’s image, or every rational creature, he will have no need that anyone testify concerning him — concerning any rational being whatsoever — since he knows all of them from himself
according to the power given to him by the Father. But if we keep ‘man’ restricted to the mortal rational animal alone, one person will say that he has need that someone testify concerning the things beyond man, since he does not likewise sufficiently know human matters together with the matters concerning those beings. But another will say that he who emptied himself has no need that
anyone should testify concerning man, but does have need concerning things greater than man. And this too must be inquired into: how many signs of his did the many see and, on that basis, believe in him? For nowhere is it written that he performed signs in Jerusalem — unless indeed signs did occur but were simply not recorded. Consider whether it is possible to count as a sign his having made a whip
out of cords, and having driven everyone out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen, and having poured out the coins of the money-changers, and having overturned the tables. Yet against those who might suppose that he had no need of witnesses only in the case of men, it must be said that the evangelist has testified two things of him: both that he knew all, and that he had no need that anyone
should testify concerning man. For if he knew all, he knew not only men but also the things beyond man, and all those beings outside such bodies; and he also knew what was in man, inasmuch as he was greater than those who, in prophesying, reprove and judge, and who bring into the open the hidden things of the heart of all those to whom this belongs—
the spirit suggests to them. But "He knew what was in the man" can also be taken of the powers at work in human beings, whether worse or better. For if someone gives "a place to the devil," Satan makes his way into that person, just as Judas allowed, the devil having already thrown it into his heart, that he should betray Jesus; therefore also after the morsel
Satan entered into him. But if a man instead makes room for God, blessedness is his — for blessed indeed is the one who receives help from God and an ascent within his heart that comes from God. So the Son of God, knowing all things, knows what was within the man. Now that the tenth volume has received an adequate scope,
we shall bring the book to a close here.

======== Commentary on Matthew, Book 10 ========

Of Origen, from the Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew, Book 10. "Then, leaving the crowds, he entered his house, and his disciples came near him, saying, 'Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field'" (13:36-43). When Jesus is with the crowds, he is not found within his house, since the crowds remain outside
the house; and it is a work of his love for humanity to leave the house and go off to those who are unable to come to him. But having conversed sufficiently with the crowds in parables, he leaves them and comes to his own house, where his disciples come to him, not having remained with those he had left behind. And as many as hear
Jesus more genuinely, first follow him, then, inquiring about his dwelling place, are permitted to see it, and once they arrive they behold it "and abide with him," all indeed "that day," but perhaps some of them even longer. And such things, I think, I think, are also indicated in the Gospel according to John through these words: "The next day John was standing there, and two of his disciples
[were with him]." Further, as proof that of those permitted to accompany Jesus and view his house, the one who stands out even becomes an apostle, it is added to these: "Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard from John and followed him." So we too, then, if we wish not to hear Jesus as the crowds do, whom he leaves
and] goes into the house, let us take up something distinguished beyond the crowds and become intimate with Jesus, so that we, as his disciples, may draw near him once he has entered the house. And having approached, let us ask him to explain the parable, whether that of the weeds of the field or whatever other one. And so that it may be understood more precisely of what matter the house of Jesus is representative, let someone gather from the gospels all that
has been said concerning the house of Jesus, and what was spoken or accomplished by him within it; for these things, brought together into one, will persuade the one who attends to this reading that the words of the gospel are not merely simple things (as some suppose) — for the simple, they have been rendered simple, in keeping with the [divine] economy, but for those who wish and are able to hear them more acutely, wise
and things worthy of the word of God lie hidden within. "After this he answered and said," from the words: "The one who sows the good seed — that is the Son of Man" [...] concerning which, even if we have already, so far as we were able, treated them in what precedes, none the less now too we shall say what can be fitted to them, even if the discussion proceeds along a different line of exposition. And observe, if
you are able, whether one can take the good seed, the sons of the kingdom, in a further sense beyond what has already been given, namely that whatever good things spring up in the human soul, these are sown as offspring of that Word of God, the one who "was with God in the beginning," being of God's, so that the sound reasonings concerning each matter are the sons of the kingdom. And while those are asleep who are not according to
...doing the command of Jesus, who says, "Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation," the devil, watching his opportunity, sows in addition the so-called tares, wicked doctrines, alongside what some call natural conceptions and the good seeds that come from reason. In this sense the field might be said to be the whole world as well, and not only the church of God; for in the whole...
...world the Son of Man is the one who sowed the good seed, while the evil one sowed the evil tares, which are the wicked words, the sons of evil that come from wickedness. And it will be necessary, when things reach their end (a moment termed the consummation of the age), that the angels of God appointed to this task should gather up the doctrines that have taken root in the soul...
...and hand them over for destruction, overturning them in what is called the burning by fire. And thus will the word's angels and its ministers gather together, out of the whole of Christ's kingdom, all the causes of stumbling that lodge within souls and the thoughts that produce lawlessness; and consuming these, they will cast them into the furnace of fire that burns; where also those who become aware of themselves, because...
...the seeds of the evil one lie asleep within them, will weep and will be enraged, as it were, at themselves. This indeed is the gnashing of teeth, and for that reason it is also said in the Psalms, "they gnashed their teeth at me." Then especially will the righteous shine, no longer with differing degrees, as at first, but together, all as a single sun, within the kingdom belonging to their Father...
...As indicating a mystery, then, the Savior does so, perhaps through the whole wording of the parable, but perhaps especially through the words he adds after "then shall the righteous shine forth like the sun within their Father's kingdom" — namely, "Whoever has ears for hearing should listen" — and by this he instructs those who imagine the parable has been laid out with utter clarity in its wording, that it can be understood even by ordinary people, that...
...even the very details of the parable's narrative stand in need of clarification. But since above we were saying, with regard to "then the righteous will shine like the..." that the righteous will not shine with differing degrees as before, but will all be as one sun, it is necessary that we set forth what has appeared to us on this point. Daniel seems...
...knowing the "light of the world," that those who understand differ in glory from the many among the righteous, to have said, "and those who understand shall shine out like the splendor of the firmament, while of the many righteous it is said, like stars unto the ages, yea forever." And the apostle too, in the words "there is one glory belonging to the sun, a different glory to the moon, and yet another...
...the glory of the stars; star, indeed, differs from star in glory — such is likewise the resurrection of the dead," says the same thing as Daniel, having taken the thought from his prophecy. One might then ask how it is that some speak of a difference in the light among the righteous, while the Savior says the opposite, that they will shine as one sun. I suppose, then, that with regard to the...
a beginning of the distinctions among those who are being saved, since those not yet of that kind have not been purified, the difference in the light of those being saved comes about; but when, as we have explained, all the offenses are gathered out of the whole kingdom of Christ, and the thoughts that work lawlessness get thrown into the blazing furnace, and the worse elements are consumed, and when these things come about, so that there comes to be a perception
among those who accepted the words of the sons of the evil one, then, becoming one solar light, the righteous will shine in the kingdom of their Father. But to whom will they shine, if not to those of lesser standing, who will enjoy their light in the same proportion as the sun now shines upon those on earth? For surely they will not shine for themselves. And perhaps also the saying "let your light shine before
men" can, in some way, be inscribed upon the breadth of the heart, in a threefold manner, according to what was said to Solomon, with the result that even in the present age the disciples of Jesus shine their light before the rest of mankind, both after their departure and before the resurrection, and after the resurrection as well, until they all arrive together at "a perfect man" and all become one sun; then
they will shine as the sun shines, within their Father's kingdom. "Once more, the kingdom of the heavens resembles a treasure that lay hidden in a field, which a man discovered and reburied" (13:44). He addressed the earlier parables to the crowds; but this one, together with the two following it—which are not, properly, parables but likenesses relating to the kingdom of the heavens—he appears to have uttered while he was in the
house, to the disciples. Concerning this let the one who attends carefully to the reading also examine the two that follow, to see whether they too are perhaps not parables. For in the case of the former ones, scripture did not hesitate to place the name "parable" before each; but in the case of these it has not done the same. And it did this reasonably. For if he spoke to the crowds "in parables"
and "all these things he related to them in parables, and apart from a parable he did not address them," whereas, once he had come into the house, it is not with the crowds that he converses but with the disciples who approached him there; it is clear, then, that what was uttered within the house is not parables. For to those "outside" he speaks in parables, and to those who have not been granted to learn the secrets belonging to the kingdom of the heavens.
Someone, then, will say: if these are not parables, what are they? Perhaps, then, keeping to the actual wording of scripture, we shall say that they are likenesses. Now a likeness is not the same thing as a parable; for in Mark it stands written: "To what are we to liken God's kingdom, or in what parable are we to place it?" From this it is plain that likeness and parable are distinct. It seems, then, that likeness
is generic, while the parable is specific. Perhaps, too, the likeness, being the more generic term, holds within itself, as one species among others—just as it holds the parable—a likeness bearing the same name as the generic term itself. The very same thing has occurred elsewhere too, as those versed in the assigning of numerous terms have noted; they say that impulse, likewise, is the most generic term, comprehending many species beneath it, just as
and of starting-point and of impulse, the term being used, in one sense, as synonymous with the general term, while impulse is set in contrast to starting-point. And here we must examine, on one hand, the field, and on the other, the treasure buried within it, and consider how the man, upon discovering that buried treasure, departs full of joy and sells all his possessions so as to purchase that field. And we must also examine
also what it is that he sells. It seems to me that according to this the field is Scripture, planted with the plain sense of the narrative found in the Law, the Prophets, and everything else (for the whole of Scripture's planting is abundant and varied), while the treasure buried within that field consists of the things lying beneath
the plain things, of the wisdom hidden "in a mystery," and in Christ, "in whom the treasures of wisdom and knowledge lie hidden." Someone else, however, might say instead that the field is that one truly full field, "which the Lord blessed" — God's Christ — and that the treasure buried within it is what Paul declares to be hidden in Christ, when he says of Christ the words
"in whom are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." The heavenly realities, then, and the kingdom of the heavens are set down as though pictured within the writings, which themselves constitute the kingdom of the heavens — or else Christ himself, king over the ages, is the kingdom of the heavens, compared to a treasure buried within that field. Having arrived at
this point you should ask whether the kingdom of the heavens is compared solely to the treasure buried within the field, so that the field would be understood as something distinct from the kingdom, or whether it is compared to the whole of it together — both the field and the treasure buried within — so that the kingdom, according to the comparison, consists of both the field and the treasure buried within the field. And a certain man, having come
into the field—whether the Scriptures or Christ, who consists of things plain and things concealed—discovers the buried treasure of wisdom, whether within Christ or within the Scriptures (for by traversing the field, examining the writings, and striving to comprehend Christ, he discovers the treasure lying within), and upon discovering it he conceals it again, judging it not without danger
to disclose the Scriptures' hidden meanings, or those things stored up in Christ as "wisdom and knowledge," to whoever happens along, and having hidden it he goes off to work out how he will buy the field, that is, the Scriptures, in order that they become a possession all his own, taking from God the "oracles of God" which were entrusted first of all to the Jews. And once the man discipled to Christ has bought the field, it is taken away
from those—God's reign, which under a different parable is called a vineyard—and it is handed over to a nation that produces its fruits, to the one who through faith has bought the field by selling everything he owned and retaining none of what he formerly possessed (nor does he keep any wickedness for himself). And you will apply this too: even the field which has the treasure hidden in it
...is the Christ. For those who "left everything" and followed him have, so to speak, on another line of reasoning sold their possessions, so that by having sold and given them up in exchange for those other things, and having received a fine assistance from God, they might purchase for themselves the great worth and value of the field that has the treasure hidden in it. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like"
"a merchant seeking fine pearls" (13:45-46). Since the kingdom of heaven is like this, and there are many merchants trading many wares, and it belongs not to any of them but to the one who seeks fine pearls and finds one costly pearl worth as much as the many, and buys it in exchange for everything - I think it reasonable to look into the nature of the pearl. Now observe
carefully that it does not say that he sold everyone he had - for he did not sell only those whom the man seeking fine pearls had bought, but everything he had, in order to buy that one fine pearl. We have found, then, among those who have written on precious stones, the following about the nature of the pearl: that of pearls some are of the land and some of the sea. And the
land pearls occur only among the Indians, and are suited for seals, slings, and necklaces. Of the sea pearls, the finer ones are found among these same Indians, and these are the best, occurring in the Red Sea. Second in rank among pearls are those taken from the Ocean off Britain. Third, and inferior not only to the first
but also to the second, are those found around the Bosporus, near Scythia. It was further said of the Indian pearl that it forms in shells resembling in nature large conches. These, it is recorded, make their pasture in the sea as though in herds, one leading them as a herd-chief, conspicuous in color and size and surpassing those under him, so that he bears a comparison to what is
called the "king" of bees. It has also been recorded concerning the hunting of the finer ones, that is, those in India, something like this: the natives, encircling with nets a great circle of shoreline, dive down together, taking pains to catch, out of all of them, the one that leads; for once he is caught, they say the hunting of the herd under him becomes effortless, since none of those belonging to it any longer stays still, but as though bound by a strap it
follows the herd-leader. It is also said that the generation of the pearls in India comes together over time, the creature undergoing several changes until it reaches completion. It is further recorded that the shell of the creature bearing the pearl opens in something like a yawn, and having opened, receives into itself the heavenly dew; and once filled with this, being pure and unclouded, it becomes radiant all around
and gives birth to a large and well-formed stone. But if it should ever partake of dew that is turbid, uneven, and wintry, it conceives a cloudy pearl marked with blemishes. We have further found this: that if, while making its way toward the completion of the stone it is bearing, it is caught in the middle by a flash of lightning, it closes up and, as if in terror, scatters and disperses its offspring into what are called "bubbles."
But there are times when, like premature births, they are born small and possessing a certain haziness, though well-formed nonetheless. And the Indian pearl has this further trait beyond the others: it is white in color, resembling translucent silver, and it shines with a light that gleams faintly greenish, and for the most part it has a round shape. It is also delicate in hue and softer than one would expect for a stone. And it is so pleasing
to look at that, as the writer who recorded these things about stones said, it is even celebrated in song among the most illustrious of them. This too is a sign of the finest pearl: that its roundness be turned as if on a lathe, and that its color be the whitest and most translucent, and that it be greatest in size. So much, then, for the Indian pearl. The one from Britain (they say) is golden in its surface hue, but somewhat
duller also in its luster. The one in the strait at the Bosporus is darker than the British and livid and altogether dim, but soft and elongated in shape. And the one in the strait at the Bosporus is not born in the pina, which is a kind of pearl-bearing shell, but in what are called mussels. And these — I mean the ones at the Bosporus — have
their feeding-ground in marshes. It is also recorded that there is a fourth kind of pearl, around Acarnania, in the shells of oysters; but these are not especially fine, being irregular both in shape and in color, altogether murky and impure. And there are others besides these, also around Acarnania, that are cast away on account of the seas. Having gathered these things from
the treatise on stones, I say that the Savior, knowing the difference among pearls — since among their kind there are both fine ones and other inferior ones — declared that the heavens' reign resembles a merchant in search of fine pearls. For if there were not some inferior ones among pearls, it would not have been said "seeking fine pearls." So then, among all the various words that profess to speak the truth and
among those who bring them forward, seek the pearls, and let there be (if I may put it this way) the shells that gather the heavenly dew and conceive from heaven the word of truth — the prophets — as the fine pearls, which the merchant-man in the passage before us seeks. And the leader of the flock of pearls, upon whose discovery the rest are also discovered along with him, the pearl of great price, the Christ of God, is
the word that surpasses the precious letters and thoughts of the law and the prophets, and once he is found, all the rest are also readily obtained. And the Savior converses with all the disciples as with merchant-men, not only seeking the fine pearls but also having found them and possessing them, among whom he says: "Do not cast your pearls before swine." It is clear that
these words were addressed to the disciples, as shown by what precedes them: "Seeing the crowds, he went up onto the mountain, and once he was seated his disciples approached him." For in the sequence of that passage it is said: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine." Perhaps, then, one who does not have pearls, or
a precious pearl is not even a disciple of the Savior... the good pearls, not the cloudy ones nor the misty ones, such as are the sayings of those of heterodox opinion, not born toward the east but toward the west or toward the north, if indeed we should take this too into account because of the difference we have found among pearls that occur in different places. But perhaps the muddied sayings, and
the heresies entangled in the works of the flesh, are the misty pearls, and the pearls that occur in swamps are not good. And you will connect, for the one seeking good pearls, the saying "seek, and you will find," and "everyone who seeks, finds." For what are you to "seek," or what is it that "everyone who seeks finds"? Let me be bold and say: the pearls, and the pearl,
which the one who has given up all things and been made to suffer loss possesses — on whose account Paul says, "I suffered the loss of all things, that I might gain Christ," calling "all things" the good pearls, and "that I might gain Christ" the one precious pearl. A lamp, then, is precious to those sitting in darkness, needful until the sun climbs into the sky; and precious too is the glory that was upon the face of Moses. But I think that
and of the prophets) is also a beautiful spectacle, through which we are led in toward being able to see the glory of Christ, concerning which the Father gives witness, saying: "You are my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased." But "what has been glorified has not been glorified in this respect, on account of the glory that surpasses it," and we have need, first, of the glory that admits of being brought to nothing, for the sake of "the surpassing
glory," just as there is need of the knowledge that is in part, which "will be brought to nothing when the perfect comes." Every soul, then, that comes into infancy and is to travel the road "toward perfection" has need, until "the fullness of time" arrives for it, of a tutor and stewards and guardians, so that after all these things the one who was previously "no different from a slave," though lord of all things, may be set free from the tutor and the stewards
and the guardians, and receive his father's possessions — things proportionate to the most precious pearl and to the perfect thing that is coming, which brings to nothing "that which is in part," whenever someone becomes able to make room for "that which surpasses the knowledge of Christ," having first trained himself — if I may call it so — in the kinds of knowledge that are surpassed by the knowledge of Christ. Yet most people, failing to grasp how beautiful the many pearls of the law are, and the still "partial" knowledge of
the whole prophetic corpus, suppose that, without those pearls being made clear and thoroughly grasped, they can find the one precious pearl and take hold of "that which surpasses the knowledge of Christ Jesus," in comparison with which all things that come before so great and so vast a knowledge, though not "refuse" by their own nature, come to be reckoned refuse — such as the manure that is perhaps cast, by the vinedresser, around the fig tree, this manure being for the purpose that
the tree itself bear fruit. "For everything, then, there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven," and there is a certain "season for gathering the good pearls" — the stones — and a season, after that gathering, for the further gathering together of these into the one beautiful pearl, the moment at which a person must go off and sell everything he possesses, so as to purchase that pearl. For just as all the
the one who is to become wise in words of truth must first be given elementary instruction, and must pass through a great deal — indeed a very great deal — of that elementary instruction, yet not remain in it as though honoring it as belonging to first principles, but rather, having passed over "to perfection," must be grateful to the introductory teaching for having been useful according to what came before — in this way the legal and prophetic writings, once perfectly understood,
are an elementary instruction leading toward a perfect understanding of the gospel and of the whole sense of the deeds and words of Christ Jesus. "Once more, the kingdom of the heavens may be compared to a dragnet thrown into the sea" (13:47–50). Just as with painted images and statues, the resemblance to what they depict is not total in every respect, but rather —
on the one hand, an image drawn in wax upon a single flat surface (a wooden panel, say) preserves the likeness of the outward appearance together with color, but no longer preserves the recesses and projections, only a semblance of them; whereas a sculpted figure made after the manner of statues attempts to preserve a likeness with regard to the recesses and projections, though no longer, again, in respect of color; and if, further,
a wax impression is made, it attempts to preserve both — I mean both the color and the recesses and projections — yet even so it is not an image of what lies within, in depth. In just this way, I would have you understand also the likenesses drawn from the gospel: that the kingdom of heaven is said to be like something not in respect of everything that belongs to the thing to which
the likeness is drawn, but in respect of certain features which the saying taken up requires. And so here too, the kingdom of the heavens resembles a net thrown into the sea — not, as some suppose, presenting to the argument distinct underlying natures belonging to the wicked and the righteous who have come under the net, so as to think that, because it gathers together from every kind, there exist many and diverse natures of the righteous,
and likewise of the wicked; for all the scriptures that display free will, and that hold sinners culpable while approving those who act rightly, stand opposed to such an interpretation — since it would not be just for blame to follow those from the base kinds who happen to be such by nature, nor praise to follow those from the finer kinds. For the cause of fish being foul or fine does not lie in the souls of the
fish, but in that which the word, knowing it, spoke of when it said: "let the waters bring forth creeping things having living souls," when God also made the great sea-monsters and every living soul of creeping creatures, which came forth from the waters each according to its own kind. So then, every living soul of creeping creatures came forth from the waters, each after its kind — the cause not lying in
the soul itself. But here we ourselves are the cause of being good and worthy of the kinds called vessels, or rotten and worthy of being thrown out; for it is not nature in us that is the cause of wickedness, but a voluntary choice that is wickedness-working. So too it is not nature that is the cause of righteousness, as though incapable of admitting injustice, but rather the reason which we have received, which fashions the righteous; for indeed
It is not possible to observe kinds of water creatures changing from base kinds, as among fish, to fine ones, or from better kinds to worse; but among human beings one can always observe the just or the wicked either advancing to virtue from vice, or dissolving from progress toward virtue into a flood of vice. Therefore
also in Ezekiel, concerning the one who turns from lawlessness to the keeping of the divine commandments, such things are written: "and if the lawless man turns away from all his lawless deeds that he committed" and so on down to "in that he has turned away from the wicked way, he shall live"; and concerning the one who dissolves from progress toward virtue
into the flood of vice, such things are written: "but when the righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits unrighteousness" and so on down to "and in his sins that he sinned, he shall die in them." Or let those who introduce fixed natures on the basis of the parable of the dragnet tell us: the "lawless man" who afterward turns away "from all his lawless deeds that he
committed" and keeps "all the commandments" of the Lord and does "righteousness and mercy" -- what kind of nature did he possess back when he was still lawless? Surely not the praiseworthy one. But then could it reasonably be said of a blameworthy nature, "from all his lawless deeds that he committed"? For if it belonged to the base nature because of what he had done earlier, then by what path did he move toward the better?
he belonged to the fine nature on account of his later deeds, how, being of a fine nature, was he lawless? You will raise the same difficulty concerning the righteous man who turns away "from his righteousness" and commits "unrighteousness according to all his lawless deeds." For at the time before he had turned away from righteousness, while he was still occupied with righteous works, he was not of a base nature -- for a base nature could not exist in righteousness, since
a bad tree (vice) cannot produce good fruit (the fruits that come from virtue). Nor again, if he were of a fine and unchangeable nature, would he, once reckoned righteous, have deserted the good — turning "from his righteousness" to "committing unrighteousness according to all his lawless deeds that he did." Since these things have been said, we must think that the kingdom of heaven has been likened
to a dragnet cast into the sea and gathering from every kind, for the display of the variety of purposes among human beings, which have the greatest possible difference from one another, so that the one gathering from every kind includes both the praiseworthy and the blameworthy in their inclinations toward the forms of virtues or vices. And the kingdom of heaven was likened to the varied weave of a dragnet according to
the old and new scripture, woven together from manifold and varied thoughts. And just as, among the fish caught under the dragnet, some turn up in this section of the net while others turn up in that one, each held fast under the part by which it has been caught, so too you would find, among those who have come under the dragnet of the scriptures, some held fast by the prophetic
...weave (say, according to Isaiah in this saying, or Jeremiah, or Daniel), others according to the Law, others according to the Gospel, and some according to the apostolic writings. For at first someone who is caught by the word, or seems to be caught, is taken hold of from some one part of the whole net. Nor is it any wonder if some of the fish thus caught turn out to lie enclosed within the whole
weave of the net in the scriptures, held fast on every side and gripped, unable to escape, but as it were enslaved on every side and not permitted to fall out of the net. Now this net was cast into the sea, into the wave-tossed life of human beings everywhere across the inhabited world, [...] and swimming amid the murky affairs of life. But this net, before
our savior Jesus, was not yet completely filled; for the weave belonging to the Law and the Prophets still lacked the one who said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish but to fulfill." And the weave of the net has reached its fulfillment in the Gospels and through the words Christ spoke by means of the apostles. For this reason, then, the kingdom
of heaven is like a net cast into the sea and gathering from every kind. Apart from the interpretations already given, "gathering from every kind" can also indicate the calling from every kind of nation. And those who served the net cast into the sea - the lord of the net is Jesus Christ, and the angels who came to him and served him,
who do not haul the net up from the sea, nor bring it to the shore outside it - the affairs outside this life - unless the net is filled, that is, until "the fullness of the nations" has entered it. But once it has entered, then they haul it up out of the things here below, and carry it to the place figuratively termed the shore; where there will be work
for those who have hauled it up, both to sit down beside the shore and to settle themselves there, so that they may set each one of the good fish caught under the net into its own proper class, according to what are there called their receptacles, and throw out those that are in the opposite condition and are called rotten. And the "outside" is the furnace of fire, as the savior explained when he said:
"So it will be at the end of the age: the angels will go out and separate the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire." Yet it must be observed that already, through the parable of the weeds and through the present comparison, we are taught that the angels are going to be entrusted with distinguishing and separating the wicked from the righteous. For above
it is said that "the Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of stumbling and those who do lawlessness, and will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there shall be wailing and grinding of teeth," but here, that "the angels will go out and separate the wicked from among"
of the righteous, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire. But it does not follow from this, as some suppose, that those saved in Christ surpass the holy angels themselves. After all, in what sense could people cast into vessels by holy angels be compared to the very angels performing that casting, given that they stand under those angels' authority? We say this
not in ignorance that some angels, who have not been entrusted with that kind of stewardship (though not even all of these), differ from the human beings who are to be saved in Christ. For we have also read, “into which things angels long to look,” where it is not said that “all” the angels do so. We are likewise aware of the statement that we shall pass judgment on angels, though nowhere is it stated that we shall judge “all” the angels. Now that these things have been written concerning the dragnet and those under the dragnet, whoever wishes
to maintain that, prior to the age's consummation and prior to the angels' going forth to sort the wicked out from the righteous, there exist no evil ones as well under the dragnet, gathered from every kind, seems both a failure to grasp Scripture and a longing after impossibilities. Let it not astonish us, then, if, in advance of the wicked being sorted out from the righteous by those angels who shall be dispatched for that task,
we see our own congregations filled with evil people as well. But would that those who are to be thrown into the furnace of fire were not more numerous than the righteous! Now since we said at the outset that parables and comparisons are not applied in every respect to the things to which they are compared or likened, but only in some respects, this still needs to be established, either from what will be said, or from the fact that in the case of the
fish, as regards their life, something bad happens to them in being caught under the dragnet (for they are deprived of the life proper to their nature, and whether cast into vessels or thrown away, the worst that befalls them is simply forfeiting the life they possessed as fish); but in the case of those for whose sake the parable is taken up, it is a bad thing to be in the sea
and not to come under the dragnet, so as to be thrown into the vessels together with the good ones. And just as in this way the bad fish are thrown out and cast away, so the bad ones, according to the likeness now before us, are thrown into the furnace of fire, so that what is said in Ezekiel concerning the furnace may reach even to these: “And the word of the Lord came to
me, saying: Son of man, look, the house of Israel has all become, for me, mingled together with bronze and iron,” and so on, down to “and you shall know that I am the Lord who poured out my wrath upon you.” Have you understood all these things? They say, Yes (13:51[52]). Jesus Christ, who has knowledge of what lies within the hearts of men (a point John also taught concerning this in
the Gospel), does not ask out of ignorance, but having once taken on manhood, he makes use also of all that belongs to it, one of which is asking. And it is not surprising if the Savior does this, since even the God of all, figuring himself after the manner of men, “as if a man should figure his son after himself,” makes inquiry, as in “Adam, where are you?” and
"Where is Abel your brother?" But someone forcing the point here will say that "you have understood" is spoken not as a question but as a statement, and he will say that the disciples too, bearing witness to his declaration, say to him "Yes." Still, whether he is asking or declaring, it is necessarily said not "these things" alone (a single demonstrative) nor "all things" alone, but "all these things." Now he seems
to be presenting the disciples as having become scribes prior to the kingdom of heaven; but standing against this is a statement found in the Acts of the Apostles, phrased thus: "But observing the boldness of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were unlettered men and laymen, they were amazed, and recognized them, that they had been with Jesus." Someone will therefore raise a question about this:
if they were scribes, how are they called "unlettered" in Acts "and laymen"? But if they were "unlettered and laymen," how are they most clearly called scribes by the Savior? One could say, in answer to what has been asked, that not all but Peter and John were the ones called "unlettered and laymen" in Acts, while the disciples were more numerous, and it is of those who understand all things
that "every scribe" and what follows is said; or, every scribe is named as one who has been instructed in a teaching bound to the letter of the law, so that even the unlettered and laymen (but who are led by the letter of the law) are called scribes according to a certain sense. And it belongs especially to laymen, who do not know how to interpret tropologically nor understand the things of the elevation of the scriptures,
but who trust in the bare letter and vindicate this, that they be styled scribes. In this way too one will explain "woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," as said to everyone who knows nothing beyond the letter. Here one asks whether, just as there is a scribe of the law, so too there will be one of the gospel, and just as one who reads and hears and speaks the law, saying "these things are allegorized,"
so too with the gospel, so that one may know—while the history according to what actually happened is preserved—the unerring elevation to spiritual things, so that the lessons may not be "spiritual things of wickedness," but, on the contrary to the spiritual things of wickedness, spiritual things of goodness. Now a scribe becomes a disciple of the kingdom of the heavens, taken in the simpler way, whenever someone takes up from Judaism the ecclesiastical teaching of Jesus Christ; but in the
deeper sense, when someone, having received the introductions through the letter of the scriptures, ascends to the spiritual things, called the kingdom of heaven. And with each thought that is attained and has advanced beyond, of the things thus rendered as "heavens." In this way too you will interpret tropologically "repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near," so that the scribes—namely those who take their rest in the bare letter alone—repenting from
such an understanding, may become disciples of the spiritual teaching through Jesus Christ, the living Word, called the kingdom of heaven. For this reason, to the extent that Jesus Christ, the God-Word who "was with God in the beginning," does not take up residence in a soul, that soul does not contain the kingdom of the heavens; but when someone comes near to making room for the Word, to that one the
...kingdom of heaven. But if kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are the same in substance (even if not in conception), it is clear that those told, "God's kingdom is inside you," could just as well be told, "the kingdom" of heaven is "inside you" too — and this especially on account of the passage from the letter to the spirit, since
"whenever" one "turns to the Lord, the veil" that lies "upon the letter is lifted away, for the Lord is that Spirit." And the one who is truly master of the house is both free and rich — rich because, having been made a disciple from the study of letters to the kingdom of heaven, he is rich "in every word" that comes from the old covenant "and in all knowledge" concerning
the new teaching of Christ Jesus; and having this wealth laid up in his own treasury, in which, as one made a disciple of the kingdom of heaven, he stores treasure "in heaven, where neither moth destroys nor thieves break in." And indeed it can truly be determined, concerning the one who (as we have explained) stores treasure in the heavens, that no moth among the passions is able so much as to touch his spiritual and
heavenly wealth. Now I said "moth of the passions" taking my starting point from the Proverbs, where it is written: "as a moth in a garment and a worm in wood, so grief injures a man's heart" — for grief is both worm and moth, injuring the heart that does not have its treasures in the heavens and among spiritual things, in which if one stores treasure (since "where
the treasure is, there also is the heart"), he has his heart in the heavens, and on its account he says, "though an army should encamp against me, my heart will not fear." So too the thieves, of whom the Savior said, "all who came before me are thieves and robbers," cannot break in and steal the things stored up in the heavens, nor the heart that is present with them
and that on this account says, "together he raised us up and seated us together among the heavenly realms in Christ," and "our citizenship, meanwhile, has its place in the heavens." Now since every scribe made a disciple of the kingdom of heaven resembles a man who is master of a house, one who brings forth from his treasury things new and old, it is clear that also (by what is called the conversion of the proposition) everyone who does not
whoever draws out of his storehouse both what is new and what is old, that one alone is not a scribe trained for the reign of the heavens. We must therefore strive by every means to store up within our hearts, through devoting ourselves to "reading, exhortation, and teaching," and through pondering "the law of the Lord night and day," not merely the new pronouncements found in the gospels, in the writings of the apostles, and in their revelation, but also
the old pronouncements of the law which possesses "a shadow of the good things that are coming," together with those of the prophets who spoke in accordance with them beforehand. These will be brought together whenever we both read them and come to understand them, and, keeping them in mind, weigh "spiritual realities against spiritual realities" at the fitting moment — not setting side by side things incapable of comparison, but rather things comparable, possessing some likeness of phrasing that signifies one and the same thing, and of ideas and teachings, so that "by the mouth of two
"or three" or even more "witnesses" drawn from Scripture, let us establish and confirm "every word" of God. And through these we must also put to shame those who, so far as lies in them, divide the Godhead and cut off the new things from the old, since they are far from being like the master of the household, who brings forth from his treasure things new and old. But since he
made like to someone is distinct from that person he resembles, then the scribe trained as a disciple for the reign of the heavens will be the one made like, while distinct from him is the master of the house, who draws forth from his storehouse both what is new and what is old; and the one made like to him, as an imitator of him, desires to do the corresponding thing. Perhaps, then, the master of the house is himself the man Jesus,
drawing forth from his storehouse, according to the season of his teaching, things new — namely the spiritual realities, continually made new by him within the inward man of the righteous, who is himself renewed "day after day" — and things old — namely those "stamped in letters upon stones," and upon hearts of stone belonging to the old man, in order that, through setting the letter beside the spirit's disclosure, he may enrich
the scribe trained as a disciple for the reign of the heavens, and fashion him into his own likeness, until the disciple "comes to be as his teacher," first imitating the one who imitates Christ, then afterward imitating Christ himself, in keeping with what Paul declared: "become imitators of me, just as I too am of Christ." Yet it is also possible, more plainly, that Jesus the master of the house draws forth from his storehouse
things new — the evangelical teaching — and things old — the comparison of the sayings taken from the law and the prophets, examples of which one can find in the gospels. And concerning these old and new things one must also listen to the spiritual law speaking in Leviticus: "and you shall eat the old, and the old of the old, and you shall carry out the old before the face of the new things; and my dwelling I will place
among you." For it is with a blessing that we consume what is old — the words of the prophets — and, within those old things, the oldest of the old — the legal precepts; then, once the new and evangelical realities have arrived, living by the standard of the gospel we carry forward what is old in the letter so as to give place to what is new, and he plants his own dwelling in our midst, bringing to completion the promise he had spoken: "I will make my home among them and walk about in their midst." And so it happened
when Jesus had brought these parables to a close, he went away from that place. And coming into his own country (13:53[–58]). Since above we examined whether the things spoken to the crowds were parables while those spoken to the disciples were likenesses, and we set forth the observations that arose in connection with this — observations that, I think, are not to be despised — one must know that the statement seems to contradict all of that,
namely, that it is appended not merely to the parables but likewise to the likenesses (as we have set them forth) — "so it happened that once Jesus had brought these parables to a close, he went away from that place." We ask, then, whether all those earlier statements must be set aside, or whether instead we ought to speak of two distinct classes of parable — those told to the crowds and those held out to the disciples — or whether one must reckon the term "parable" as equivocal, or
The clause “so it happened that once Jesus had brought these parables to a close” must be referred back only to the parables spoken earlier, before the “likenesses.” For on account of the saying, “to you it has been granted to know the hidden things of the kingdom of the heavens, while to everyone else it comes by way of parables,” it cannot be said that the savior addressed the disciples in parables on that occasion, seeing that they do not belong among “those outside.” But to this
there follows either that the phrase “now when Jesus had brought these parables to their conclusion, he withdrew from that place” must be referred to the parables spoken furthest above, or that the word “parable” is used equivocally, or that parables fall into two distinct classes, or that the things we called “likenesses” are not parables at all. But note that he speaks the parables outside his own homeland — the ones which, when he had finished them, he departed from there, and
coming into his own homeland, he taught them in their synagogue. Mark likewise states: “And he came into his own homeland, and his disciples follow him.” One must therefore inquire, according to the wording, whether by “his homeland” he means Nazareth or Bethlehem — the former on account of the words “he will be given the name of a Nazorean,” the latter since it was there he was born. Further,
I raise the question whether, although the evangelists might have written “when he arrived at Bethlehem” or “when he arrived at Nazareth,” they refrained from doing so and instead called it “his homeland” for some mystical reason bound up in that expression concerning his homeland — the whole of Judea being meant, in which he was held in dishonor, in keeping with the saying: no prophet lacks honor save in his own homeland. And if one considers
Jesus Christ to be “a stumbling block to the Jews,” a people that persecutes him still, even to this day, while among the nations he is preached and believed (for his word has run to the whole earth), he will see that Jesus had no honor in his own homeland, but is honored among those who were strangers “to the covenants” — that is, among the nations. But what he was saying as he taught in their synagogue
the evangelists have not recorded, except that it was of such magnitude and such a kind that everyone was astonished; and it is likely that what was said was beyond writing down. Yet he taught in their synagogue, not splitting off from it nor setting it aside. And the phrase “Where did this man get this wisdom?” clearly shows the abundant and extraordinary wisdom of Jesus’ words, worthy of the saying “and
something greater than Solomon is here.” And he performed works of power greater than those done in Elijah and in Elisha, and even earlier still in Moses and Joshua son of Nun. And those who marveled said — not knowing him to be the son of a virgin, nor believing it (even though it was said), but supposing him to be Joseph the carpenter’s son — “Isn’t this the carpenter’s boy?” And indeed, belittling the whole of his apparent
closest kinship, they said: “Is his mother not called Mary, and are not his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? And are not all his sisters found among us?” Thus they supposed him to be Joseph's son, born of Mary. Some, however, hold a different view of the brothers of Jesus, drawing on the tradition set out in the Gospel entitled “According to Peter,” or
the Book of James, [that they were] Joseph's sons by an earlier wife who had lived with him before Mary. Those who say this wish to preserve Mary's dignity in virginity to the end, so that the body judged fit to serve the word that said, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you," might not be known to have experienced intercourse with a man after that
holy Spirit, and the power from on high that had overshadowed her, had come upon her. And I think there is reason to say that among men Jesus became the firstfruits of purity in chastity, and among women Mary; for it would not be fitting to ascribe that firstfruits of virginity to any other besides her. And this is the James whom Paul says he saw, in the letter to the Galatians, where he says: "But another of the
apostles I did not see, except James the brother of the Lord." And this James shone so brightly among the people for his righteousness that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Jewish Antiquities in twenty books, seeking the cause of the disaster that befell them, said that these things happened to them because of the wrath of God, on account of what had been dared against James, brother of the one called Christ, Jesus.
And "it is a marvel" that, although he did not accept that our Jesus was the Christ, he nonetheless bore such great witness to James's righteousness. He also says that the people believed those events had befallen them on James's account. And Jude wrote a letter, brief in its lines, but filled with the vigorous words of heavenly grace; who in the opening says: "Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother
of James." But concerning Joseph and Simon we have found nothing recorded. As for "and are not all his sisters with us?" — it seems to me this signifies something along these lines: they think as we do, not as Jesus does, and they possess nothing of the extraordinary understanding that Jesus has. But perhaps through these words a perplexity is being expressed as to whether Jesus is not even a man, but something
more divine, though he was, as they took him to be, Joseph and Mary's son, and brother to four males, and no fewer than that of other females too, and yet possessed nothing resembling anyone from his own line, nor had he, through education and instruction, attained so great a degree of power and wisdom. For indeed elsewhere they say: "How does this man know letters, not having learned?" — to which what is said here is similar.
Yet those who said these things, and were so greatly perplexed and astonished, did not believe but were scandalized at him, as though the eyes of their understanding were held fast by powers which he was destined, at the time of his passion, to triumph over on the wood. But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor except in his own country. It must be examined whether
the saying, taken universally, can be applied equally to every prophet referred to (as though each of the prophets were dishonored in his own country), or whether, because it is spoken in the singular, this was said about one particular person. If then it is said about one, what has been said is sufficient, as we refer what is written to the Savior. But if it is universal, then from the historical record it is not true (for neither
Elijah was not dishonored in Thesbon of Galaad, nor Elisha in Ebalmaoula, nor Samuel in Armathaim, nor Jeremiah in Anathoth), but understood tropologically it is also entirely true. For we must consider Judea to be their homeland, and that Israel to be their kindred, and the body, perhaps, to be their house; for they were all dishonored in Judea by the Israel "according to the flesh," while still being in
the body, as the Acts of the Apostles records it being spoken as a rebuke to the people: "For which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they slew those who had announced beforehand the coming of the righteous one." And in Paul, in the first letter to the Thessalonians, similar things are said: "And you became imitators, brothers, of the churches of God that are
in Judea, in Christ Jesus, because you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, the very ones who slew both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and do not please God, and stand opposed to all mankind." No prophet, then, lacks honor among the nations; either they are wholly unacquainted with him, or
having learned of him and received him, they honor him as a prophet. Such are those who belong to the church. But the prophets are dishonored, first, because they were historically persecuted by the people, and second, because the people did not put faith in their prophecy. For had they trusted Moses and the prophets, they would likewise have trusted Christ, who demonstrated that it follows, for those trusting Moses and the prophets, that they
believe Christ, and for those who do not believe Christ it follows that they do not believe Moses. Further, just as the one who sins is said to dishonor God "through transgression of the law," so too the prophet is dishonored by the one who disbelieves the prophecies, through not believing what was prophesied. It is useful, for the historical sense, to collect what Jeremiah suffered among the people, on account of which
he said: "So I resolved not to speak, never to utter the Lord's name again," and again elsewhere, "I have continually been mocked." And whatever he suffered at the hands of the king of Israel at that time is recorded in his prophecy. And that people from among the crowd came many times seeking to stone Moses as well, this too is written, and his homeland was not the stones of any
place, but those who followed him, the people, among whom he too was dishonored. And Isaiah, too, is recorded as having been sawn in two by the people. But if someone does not accept the account, because it is transmitted in the apocryphal Isaiah, let him trust what is written this way in the letter addressed to the Hebrews: "stoned they were, sawn in two, put through trials"; for the phrase "sawn in two" applies to Isaiah, just as
"they died by the slaughter of the sword" refers to Zechariah, murdered "between the temple and the altar," as the Savior taught, bearing witness (as I think) to a writing not found among the common and published books, but likely found among the apocrypha. And they were dishonored in their homeland among the Jews, and went about "in sheepskins, in goatskins, destitute, afflicted," and
what follows. For "all who want to live devoutly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." It is likely that Paul, knowing this — that a prophet has no honor in his own country — though he proclaimed the word in many places, did not proclaim it publicly in Tarsus. And for this reason the apostles left Israel, and did what was commanded by the Savior: "make disciples of all the
nations," and "you will be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." They did what was commanded in Judea and Jerusalem; yet because a prophet is without honor among his own people, since the Jews would not accept the message, they departed to the nations. And observe, if you are able, that because of
"I will pour out from my spirit upon all flesh, and they will prophesy" — this has been fulfilled after the coming of the Savior in the churches from among the nations, one may say, that those who were formerly of the world and who, through believing, are no longer of the world, in their own country — the world — though they have received the Holy Spirit and prophesy, have no honor, but are dishonored. For this reason
those enduring what the prophets endured are blessed, according to what is said by the Savior: "for their fathers did the same things to the prophets." One who attends carefully to these things — if, because of living very earnestly and rebuking sinners, he should be hated and plotted against, as one persecuted and reviled "for the sake of righteousness" — will feel no grief at all, but instead will rejoice and exult,
being persuaded because of these things that he has great reward "in the heavens" from the one who has made him like the prophets by having suffered the same things. Therefore one who is zealous for a prophetic life and who has taken in the spirit that was in them must be dishonored in the world and by sinners, who are burdened by the life of the righteous one. Next it is possible to see the words: he did not do many works of power there because of their
unbelief. Through these words we are taught that the works of power came about in those who believe, since "to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance," while in unbelievers not only did the works of power not operate, but — as Mark recorded — they even could not operate. For observe the phrase "he could not do any work of power there"; for he did not say "he did not want to," but "he could not," as though
the cooperation that comes upon the operating power were brought about by the faith of the one in whom the power was operating, while it is hindered from operating by unbelief. Observe, then, that to those who said, "why were we not able to cast it out?" he replied, "on account of your little faith," and it is said to Peter, as he began sinking: "man of little faith, why did you doubt?" But also the woman with the flow of blood, not presuming to ask
about the healing, but only reasoning that if she touched "the hem of his garment," healing would come, "at once she was made well," and the Savior himself confesses the manner of the healing, saying: "who touched me? for I perceived power going out from me." And perhaps, just as in the case of bodies there is in some a natural attraction toward certain things, as in the magnet stone toward iron and
...to what is called naphtha in relation to fire, so is such faith in relation to divine power. This is why it is also said, "If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move." It seems to me that Matthew and Mark, precisely because they want to demonstrate the superiority of the divine power, say that it is able to act even amid unbelief, but not to a
greater degree—only as much as it can act within the faith of those benefited. Their point was not that he performed no works of power on account of their unbelief, but rather that in that place he performed few works of power. And Mark did not say "he was unable to do any work of power there" and stop with that, but added, "except that, laying his hands on a few sick people, he healed them"—the power within him prevailing, and thus overcoming their unbelief.
It seems to me that, just as in the case of bodily things farming by itself is not sufficient for the gathering in of fruits unless what surrounds it (or rather, the one who encompasses it) cooperates toward this with whatever quality the one who orders it wishes, making it as he wants it to be, so too what encompasses it, without farming, would not—rather, the one who provides for it would not—make
the things that spring from the earth spring from the earth without farming; for he did this once for all in the words "let the earth put forth vegetation, grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness." So too, neither do works of power apart from the faith of those being healed display the complete work of healing, nor does faith, whatever sort it may be, apart from the divine
power. You will also apply what is written about wisdom to faith and to the virtues, each in its kind, so as to produce a statement like this: "For even if someone is perfect in faith among the sons of men, if the power from you is absent, he will be reckoned as nothing"; or "perfect in self-control," so that "among the sons of men, if the self-control from you is absent, he will be reckoned as nothing"; or
"perfect in righteousness and the other virtues," so that "if the righteousness from you is absent, and the other virtues from you are absent, he will be reckoned as nothing." Hence, "let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, nor the strong man boast in his strength"; for what is worthy of boasting is not ours but is a gift of God—the wisdom that comes from him, and the
strength that comes from him, and so with the rest. "At that time Herod the tetrarch heard about John the Baptist" (14:1–2[–11]). In Mark it is thus, and in Luke it is thus. The Jews held differing opinions about these matters—some false, such as the view held by the Sadducees concerning the raising of the dead, whom they reckoned as never rising, and about angels,
that they do not exist, but that what is written about them is merely to be read figuratively and contains nothing true with respect to the historical account; and other opinions true, such as that the dead are raised, which the Pharisees taught concerning the resurrection of the dead. So the question raised at this point is whether there was some such opinion about the soul which Herod mistakenly held, along with some of the people,
that the John who had been killed by him a short time before had risen from the dead after being beheaded, and that he himself, using a different name and now being called Jesus, was receptive of the same powers that had previously worked in John. What plausibility, then, does it have that the one recognized by nearly the entire populace and renowned throughout all Judea, whom they held to be the son
of “the carpenter” and of Mary, and to have brothers and sisters of the sort he had, was thought to be no other than John, whose father was Zechariah and mother Elizabeth—these themselves not being obscure among the people? It is likely, rather, that the people, holding the opinion about John “that he really was a prophet,” and being so numerous that the Pharisees feared them (because they did not wish to seem displeasing to the people
by what they said), when answering whether his baptism was “from heaven or from men,” were not ignorant that he was the son of Zechariah. And perhaps the report of the vision that appeared in the temple, where Gabriel had shown himself to Zechariah, had even reached some of them. What plausibility, then, does the deception have—whether Herod’s or that of some of the people—leading to the belief
that there were not two distinct persons, John and Jesus, but that John, one and the same, having risen after being beheaded, from the dead, was called Jesus? One might say that the false opinion of reincarnation arose in Herod and in some of the people, on account of which they supposed that the one who had once been John in his birth had also come
from the dead into life as Jesus. Yet even this false opinion is rendered implausible by the interval of time separating the birth of John from that of Jesus, which is no more than six months. Perhaps, rather, some such supposition existed in Herod: that the powers that had worked in John had passed over to Jesus—those powers on account of which John had been believed by the people to be the baptist,
and one might use an argument of this sort: just as it is said of John, on account of the spirit and power of Elijah and not on account of his soul, “he is Elijah who is to come,” the spirit that was in Elijah and the power that was in him having passed over to John, so Herod supposed that the powers in John had, in John himself,
worked the deeds of the baptism and the teaching (“for John did no sign at all”), while in Jesus they worked the marvelous powers. One will say that those who declared Elijah to have appeared in Jesus, or one of the prophets “of old” to have been raised, supposed something similar, and that no difficulty for inquiry attaches to the view of those declaring that, like one among the prophets, such a prophet Jesus was.
The account, then, is false—whether it is the one recorded about Herod concerning Jesus, or the one spoken by certain others. Still, it seems to me that the parallel is held more plausibly—that John had come forth “in the spirit and power of Elijah”—than what is now supposed by these people about John and Jesus. But since we first learned that after the temptation
the Savior, “having heard that John had been handed over, withdrew into Galilee,” and second, that <John>, being in prison, having heard the things concerning Jesus, “having sent two of his disciples said to him: are you the one who is coming, or are we to expect another?”; and third, quite simply, that Herod said concerning Jesus, that he himself is John the Baptist; he himself has been raised from
the dead—though we nowhere learned beforehand the manner of the killing of the Baptist—for this reason Matthew has now also recorded this, and Mark likewise, in a similar way to him; but Luke passed over in silence most of the narrative found in these two. Matthew's wording runs as follows: for Herod, having seized John, bound him in prison, on account of
this, then, it seems to me that, just as “the law and the prophets held sway down to John,” after whom the prophetic grace from the Jews came to an end, so too the authority of those who reigned among the people (which extended to the putting to death of those judged by them worthy of death) lasted until John, and once the last of the prophets had been unlawfully put to death by Herod, it was this same king of the Jews who was stripped of the
authority to put to death. Had Herod not been stripped of that power, Pilate would not have pronounced against Jesus the sentence of death, but Herod together with the assembled elders and chief priests of the people would have sufficed for this. And then, I think, was fulfilled what was said by Jacob to Judah in this manner: “a ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a
leader from Israel, until he comes to whom it is reserved, and he himself is the expectation of nations.” Perhaps, too, the Jews were stripped of this authority because divine providence granted the teaching of Christ pasturage among the people, in order that, though the Jews might obstruct it, it would not go so far as to destroy those who believed, since it seemed the teaching of Christ was granted pasturage among the people, so that, even if
it were hindered by the Jews, it might not proceed as far as the killing of believers, since it seemed to be happening according to law. Now Herod, having seized John, shut him away in prison, thereby making a symbol of shutting up and locking away—so far as lay in his power and in the wickedness of the people—the prophetic word, and preventing it from still remaining, in freedom, as before, a herald of the truth. This
Herod did on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. For John kept saying to him: it is not lawful for you to have her. This Philip held the tetrarchy over “the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis.” Now some suppose that after Philip died, having left behind Herodias as his daughter, Herod took his brother's wife in marriage, since the law allowed such a union in a case of childlessness.
But we, since we nowhere find it clearly stated that Philip had died, reckon that Herod's transgression was even greater, because he took away his brother's wife while his brother was still living. For this reason John, adorned with prophetic boldness of speech and not overawed by the royal dignity of Herod, nor silent about so great a sin out of fear of death, kept saying to Herod, filled with a divine disposition of mind,
You are not permitted to keep her. For ‘you are not permitted to have your brother’s wife.’ And Herod, having seized John, bound him and put him away in prison, not daring to kill ‘the prophetic word’ outright and take it away from the populace. Yet the consort of the ruler of Trachonitis, a certain wicked opinion and depraved teaching, brought forth a daughter bearing the same name, whose
seemingly graceful movements, which pleased Herod (who loved matters of birth), became the reason there is no longer a head among the people. And even to this day, it is my view that those stirrings among the Jewish people which appear to accord with the law turn out to be nothing but Herodias's daughter. But Herodias’s dance was the opposite of the sacred dance, which those who do not
dance will be reproached on hearing: ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance.’ And at the birthday celebrations of their lawless reigning word they dance, so as to please that word with their movements. Now one of those before us observed the birthday of Pharaoh recorded in Genesis and explained that the base person, loving the affairs of birth, celebrates a birthday. But we, having found this
occasion from him, found in no scripture a birthday kept by a righteous person. For Herod is more unjust than that Pharaoh. For by that one, at a birthday, the chief baker is put to death, but by this one, John, than whom ‘no one greater has arisen among those born of women,’ about whom the Savior says, ‘But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, even more than a prophet.’ Yet gratitude is owed to God, that if
even the prophetic grace has been taken away from the people, that grace, greater than all of it, has been poured out upon the nations through our Savior Jesus, ‘who became free among the dead.’ ‘For even if he was crucified out of weakness, yet he lives by the power of God.’ Further, observe the people among whom clean and unclean foods are scrutinized, while prophecy is despised, brought on a platter in place of
a fish. But the Jews do not have the head of prophecy, since they deny Christ Jesus, the sum of all prophecy. And the prophet is beheaded because of oaths, in which it was better to break the oath than to keep it. For the charge of rashness in swearing and the charge of the perjury arising from that rashness were not the same as <the charge, arising from keeping the oath,> of murdering a prophet. And he is not beheaded for this reason alone,
but also because of those reclining at table, who wanted the prophet killed rather than alive. And those who rejoice at his birth recline and feast together with the wicked reigning word of the Jews. You may at some point make graceful use of this saying against those who swear rashly and wish to carry out oaths undertaken for lawlessness, pointing out that observing an oath is not always proper, just as it was not proper for
Herod’s was. Further, notice that it is not openly but secretly and in prison that Herod murders John. For indeed the Jewish people of today do not openly deny the prophecies, but in effect and in secret they deny them, and are convicted of disbelieving them. For just as trust in Moses would have led them to trust in Jesus as well, so too, if they had believed the prophets,
they would have accepted the one prophesied. But by disbelieving this, they also disbelieve those prophecies, and they cut off and shut up in prison “the prophetic word,” and they have it dead and dismembered and nowhere whole, because its meaning escapes them. It is we, rather, who possess Jesus complete and undivided, now that the prophecy spoken of him has reached fulfillment: “not a bone <of his> shall be broken.” Then John’s disciples came and buried his remains,
and they came and reported it to Jesus. And he withdrew to a deserted place — the nations. And after the killing of the prophets crowds followed him from the cities everywhere. And when he saw the great crowd, he was moved with compassion and healed their sick, and after this he feeds those who followed him, by blessing and multiplying a few loaves. And Jesus, hearing of it, withdrew from there by
boat to a deserted place by himself (14:12–13[–14]). The literal sense teaches us how much strength there is in withdrawing from persecutors and from the expectation of being plotted against on account of the word. For this, on the one hand, would happen reasonably; but for one who is able to be outside such circumstances to go and meet them head-on is rash and reckless. And who could still be in doubt about avoiding
such things, when Jesus not only withdrew because of what happened to John, but likewise gave this teaching in his own words: “should they pursue you through this town, take flight into the next.” Now a trial that comes upon us not of our own doing must be endured very nobly and with courage; but when there is opportunity to sidestep it, failing to do so is reckless. But since after the literal sense we must also examine
the passage according to the higher sense, it must be said that, when the prophecy was plotted against by the Jews and put to death — because among them the affairs of birth were honored, and by the acceptance of empty movements (which had come to be, as judged by truth, unrhythmic and discordant, but as is supposed by the master of the wicked and his fellow banqueters, well-ordered and to their liking) — Jesus withdraws from the place in which the prophecy
that was plotted against was condemned. And he withdraws to the deserted place of God among the nations, so that the word of God, since the kingdom was being taken up from those people and given to “a nation producing its fruits,” might come to be among the nations, and through him “many” might become his “rather than she who has a husband,” that is, the law. Now when the word was formerly among the Jews, it was not
among them as it now is among the nations. Therefore the text tells us he withdrew by boat — that is, in the body — to the deserted place, going apart on his own once word reached him of the prophet’s murder. And by himself, having come into the desert, he was in it, in that his word and his teaching were peculiarly his own, apart from what was customary and established among the nations. And the crowds among
the nations, having heard that the word had come to dwell in their desert and that it was found by itself (as we said before), followed him from their own cities, each one having abandoned the ancestral customs of superstition and having come to the law of Christ. And they followed him on foot, and not in a boat, inasmuch as it was the soul itself that followed, not the body, and by the
having followed the image of God with a purpose persuaded by the word. And to these Jesus goes out, since they were not able to come to him, so that, having become one of those who are outside, he might bring the outsiders in. Great is the crowd outside, to which the Word of God goes out, and pouring out upon it the light of his oversight, he saw it, and having seen
that they were rather worthy of pity because they were in such a condition, he who is beyond suffering suffered, as one who loves humanity, by being moved with compassion, and he was not only moved with compassion but also healed their sick, who had various and manifold infirmities arising from vice. But if you wish to see what the infirmities of the soul are, consider for me those devoted to money, those devoted to glory, and those devoted to boys
and anyone who is a lover of women. For these too he saw among the crowds, and being moved with compassion for them, he healed them. Not every sin, however, is a guard of this kind, but only that which has settled into the whole soul. For thus one can see the lovers of money wholly stretched out toward silver and its guarding and gathering, while the lovers of glory are stretched toward silver and
the guarding of it, and toward praise from the many and more vulgar people. And you will understand the corresponding case regarding the rest whom we have named, and whatever else resembles these. Since, then, in explaining the phrase, "and he cured the ones among them who were ill," we stated that a sickness and a sin are not the same in every instance, it is worth offering, from Scripture, some clarification also about the difference between these. The apostle, then, says to the Corinthians, who have various sins,
writing: "For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a good number sleep." For listen, in these words, to the conjunction "and," which weaves together and makes a composite out of different sins, in that some are weak, others are sick - more than weak - and still others besides both are those who sleep. For some, being prone through the soul's weakness to sin in whatever way,
even if they are not wholly given over to some particular form of sin as the sick are, are merely weak. But those who, with the whole soul and the whole heart and the whole mind, instead of loving God, love money or petty glory or women or boys, these have suffered more than weakness and are sick. And those sleep who, though it is necessary to pay attention and be watchful in soul,
do not do this, but from much inattentiveness are dozing off in their purpose and drowsing in their reasonings. These are they who, "dreaming, defile the flesh and reject lordship," and, comparing to dreams the things concerning real affairs, do not accept what is waking and true, but are deceived by the things in empty fantasies. Concerning these it is also said in Isaiah, "as one who is thirsty dreams
as one who drinks, and rising up remains thirsty still, his soul having hoped for nothing - such, likewise, will be the wealth belonging to every nation that has campaigned against Jerusalem." Even if, then, we seem to have digressed, in explaining the difference between the weak and the sick and those who sleep, because the apostle, in his letter to the Corinthians, had said what we have set forth, we have made this digression, wishing to show what is signified
an intelligible sense from the fact that "he healed their sick." After this the text says that "when evening came, his disciples approached him, saying: the place is deserted and the hour has already passed; therefore dismiss the crowds, so they can head off to the villages to purchase food for themselves" (14:15[-21]). And note, first of all, that when he was about to give the loaves of blessing
to the disciples, so that they might set them before the crowds, "he healed their sick," so that, having become well, they might partake of the loaves of blessing; for those who are still sick cannot make room for the loaves of Jesus's blessing. But also if someone, though he ought to hear the words "let each person put himself to the test, and only then eat from the bread" and the rest, does not heed these
but partakes carelessly of the loaf that belongs to the Lord, and of his cup, he becomes weak or sick, or even, so to speak, falls into a stupor, overcome by the power dwelling in that bread.

======== Commentary on Matthew, Book 11 ========

Origen, Book Eleven of his Exegetical Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew. "And when evening came, his disciples approached him" (that is, at the completion of the age, in accordance with which it is opportune to say, "it is the last hour") — the account says they told him that the place was desolate, seeing the desolation of the divine law and word among the many. And they say to him
that the hour, too, had already passed — as though the timely season of law and prophets had passed. But perhaps they said this, referring the statement also to the fact that John had been beheaded, and that the law and the prophets, which lasted until John, had ceased. "The hour has passed," they say, "and food is not at hand, since its proper time no longer stands," so that those in
the wilderness who had followed you might be enslaved to law and prophets. And the disciples further say: therefore send them away, so that each one, if he cannot from the towns, may at least from the villages, the less honorable places, buy food for himself. This is what the disciples said, despairing that the crowds would find, once the letter of the law had been dissolved and prophecy had ceased, extraordinary and new
foods. But see what Jesus answers the disciples, all but crying out and saying plainly: you suppose that, if the majority depart from me, they will not remain with me. But I declare to you that what you suppose they need, they do not need (for they have no need to depart); and what you think they have no need of — that is, of me, as though
I were unable to feed them — this, contrary to what you expect, turns out to be exactly what they need. Since, then, by instructing you I have made you sufficient to give rational food to those in need, you give the crowds who have followed me something to eat; for you have received power from me to give the crowds something to eat — and had you attended to that power, you would have understood that I am able to feed them far more,
and you would not have said: send the crowds away, so they can go off and purchase provisions for themselves. Jesus, then, on account of the power he had given the disciples, a power capable of feeding others as well, said: you give them something to eat. But they, not denying that they were able to give loaves, yet supposing themselves to be far too few and insufficient to feed those who had followed Jesus, and not perceiving
that Jesus, taking each loaf or each word, extends it as far as he wishes, making it sufficient for all whom he wishes to feed, say: we have nothing here but five loaves and two fish — perhaps hinting by the five loaves at the perceptible words of the scriptures, equal in number to the five senses for this very reason. And by the two fish, either the uttered word and
the indwelling word, being, so to speak, a relish to the perceptible things laid down in the scriptures, or perhaps also the account concerning Father and Son that had already reached them. Therefore he himself also "ate broiled fish," having risen, "taking a portion" from the disciples, and accepting the theology concerning the Father that they were able to report to him in part. We, then, will thus deal with the matter of the
We have been able to set out five loaves and two fish in word; but it is likely that those more capable than us of gathering the five loaves and the two fish among themselves could render a fuller and better account concerning these things. It should be observed, however, that the disciples are said to have the five loaves and the two fish in Matthew and Mark and
Luke, without noting whether they were of wheat or of barley; but John alone said the loaves were of barley, wherefore perhaps the disciples also do not admit to having them among themselves in the Gospel of John, but instead it is said there, "A boy is here having five barley loaves and two fish." And so long as the five
loaves and the two fish were not being carried by the disciples to Jesus, they were not growing nor multiplying, nor were they able to feed more; but when the Savior, having taken them, first looked up to heaven, as though by the rays of his eyes bringing down power from there, a power destined to blend together with the loaves and the fish, being about to nourish the five thousand, and thereafter
he blessed the five loaves and the two fish, causing them to increase and multiply through the word and the blessing, and thirdly, dividing and breaking them, he gave them to the disciples so that they might set them before the crowds — then the loaves and the fish held out, with the result that everyone ate and had their fill, and some of the blessed loaves were left uneaten. For so much was left over for the crowds
as was not reckoned according to the crowds but according to the disciples, capable of taking up what remained of the fragments and putting it away into baskets, which were filled with the leftovers, being in number as many as the tribes of Israel. Now concerning Joseph, the Psalms record: "his hands were made subject to the basket"; but concerning the disciples of Jesus, that they gathered up
the leftover of the fragments, the twelve — twelve baskets, I think, not half-filled but full. And there are, I think, even to this present and until the consummation of the age, twelve full baskets of the fragments of the living bread, which the crowds are unable to eat, kept among the disciples of Jesus, who surpass the crowds in worth. Now those eating of the five loaves
before the twelve baskets that were left over were akin to the number five insofar as they attained to the level of the senses, and for this reason were five thousand; or else those who ate attained only to the level of the senses, since these too were fed by him who had looked up to heaven and blessed and broken the loaves, and among them were no children and no women, only men. Differences exist, I think, even among perceptible foods,
such that some belong to those who have already put away "the things of the infant," while others belong to those still infants and "fleshly in Christ." And we have said this because those eating were five thousand men, apart from children and women — which is ambiguous; for it may be that the five thousand men who ate included no child or woman among the diners, or
that there were only five thousand men, since neither children nor women were counted. Now some, as we have already said, have understood it this way: that neither children nor women were present among those who were increased and multiplied from the five loaves and the two fish. But one might say that, since many ate and each partook according to his worth and capacity from the loaves of the blessing,
those worthy to be counted, in proportion to the twenty-year-old Israelites numbered in the book of Numbers, were the men; while those not worthy of so great an account and number were the children and the women. Interpret for me the children also according to the saying, "I was not able to speak to you as to spiritual people but as to fleshly ones, as to infants in Christ," and the women according to "I want"
"all of you to be presented to Christ as a chaste virgin," and the men according to "when I became a man, I did away with the things of the infant." Let us not pass over unexamined the fact that, having ordered the crowds to recline on the grass, he picked up the two fish along with the five loaves, looked up to heaven, blessed them, and having broken the loaves gave them to the disciples, and the
disciples gave them to the crowds, and all ate. For what does it mean that he ordered all the crowds to recline on the grass, and what is worth understanding about Jesus's command in this passage? I think he ordered the crowds to recline on grass on account of the statement in Isaiah that flesh in its entirety is grass - that is, in order to make the flesh grass and to subject the mindset
of the flesh, so that in this way one might be able to receive a share of the loaves that Jesus blesses. Then, since there are different ranks among those who need the food that comes from Jesus, not all being nourished on equal terms, for this reason I think Mark wrote as follows: "and he ordered them all to recline in groups upon the green grass, and row by row they sat down, by hundreds and"
"by fifties," while Luke wrote: "and he said to his disciples, make them recline in groups of about fifty each." It was fitting that those about to be refreshed with the food Jesus gave should belong either to a company of a hundred - a sacred number, devoted to God because of the unit - or to a company of fifty, a number that contains release, according to the mystery of the
Jubilee, occurring once every fifty years, and of the feast of Pentecost. I think the twelve baskets belonged to the disciples, of whom it was said, "upon twelve thrones shall you sit, judging Israel's twelve tribes." And as one might say there is a hidden meaning in a throne that judges the tribe of Reuben, and a throne that judges the tribe of Simeon, and another the tribe of Judah, and so on in order,
so too there would be a basket of food for Reuben, and another for Simeon, and another for Levi. But it does not belong to the present argument to depart so far from the matter at hand as to gather together the material concerning the twelve tribes, and in particular concerning each of them, and to say which is each tribe of Israel. "And immediately he compelled the disciples to get into the boat and go ahead"
him to the other side, until he should dismiss the crowds (14:22–36). One must observe how many times, in the same passages, the name “the crowds” is used, and another name, “the disciples,” so that from this observation and the gathering of evidence about it, it may be seen that what lay before the evangelists was to set forth, through the gospel narrative, the differences among those who come to Jesus; of whom
some are crowds and are not called disciples, while others, the disciples, happen to be better than the crowds. For now it is enough for us to set out a few sayings, so that someone, prompted by these, may do the same throughout the whole of the gospels. So we find it recorded that, while the crowds remained below, the disciples, once Jesus had gone up onto the mountain, were able to come to him
(where the crowds were not able to come) — something like this: "Seeing the crowds, he went up onto the mountain; once he had taken his seat, his disciples came near him; then, opening his mouth, he began teaching them: Blessed are those poor in spirit," and so on. And again, elsewhere, since the crowds were in want of healing, this is what is said:
“Many crowds followed him, and he healed them.” But we have not found any healing recorded concerning the disciples; since if someone is already a disciple of Jesus, that person is healthy and in good condition in relation to Jesus, not in the way one is toward a physician, but according to his other powers. Again, in another place: “While he was speaking to the crowds, his mother and”
"his brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with him" — which was reported to him, and to the one who reported it he answered, "stretching out his hand," not toward the crowds but "toward the disciples, declaring: Here are my mother and my brothers," and, bearing witness to the disciples that they do the will of the Father in the heavens and are for this reason deemed worthy of the names of kinship
and of the closest relation to Jesus, he adds to “Behold my mother and my brothers”: “Whoever does the will of my Father who is in the heavens, he is brother and sister and mother to me.” Once more, elsewhere it stands written that “all the crowd stood on the shore, and he spoke many things to them
in parables”; then, once the parable of the sowing had been given, “those who came to him” — no longer the crowds but the disciples — “said to him,” not “Why do you speak to us in parables?” but “Why do you speak to them in parables?” — at which point also, “answering, he said,” not to the crowds but to the disciples, “To you it has been granted to know the secrets of the heavens’ kingdom,” “but to the
rest it has not been given.” Accordingly, among those who come in the name of Jesus, those who know “the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens” would properly be styled disciples; while those to whom this has “not been given” would be called crowds, ranking below the disciples. Note well and with care that he told the disciples, “To you it has been granted to know the secrets of the heavens’ kingdom,” whereas concerning the crowds
'but to those it has not been given.' And in another place he 'dismisses the crowds,' but not the disciples, and 'comes into the house'; 'into the house' of his own, 'they came to him' — not the crowds but 'his disciples, saying: Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.' But also in another place, when he 'heard' the things concerning
John, Jesus withdrew by boat to a deserted place by himself,' 'the crowds followed him,' when 'he went out and saw a great crowd, and being moved with compassion for them he healed their sick' — those of the crowds, not of the disciples; 'and when evening came, they came to him' — not the crowds but 'the disciples, saying' (as though they were different from the crowds), 'Send the crowds away, so that going off
into the villages they may buy themselves food.' But also when, taking the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and having broken the loaves,' he gave them, not to the crowds but 'to' the disciples, so that the disciples might give them 'to the crowds,' who were not able to receive them directly from him but only with difficulty received, through the disciples, the loaves of Jesus' blessing — and not even
did all of these eat all of it; for the crowds, once satisfied, left behind 'what remained over' in baskets that were twelve, full) [...] Now the reason we have taken up these matters is the point before us: that, having separated the disciples from the crowds, Jesus compelled them to get into the boat and go ahead of him to the other side, until he himself should dismiss the crowds. For the crowds were not able
to go away to the other side, inasmuch as they were not, in the mystical sense, Hebrews — who are interpreted as meaning 'those who cross over.' But this was the work of Jesus' disciples, I mean the work of going to the other side and passing beyond 'the things that are seen' and bodily, as 'temporary,' and arriving at the things not seen and eternal. A sufficient benefaction, then, was given to the crowds by Jesus, since they were not able, because
they were crowds, to go across to the far side, and to be dismissed by Jesus. That dismissal no one has authority to grant but Christ alone, and no one can be dismissed without first having eaten of the loaves that Jesus blesses; nor is it possible to eat of the loaves of Jesus' blessing except as Jesus commanded, by doing so and having reclined
'upon the grass,' as we have explained. But not even this could the crowds do, since they had not followed Jesus there from their own towns when he 'withdrew to a deserted place by himself.' At first, though the disciples asked him to dismiss 'the crowds,' he refused until he had nourished them with the loaves of the blessing; but now he does dismiss them, once he had first made the disciples get into
the boat, and dismisses them where they happened to be, down below (for the desert lay below); he himself, however, went up onto the mountain to pray. This detail too deserves notice: as soon as the five thousand had eaten and were satisfied, Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the far side. Yet the disciples were not able to go ahead of Jesus
to the other side, but on reaching the middle of the sea, with the boat tossed about because the wind was against them, they grew afraid, when Jesus came to them "around the fourth watch" of the night. Now had Jesus not climbed up into the boat, the wind opposing the sailing disciples would not have stopped, nor would the sailors, "once they had crossed, have arrived" at the far shore
And perhaps meaning to teach them through this experience that reaching the other side apart from him is impossible, he made them board the boat and go on ahead of him to the far side; yet before they could cross even the midpoint of that sea, he showed himself to them and brought about what stands written, so it might be shown that Jesus, arriving on the other side
while sailing along with them, arrives there first. And what is the boat, into which Jesus compelled the disciples to embark, but perhaps the contest of trials and circumstances, into which someone is compelled by the word and comes, as it were, unwillingly, since the Savior wishes to train the disciples in this boat being battered by the waves and the contrary wind? Since
he immediately compelled the disciples to embark in the boat and go ahead of him to the other side, and Mark also recorded the wording somewhat briefly, having written: "and immediately he compelled his disciples to embark in the boat and to go ahead of him to the other side, to Bethsaida" — it is necessary to pause over the word "compelled," once we have first seen the points of variation, of the variation in Mark,
who shows something more definite through the addition of the article; for it is not the same thing that is shown from "immediately he compelled the disciples," but "his disciples," as written in Mark, has something more than simply "the disciples." Perhaps, then, let us set forth one point even as to the wording: the disciples, being unable to tear themselves away from Jesus, cannot be separated from him even by chance, since they wish to be present with him;
but he, having judged that they should have an experience of waves and a contrary wind — which would not have happened if they had been with Jesus — imposed on them, once separated from him, the necessity of embarking in the boat. The Savior, then, compels the disciples to embark in the boat of trials and to go ahead of him to the other side and beyond the circumstances,
because it is necessary for them to overcome them. But those who were in the midst of the sea, caught among waves that tested them, with contrary winds keeping them from crossing to the far side, struggled yet proved unable, apart from Jesus, to master the waves and the head-wind and to arrive at the far side. For this reason the Word, taking pity on them,
after they had done everything within their power so as to reach the far side, he approached them, walking on the sea, which held for him no waves, nor could any wind stand against him, even had it wished to. Indeed it is not written that he approached them walking on the waves, but on the waters. And Peter said: bid me come to you, not on the waves, but on
the waters — who, when Jesus said to him at the outset, "Come," got down from the boat and walked, not on the waves, but on the waters, moving toward Jesus; yet once doubt crept in, he saw how strong the wind was, though it held no strength over the man who had cast aside faintness of faith and hesitation. And once Jesus, together with Peter, had climbed into the boat, the wind
died down, no longer able to do anything, once Jesus had gone up into it. At that point the disciples made the crossing and arrived at the region of Gennesaret — whose meaning, had we known it, would have given us something to draw on for explaining the matters before us. But observe, since "God is faithful" and does not allow the crowds to be tempted beyond what they are able to bear, in what manner the
Son of God compelled the disciples to get into the boat, since they were the stronger ones, able to reach the middle of the sea and hold out under the trial from the waves (until they should become worthy of the divine [vision] and see Jesus and hear him speaking, and, once he had come aboard, cross over and come to the land of Gennesaret), while the crowds
he dismissed, since they had not undergone the trial, as being weaker than a boat and waves and a contrary wind, and went up onto the mountain by himself to pray. But concerning what did he pray? Perhaps concerning the crowds, that once dismissed, after the loaves of the blessing, they should do nothing contrary to the dismissal given by Jesus; and concerning the disciples, that having been compelled by him to get into
the boat and to go ahead of him to the other side, they should suffer nothing on the sea, neither from the waves tormenting their boat nor from the wind set against them? Here I would venture to assert that these men, on account of Jesus's prayer to the Father concerning the disciples, suffered nothing, even though sea and waves and contrary wind were working against them. Now the
simpler reader, then, let him be content with the narrative; but let us, whenever we fall into the constraints of trials, remember that Jesus compelled us to get into the boat, wishing to bring us across to the other side himself. For it is not possible to reach the far shore without first bearing up under the trial of waves and a wind set against us. Then, once we notice the many hard things surrounding us, and, though wearied,
still manage to swim through them to some degree, let us reckon that our boat is then in the middle of the sea, being tormented by the waves that wish to shipwreck us "concerning the faith" or concerning some one of the virtues. But whenever the spirit of the evil one is observed working against our affairs, let us consider that then the wind is against us. When, then, suffering these things, we get through the three watches of the
night of darkness in the trials, contending as well as we are able and keeping ourselves from being shipwrecked "concerning the faith" or concerning some one of the virtues — the father of darkness and of evil forming the first watch, and his son, the adversary, who exalts himself "over everything called god or an object of worship," forming the second, and the third the one opposed to the
the spirit with the Holy Spirit, then let us believe that at the fourth watch, when "the night has advanced and the day has drawn near," the Son of God will draw near to us, walking upon the sea in order to make it smooth for us. And when we see the Word appearing to us, we will be troubled before we clearly grasp that the Savior has come to dwell among us, still supposing we are seeing a ghost, and in fear we will cry out.
But he himself will immediately speak to us, saying: Take courage, it is I, do not be afraid. And if anyone among us, moved more warmly by "take courage," should be found a Peter — journeying toward "perfection" but not yet having become such — he will step down from the boat, as one getting outside that trial by which he was being tormented, and at first he will walk, wishing to come to Jesus upon
the waters; but since he is still of little faith and still wavering, he will feel the wind grow strong and will be afraid, and will begin to sink, yet he will not suffer this, because such a Peter cries out to Jesus in a loud voice and says to him: Lord, save me. Then at once, "while such a Peter is still speaking" and crying, Lord, save me, the Word will stretch out his hand, extending
help to such a man, and will take hold of him as he begins to sink, and will rebuke him over his little faith and his wavering. Yet observe that he did not say: faithless one, but: man of little faith, and that it is said: why did you waver? — having something of faith, yet inclining also toward its opposite. And after this, both Jesus and
Peter will climb up into the boat with him, and the wind will drop, and those in the boat, reflecting on what dangers they had been rescued from, will fall down and worship him, saying — not merely: you are the Son of God (as the two demon-possessed men also said), but: truly you are the Son of God — words spoken, I believe, by the disciples riding in that boat, since no other disciples seem to me to have arrived at this discovery.
And when we have come through all these things, having crossed over, we will arrive at the country to which Jesus told us to proceed ahead of him. Perhaps, too, some hidden and concealed mystery is being disclosed about certain people saved by Jesus, from the fact that when the men of that place recognized him — clearly the country across the lake — they dispatched word into that whole surrounding district, the district across the lake (not
within the place itself on the other side, but around it), and they brought to him all who were sick. And in this observe that they brought to him not merely many who were sick, but all who were in that region. And those who were brought to him who were sick begged him that they might touch even just the fringe of his garment, asking this favor from him,
since they were not like the "woman with the flow of blood for twelve years," who "came up behind him" and touched "the fringe of his garment," because "she said within herself: if only I touch his garment, I will be saved" — for observe the agreement in the accounts concerning the fringe of his garment — for which reason "immediately the flow of her blood stopped." But those from the
of the surrounding region of the land of Gennesaret, into which, having crossed over, Jesus and his disciples came, did not approach Jesus of themselves but were brought forward by those who had sent them, seeing that they were not able, on account of being very gravely ill, to approach of themselves, and they did not even touch the fringe on their own, as the woman with the flow of blood did, but at the urging of those others. Yet even of these, as many as touched him were saved. If
there is some difference between “were saved,” said of these, and “to be saved” <of that woman> (for to the woman with the flow of blood it was declared: “Your faith has saved you”), you will yourself take note. Then Pharisees and scribes come to him from Jerusalem, saying: Why do your disciples break the elders' handed-down tradition? Since they do not wash their hands before eating bread (15:1–2
[— 9]). Whoever observes at what point the Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the... and so on, will know that Matthew did not, without reason, simply record that the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem had come forward to the Savior to question him about the matters set out, but rather composed it as: "Then there come to him"
Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem. When, then, is this "then"? It must be observed. It was when, "crossing over, they arrived at the country of Gennesaret" by boat, Jesus and his disciples—when the wind on account of which Jesus had boarded the boat had died down, and when the men of that place recognized him and sent word into that whole surrounding district, and brought to him all who were ill, and begged him
that they might touch even only the fringe of his garment; “all who touched it were made well”—at that very time Pharisees and scribes came to him from Jerusalem, not astonished at the power in Jesus that healed those who had touched “even only the fringe of his garment,” but fond of fault-finding, bringing an accusation against the teacher, not about the breaking of one of God's commandments but rather about a single tradition handed down by the Jewish elders. And
it is likely that this very accusation of the fault-finders establishes the piety of Jesus' disciples, who gave the Pharisees and scribes no occasion for censure as regards transgression of the commandments of God—men who would not have brought against the disciples of Jesus the charge of transgression, as though breaking the rule handed down by the elders, had they in fact been able to seize the accused and show them guilty of breaking a commandment of God.
But do not suppose that these things are meant to establish that the law of Moses must be kept according to the letter, on the ground that the disciples of Jesus were observing it up until that time; for it was not before his suffering that he redeemed us “from the curse of the law,” he who in his suffering became, on behalf of men, “a curse for our sake.” But just as Paul fittingly “became to the Jews as a Jew,”
"that he might win the Jews," what is strange about the apostles, while spending their time among Jews, even though they understood the spiritual sense of the law, making use of accommodation—just as Paul too, circumcising Timothy and bringing forward an offering pursuant to a certain vow required by the law, exactly as the Acts of the Apostles record it? Yet those who have nothing at all to charge against the disciples of Jesus concerning a commandment of God appear altogether fond of accusation.
...to disciples, but only concerning one tradition of the elders. And their fault-finding disposition is especially shown in this way, that they bring the accusation against these very people who had been healed of their illness—seemingly against the disciples, but in truth intending to slander the teacher—because it was also a tradition of the elders that washing was necessary for piety. For they thought that hands were common
and unclean when they belonged to those who had not washed before eating bread, but that the hands of those rinsed with water had become clean and holy—not symbolically, but analogously to what is in the law of Moses. We, however, try to cleanse our own actions not by following what the elders among them had handed down, but according to what is reasonable, and thus to wash the hands of our souls,
whenever we are about to partake of the “three loaves” which we request from the one willing to be our friend, Jesus; for one ought not partake of the loaves with “common” and “unwashed,” that is, unclean, hands. But Jesus does not accuse them concerning a tradition of the Jews, but concerning two of God's most necessary commandments, of which the one was the fifth of the Decalogue, running thus:
“Honor your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, and that you may live long upon the land which the Lord your God gives you,” while the other was written in Leviticus in this manner: “If a man speaks evil against his father or mother, he shall surely be put to death; whoever curses his
father or mother shall be held liable.” But since we wish to see the very wording that Matthew set down—that whoever speaks evil of father or mother shall die by death—we should ask whether this wording came from that other passage where it is written: “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall die by death,” and “whoever speaks evil of his father or his mother shall die by death.” Such, then, were the
words from the law concerning the two commandments. Matthew, however, presented them only in part and in a condensed form, not word for word. Now we ought to examine what charge the Savior brings against the Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, namely that their own tradition leads them into transgressing God's commandment. God said, “Honor your father and
your mother,” teaching that one born of parents should render them the honor that is due. Part of this honor toward parents consisted also in sharing with them the necessities of life for food and covering, and whatever else one was able to bestow upon his own parents. But the Pharisees and the scribes issued a tradition opposed to the law on this point,
set out rather obscurely in the Gospel—one which we ourselves would not have grasped, had not one of the Hebrews handed down to us the matter at that point in this form. Sometimes, he says, moneylenders, encountering intractable debtors who were able but unwilling to repay their debt, would dedicate what was owed to the account of the poor, into whose treasury such sums were cast by
of each one (as he was able) of those willing to share with them. So they would sometimes say to those who owed, in their own dialect: "What you owe me is korban," that is, a gift; for I have dedicated it as an offering of piety toward God for the poor. Then the debtor, as though he no longer owed men but God and piety toward him, was as it were shut in, so as also to
not wish to pay back the debt — no longer indeed to the creditor, but now, on account of the poor, to God in the name of the creditor. What the creditor, then, did to the debtor, this certain sons once did to their parents, and they said to them: if you are benefited by me, father or mother, know this to be received from the korban, from
the account of the poor set apart for God. Then the parents, hearing that what was being given to them was korban, set apart for God, no longer wished to receive it from their sons, even if they were in great need of the necessities of life. The elders, then, used to hand on such a tradition to those of the people: that whoever should say to father or mother that what is given to one of them is
korban, that is, a gift, this man no longer owes anything to his father or mother by way of provision for the needs of life. This tradition, then, the Savior condemns as unsound, showing it stands opposed to the commandment of God: for God says, "Honor your father and your mother," yet the tradition said:
"he who has dedicated to God as korban what would have been given to his parents no longer owes honor to his father or mother by way of giving," it is clear that the Pharisees' and scribes' tradition nullified God's commandment concerning honor for parents, since that tradition held that a son need no longer honor his father and mother once he had dedicated to God, once for all, what
his parents would have received. And since the Pharisees were indeed lovers of money, so that under the pretext of the poor they might also receive what would have been given to someone's parents, they taught such things. And the gospel indeed bears witness to their love of money, saying: "These money-loving Pharisees heard all this and sneered at him." If, then, any also of those called elders among us, or
any of the rulers of the people, whoever he may be, wishes rather to give in the name of the common fund to the poor than to the relatives of the givers, should they happen to be in need of necessities and the givers not be able to do both, this man would justly be called a brother of those who annulled the word of God for the sake of their own tradition — Pharisees, and men convicted by the Savior as hypocrites. And it is very
much a deterrent, on this reasoning, for someone eagerly to receive from what belongs to the poor and to consider "the piety of others a means of gain." And not only this, but also what is written concerning the traitor Judas, who seemed indeed to plead on behalf of the poor, saying in his indignation: "This perfume could have been sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor," but in truth he "was a thief"
"and he kept the money box and carried what was put into it." If anyone today, then, who has the church's money box, speaks like Judas did, claiming it is for the poor, but carries off what is put into it, let him assign himself the same portion as Judas, who did this very thing. On account of these things, since a gangrene had taken hold in his soul, the devil cast into his
"heart" the betrayal of the savior, and having received the "fiery dart" concerning this, the devil himself later entered into his soul and filled him completely. And perhaps when the apostle says, "the root of all evils is the love of money," he means by this the love of money that belonged to Judas, which is the root of all the evils committed against Jesus. But let us return to the
matters before us, in which the savior, summarizing two commandments from the law, set them forth: the one from the Decalogue, from Exodus, the other from Leviticus or from some other book of the Pentateuch. Then, having already shown how they annulled God's own word (which says, "honor your father and your mother") by saying, "whoever does not honor
his father or his mother, whoever says to his father or his mother, 'whatever benefit you might have received from me is a gift [to God],'" one might ask how it is not superfluous that "he who speaks evil of father or mother shall surely die." For suppose he does not honor his father and mother by dedicating to what is called corban the things that would have gone toward honoring father and
mother — how then does the tradition of the Pharisees also nullify the saying, "he who speaks evil of father or mother shall surely die"? But perhaps whoever says to his father or mother, "whatever benefit you might have received from me is a gift [to God]," thereby brings upon father or mother something like an insult, as though calling the parents temple-robbers for taking what has been dedicated to corban away from the one who had dedicated
it to him. The Jews, then, punish according to the law sons who speak evil of father or mother — namely those who tell their father or their mother, "whatever you might have gained from me is a gift given to God" — yet you, by your own tradition, nullify two commandments of God. Then have you no shame in charging my disciples, who break not a single commandment — for they walk "in all his
commandments and ordinances blamelessly" — while they themselves transgress the tradition of the elders out of caution not to transgress a commandment of God? If this had been your concern as well, you would have kept the commandment about honoring father and mother, and the one that says, "he who speaks evil of father or mother shall surely die," and you would not have kept the tradition of the elders that opposes these commandments. After this,
wishing to discredit all the traditions of the elders among the Jews by means of the prophetic words, he cited a saying from Isaiah, which runs word for word thus: "and the Lord declared: this people comes near to me with their mouth" and so on. And we have said before that Matthew did not record the prophetic text word for word. But if it is necessary, on account of the
the gospel that made use of it) to narrate it so far as possible, we will take up the passage above, which I think has been usefully preserved for us for the narration of what is taken from the prophet in the gospel. Now the saying in Isaiah reads thus from the beginning: "Be enfeebled and be astonished. Be drunk, not from strong drink nor from wine; for the Lord has made you drink a spirit of stupor, and he will close the
eyes of them and of their prophets, and of their rulers, the ones seeing hidden things. And all these words will be to you like the words of a sealed scroll: should someone give it to a man who knows how to read, telling him, 'Read this,' he would answer, 'I am unable to read it, for it has been sealed.' And this scroll will then be placed in the hands of one who does not
know letters, and someone will say to him, 'Take and read this'; and he will answer, 'Letters are unknown to me.' And the Lord said: 'This people draws near to me,' and so on down to 'Woe to those who make counsel in secret, and their works will be in darkness.'" Having taken up, then, the passage set before us in the gospel, I have set down some of what precedes it and some of what
follows it, so that we may show how the word threatens to shut fast "the eyes" of the people's own who have been driven out of their senses and made drunk and given to drink "a spirit of stupor," and threatens also to shut the eyes of their prophets and of the rulers who claim to see "the hidden things." These things, I think, have come to pass among that people after the coming of the savior; for all
the words - of the scriptures as a whole, and of Isaiah too - have become for them "like the words of a sealed book." Now "sealed" is said as though closed by obscurity and not opened by clarity; this holds equally as unclear both for those who, not knowing letters, are unable even to begin reading it, and for those who claim to know letters, since neither perceives the sense in what is written.
Rightly, then, he adds to these things that when the people, enfeebled by their sins, are driven out of their senses and rave against him - with which they will also be made drunk against him by "a spirit of stupor," given them to drink by the Lord, who shuts fast their eyes as unworthy to behold - and in the same way closes up the eyes belonging to their prophets, together with those of their rulers, the ones professing to see what is hidden among the
mysteries in the divine scriptures; and once their eyes have been shut, the prophetic words become for them sealed and hidden - which is what has befallen the people who do not believe in Jesus as Christ. And when the prophetic words become for them "like the words of a sealed book," not merely for those lacking letters but even for those who claim to possess that knowledge, then the Lord said that only
"with the mouth" does the people of the Jews draw near to God; and he says that they honor him "with the lips," because "their heart" is far from the Lord on account of their unbelief toward Jesus. And now especially, since they have denied our savior, it might be said by God concerning them: "their worship of me is empty, since they no longer teach the commandments of God."
but of men and their teachings, no longer those that come from the wisdom of the Spirit, but the human ones. Hence, since these things came upon them, God removed the people of the Jews and "destroyed the wisdom" of those who were wise among them (for wisdom exists among them no more, just as prophecy does not either), but also has somewhere buried and hidden "the understanding of the discerning" of that people
of God, and it is no longer bright and manifest. Therefore even if they seem to form some counsel "deeply," since they do not form it through the Lord, they are wretched; and if they profess certain hidden things of divine counsel, they speak falsely, for what they do belongs not to light and day but to darkness. But it seemed good to us to set out the prophecy briefly, together with its measure of clarity,
since Matthew has mentioned it. Mark, too, mentioned it, and from him we will usefully set forth the matter concerning the transgression of the elders, who thought it right to wash their hands whenever the Jews eat bread — the passage in that place running thus: "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands with the fist, holding fast the tradition of the elders; and from
the marketplace, unless they wash themselves, they do not eat; and there are other things too which they have received to hold fast — the washings of cups and pitchers and bronze vessels and couches." And having called the crowd to him, he said to them: Hear and understand — and so on (15:10–20). Through these things we are wisely taught by the Savior, as we read in Leviticus and in Deuteronomy concerning the clean
and unclean foods, on account of which the carnal Jews, and the Ebionites who differ little from them, accuse us of transgressing the law, that we should not suppose the aim of Scripture in these matters to be the obvious sense. For if it is not what enters the mouth that defiles a person, but what goes out of the mouth — and especially since, in the Gospel according to
Mark, the Savior said these things "cleansing all foods" — it is clear that we are not defiled by eating what the Jews, wishing to be enslaved to the letter of the law, say is unclean; rather we are defiled when, though our lips ought to be bound by "perception" and we ought to make what we say a "yoke and a balance," we instead say whatever comes to hand while reasoning about things we ought not, from
which the source of our sins comes to us. And it is indeed fitting for the law of God to forbid what comes from wickedness and to command what accords with virtue, but to leave in their place those things which by their own nature are indifferent, since, through our choice and the reason within us, when mishandled they turn out badly, but when rightly handled they turn out well. And whoever has considered these things carefully
will see that even what is thought good can, when taken up badly and out of passion, become sinful, and that what is called unclean can, when put to reasonable use by us, be reckoned clean. For just as the circumcision of a sinning Jew will be reckoned as uncircumcision, while the uncircumcision of one who acts rightly apart from the customs will be reckoned as circumcision, so too what is considered clean will be reckoned as
...impure for the one who uses them not as one ought, nor when he ought, nor as much as he ought, nor from the source he ought; but the things called impure become 'all' pure to the pure — for the defiled and faithless possess nothing pure, since their very mind and conscience have been defiled; and these, being defiled, make impure everything they touch, just as, conversely, the
pure mind and pure conscience make everything pure, even if it happens to seem impure. For the righteous partake of foods or drinks neither out of licentiousness nor out of love of pleasure, nor with a judgment dragged back and forth to one side or the other, but remembering, ‘whether you eat or drink or do anything else, do it to the glory of God.’ But if we must sketch out the
impure foods according to the gospel, we shall say that such are those procured through greed, gained through shameful profit, taken up out of love of pleasure, and from the making of a god of the belly held in honor, whenever it and the appetites that follow it, and not reason, rule over us. But also when someone, either knowing that certain things have been offered to demons, or not knowing but suspecting it, and being of two minds
about this, if we should partake of such things, we have not used them 'for God's glory,' nor in the name of Christ — not only because the supposition that they are things offered to idols condemns the one who eats, but also the very state of being of two minds about it condemns him. For 'the one who is of two minds,' according to the apostle, 'if he eats is condemned, because it is not from faith; and everything that is not from faith is sin.'
So it is ‘from faith’ that the one who has believed that what is eaten has not been sacrificed in idol-temples, and is not something strangled or blood, eats it; but it is not ‘from faith’ when someone is of two minds about any of these things. And the one who both knows that these things have been sacrificed ‘to demons’ and nonetheless partakes of them just the same, with a conception defiled by association with the demons who shared in the offering, becomes ‘a partaker of demons.’
And indeed the apostle, aware that the character of foods is not what causes harm to the one who partakes or benefit to the one who abstains, but rather the beliefs and the reasoning present within, said: ‘food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat do we abound, nor if we do not eat are we lacking.’ And since he knew that those who understood the law in a more elevated way,
as to what things are pure and what impure, having departed from the distinction of using things as pure and impure, and, I think, from superstition in various matters, treated the use of foods with indifference, and were for this reason judged by the Jews as lawbreakers — for this reason he said somewhere, ‘let no one, then, judge you in food or in drink,’ and what follows, teaching us that
what belongs to the letter is a shadow, while the true things of the law—the thoughts laid up within these—are the good things to come; among which one can find what the pure spiritual foods of the soul are, and what the impure ones are, which harm, through false and contrary words, the one nourished on them, since the law possessed a mere shadow of the good things that were coming. And just as in many things
One must observe what is admired among the Jews about the Savior's words, that they were spoken with authority — so too regarding the passage before us. At any rate, having called the crowd to him, he said to them, "Hear and understand," and so on; and he said this while the Pharisees were being scandalized at this saying, on the ground that, because of their wicked doctrines and their base understanding of the law, they were not
a planting of their Father in heaven, and were for this reason being uprooted; for they were uprooted because they did not accept the true vine cultivated by the Father, Jesus Christ. For how could those who were scandalized at Jesus' words be a planting of the Father, when they turn people away from “do not, do not taste, do not touch” — all things destined for destruction by their very use — in accordance with
“the precepts and teachings of men”? Yet they lead their own intelligent hearer to seek “the things above” concerning these matters and “not the things on earth” — as those who, since because of their wicked doctrines the Pharisees were not a planting of the Father in heaven, for this reason he speaks of them to the disciples as incurable, saying, “Leave them”; “leave them” for this reason,
because, being blind, though they ought to perceive their blindness and seek guides, they instead profess—while insensible to their own blindness—to lead the blind along, not reckoning that a pit awaits them, concerning which the Psalter says: “He dug a pit and hollowed it out, and he will fall into the hole he made.” Now elsewhere it stands written that, seeing the crowds, he went up onto the mountain,
“and once he was seated, his disciples approached him”; but here he extends his hand to the crowd, calling it to himself and drawing it away from the literal understanding of the questions concerning the law, when first he said to them, “Hear and understand,” though they did not yet understand what they were hearing, and next he spoke to them, as it were in parables: “It is not what enters the mouth that defiles a man, but
what goes out.” After this it is worth examining a saying that is slanderously misused by those who claim that Jesus Christ's God of the law is not identical with his God of the gospel—who say that the heavenly Father belonging to Jesus Christ is not the cultivator of those who suppose they worship God by the law of Moses. It was Jesus himself who said this concerning the Pharisees, who were worshiping the one who created the world and the
law as God, that they were not a planting his heavenly Father had never planted, and it was on that very account being torn up by the roots. And one might also say this: that Jesus would not have said this of the Pharisees if the one who “brought in” and planted the people who came out of Egypt “into the mountain of his own inheritance,” “into the fixed dwelling place” of himself, had indeed been the Father of Jesus — that
“every planting which my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted.” To this we shall reply that those who, because of their wicked understanding of the things pertaining to the law, were not a planting of the Father in heaven, had had “their thoughts” blinded, since they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in “unrighteousness,” by the one who was made a god by the sons of this age
This is why Paul speaks of "the god of this age." And do not suppose that Paul truly means to say that he is God: just as, though "the belly" is not really a god, it is called "their god" by Paul in speaking of those who prize pleasure above all and are devotees of pleasure rather than devotees of God, so too, though not truly God, the ruler of this age is termed the god of those concerning whom
the Savior says, "now the ruler of this world has been judged" - he is called the god of those who have not been willing to receive "the spirit of adoption," so that they might become sons of that age and share in "the resurrection out from among the dead," and who therefore have remained in the sonship of this age. It seemed to me necessary to include these remarks, even though they are made as a digression, on account of
the statement "they are blind, guiding other blind men." Who indeed? The Pharisees, "whose god of this age has blinded the thoughts" - since they are "unbelievers" through not having believed in Jesus Christ, and he has blinded them so that they cannot be lit by the shining of “the gospel that tells of the glory belonging to God, seen in the person of Christ.” And it is not only from those blind ones who are aware that they need guides that one must flee being guided,
since they have not yet received the capacity to see through themselves; rather, one must also listen carefully to all those who profess to guide in sound teaching, and bring a sound judgment to bear on what is said, lest, being guided in ignorance by blind men who do not see the realities of sound teaching, we ourselves too should be shown to be blind through not seeing the
mind of the scriptures, so that both - the one who guides and the one guided - fall into the pit spoken of before. Next it is written how Peter answered and said to the Savior, since he had not understood that it is not what enters into the mouth that defiles a man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, "explain to us the
parable." To this the Savior says, "are even you still without understanding" - as if to say: though you have been with me for so long a time, do you still not grasp the sense of what has been spoken, and do you still fail to perceive that this is why it does not defile a man, since what enters his mouth passes into the belly and, passing on from there, is cast out into the latrine? Not
in accordance with the law, which they seemed to believe, were the Pharisees a planting of the Father of Jesus, but rather in accordance with their depraved understanding of the law and of what is written in it. For two things are conceived of in regard to the law: the "ministry of death" engraved "in letters," which has nothing proper to it in common with the spirit, and a ministry of life, grasped through the law taken spiritually.
Those who are able, out of a truthful disposition, to say "for the law, we know, is spiritual," and who accordingly hold that the law is holy, its commandment being holy, just, and good - these were the planting which the heavenly Father set in the ground; those, however, who are not of this sort, but cling only to the letter that kills, were not a planting of God, but of the one who had hardened their
...the heart, and having placed a veil upon it — a veil that holds force among those who have not turned back to the Lord: ‘for if anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is removed; and the Lord is the Spirit.’ One might say, on reaching this point, that just as it is not what enters the mouth that defiles a person, even if it is thought to be
unclean by the Jews, so too it is not what enters the mouth that sanctifies a person, even if the loaf termed the Lord's bread is thought by the more simple to sanctify. And this argument, I think, is not to be despised, and for that reason requires a clear exposition — such, at any rate, as seems right to me. Just as it is not the food but the conscience of the one who eats with hesitation that defiles the one who eats,
(for ‘the one who hesitates, if he eats, is condemned, because it is not from faith’), and just as nothing is pure or impure of itself for the one who is defiled and unbelieving, but rather because of his own defilement and unbelief — so too that which is made holy by God's word joined with entreaty does not confer holiness on its user through some power inherent in the words themselves. For if it did, it would also sanctify the one who eats ‘unworthily’ of the
Lord, and no one would become weak or sick because of this food, or fall asleep; for Paul indicated something of this sort when he said, ‘for this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a considerable number sleep.’ So then, with respect to the Lord's loaf as well, the benefit lies with the one who uses it, whenever he partakes of the
bread with an undefiled mind and a clean conscience. In this way, then, we neither ‘lack’ some good thing merely by not eating — that is, by not eating of the bread made holy through God's word and entreaty — nor ‘abound’ in any good thing by eating. For wickedness and sins are the cause of lack, while righteousness and right actions are the cause of abundance; so
that what is said by Paul is of this kind, in the words, ‘neither if we eat do we abound, nor if we do not eat do we lack.’ But if everything that enters the mouth passes into the stomach and is cast out into the latrine, then the food made holy ‘through God's word and entreaty,’ too, considered merely in its material aspect, likewise passes into the stomach and is cast out into the latrine —
yet according to the prayer added to it ‘in proportion to faith,’ it comes to profit and gives the mind clear vision as it gazes upon what profits it. It is not the bread's substance, but rather the utterance spoken over it, that profits whoever partakes of it in a manner not ‘unworthy’ of the Lord. So much, then, concerning the typical and symbolic
body. But much could also be said about the Word itself, who has become ‘flesh’ and ‘true food,’ which the one who eats altogether ‘will live forever,’ since a base person cannot manage to eat it at all; had it still been possible for one who remains base to eat the Word that became flesh — he being also bread that lives — scripture would not have recorded that ‘everyone who eats the’
"...this bread he will live forever." Next, following this, let us examine how the things proceeding out defile a man not because they proceed from the mouth, but rather the source of their defiling lies within the heart, since prior to what proceeds through the mouth, it is from the heart that wicked reasonings issue — among which, as particular kinds, are murder, adultery, fornication,
thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. For these are the things that defile the man, when it goes out from the heart and, having gone out from it, passes through the mouth — as though, if it did not come to be outside the heart but were held somewhere around the heart itself, not being permitted to be spoken through the mouth, it would very quickly have vanished and the man would no longer be defiled. Therefore the spring and
source of all sin is evil thoughts; for if these do not prevail, there will be neither murders nor adulteries nor anything else of that kind. For this reason each person must guard his own heart with all watchfulness; for also on the day of judgment, when the Lord comes, he "will illuminate what is hidden in darkness and disclose the intentions of hearts," "in the midst" of the "reasonings" of men "accusing or even
defending" them, whenever their own deliberations encircle them. Such are the evil thoughts, that sometimes they even make what seems good and (so far as concerns the judgment of the many) praiseworthy, blameworthy. If, for instance, we do our "almsgiving" "before men," aiming in our thoughts "to be seen" by men as lovers of humanity and to be glorified for our love of humanity, we have "the"
reward from men in full; and simply put, everything that is done with the doer's awareness directed toward being glorified by men has no end coming from "him who sees in secret," who gives back to those pure in secret what they are owed. Thus, then, even a chastity that seems such, if it has thoughts directed toward vainglory or love of gain, is not pure; and likewise also
the teaching that is thought to be ecclesiastical, if it becomes servility through flattering speech, or arises on the pretext of greed or of someone seeking, through his teaching, the glory that comes from men, is not reckoned as coming from those appointed by God "in the church" — first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. And you will say the same also concerning one who aspires to "the office of bishop" for the sake of glory among men, or
for flattery from men, or for the gain from those who come to hear the word (given on the pretext of piety). Such a bishop, then, does not "long for a noble task," and cannot be blameless or sober or self-controlled, being drunk with glory and indulging himself in it without restraint. And you will say the same also concerning presbyters and deacons. But these things, even if we shall seem to some to have spoken
in digression, consider whether they have not been said out of necessity, because evil thoughts are the source of all sins, capable of defiling even things that, if they were done apart from them, would have justified the one who did them. What, then, are the things that defile has, to the best of our ability, been examined by us. Yet eating with hands unwashed does not render a person defiled; but, if one may dare to say it, it defiles the
...to eat whatever with an unwashed heart, which is what our governing faculty by nature eats. ‘And Jesus went out from there and withdrew into the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman’ (15:21–22[–28]). From where is ‘from there,’ if not from Gennesaret's land, concerning which it had already been said: ‘And having crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret’? He withdrew, perhaps, on account of
the Pharisees being scandalized when they heard that ‘it is not what goes in but what comes out that defiles a person.’ That he withdrew, if ever he did, on account of those suspected of plotting against him, is clear from: ‘And when he heard that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee.’ Perhaps for this reason Mark too, recording the events of this place, says: ‘He arose and went into the region of Tyre.’
‘And having entered a house, he did not want anyone to know.’ And it is likely that he was avoiding the Pharisees who had been scandalized by his teaching, waiting for the more suitable and rightly appointed time for his suffering. Someone might say that Tyre and Sidon are spoken of in place of the nations; withdrawing, then, from Israel, he comes into the region of the nations. Tyre, then,
being called among the Hebrews Sor, is translated CONSTRICTION; and Sidon, likewise so called among the Hebrews, is translated as HUNTERS. Among the nations, the hunters are the evil powers, and there is great constriction among them in wickedness and the passions. Going out, then, from Gennesaret, Jesus withdrew from
Israel, but he came not into Tyre and Sidon but into the region of Tyre and Sidon, because those from the nations now believe only in part — as though he had traveled through every part of Tyre and Sidon, and not a single unbeliever remained there. According to Mark, ‘Jesus arose and came into the region of Tyre,’ the constriction of the nations, so that
even those from those regions who believe might be able to be saved, once they go out from them. For observe the passage: ‘And behold, a Canaanite woman, coming out from those regions, cried out, saying: Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.’ And I think that, had she not come out from those regions, no cry to Jesus out of the great faith for which she was attested would have been possible for her)
of faith. And ‘according to the proportion of faith’ someone goes out from the regions among the nations, ‘for when the Most High was apportioning the nations, he fixed the boundaries by the number of Israel’s sons,’ and he restrained their further advance. Here, then, certain regions of Tyre and Sidon are mentioned, but in Exodus, the regions of Pharaoh, in which, they say, occur
the plagues against the Egyptians. And one must consider that each of us, when sinning, is within the regions of Tyre or Sidon or Pharaoh and Egypt or some region outside God’s inheritance, but when changing from vice to virtue, goes out from the regions belonging to base things, and arrives at the regions of the portion of the
of God, and that there is a difference in these matters as well, which will be visible to those able to establish it in proportion to the spiritual law of the division and inheritance of Israel. But pay attention also to what happened as, so to speak, a meeting between Jesus and the Canaanite woman: for he comes toward the region of Tyre and Sidon, while she, coming out from those borders, cries out, saying:
"Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David." Now the woman was Canaanite, which is rendered as PREPARED FOR HUMILIATION. The righteous stand ready for the reign of the heavens and for the exaltation found in God's kingdom; sinners, however, are prepared for the humiliation of the evil that is in them and of the deeds that go with it, and for that which reigns »in their mortal
body« of sin. Yet the Canaanite woman, in coming out from those borders, was coming out from having been prepared for humiliation, crying out and saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David." Gather together from the gospels who it is that call him Son of David, as this woman does, along with the blind men at Jericho, and who instead call him Son of God, either lacking the genuine addition, as the
demon-possessed do when they say, "What have we to do with you, Son of God," or with the true addition, as those in the boat do when they worship him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God." For indeed, I think, gathering these instances will be useful to you for seeing the difference among those who come to him: who come to him, as it were, to the one who, according to the flesh, was born from David's offspring,
and who to the one who was "marked out in power as Son of God, according to a spirit of holiness," and among these, who with the true addition and who without it. Then observe that the Canaanite woman entreats not concerning a son—one whom she does not even appear to have begotten in the first place—but concerning a daughter terribly demon-possessed, while another mother receives back alive a son being carried out dead. And again the
ruler of the synagogue makes his request concerning a twelve-year-old daughter as one already dead, while the royal official makes his concerning a son still sick and about to die. A demon-possessed daughter, then, and a dead son belonged to two mothers; and a daughter and a son sick unto death belonged to two fathers: one held the office of synagogue ruler, the other served as royal official. I am persuaded that these things hold accounts concerning different kinds among souls,
which Jesus, giving life, heals. And all the things he heals among the people, recorded above all by the evangelists, happened then so that those who do not otherwise believe might believe, if they should see "signs and wonders"; but those things then were symbols of what the power of Jesus is always bringing to pass. For there is no moment at which each of the things written is not accomplished through that same power of his—
power of Jesus, according to each person's worth. For the sake of her race, then, the Canaanite woman was not even worthy to obtain an answer from Jesus, who declared that he had been sent by the Father for no other purpose than to the sheep of Israel's house that had perished, a perished race of clear-sighted souls. But for the sake of her purpose, and because she had worshiped Jesus as Son of God, she does obtain an answer,
She was convicting her of her low birth and establishing that she was worthy of crumbs, like a little dog, and not of loaves. But when she intensified her resolve and, having accepted Jesus' word, lays claim even to obtaining crumbs like a little dog, and acknowledges the nobler ones as masters, then she obtains a second answer, which testifies to her faith as great and promises that what she wishes will come to be for her.
By analogy, I think, with the free "Jerusalem above," mother of Paul and of those like him, one must understand the Canaanite woman, mother of the girl severely possessed by a demon, as being a symbol of the mother of a soul of that kind. And consider whether it is not reasonable to suppose a plurality of fathers as well as a plurality of mothers, corresponding to the fathers to whom Abraham the patriarch went, namely Abraham's own fathers, and to Jerusalem as mother, as Paul says
concerning himself) and those like him. It is likely that this woman, of whom the Canaanite woman is a symbol, having gone out from the region bordering Tyre and Sidon — places whose earthly counterparts served as types — approached the Savior and entreated him, and even now still entreats him, saying: "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." Then he who answers both those outside and
the disciples, when it is necessary, answering, said, "I was not sent," teaching that there are certain foremost souls, intelligent and clear-sighted, that were lost, called figuratively "the sheep of the house of Israel" — which, I think, the simpler folk, supposing this was said of Israel "according to the flesh," will necessarily take to mean that our Savior was sent by the Father to none other than those lost Jews. But we
who pray to be able to say truthfully, "Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no longer," know that saving the more intelligent is the Word's principal task; for these happen to be more akin to him than the duller ones. But because the sheep that perished from the house of Israel, apart from "the remnant chosen by grace," refused to heed the Word, for this reason he "chose the
foolish things of the world" — meaning him who was neither Israel nor clear-sighted — "that he might shame the wise" (of Israel), and called "the things that are not" a nation of understanding, handing over to them what they were able to receive, "the foolishness of the preaching," and being pleased "to save" those who "believe" in this, so that he might refute "the things that are" "out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies," having fashioned it for himself, since it had become hostile to the truth.
Now the Canaanite woman came and worshiped Jesus as God, saying: "Lord, help me." And he answered and said: "It is not right to take the bread of the children and throw it to the little dogs." But one might also inquire into the meaning of this saying, since, granted that there was a limited measure of loaves, such that the children could not eat loaves and the little dogs of the household could too,
or of the fineness of well-made loaves, such that it would not be reasonable for the well-made bread of the children to go as nourishment to little dogs — nothing of this sort appears to hold in the case of Jesus' power, from which it was possible for both the children to partake and the so-called little dogs as well. See, then, whether one should not say, regarding "it is not right to take the bread of the children," that the
Having emptied himself by taking on "the form of a slave," he brought a measure of power commensurate with what could contain the affairs of the world; and from this power he also perceived a certain quantity going out from him, as is clear from "someone touched me; for I knew that power had gone out from me." It was from that same measure of power, then, that he made his distribution, giving more to those who were foremost and called sons,
while giving less to those who did not share this quality, as to little dogs. But even if this is how it happened, nonetheless, where there was great faith, he gave the bread of the children as to a child to the woman who, on account of her low birth in Canaan, happened to be a little dog. Perhaps, too, there are certain loaves among the words of Jesus, which it is permitted to give only to the more rational, as to children, and other
words that are, as it were, crumbs from the great hearth and table of the more noble and the masters, which certain souls might make use of as dogs do. And in the law given through Moses it is likewise written concerning certain things that one should cast it "to the dog," and it mattered to the Holy Spirit to give commands concerning certain foods, so that something might be reserved for dogs. As for others who are foreign to the church's own teaching, let them suppose that
souls pass from human bodies into bodies belonging to dogs, in keeping with their various vices. But we, finding this nowhere at all in the divine Scripture, say instead that a more rational condition changes into a less rational one, suffering this on account of much indolence and neglect; and likewise a less rational disposition, on account of neglect of reason, sometimes turns back to the more rational, just as
the little dog that once loved to eat from the crumbs falling from the table of its masters can arrive at the condition of a child. For virtue contributes greatly toward making one a child of God, while wickedness, and rabid behavior in abusive words, and shamelessness, contribute toward making someone be styled, according to the language of Scripture, a dog. And you will understand
the same thing likewise concerning the rest of the names taken from irrational animals. Yet the one who was reproached as a dog, and who was not indignant at being unworthy to be said to deserve the bread of the children, and who, with such great patient endurance, spoke the word of that Canaanite woman who said, "Yes, Lord; for even the little dogs eat from the crumbs falling from the table of
their masters," obtains the most gracious answer of Jesus, who says to her, "Great is your faith," since she had taken up so great a faith, and who says, "Let it be to you as you wish," so that she herself might be healed, and, if she had produced any fruit needing healing, that this too might be cured. "And Jesus, departing from there" — it is clear from what has been said before that he came from the region of Tyre ("of Tyre and Sidon")
to the sea of Galilee, which is the lake usually called the lake of Gennesaret, "and again he went up onto the mountain" (where, having gone up... [15:29-31]). One may say, then, that onto this mountain, where Jesus is sitting, not only those who are healthy go up, but along with the healthy also those who have suffered various afflictions. And perhaps this mountain, where
Jesus goes up and sits — this is the mountain more commonly called the church, raised up above the rest of the earth and those on it because of the word of God — where there approach not the disciples who left the crowds behind, as at the beatitudes, but many crowds, who are not themselves accused of being deaf or having suffered anything, but have such people with them. And
indeed one can see, among the crowds coming up to this hill on which God's Son takes his seat, some who are deafened to what is promised, others blind in soul, unable to see 'the light that is true,' still others lame and unable to make their way in accordance with reason, and yet others crippled and unable to labor as reason would direct. These, then, who
have suffered these things in soul, who went up to the mountain with the crowds, where Jesus was — as long as they remain outside the feet of Jesus, they are not healed by him; but when, since they have suffered such things, they are cast down by the crowds beside his feet and the last members of the body of Christ, not even worthy of these, so far as depends on themselves,
they turn out to be — then they are healed by him. And whenever you see, in the gathering more commonly termed the church, people cast down among its lowliest members, as it were also beside the feet of the body belonging to Jesus, that is, the church — the catechumens who have come forward bearing their own deafness, blindness, lameness, and being crippled, and who are healed over time according to the word — you would not be wrong in calling such people
people who ascended together with the crowds of the church up to the mountain, where Jesus is, cast beside his feet and healed, so that the crowd of the church marvels on seeing changes for the better arising from such great evils — so that one might say: those formerly mute now speak God's word, and the ‘lame walk,’ while there is fulfilled
also the prophecy of Isaiah, not only in bodily but also in spiritual matters, which says: ‘then the lame man shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the stammering shall be clear.’ And there too, if the phrase ‘the lame man leaps like a deer’ is not said arbitrarily, we shall say that it is not without purpose that those who were formerly lame, and now leap because of Jesus like a deer, are compared to a deer — a clean animal, an enemy of serpents, able to suffer no harm from their venom —
in being compared, since they were formerly lame and now leap because of Jesus, to a deer. And the prophecy is also fulfilled in the seeing of the deaf speaking, the prophecy that says: ‘and the tongue of the stammering shall be clear,’ or rather the one that declares: ‘you deaf, hear.’ And the blind also see, according to the prophecy that says, next after ‘you deaf, hear’: ‘and you blind, look up to see.’ Those who
are blind, however, see when, on seeing the world, they perceive its Maker proportionately ‘from the greatness and beauty of created things,’ and when they discern ‘his invisible attributes, ever since the creation of the world, being understood through the things that have been made’ — that is, they see and understand carefully and clearly. And on seeing these things, the crowds glorified the God of Israel, and they glorify him, being persuaded that the same God
He is the father of the man just spoken of who was healed, and the God of Israel; for "God is" not "of Jews alone" but belongs "also to the nations." Let us then, together with ourselves, bring up onto the mountain, where Jesus sits, his church, along with those wishing to climb up onto it together with us: deaf men, blind men, lame men, crippled men, and many others besides, and let us cast them down beside the feet of Jesus,
in order that he might heal them, and so the crowds marveled at their healing. For the disciples are not recorded as marveling at such things, even though they were present with Jesus at that time too, as is clear from "but Jesus called his disciples to him and said, 'I have compassion on the crowd,'" and so on. But perhaps, if you attend carefully to "there came to"
him many crowds," you would find that the disciples did not then come to him, but had long since begun following him, and had followed him up onto the mountain as well. Rather, it was the lesser ones among the disciples who came to him, approaching him then for the first time, and they did not experience the same things as those who had gone up with him. Observe closely in the Gospel who are recorded as having followed Jesus, who
as having come to him, who as having instead been brought before him, and who are divided into those going ahead and those following behind; and among those who came to him, who approached him while he was in the house, and who did so while he happened to be elsewhere. For you would discover many things from such observation, worthy—when comparing "spiritual things with spiritual"—of the exact wisdom found in the Gospels. "But Jesus called his disciples to him and said" (15:32 [-39]). Earlier,
in the similar account about the loaves prior to these loaves, "going out (Jesus) saw a great crowd, and was moved with compassion toward them and cured their sick. And when evening came, the disciples came to him, saying: 'The place is desolate and the hour has already passed; send them away,'" and so on. But here, after the healing
of the deaf and the rest, he has compassion on the crowd that has now remained with him three days already and has nothing to eat. And there the disciples raise the question about the five thousand, whereas here he himself, unprompted, speaks about the four thousand. And in that case they are fed toward evening, having spent the day with him; but here, since it is testified that they had remained with him three days, they partake of the loaves so that they might not
grow faint on the way. And there the disciples say they have only "five loaves and two fish," without being asked, whereas here, when asked, they answer concerning seven loaves and a few small fish. And there he commands "the crowds to recline," not to sit "on the grass" (for Luke too wrote "make them recline"; and Mark says "he directed them
all to recline"), whereas here he does not command but instructs the crowd to sit down. Again, there, in the very same words, the three evangelists say that "taking the loaves and the two fish, looking up to heaven he blessed them," whereas here, as Matthew and Mark recorded, having given thanks Jesus broke them. And there they recline "on the grass," whereas here
recline on the ground. But you will investigate the discrepancy in John's account at the corresponding passages: in that other episode he recorded that Jesus said, "Make the people recline," and that "having given thanks he gave" to those reclining from the loaves, whereas of this one he did not even mention the beginning. Attending, then, to the difference between what is written in the various passages about
the loaves, I consider these people to belong to a different order from those others. For this reason, these are fed on a mountain, those in a deserted place; and these remain with Jesus three days, those but a single day, being fed as evening fell on that day. Further, if it is not the same thing for Jesus to act on his own initiative as to act upon hearing it from the disciples,
see whether those benefited by Jesus of his own accord, at the very point of the benefaction, in feeding them, do not differ[...] . And if, according to John, the loaves were barley loaves, from which the twelve baskets "were left over," while nothing of the sort is said about these, how are these not better than the former? And in that case he "healed the sick," but here he does not heal
the sick who are with the crowds, but the blind and the lame and the deaf and the crippled; and this is why the four thousand marvel at these, whereas nothing of the sort is said concerning the sick. Better, I think, are those who ate from the seven loaves over which thanks was given than those who ate from the five that were blessed, and those who ate from the few small fish compared to those who ate from
the two; and perhaps also those who reclined upon the ground <as against those who were made to recline "upon the grass">. And those, from fewer loaves, filled "twelve baskets," while these, from more loaves, filled seven hampers, being more capacious of greater things. And perhaps these tread upon all things earthly and recline upon them, while the others recline upon the grass, that is, upon
their flesh alone; for "all flesh is grass." Notice also, after this, that Jesus does not want to send these away fasting, lest they grow faint, being empty of Jesus' loaves, and while still on the road to their homes suffer harm. Observe, too, wherever it is recorded that Jesus sent someone away, so that you may see the difference between those dismissed after being fed
by him and those dismissed otherwise; an example of one dismissed otherwise is, "Woman, you are freed from your infirmity." Furthermore, it is the disciples, constant companions of Jesus, who are never sent away from him, while the crowds, once fed, are dismissed. In the same way the disciples, thinking little of the Canaanite woman, say, "Send her away, for she cries out after us," but
the Savior clearly does not send her away at all; for having said to her, "O woman, great is your faith; let it be done for you as you wish," he healed her daughter "from that hour," yet it is not written that he sent her away. So much, for the present, have we been able to examine and observe concerning the passage before us.

======== Commentary on Matthew, Book 12 ========

Book Twelve of Origen's Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew. "And the Sadducees and Pharisees came to him, and testing him, they requested that he display for them a sign out of heaven" (16:1-4). These Sadducees and Pharisees, who are at odds with each other over the most essential doctrines — the Pharisees, for their part, uphold the resurrection of the dead, in the hope that there is a coming age, while the
Sadducees know nothing laid up for a person after this life, whether one has advanced in virtue or has not even attempted from the outset to go beyond the bounds of vice — these two agree together in order to test Jesus. Something similar to this happened, as Luke recorded, when Herod and Pilate became friends with one another in order to kill Jesus; for perhaps the
hostility between them would have made Herod unwilling, for the sake of the people saying "crucify him, crucify him," to demand that he be put to death, and would have made Pilate, who had some inclination toward releasing Jesus, not condemn him, since his enmity toward Herod pre-existed as an inclination toward releasing Jesus. But their supposed friendship
made Herod's demand against Jesus stronger than Pilate's, since Pilate wished, perhaps also because of their recently formed friendship, to grant some favor to Herod and to the entire Jewish nation. And indeed, even now, one can often observe in life people who hold the most divergent doctrines, whether in Greek philosophy or among other schools of reasoning, seeming to think alike, in order that
they might mock and make war together against Jesus Christ, who is present in his disciples. From these examples, I think, one can pass in the argument to seeing that perhaps, just as opposing powers that are at variance with one another — as Pharaoh with Nebuchadnezzar, and Tharatha king of the Ethiopians with Sennacherib king of the Assyrians — sometimes come into agreement against Jesus and his people, so too perhaps
"the kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers gathered together," though by no means agreeing with one another before, so that, once they had plotted "against the Lord and against his Christ," they might kill "the Lord of glory." We have come to this point in our discussion because of the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to Jesus together, though they disagree on the subject of the resurrection, and as it were came into agreement
in order to put our Savior to the test and to demand that he display for them a sign issuing from heaven. They were, that is, unsatisfied with the wonders "among the people" in the healings of every disease and every infirmity, and with the other extraordinary things which our Savior had done to the knowledge of many; they also wanted him to display for them a sign issuing from heaven. My conjecture is that they suspected
the signs on earth, as things which could also not be from God — at any rate they did not hesitate to say that "it is by Beelzebul, ruler of the demons, that he casts out demons" — Jesus, that is — yet it seemed to them impossible that a sign out of heaven could arise from Beelzebul or from any evil power. But they were mistaken about both, both the signs on earth and those from heaven.
of signs, not being skilled money-changers, nor knowing how to distinguish spirits at work, which are from God and which are estranged from him. Yet they should have recognized that many of the wonders performed against Egypt in the days of Moses, though not from heaven, were plainly of God, and that the "fire that fell from heaven" onto Job's flocks was not
from God; that fire, in fact, belonged to the very one whose men also "took captive," and who made "three companies" of horsemen against the cattle of Job. And I think that in Isaiah too, since signs could be displayed from either the earth or the sky — genuine ones from God, but "in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood"
(from the evil one) — Ahaz was told: "ask yourself for a sign, from the LORD your God, whether down below or up above"; for if there had been no signs, none belonging "to the LORD God" among things below or above, the words "ask yourself for a sign from the LORD your God, whether down below or" would never have been uttered
in the height." I am well aware that to someone this construal of "ask for yourself a sign from the LORD your God" will seem forced; but consider what is said by the apostle concerning the "man of sin," the son "of destruction," that "in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and in all deceit of unrighteousness, for those who are perishing"
that one will appear, imitating all the wonders of the truth. And just as the enchanters and sorcerers of the Egyptians, being lesser than that man of sin, that son of destruction, imitated certain powers and signs and wonders of the truth, performing the works of falsehood so that the true things would not be believed, so too, in my judgment, the man of sin is going to imitate the [...] signs
and the powers as well. Now perhaps it was also because they suspected these things through the prophecies concerning him that the Pharisees — I ask whether the Sadducees did too — were testing him when they asked that a sign from heaven be shown to them by Jesus. But if we should say they did not suspect this, what shall we say they experienced in the face of the marvels performed by Jesus, remaining unyielding and unmoved by the
extraordinary things that were happening? But if someone should suppose that we have given the Pharisees and Sadducees grounds for a defense — in that at one point they say the demons were cast out by Jesus "by Beelzebul," and at another they ask, while testing Jesus, about a sign from heaven — let him know that we say they were led astray by a certain plausibility so as not to believe the extraordinary works of Jesus, yet not so as to be
excusable for failing to discern the words of the prophets being fulfilled in the deeds of Jesus — deeds which no evil power was in any way able to imitate. For to turn back a soul that had gone out, so that one already reeking and in his fourth day should come forth from the tomb, belonged to none other than the one who heard from the Father, "let us fashion man according to our own image and likeness." But also
to command the winds and by a word to halt the surge of the sea belonged to none other than him “through whom all things” came to be — the sea itself and the winds as well. And further, the teaching that calls people toward loving their Maker, agreeing as it does with the Law and the Prophets, restraining their impulses and shaping their characters according to piety — what else did it show to those able to see
than that he who was working such great deeds was “truly the Son of God”? In light of this he also said to the disciples of John: “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind see again,” and so on. After this let us examine in what manner, when questioned about a single sign, one he might display out of heaven for the Pharisees and Sadducees pressing him with their question, he answers and says:
“An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet,” whereupon he also left them and went away. Now the sign of Jonah, according to their question, was not simply a sign, but a sign from heaven as well; so that even to those who were testing him and demanding a sign from heaven he gave the sign no less, in keeping with his great goodness.
For if, just as Jonah spent “three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so the Son of Man” spent his time “in the heart of the earth,” and afterward rose up out of it again, on what grounds could we say that the sign of Jesus’ resurrection was anything other than from heaven? And especially since
at the time of the passion it occurred together with the thief who was benefited, taken into the paradise of God, and after this — I suppose — he descended into Hades to the dead as one “free among the dead.” And it seems to me that the Savior joins the sign given from himself to the account of the sign concerning Jonah, saying that not merely a sign like that one was given by him, but
that very sign itself. For attend to the phrase “yet no sign shall be given it, save the sign of the prophet Jonah.” This former sign, then, existed to point toward the latter, so that unraveling that sign—which by itself carries obscurity—would mean that the Savior suffered and “spent three days and three nights within the earth's depths.” And at the same time
we also learn something general: that, if a sign signifies something, each of the signs recorded — whether as occurring within a narrated history or as within a commandment — is indicative of something that is to be fulfilled. For example, the sign of Jonah, coming out after some days from the belly “of the sea monster,” was a sign of the resurrection of our Savior, who rose from the dead after “three days and three nights”;
and circumcision, called a “sign,” is a sign of what is indicated by Paul when he says: “for we are the circumcision.” Seek out, then, you too, everything in the old writings that is a sign—of what reality it is a type in the new covenant—and whatever bears the title of sign within the new covenant—of what it is indicative, whether in the age to come or
and in the later generations, after the sign had taken place. And he called them an "evil" generation because of the quality that had come to be in them from the evil one (for wickedness is voluntary wrongdoing), and "adulterous" for this reason: because the Pharisees and Sadducees abandoned the husband spoken of figuratively — the word of truth, or the law — and were made adulterous by falsehood, and
of the law "of sin." Since two laws exist—one "in our members" that wages war against "the law of the mind" opposing our limbs, and the one "of the mind" itself—it must be said that the one "of the mind" —that is, the "spiritual" law— is the husband, to whom the soul, the wife, was joined by God as to a husband, the law, according to what is written: "but the wife is joined to the husband by God,"
while the other is the adulterer of the soul that submits itself to him and, because of him, comes to be called adulterous. That the law is the husband of the soul, Paul plainly establishes in Romans, saying that "the law has lordship over a person for as long as he lives; for the married woman is bound by law to the living husband," and so on.
For observe in this that the law has lordship over a person for as long as he lives (the law being like a husband to a wife); for the married woman—the soul held fast beneath the law—is fastened to her living husband, that is, to the law. But if the husband—the law—dies, she is released from the law, that is, from the husband. And the law dies for the one
who has ascended to blessedness and no longer lives as a citizen under law, but acts as Christ acted, who, though he "came to be under law" on account of those bound by that law, "so as to win over those subject to law," neither remained under law nor left those set free by him under law; for he led them up together with himself to the divine citizenship that is above the law, which contains, as it
were with a view to the less perfect and those still sinning, offerings made for release from sins. As for the one who is without sin and no longer has need of the sacrifices of the law, that man — perfected, perhaps — has passed even beyond the spiritual law, and has come to be in the word that is above it, a word that for those living in the flesh had become "flesh," but for those no longer serving in the army "according to the flesh" at all, as it "was in the beginning with God,"
being God the Word, is contemplated and reveals the Father. Three things, then, must be understood in this passage: a married woman under a husband, the law; and an adulterous wife, who while "the husband" — the law — "is alive" becomes wife "to another husband," the law of the flesh, that is, the soul; and a wife given in marriage to the brother of her deceased husband, that is, to the word who lives and does not die, who, "having been raised from the dead, no longer"
dies," for "death no longer has lordship over him." And this follows from "if the husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband," and from "so then, while the husband lives, she will be called an adulteress if she comes to belong to another husband," and from "but should the husband die, she is set free from that law, and thus is no adulteress if she becomes another husband's."
We have taken up the very phrase ‘then, while her husband lives, will she be called an adulteress,’ wishing to make clear why Jesus said to the Pharisees and Sadducees who were testing him and seeking that a sign be shown them from heaven, not only ‘evil generation’ but also ‘adulterous.’ In general, then, the law in the members that wages war against ‘the law of the mind’ is, as an adulterer,
a husband, an adulterer of the soul; and indeed every opposing power that overpowers the human soul and mingles itself with it is an adulterer of her, since she has as bridegroom the Word given to her by God. Afterward it stands written that, leaving them behind, he went away; for how could the bridegroom Word do otherwise than abandon the adulterous generation and withdraw from it? Yet you might say
that the Word of God, having left the synagogue of the Jews as an adulteress, has departed from her, and has taken a ‘wife of fornication’ from the nations; since those, though being a ‘faithful city, Zion,’ have become harlots, while these, like Rahab the harlot who received the spies of Jesus, were saved with her whole household, and thereafter no longer played the harlot, but came to the
feet of Jesus and wet them with the tears of repentance, and anointed them with the fragrance of the ointments of a holy way of life, on account of which he, reproaching Simon the leper, who represents the former people, said all that is written. 'And when his disciples reached the far shore, they had forgotten to bring bread' (16:5[–12]). Since the loaves that had been before the crossing were not useful
to the disciples who had come to the other side (for they needed different things before the crossing and needed other things for the crossing), for this reason, neglecting to bring loaves with them as they set out for the other side, they forgot to take them along with themselves. Now the disciples of Jesus have become men ‘on the other side’ by having crossed over from bodily things to spiritual things and from things perceived by sense to
things perceived by the mind. And perhaps in order to turn back those who, through having arrived at the other side, were beginning in spirit to run back to the things of the flesh, Jesus said to those on the other side: ‘Watch and take heed.’ A mixture of doctrine existed, in truth an old kind of leaven, mixed with the bare letter and for that reason not free of the taint that comes from evil, which the Pharisees and
Sadducees supplied, from which Jesus no longer wants his own disciples to eat, since he fashioned for them instead a ‘new’ and spiritual ‘lump,’ giving himself over to those who had broken away from that leaven belonging to Pharisee and Sadducee alike and had come over to him, as ‘living bread come down from heaven and giving life to the world.’ Since there is a path for the one who will no longer make use of the leaven and lump and teaching belonging to the Pharisees and the Sadducees,
first to see and second to take heed, lest, through not seeing and through lack of attention, someone should partake of their forbidden leaven, for this reason he says to the disciples first ‘watch’ and second ‘take heed.’ It belongs, then, to those who see clearly and pay close attention to keep apart the leaven belonging to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and everything that is not unleavened, from ‘sincerity and truth,’
nourishment from the living bread that came down out of heaven, so that he might not accept the bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but that by eating the living and true bread one might be strengthened in soul. And this saying we might fittingly apply to those who, along with being Christians, choose to Judaize bodily; for these do not see or take heed of the leaven of the
Pharisees and Sadducees, but eat the bread of the Pharisees against the wishes of Jesus, who had forbidden it. And I think all who refuse to hold that the law, being spiritual, casts "a shadow of the good things that are coming" and "is itself that shadow of what is coming," and who never ask what coming good each precept prefigures as its shadow, neither see nor take heed
of the leaven of the Pharisees; while others, who reject the resurrection of the dead, take no precaution against the Sadducees' leaven, and indeed many among those of heterodox opinion, because of their disbelief regarding the resurrection of the dead, are found mixed into the Sadducees' leaven. While Jesus was speaking these words, the disciples were arguing among themselves, not aloud, but in
their own hearts, because they had not taken bread. And what they were saying was something like this: "If we had bread, we would not have received any of the Pharisees' and Sadducees' leaven; yet since for want of bread we risk receiving some of their leaven, and the Savior has no wish for us to retreat back into their teaching, that is why he told us, 'See and
beware of the Pharisees' and Sadducees' leaven.'" This is what they were reasoning; but Jesus, seeing what was in their hearts and hearing the words within them, as the true overseer of hearts, rebukes them for not understanding, nor remembering the loaves they had gotten from him, loaves on whose account, even though they appeared to lack bread, they had no need
of the Pharisees' and Sadducees' leaven. Next, clarifying and laying out more plainly (for those confused by the ambiguity of "bread" and "leaven") that his words to them were not about tangible bread but about the leaven found in teaching, he adds: "How is it you fail to grasp that I was not speaking to you concerning bread? Rather beware the Pharisees' and Sadducees' leaven." And yet, though
he had not stripped bare the interpretation but was still remaining within the figurative mode of speech, the disciples understood that the Savior's word concerned teaching, "leaven" being spoken figuratively, the teaching which the Pharisees and Sadducees taught. Now to the extent that Jesus remains among us, carrying out the promise stating, "Behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age," we cannot
"fast," nor be at a loss for food, so as, on account of that lack, to seek to take and eat even from the forbidden leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But there might come a time, even while he is present with us, when we go without food, as has been said above in the passage where it is written, "For three days now they have stayed by me, and they have nothing at all to eat." But even should this happen, since he does not want us
‘lest we release them fasting, lest they faint on the way,’ over the loaves set before the disciples he offers thanks, and makes the seven baskets overflow for us from the seven loaves (as we have already explained). But this too must be observed — for the sake of those who think the Godhead of the Savior is not fully set forth in the Gospel according to Matthew — that, the disciples reasoning among themselves
and saying that they had no loaves, that Jesus knew their reasonings and said, “Why do you reason among yourselves, you of little faith, that you have no loaves?” was not a human thing; for the Lord “alone” knows the hearts of men, as Solomon states in the third of the books of Kingdoms. But since, when Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven,” the disciples understood
that he had not instructed them to be wary of loaves, but rather of what the Pharisees and Sadducees taught, you will notice whether, in every place leaven is mentioned, it gets figuratively turned into a lesson about teaching, whether within the Law or also in the writings that came after the Law. In this way, then, leaven is perhaps never brought to the altar; for prayers ought not to bear the stamp of instruction, but to be
only requests for good things from God. Now one might ask, given what is recorded concerning the disciples' arrival on the far shore, whether a person, having reached that far shore, can still be reproached as one of feeble faith, as one who neither grasps nor calls to mind what Jesus had already accomplished. Yet it is, I think, no hard matter to answer this by saying that, measured against the standard of the perfect — which,
when it comes, “what exists only in part will be abolished” — all our faith here is littleness of faith, and in relation to that we, who know only “in part,” do not yet understand, nor do we remember; for we cannot lay hold of a memory sufficient and coextensive with the vastness of the nature of the things contemplated. Further, one can also learn from this that even for mere reasonings which we reason within ourselves,
we are sometimes accused and reproached as men of little faith. My own view is this: just as one “commits adultery in the heart” alone, without going so far as the act at all, so too the rest of the forbidden things a person does in the heart alone. As, then, the one who has committed adultery “in the heart” will be punished in proportion to such adultery, so also the one who does one of the forbidden things
in the heart — say, for instance, one who steals in the heart alone, or bears false witness in the heart alone — will not be punished as the one who has both stolen in deed or actually carried out the act of false witness, but will be punished only as one who has done such things in the heart alone, and this only if he did not go on, of his own accord, to the wicked act itself; for if,
in addition to having willed it, he undertook it but did not succeed, his penalty will not be that of one who sinned in the heart alone, but of one guilty also in the deed. Now one might ask, with regard to such cases, whether someone commits adultery “in the heart” alone even if he does not perform the act of adultery, yet is not chaste in the heart alone — and you will do the same regarding the rest.
...of praiseworthy things. But this passage has something in it capable of plausibly leading us astray, which I think must be cleared up in this way: adultery committed in the heart is a lesser sin than if one adds the act to it as well; yet it is impossible for there to be chastity in the heart that impedes the chaste act, unless indeed one also takes, with regard to this, the case of a virgin who is violated in the wilderness
according to the law, as an example. For let it be that someone's heart is utterly pure, but that her life has undergone, at the hands of a licentious man, the corruption of the body of a chaste woman — such a one, I think, is indeed altogether chaste in what is hidden, but her body is no longer as pure as it was before the violence; yet not so as to be, since it is impure, already
licentious as well. These things they were also reasoning among themselves on account of the fact that they had taken no loaves; to which is appended: but Jesus, knowing it, said, "O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves" and so on. For it was necessary that the word concerning the things in the hidden be examined, and, set alongside it, the praise given for what is in the hidden. But I am amazed if the disciples
thought, before the word had been made clear to them by Jesus, that the teacher and lord was forbidding them to guard against the perceptible [...] leaven of the Pharisees or Sadducees as though it were not clean and for that reason forbidden — as if, because they had not taken loaves, they should not make use of that leaven of theirs. We might seek out something similar in other cases too, but for the sake of an example it suffices
to cite what concerns the Samaritan woman, in the passage: "everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst forever." For there too, so far as the wording goes, the Samaritan woman will seem to suppose that the Savior is promising, in saying, "whoever drinks of"
"the water that I will give him will never thirst forever," perceptible water. Those words too, then, must be read tropologically and examined together: the water of the well "of Jacob," from which the Samaritan woman was drawing, as against the water of Jesus; and here the same procedure is called for, since perhaps the loaves in question were not baked bread at all, but rather some leaven — namely, that the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees was itself only raw. Now when
Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, he questioned his disciples (16:13–19). It is his disciples whom Jesus asks what men say that he is, so that we might learn from the apostles' answer the various opinions concerning our Savior that then existed among the Jews. And perhaps also so that the imitators of Jesus might always be taught
to be diligent in inquiring about what is said by men concerning them — which will contribute to this: that if something base is said, its occasions be removed by every means, but if something admirable, its grounds be increased still further. Notice, however, the various stirrings among the Jews concerning Jesus, and the manner in which, from certain unsound opinions, some were saying that
John was the baptist, in the view of Herod the tetrarch as well, who told his own servants: "This man is John the Baptist; he was raised up from among the dead, and for that reason the powers work within him." But others say that he who is now called Jesus is Elijah, either having undergone a second birth, or having lived in the flesh from that time on and having appeared now in the present time.
And those who claimed that Jesus was in fact Jeremiah -- not that Jeremiah merely prefigured Christ -- were perhaps prompted by what stands written near the opening of Jeremiah concerning Christ, words unfulfilled then in the prophet but which began to reach fulfillment in Jesus, whom God appointed over "nations and kingdoms, to uproot and demolish and destroy,
and to build and to plant," making him a prophet to the nations to whom he proclaimed the word. But those, too, who held him to be one among the prophets took up such a view about him because of what was said in the prophets, words that, though addressed to those men themselves, went unfulfilled among them. The Jews, however, being worthy of the veil upon their heart,
held false opinions about Jesus. But Peter, as one who was a disciple not of flesh and blood but who had also been granted the unveiling of the Father who is in the heavens, [...] acknowledged him to be the Christ. Now what Peter said to the Savior, "You are the Christ," was in itself a great thing, even granting that the Jews had no knowledge that he was the Christ; yet greater still was that he understood
him to be not only Christ, but also Son of the living God, who spoke also by the prophets, saying "I live," [...] and [...] "me they abandoned, the wellspring of living water." And he is also life, as flowing from the fountain of the Father's life, he who said, "I am the life." And observe carefully whether, just as a river's source is not the same as the river,
so too the fountain of life differs from life itself. And we have added these remarks on account of the addition made to "You are the Christ, the Son of God," namely the word "living"; for something distinctive had to be brought out in what is said about God, the Father of all, that he is living, in contrast to life-itself and to the things that share in it. Since we have said that it was not from any sound
doctrines that those spoke who asserted Jesus to be John the Baptist or one of the others put forward, let us establish this too, by saying that if they had been present at the baptism when Jesus had gone off to John, and John was baptizing Jesus, or had heard of it from someone, they would never have claimed Jesus to be John. And further, if they had understood the teaching from which
Jesus said, "If you are willing to accept it, this is Elijah who is to come," and, having "ears," had taken in what was spoken, no one would have claimed him to be Elijah. And those who said he was Jeremiah, had they seen that most of the prophets had taken up certain things about him in a symbolic way, would not have claimed him to be Jeremiah; and likewise neither would others have said he was any single one
...of the prophets. But perhaps that which Simon Peter, answering, said in the words "You are the Christ, Son of the living God" — provided we likewise utter it as Peter did, not because flesh and blood disclosed it to us but because light shone into our heart from the Father who is in the heavens — we ourselves also become what Peter became, called blessed just as he was, on account of
the causes of that blessing having reached to us as well: that it was not flesh and blood that disclosed to us that Jesus is Christ, Son of the living God, but rather the Father in the heavens, [revealing it] from the heavens themselves, so that we might hold our citizenship "in the heavens," having disclosed to us a revelation that draws us up into the heavens, the heavens that strip away every "veil" from
the heart, and having received the spirit of the "wisdom" of God and of "revelation." And if we too, saying as Peter said: "You are Christ, the living God's own Son" — not because it was flesh and blood that disclosed this to us, but because a light shone in our heart, sent from the Father who is in the heavens — we become Peter, and to us too it would be said, from
the word, "You are Peter," and what follows. For every imitator of Christ is a rock, from which drank those who "drank... from the spiritual rock that followed." And upon such a rock every word of the church and the way of life corresponding to it is built. For in each of the perfect, who possess the sum total of the words and
deeds and thoughts <all> that complete blessedness, there is the church built by him. But if you suppose that the whole church is built by God upon that one Peter alone, what then would you say concerning John, that "son of thunder," or concerning each of the apostles individually? Shall we then truly dare to say that for Peter alone the gates of Hades will not prevail, but for the rest
of the apostles and of the perfect [...] they will prevail? Is it not rather the case that, over all of them, over each one of them, what was said before comes to pass — that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it, and likewise that "upon this rock my church shall be built by me"? And are the keys to the heavenly kingdom's realm given by Christ to Peter alone, and will none of the other blessed
receive them? But if "I will give you the keys to heaven's kingdom" belongs in common to others as well, how is it not also the case that everything said before and everything added afterward, as though spoken with reference to Peter, [...] ? For here indeed it seems to have been said with reference to Peter: "whatever things you bind upon the earth will be bound in the heavens," and
what follows; but in the Gospel according to John, the Savior, giving the Holy Spirit to the disciples by breathing on them, says: "Receive the Holy Spirit," and what follows. Many, then, will say to the Savior, "You are Christ, the living God's own Son," yet not everyone who declares this will be saying it to him in a case where flesh and blood have in no way disclosed it, but rather
...having learned this, once the Father who is in the heavens has taken away the "veil" that lies upon their heart, so that afterward, "beholding with unveiled face, as in a mirror, the glory of the Lord" in the Spirit of God, they may speak concerning him, "The Lord Jesus," and to him, "You are the Christ, God's living Son." And if anyone says this to
him — not because flesh and blood have revealed it to him, but the Father who is in the heavens — he will obtain what has been said, as the letter of the gospel says with reference to that particular Peter, but as his Spirit teaches with reference to everyone who has become of the same character as that Peter. For all imitators of Christ are named after "the rock," since the "spiritual rock" follows those who are being saved, so that
they may drink from it "the spiritual drink." These, then, are named after the rock, just as Christ is; but also, being "members of Christ," they have been named, after him, Christs, and, after the rock, Peters. And taking your cue from this you might say that the righteous are named after Christ's righteousness, and the wise after his wisdom; and you will do the same with the rest of his names, forming names derived from them and applied to the
saints. And to all such persons the saying spoken by the Savior might be applied: "You are Peter," and so on, down to "shall not prevail against it." Against it — meaning what? Is it against the rock on which Christ is building his church, or against the church (for the expression is ambiguous), or on the ground that the rock and the church are one and the same thing?
This, I think, happens to be the true view: Hades' gates will overpower neither the rock on which Christ builds his church, nor the church itself — just as, according to what stands written, no track of a serpent crossing a rock could ever be traced. But if someone is overpowered by Hades' gates, then that person would be neither a rock on which Christ is building his church, nor would the church built by Christ
upon Peter be present in him. For the rock cannot be traversed by the serpent and is stronger than the gates of Hades arrayed against it, with the result that its strength keeps those gates from prevailing over it; and the church, being Christ's building — his, who wisely "built his own house upon the rock" — cannot be overcome by the gates of Hades, which do prevail over every man who is
outside the rock and the church, but can do nothing against it. Now understanding that each of the sins by which it is possible to end up in Hades is one of Hades' gates, we shall grasp that a soul bearing "a spot or wrinkle or some such blemish," and, because of its wickedness, being neither "holy" nor "blameless," is not a rock on which Christ builds,
nor a church, nor part of the church which Christ builds upon the rock. And if anyone wishes to shame us on these points by pointing to the multitudes of those reputed to be believers belonging to the church, we must say to him not only "called are many, chosen are few," but also what was said by the Savior to those who came to him — as it stands thus in the Gospel according to Luke —
...reading: "Strive to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will seek to enter (through the narrow door) and will not be strong enough." And what is written in the Gospel according to Matthew must be stated in this manner: that the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and few are those who find it. Paying attention to the phrase "because many,
I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be strong enough," you will understand that this is said of those who are, so to speak, from the church, yet live weakly and contrary to the word. Now those among the seekers who are not strong enough to enter would not be strong enough, since Hades' gates prevail over them; but those over whom the gates of Hades hold no power — these, though seeking to enter, will be strong enough, being strong in "all things"
"in Christ Jesus who empowers" them. And this too one must know, that just as the gates of cities each have their own proper names, so too might the gates of Hades be named, each according to a kind of sin — so that one gate of Hades would be called fornication, through which those who fornicate travel, and another denial, through which those who deny God descend to Hades
[...] and already, too, each of the heterodox, who has begotten some falsely named knowledge, has built a gate of Hades — one gate Marcion, another Basilides, another Valentinus. And thus each of these fathers of a depraved opinion has become the architect of some gate of Hades; while those who assist the architect of such teaching are certain servants and stewards, enslaved to the depraved architectural
reasoning of impiety. Yet numerous and hardly countable as Hades' gates are, not one of them will prevail over the rock, or the church, upon which Christ builds. Still, these gates possess a certain strength, by which they overpower some who do not resist and struggle against them, while they are overcome by others, because these do not depart from the one who said, "I am
the door," having cast down all the gates of Hades from their own soul. Here, then, the gates of Hades have been discussed; but in the Psalms the prophet offers thanks, saying, "You who lift me up out of death's gates, that I may declare all your praises within the gates of Zion's daughter." And it is from this, too, that we learn that it is perhaps not possible
for anyone to be able to declare all "the praises" of God without first rising up out of "death's gates" and coming to stand at "the gates" of "Zion." And the gates of "Zion" might be understood as opposite to the gates "of death," so that the gate of death is licentiousness and the gate of Zion is self-control, and likewise the gate of death is injustice and the gate of Zion is righteousness, which
the prophet points out when he says: "Here is the gate belonging to the Lord; the righteous shall come in through it." And again, the gate of death is cowardice and the gate of Zion is courage; the gate of death is folly, and its opposite, the gate of Zion, is prudence. And to all the gates of "falsely named knowledge" there is one opposite gate, that of undeceiving knowledge [...]. Now consider whether
...you can, because of "our struggle is not against blood and flesh" and the rest, to call every authority and world-ruler "of this darkness" and spiritual host "of wickedness in the heavenly places" a gate belonging to Hades and likewise to death. The rulers and authorities, then, against which our struggle is, would be called gates of Hades; but the gates of righteousness would be "the ministering spirits."
Just as, on the side of the better things, many gates are named beforehand, and after the many, one, in "Unbar for me the gates of righteousness; entering through them I will give thanks to the Lord," and "Here is the gate belonging to the Lord; through it the righteous shall come in" — so too, on the side of the opposite things, there are many gates of Hades and of death, each authority being one, against which our struggle is, on behalf of
but above all these, this evil one is himself a gate of death; and let us be watchful, at each sin, that we are not descending as it were to some gate of Hades, if we sin; but rising up out of "death's gates," let us proclaim every one of "the praises" belonging to the Lord within "Zion's daughter's gates." Take, for instance, one gate of the daughter of Zion, the one called self-mastery — we shall proclaim, from
self-mastery, the praises of God; and in another, the one called righteousness, the praises of God from righteousness. And, quite simply, in all the things in which we become praiseworthy, in these we come to be in some gate of the daughter of Zion, proclaiming, according to that particular one, some praise of God. But we must examine how it is said in one of the Twelve: "They hated in the gates the one who reproves, and they abhorred the holy word."
Perhaps, then, the one who reproves "in the gates" is the one who, from the gates of the daughter of Zion, reproves those who have come to be in the sins opposite to this gate, and to the gates of Hades or of death. But if you do not understand "they hated in the gates the one who reproves" in this way, then either "in the gates" will have been said as a superfluous addition, or you must inquire how the saying could be worthy of a prophetic spirit. After this, let us see
how it has been said to Peter, and to a certain... Peter, "the keys to the kingdom of heaven I will give you." And first, I think, it follows in sequence that, after "against her the gates of Hades shall not prevail," the words "I will give you the keys to heaven's kingdom" were spoken; for he is worthy to receive, from that same discourse, the keys belonging to the kingdom of the heavens, having fortified himself against
the gates of Hades, so that they might not prevail against him — receiving, as though they were prizes for the fact that the gates of Hades had been powerless against him, the keys belonging to the kingdom of the heavens, so as to unlock for himself the gates that remain shut to those overcome by the gates of Hades. So he passes through, in his aspect as a man of self-mastery, through one gate of self-mastery opened for him by a key that unlocks self-mastery, and through
another, as a righteous man, through the gate of righteousness that is opened by the key of righteousness; likewise with the remaining virtues. For I think that, for each virtue, certain mysteries of the knowledge belonging to wisdom, matched to that particular form of virtue, are unlocked for the one who has lived according to virtue — the Savior granting to those not mastered by the gates of Hades a number of keys equal to the virtues themselves, each opening a corresponding
...gates, each one suited according to the revelation of the mysteries to each virtue. And perhaps each virtue is itself a kingdom of heaven, and all of them together form the kingdom of the heavens; so that in this sense, the one whose life follows the virtues already dwells within the kingdom of the heavens, and so in this sense the saying "Repent, for near at hand is the kingdom of the heavens" should be referred not to a span of time but to actions
and to a disposition; for Christ, who is virtue entire, has come and speaks. And on this account, "within" his disciples lies "the kingdom of God," not "over here" or "over there." Now observe how great an authority belongs to the rock, the one on which Christ builds his church, and to everyone who declares, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living
God," such that this one's judgments remain firm, since God judges in him, with the result that in this very exercise of judgment Hades' gates cannot overpower him. As for the one who judges unjustly, and does not bind on earth according to the reason of God, nor loose on earth according to his will, Hades' gates prevail against him. But the man against whom Hades' gates gain no mastery is the one who judges
justly; therefore he holds the keys belonging to heaven's kingdom, opening for those set free on earth, so that they may likewise stand free and released in the heavens, and shutting against those bound on earth by his righteous verdict, so that they may likewise be held bound and condemned in the heavens. But since those who lay claim to the office of bishop make use of this saying as if they were Peter, claiming to have received the keys
of the kingdom of the heavens from the Savior, and teach that what has been bound by them, that is, condemned, is bound also in the heavens, and that what they have released, that is, taken as loosed, is also loosed in the heavens, one must say that they speak soundly if they have the deed for the sake of which that word was spoken to Peter -- "You are Peter" -- and if they are of such a stature that upon them too
the church is built by Christ, and this could reasonably be referred to them as well. But the gates of Hades ought not prevail against the one who wishes to bind and loose. Yet if he "has been bound tight in the cords of his own sins"[...] , he binds and looses to no purpose. And perhaps one may say: in the heavens that are in the wise man (that is, in the virtues) the wicked man is bound, and again the earnest man is loosed in
them and has received amnesty for the sins committed by him before he attained virtue. But just as God would not bind the one who has no cords of sins, nor sins likened to "a long rope" or "the strap of a heifer's yoke," so too would no one else, whoever he may be who is Peter. But if someone who is not Peter, and does not have what has been said here, nevertheless supposes, as though he were Peter, that he
will bind on earth so that things bound are bound also in the heavens, and will loose on earth so that things loosed are loosed also in the heavens, this man "has been puffed up," not understanding the intent of the scriptures, and "having been puffed up" he has fallen "into the judgment of the devil." "Then he charged his disciples that they should tell no one that he was the Christ" (16:20 [-23]). Above it has been written
that "Jesus sent out these twelve, instructing them: do not set out on a road the Gentiles travel," and whatever else is recorded as having been said to them at the time he dispatched them on their mission. Did he then wish them, in already carrying out the apostles' task, also to announce that he was the Christ? For if that was his wish, it is worth asking why he now instructs the disciples that they should not say
that he was the Christ. But if he did not wish this, how can the terms of the mission be preserved? And one might also raise this question in connection with the passage: in sending out the twelve, did he not send them out thinking that he was the Christ? And if the twelve thought this, clearly Peter did too. How then is he now called blessed? For the wording shows through
these words that only now, for the first time, did Peter confess him as Christ, the Son of the living God. Now Matthew, according to some of the copies, has "then he charged the disciples to tell no one that he is the Christ," but Mark says "he rebuked them, that they should tell no one about him," while Luke says that "having rebuked them, he commanded them to tell no one
this" — and what is "this" but that, in his account too, Peter, when asked "who do you say that I am?", answered "the Christ of God"? One should know, however, that some manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel read "he rebuked" instead. Now this difficulty seems to me a very serious one; let an unassailable solution to it be sought, one which, whoever finds it, if it is more convincing
than what will be said by us as by ordinary men, let him bring it forward. Consider, then, whether you can say that being believed to be Jesus the Christ is less than the believed fact being known; and perhaps there is also a difference in knowing that Jesus is the Christ, not everyone who knows, knowing him in the same way. That being believed apart from knowledge is less
than being known is clear from the Gospel according to John: "[...] if you remain in my word, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." And that there is also a difference in knowing that Jesus is the Christ, those who know him not knowing him equally — this very self-evidence, to anyone who gives it even a little attention, establishes the matter. For who
would not agree that (to give an example) Timothy, knowing that Jesus is the Christ, had not been enlightened to the same degree in the knowledge concerning him as the apostle Paul had been enlightened? And this too, in turn, who would not accept: that even if several who speak the truth say of God, "he has given me unerring knowledge of the things that are," they do not, since they do not equally clarify and grasp
the things known, nor know so many of them in number, say this in the same way? Those who know need not know alike simply because of a difference in the manner of knowing; rather, the difference also lies in what has furnished that knowledge — as, for instance, one who has come to know the Son through the Father's revealing him, as Peter is attested to have come to know him, has the highest beatitude. But if these things have been rightly said by us, you will observe
If the twelve at first believed but did not yet know, and then, in the process of believing, also had the beginnings of knowledge and knew fewer things about him, but later made progress in knowing, so as to be able to receive the knowledge that comes from the Father when he reveals the Son — we must ask in what condition Peter was when he was called blessed. For he is called blessed not for having said
only "You are the Christ," but with this addition: "the Son of the living God." Mark and Luke, at any rate, who recorded Peter as answering and saying, "You are the Christ," without adding what stands in Matthew — "the living God's Son" — for this reason did not record the blessing pronounced on what was said, nor
the blessing that follows the beatitude, which says "You are Peter" and so on. But first we must also examine this: that they proclaimed the other things about him as one great and marvelous, but did not yet proclaim that he himself was the Christ, so that the Savior might not seem to be taking away from them the authority to proclaim him as Christ, which he had earlier granted them. And
perhaps someone will support such a statement by claiming that the Jews were taught by the apostles, as in an introductory course, the glorious things concerning Jesus, so that upon these, at the proper time, the things concerning his being the Christ might also be built up. But perhaps many of the things said to them were in fact said, in effect, to all who believe; for it did not apply to the apostles alone, the saying about being brought
"before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them and to the nations" — and perhaps not to the apostles at all, but to all who were going to believe, the saying "brother will hand over brother to death" and what follows. And also "everyone, then, who acknowledges me" and what follows was spoken not to the apostles alone, but to every believer as well.
In this respect, then, what was said to the apostles is a preliminary sketch of teaching that would later come into use both for them and for every teacher. But if someone wishes that his being the Christ was already proclaimed earlier by the apostles who had heard, "What I tell you in the dark, say in the light; and what you hear whispered in the ear, proclaim upon
the housetops," he will say that Jesus wished, as it were, to catechize the apostles first, more dimly, with the name of Christ, and then to let this be, as it were, ripened in the minds of those who had heard it, so that, once there was a silence about proclaiming such a thing concerning him, it might be built up more opportunely, for those already catechized beforehand, that Jesus Christ was crucified and raised from the dead — something the apostles themselves did not yet know at the outset. For it is written
in the passage now under examination that from that time Jesus began to reveal to his disciples the necessity of his departure to Jerusalem and of suffering such and such things. But if the apostles are only now learning these things from Jesus as things that were going to happen to him — the plot from the elders, and that he would be put to death, and that afterward, on the third day, he would rise from the dead
"He will rise" -- what should we think the disciples who were being taught by the apostles had known about Jesus earlier, other than that, granting that they had received an announcement of the Christ, it came to them merely as a preliminary sketch, one not yet rendering plain the matters concerning him? For indeed our Savior wished, by charging the disciples that they tell no one that he was the Christ, to preserve the more complete teaching about him for a more fitting
time, when those disciples who had witnessed his crucifixion and resurrection would be in a position to testify concerning his rising, before people who had likewise witnessed the crucifixion. For if even the apostles — constant companions of his, eyewitnesses of every "marvel he performed," and witnesses to the fact that his sayings were "words of eternal life" — fell into confusion on the night of his betrayal, what do you suppose would have happened to those
who were learning, once they had learned, that he himself was the Christ? It was out of consideration for them (I think) that he gave this charge. But one who wishes what was said to the twelve to be referred to the times that came after, and holds that the apostles had not yet announced to their hearers that he himself was the Christ, will maintain that his desire was to keep the notion of Christ, bound up with the name Jesus, in reserve for the more complete and saving
proclamation -- of the kind Paul, understanding it, spoke of to the Corinthians: "But I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Hence at first they proclaimed Jesus as one who did certain things and taught certain things. But now, when Peter confesses him to be "Christ, Son of the living God," as one who did not wish him to be proclaimed as
Christ just yet, in order that at a fitter season he might be proclaimed as crucified as well, he charges the disciples to tell no one that he is the Christ. And this appears in some way to be his intention in forbidding him to be proclaimed as Christ: from the fact that "from that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and the
chief priests." For it is as though the disciples, having then at that moment recognized Jesus as the Christ, Son "of the living God" -- this the Father having revealed to them -- so he announces, rather than that they should believe in Jesus Christ "crucified," that they should believe in Jesus Christ, destined to be crucified; and moreover, rather than "in Jesus Christ, and him raised up out of the dead," he instructs them to believe in Jesus Christ and
him who was destined to be raised out of the dead. And since "stripping off the rulers and the authorities, he exposed them to open shame, leading them in triumph openly upon the wood," whoever feels shame at Christ's cross feels shame at the very dispensation by which those powers were led in triumph -- yet it is fitting for one who both believes and has recognized these truths to boast in the cross belonging to our Lord Jesus Christ, "through whom" Christ crucified to the world
for the one who believes, the rulers were made a public example of and triumphed over, among whom (I think) was also the ruler of this age. That is why, drawing near to his suffering, he declared, "the ruler of this world stands now condemned," and, "the ruler of this world shall now be driven out; and I, if I am lifted up (he says) from the earth, will draw all people to myself" -- no longer to the same degree as before.
the ruler being able to prevent those drawn by him from coming to Jesus. It is necessary, then, that when Jesus Christ is preached, he be preached as “crucified”; it is deficient to preach him while keeping silent about his cross. And it does not seem to me so deficient to say the name Jesus the Christ while some other of his marvels is passed over in silence, as it seems for it to be passed over in silence that he is crucified.
This is why, guarding the fact that the things concerning him should be preached more perfectly by the apostles, he directed his disciples to tell no one that he is the Christ, and was preparing them to say that he is the Christ who was crucified and rose from the dead — at the point when he began not merely to speak, nor merely to make progress as far as teaching, but also to show his
disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem, and so forth. For note carefully the word “show”: in the same way that things perceived by the senses are spoken of as being shown, so likewise the sayings of Jesus to his disciples are spoken of as having been “shown” by him. And I do not think it was shown in the same way to those who saw with bodily eyes him suffering many things at the hands of the elders of the people — each of the things seen — as it was shown to
the disciples by way of a rational demonstration concerning this. At that time, then, he was showing it, but it is likely that afterward, to those who had become more capable, he showed it more clearly, no longer as one beginning to show it to newcomers, but now progressing further in his manner of showing it. Should it be reasonable to suppose that whatever Jesus set out to do he assuredly carried through to the end, then he assuredly at some point brought to completion what he had begun to show his disciples concerning the
necessity that he must long for the things written. For when someone grasps the perfect knowledge that comes from reason concerning these mysteries, then it must be said that, the mind now beholding by rational demonstration the things shown, the showing has been brought to completion for the one who both wishes, and is able, and does behold. But since it was not possible for a prophet to perish outside Jerusalem — a destruction bearing an analogy to “whoever loses his soul for my sake
will find it” — for this reason it was necessary that he go away to Jerusalem, so that, after suffering many things in Jerusalem and being put to death among them, he might become, in the “upper” Jerusalem, the firstfruits of rising again out of death, thereby abolishing and doing away with the Jerusalem on earth together with all the worship in it. For to the degree that Christ
has not “been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep,” and those growing conformed to his death and to his rising again have not themselves been raised together with him, the city of God and the temple were sought below, along with the purifications and the rest; but once this took place, no longer these, but the things above. And so that these very things might come about, it was necessary for him to go away to the lower Jerusalem and suffer many things there
at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes belonging to the people there, so that he might be given glory by heavenly elders and by high priests more divine still — those able to receive his benefactions, arrayed under the one high priest — and be given glory as well by the people’s scribes, occupied with letters not written “in ink” but engraved instead “with the spirit of a living God,” and thereafter be put to death among those below
Jerusalem, but having risen he was to reign in "Mount Zion, city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem." And he rose out of death on the third day, in order that, having delivered us "from the evil one" and from his son, in whom was falsehood and injustice and war and all things opposed to what Christ is, and further from the spirit transforming itself into a holy spirit though profane,
he might secure for those thus delivered a baptism of spirit, soul, and body alike “in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” — realities that stand together as three days, abiding eternally for those who through them <became> sons of the age. Now since Peter considered the sufferings unfitting for Christ, God’s living Son, and thought less of
the Father too, who had revealed to him such great things about him (for it had not yet been revealed to him that he must suffer) — for this reason, having taken him aside and as though forgetting the dignity of Christ, and that he is "the Son of the living God," saying or doing nothing worthy of reproach, he began to rebuke him as one in need of atonement (for he did not yet know that "
God set forth a mercy seat through faith in his blood") — he said: "Be merciful to yourself, Lord." Accepting his intention but rebuking his ignorance, on account of the intention, which was right, he says to him: "Get behind me," as though to one who had abandoned the things through which he was ignorant and wrongly urged him not to follow the path; but on account of the ignorance, as to one holding something opposed to the things of
God, he said: "Satan," which in Hebrew signifies ADVERSARY. But had he spoken not from ignorance, and had he not reproved the Son "of the living God," telling him "Be merciful to yourself, Lord," this would never have befallen him — he would not have told him "Get behind me," as to one who, abandoning his place behind him, had ceased to follow, nor would he have called him "Satan" for having uttered things contrary to what had
been said by him. But as things stood, Satan prevailed over one who had followed Jesus and walked behind him, causing him to stop following and to fall away from his place behind the Son of God — because of what he said out of ignorance, deserving to hear himself called Satan, a stumbling block placed before God’s own Son, one not minding the things of God but
the things of men. And that Peter had previously (before he sinned in this) been behind the Son of God is clear from "Follow behind me, and I will turn you into fishers of men." At the same time you may compare that to Peter he said, "Get behind me, Satan," while to the devil (who had said to him, "All these I will give you, if you fall down and worship me") he said "Get away, Satan" without
the addition "behind me." For being behind Jesus is itself a good thing; thus it was said, "Come after me, and fishers of men I will make you." Similar also is this: "Whoever takes not up his cross and comes after me is not worthy of me." And in every instance mark the word "behind," that it is a good thing when it signifies being behind
...of the Lord God someone walks, and he becomes "behind Christ." But the opposite occurs when someone casts the words of God to the rear, or transgresses the commandment which says, "Go not behind your desires." Elijah too, in the third book of Kingdoms, says to the people: "How long will you go limping on both
knees? If the Lord is God, walk behind him; but if Baal is lord, walk behind him." Turning toward Peter, Jesus speaks these very words to him; <for> in doing so he confers a benefit on him. So then, you yourself, having gathered together more examples of "having turned" — especially those set down concerning Jesus — and having examined them alongside one another, would find that the expression is not placed there superfluously.
It is enough for the present purpose to cite from the Gospel according to John: "But Jesus, having turned and seen them" — clearly Peter and Andrew — "following, says to them: What are you seeking?" For observe that here too the word "having turned" occurs for the benefit of those toward whom he turned. After this we must inquire how he came to say to Peter, "You are a stumbling block to me," especially
since David says: "Great peace have those who love your law, and there is no stumbling block for them." For someone will say: if it is on account of the steadfastness of those who possess [...] love and are incapable of being scandalized (for love "believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things; love never fails") that this is said through the prophet, how is it that
the Lord himself — who upholds "all who fall" and raises up "all who are broken" — said to Peter, "You are a stumbling block to me"? One ought to say that being scandalized is something not only the Savior but also <every> person made perfect in love cannot undergo; yet insofar as it depends on him, whoever speaks or acts in such a way becomes a stumbling block even to one who will not, in fact, be scandalized — unless, indeed,
Jesus calls every disciple who sins a stumbling block to himself as well, so that all the more, on account of love, one might say, in the manner of Paul: "Who is weak, without my sharing that weakness? Who is scandalized, without my burning within?" And beyond what he did say, it would be possible to say as well: "Who is scandalized, and I am not scandalized?" But if Peter, on that occasion, because of "Be merciful to yourself, Lord; this shall never happen to you," was called a stumbling block
by Jesus, on the ground that in saying this he was thinking not what belongs to God but what belongs to men, what must be said about all who profess to be disciples of Jesus, yet fail to think what belongs to God and fail to regard the unseen and eternal things, thinking instead what belongs to men and regarding the things that are seen and temporary? Is it not that such people
would all the more be called by Jesus a stumbling block to him, precisely because they are a stumbling block also to the brothers? Of these it is said, as in "I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat" and what follows; in the same way he might say also to those who run, "You have scandalized me." Let us not, then, suppose that thinking the things of men is some trivial sin, since it is necessary in all things
to think the things of God. And this saying will fit also anyone who has fallen away from God's doctrines and the church's teachings and true understanding, but thinks as true (for example) the doctrines of Basilides or Valentinus or Marcion or of any of those who teach human things as though divine. "Then Jesus said to his disciples: 'If anyone wishes to follow after me and...'"
and what follows (16:24-27). By these words it is shown that wishing to come behind Jesus and be his follower does not arise from some ordinary good deed, and no one could come behind Jesus without first having denied himself. And he denies himself who, by a notable change, wipes away the life he formerly lived in wickedness — as, for example (to speak by way of illustration), the one who was formerly
licentious denies himself as licentious, having become self-controlled, and so on. But it is likely that someone will object: whether, just as he denied himself, he likewise confesses himself — having denied himself as the unjust one, but confessing himself as the just one. But if Christ is righteousness, then the one who has taken up righteousness confesses not himself but Christ. So too the one who has found wisdom, by the very fact of possessing wisdom,
confesses Christ. And such a person indeed, believing "with the heart unto righteousness" and confessing "with the mouth unto salvation," and bearing witness to Christ by his works, having thus confessed Christ through all these things "before men," that same person will in turn be acknowledged by him "before the Father who is in the heavens." And so too the one who has not denied himself <confesses himself, indeed, but denies Christ; and as one who has>
denied Christ, he will suffer "and I too will deny him." For this reason let every reasoning of ours, and every thought, and every word, and every deed breathe of the denial of ourselves and of witness and confession concerning Christ and in Christ. My conviction, in fact, is that whatever the mature person does stands as testimony to Christ Jesus, and that holding oneself back from every sin amounts to a denial
of oneself that carries one after Jesus. And such a person has been crucified with Christ, and having taken up his own cross, follows the one who for our sake bears his own cross, according to what is said thus in John: "So they took him and laid it upon him," and what follows, down to "where they crucified him." But the one — if I may name him so — who according to John is Jesus, bears
"the cross" for himself and "went out carrying it," though in Matthew, Mark, and Luke he does not carry it alone; Simon of Cyrene is the one who bears it. This detail, perhaps, applies to us — we carry Jesus' cross on Jesus' behalf — whereas Jesus himself applies to himself; for the cross, one could say, carries two distinct meanings, one
which Simon of Cyrene bears, and another which Jesus himself bears "for himself." Further, for the phrase "let him deny himself," it seems to me useful to bring in what was said by Paul when he denied himself, which runs thus: "I live, yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me"; for "I live no longer I" gave voice to a man denying himself, as one who had set aside his
his own life, but having taken up Christ into himself, so that he himself might dwell in him as “righteousness,” as “wisdom,” as “sanctification,” as “our peace,” and as “God's power,” with Christ accomplishing everything within him. Note also this: that, although there are many ways of dying, the Son of God, having been hung “on a tree,” was crucified, so that all
who die “to sin” can die to it only by way of the cross. Hence they will proclaim, “With Christ have I been crucified,” and “may boasting never be mine, save in the cross of Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world.” For perhaps each one of those crucified together with Christ strips off “the rulers and the
authorities,” makes a public example of them, and triumphs over them by the tree — rather it is Christ who accomplishes these things in them. “For whoever wishes to save his soul will lose it.” The first phrase is ambiguous; for it is possible to understand it from itself in one way as follows: if someone, being a lover of life and supposing the present existence to be a good, cherishes his own soul
toward living in the flesh, fearing to die on the ground that through this death he will lose it, this person, in the very act of wishing to save his soul in this way, will lose it, putting it outside the bounds of blessedness. But if someone, despising the present life for the sake of my word, which has persuaded him concerning eternal life, strives to the point of death on behalf of the truth,
he loses his own soul [...] handing it over for the sake of piety to what is more commonly called death; this person, having lost his soul for my sake, will rather save it and will preserve it [...]. And in another way, too, we might understand the saying thus: if someone, having grasped what salvation actually is, wishes to obtain the salvation of his own soul, this person, having weaned himself from
this life, and having denied himself, and having taken up his cross, and following me, let him lose his soul to the world; for on my account, and on account of all my teaching, in losing it, at the end of such a loss [...] he will obtain salvation. At the same time, also note that at the beginning “whoever wishes” is said, but next “whoever
loses it.” Since we wish it to be saved, let us instead lose it to the world, being crucified together with Christ, and holding as our boast that “the world” shall, through the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, “be crucified” to us, and we in turn to “the world,” so that we may obtain “the end, the salvation” of our souls, which begins from our destroying it for the sake of the word.
But if indeed we understand the saving of the soul to be blessed, referring to the salvation that is in God and the beatitudes that come from him, then there must also be a good loss of soul, one that is for Christ’s sake, which will be a prelude to that blessed salvation. It seems to me, then, that, in proportion to denying oneself as has been described, each person must lose his own soul. Let each one, then, lose
his own sinning soul, so that having lost the sinning soul he might take up the one that is saved by doing right. ‘A man will be profited nothing if he gains the whole world.’ And he gains it, I think, for whom the world is not crucified. But for whomever the world is not crucified, for that one there will be loss of his own soul. Given the two options before us, either through gaining the soul one loses the
world, or through gaining the world one loses the soul, it is far more preferable that we lose the world but gain the soul, by losing it for Christ’s sake. And the phrase ‘Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?’ would seem to me to be spoken as a rhetorical question, and it can indicate both the giving of an exchange for one’s soul after sins — namely the whole
substance handed over, so that he might feed the poor with his possessions, as one who will be saved through this; and I think it also indicates, declaratively, that there is nothing a man could give as an exchange for his own soul, held fast by death, by which he could ransom it from death’s hand. A man, then, could not give any exchange for his own soul, but God gave, as the exchange for the soul of
us all, the precious blood of Jesus, by which “we were bought at a price,” redeemed “not by corruptible things like silver or gold, but by the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” And Isaiah says to Israel: “I gave as your exchange Ethiopia and Egypt and Syene, in your place, since you became precious before me, you were glorified.” For, so to speak, an exchange was made
in place of the firstborn of Israel: the firstborn of the Egyptians became the exchange; and in place of Israel, the Egyptians who perished in the other plagues visited upon Egypt, and in the drowning subsequent to the plagues. From these things let whoever is able examine whether, for the true Israel, an exchange is given by God who “delivers Israel from all his lawless deeds” — namely the
true Ethiopia, and (that I may so call it) Egypt, and the Syene of Egypt. But that I may inquire more boldly, perhaps Syene stands for Jerusalem, Egypt for Judea, and Ethiopia for those who fear God, a people separate from Israel, apart likewise from the house of Levi and from Aaron's household. “For the Son of Man is destined to come, arriving in the glory”
of his Father, with his angels. Now the Son of Man has come, but not in his own glory; for “him we beheld, and he possessed no form nor any beauty; rather his appearance was dishonored and diminished beyond the sons of men; a man in affliction and in pain, and knowing how to bear sickness, for his face has been turned away,
he was dishonored and not accounted of value.” And it was necessary for him to have come in such a way, so that he might “bear our sins and” be pained “on our behalf”; for it was not fitting for the one in glory to “bear our sins and” be pained “on our behalf.” But he also comes in glory, having beforehand prepared the disciples through his appearance that had neither “form nor beauty”; and having become like them, for the
that they might become like him, "conformed to the image" of his glory — he himself having first been made conformed "to the body of our lowliness," when "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," and is restored to the form of God and makes them "conformed" to it. But if one considers the differences of the word in a figurative sense, in the foolishness of the "proclamation" announced to believers, and in the wisdom
spoken "to the perfect," you will see in what manner the word has, for those being introduced, the form of a servant, so that they might declare, “him we beheld, and he possessed no form nor any beauty,” whereas for the perfect his arrival is “clothed in his Father's glory,” and they would say instead, “and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only-begotten from the Father, brimming with grace and truth.” And indeed
to the perfect there appears the glory of the Word and his being only-begotten with God the Father, and likewise his being "full of grace" and of "truth" — which the one who still needs to believe on account of the foolishness "of the proclamation" is not able to receive. And the Son of Man is going to arrive clothed in his Father's glory, not alone, but with
his angels. And if you are able to understand all the fellow-workers of the glory of the Word and of the disclosure of the wisdom (which is Christ) as arriving together with him, you will see the manner in which the Son of Man arrives amid his Father's glory, together with his angels. And observe, if you are able, whether in these one may say the prophets who suffered beforehand bear an analogy
to the word that had no "form or beauty," in that they too have no "form or beauty" of words. And just as it is amid his Father's glory that the Son of Man arrives, so too the words that are in the prophets, becoming angels, come along with him, preserving the analogy of their own glory. And whenever the Word thus takes up residence with his angels
in the mind of the one who believes, he brings to each his own glory and the radiance belonging to his own angels, in keeping with each one's action. But we say these things without setting aside the more simply understood second coming of the Son of God. And when will these things come to pass, if not at the time that apostolic word finds its fulfillment, the one declaring: "for we must all appear before
the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive the things done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or evil"? And if he will repay each one in keeping with that one's action — not the good apart from the evil, nor the evil apart from the good — clearly his repayment to each will match every evil and every good deed done. Now in these matters I take it, being persuaded by
the apostle, and comparing also the words of Ezekiel, in which, for the one who has fully turned back, his sins are wiped away, and for the one who has utterly fallen away, his former righteous deeds are not reckoned — that for the one who has been made perfect and has entirely put away evil, his sins are wiped away, while for the one who has entirely apostatized from piety, whatever good he had previously done is not reckoned to him; but for us
Between the perfect person and the apostate, a presentation is given "before the judgment seat of Christ" of the things we have done, "whether it is good or whether it is bad." We have not, in fact, been cleansed so thoroughly that our bad deeds go entirely unreckoned, nor have we fallen so far that our better deeds are forgotten. "Amen I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death" (16:28). These words
some refer the ascent of the three apostles "after six days" — or, as Luke says, eight — with Jesus "up" a "mountain by themselves." And those who explain it this way say that Peter and the other two did not taste death until they beheld the Son of Man arriving within his kingdom and in his
glory. For having watched Jesus altered in form "before them," in such a way that "his countenance" gave off light, and so on, they have witnessed "the kingdom of God having arrived with power." For just as certain guards station themselves around a king, in the same way "Moses and Elijah were seen" by those who had climbed the mountain with Jesus, speaking with him. It is worth pausing to consider whether it is to these that the "sitting"
"at the right and at the left" of the Savior "in his kingdom" refers, such that "but for those for whom it has been prepared" was said on account of these men. And this account of the three apostles not tasting death until they should see Jesus transfigured suits those who have become, as Peter named them, "as newborn infants," longing for "the pure milk of the word." To these
Paul says: "I gave you milk to drink, not solid food," and so on. And I think every account that is capable of building up, by its plain sense, those who cannot receive something greater, might reasonably be called milk — the milk flowing from the holy land of the scriptures, which flows with "honey and milk." But he who, like Isaac, has been weaned is worthy of the gladness and the feast that
Abraham held at the weaning of his son, and would seek in these matters and in every scripture the <more solid food>, which I think is other than food that is not solid — that is, the food and the things figuratively called "vegetables," which are food for the one who has been weaned but is not strong but weak, according to "the weak person eats vegetables." Likewise the one who, like Samuel,
has been weaned and <brought forward from before God and> dedicated by his mother to God — this was Hannah, whose name is interpreted "GRACE" — such a one might be a son of grace, seeking, as one raised in the temple of God, meat, the holy food of the perfect and of priests alike. These, then, are the things that appear relevant to the passage before us, for the present.
There were some standing where Jesus was, having planted the footing of their soul firmly beside Jesus, and the posture of their feet resembled the posture of which Moses spoke when he said, "and there I remained upon the mountain, forty days and forty nights straight through," having been counted worthy also of the word spoken to him, "but you, stand here with me," said to him by
God deeming him worthy to stand beside him. Now these who stand beside Jesus, that is, beside the Word of God, are not all standing on equal footing. For even among those standing beside Jesus there is a difference from one another; hence it is not all who stand beside the Savior, but some of them, standing as it were closer, "who will not taste" death, until they
see the Word who has come to dwell among human beings, and who for this reason is styled Son of Man, coming in his kingdom. For it is not always the case that, when the Word comes, he comes in his kingdom; since to those being newly introduced to him he is of such a kind that, seeing him, they would say he is not glorious or great, but inferior to many discourses found among human beings: "we saw him, and he had no
form or beauty, but his form was without honor, deficient beyond all the sons of men." And this is what those who saw his glory will say concerning the earlier times of their own experience, when at the beginnings the Word, as understood in his introductory stage, had for them "neither form nor beauty." There is, then, a certain kingly dignity made manifest in the one who has most clearly assumed the rule over all discourses—
this Word—visible to some of those standing beside Jesus, whenever they are able to follow him as he leads them forward and ascends the high mountain of his own manifestation. Of these, some of those standing beside Jesus are deemed worthy—if they are, say, Peter, whom "the gates of Hades cannot overpower," or "sons of thunder," begotten of the mighty voice of God as he thunders and cries out
loudly out of heaven to the wise, to those possessing "ears." Persons of that sort, accordingly, never taste death. But if one must explain the matter still more plainly than what has been said, what does it mean that the Son of Man is seen coming in his kingdom and in his glory, and what is signified when one sees "the kingdom of God arrived in power"—whether these are things
shining forth in our hearts, or things sought and found, or things stealing into our reasonings (let each judge as he wishes)—we shall set this forth. Now he who sees and grasps the surpassing excellence of the Word, which dissolves and refutes all the plausibilities put forward by falsehoods that nonetheless profess truth, sees the Son of Man (that is, according to John's account, the Word of God) coming
in his own kingdom. And if such a one should see the Word not only dissolving [...] the plausibility of the opposing arguments, but also setting forth his own teachings most clearly, he would then see, alongside the kingdom, his glory as well. And such a one indeed would see within himself "the kingdom of God having come in power"; and he would see this [...] as
one no longer at all ruled by sin, that sin reigning within the mortal body of those who commit it, but as one set in order under the King who is God over all things, whose kingdom is present within us in potentiality, but in actuality—and as Mark named it—"in power" and in no way "in weakness," is present "within" only the perfect. These things, then, Jesus said to the disciples who stood by, not concerning
not these things, but was prophesying and making a promise concerning certain ones. Now what “tasting death” means must be considered. Life is he who said, “I am the life.” And this same life “lies hidden together with Christ in God”; and once Christ our life is made manifest, then, “together with him,” those deemed worthy of being manifested “together with him” will be manifested
“in glory.” And the enemy of this life—who also, as “the last enemy,” is abolished along with all his other enemies—“is death,” which the sinning soul dies, being disposed in a manner opposite to what happens to the soul that acts rightly and, from acting rightly, lives. And where the law states, “I have placed before you life and death,” it goes on, “choose
life,” scripture says this concerning him who declared, “I am the life,” and concerning his enemy, death, of which each of us, through the things he does, is always choosing one. And when, life being set “before our face,” we sin, there is fulfilled against us the curse that says, “and your life shall hang before you,” and so on, down to
“and from the visions of your eyes which you shall see.” Just as, then, the living bread — the one descending out of heaven who gives the world life — is itself life, so his enemy is dead bread, which is death. And every rational soul is nourished either by living bread or by dead, through the works or the doctrines—whether refined or base—that it takes in.
Then, just as with more ordinary foods it is possible at times merely to taste them, and at other times to eat of them more fully, so too with these breads: one person eats more sparingly, merely tasting of them, while another gorges himself—being good, or on the way to being good, in the case of the living bread that descended out of heaven, but wretched in the case of
the dead bread, which is death. And perhaps those who sin rarely and only slightly merely taste of death, while those who possess more perfect spiritual virtue do not even taste of it at all, but are always nourished by the living bread. It followed, then, for Peter, against whom “the gates of Hades shall not prevail,” that he should not even taste death, since a person tastes death and eats of death precisely when the gates of Hades
prevail against him, and in the same measure he eats or tastes death, according to whether they prevail against him more or less, and according to more or fewer gates of Hades. But for the sons of thunder, begotten from the great voice of heavenly thunder, it was impossible to taste death, since they are very far removed from their mother thunder. These things the word prophesies concerning those who are to be made perfect, and who, from having stood
beside the word, have advanced so far that they will not even taste death, until they see the manifestation, the glory, the kingdom, and the preeminence of the word of God—that preeminence by which he surpasses every word that pulls in the opposite direction and drags people about, deceiving with an appearance of truth those unable to break the bonds of that distraction and to ascend to the height of the
...of the superiority of the word of truth. But since someone might think that the Savior's promise limits to a period of time the not tasting of death — on the grounds that they will not taste death before they behold the Son of Man arriving in his kingdom, and that afterward they will taste it — let us establish, in accordance with a certain usage of Scripture, that "until" indicates the time that is urgently in view concerning the
matter being indicated, and is not itself limited, so that after the "until" the opposite of what is indicated should necessarily come about. When he had risen from the dead, the Savior speaks to his eleven disciples, among other things, saying also: "Behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age." Now did he, by saying this — that he would be with them "until the completion of the age" — mean
that he would be with them, but that after the completion of the age, when the other age, the one called "the age to come," had begun, he would no longer promise to be with them, as though on this account it were better for the disciples to have his presence with them "until the completion of the age" than to have the condition after the completion of the age? Yet I do not suppose anyone would venture to say that after the completion of the age the
Son of God will no longer be with his disciples, since the wording says only that his time with them extends only up to when the completion of the age arrives; for it is clear that the question at issue was whether, in advance of the coming age and of the reciprocal promises of God that are hoped for, the Son of God would already be with the disciples. And the question would have been raised, granted
that he was to be with them, whether perhaps at one time he was with them and at another time he was not with them. For this reason, releasing us from the suspicion of doubting, he declared that already, even for so many days, he was going to be with the disciples, not leaving behind those he had made his disciples "until the completion of the age" — though not, indeed, during the nights (if the sun had set for anyone) would he be with them. But if
this is what "until the completion of the age" means, it is clear that we shall not be compelled to accept that death is tasted by those who behold the Son of Man arriving in his kingdom, after having been deemed worthy to see him thus. But just as in the saying we cited it was urgent for us to learn that "until the completion of the age" he will not abandon us, but
will be with us “through all the days that are to come,” in this same way, I think, it is clear to those skilled in tracing the sequence of events that whoever has once beheld the Son of Man arriving in his kingdom, and has beheld him in his glory, and has beheld “the kingdom of God arrived in power,” would not, after gazing upon goods of such magnitude,
taste death. But apart from the reasoning of Jesus' promise, we might not unreasonably have suspected that we would taste death, insofar as we have not yet been deemed worthy to behold “the kingdom of God arrived in power” together with the Son of Man arriving amid his glory and within his kingdom. But since here it is written by the three evangelists, “they shall not
“taste death,” while in other places various things are said about death, it is not out of place to set those alongside it and examine them together with “taste.” In the Psalms it is said: “Who is the man who will live and never look upon death?” Elsewhere, in a different passage, it says: “Let death arrive against them, and let them descend to Hades while still living.” And in one of the prophets: “Death, having prevailed, swallowed them up.” And in
the Revelation, "death and Hades follow" certain people. Now in these passages it seems to me that "to taste death" is one thing, "to see" it another, and that "it comes upon" some is a third, and a fourth is signified besides those already mentioned, from "death, having prevailed, swallowed them up," and a fifth thing besides these, from "death and Hades
follow them." And you yourself, on reading further, would perhaps find still other distinctions besides these that we have noted; and by setting them alongside one another and inquiring rightly you would discover the things signified in each passage. And I inquire in these matters whether "to see death" is perhaps a lesser evil, and "to taste" it a greater one than this, and worse still than this, "for death to follow"
someone — and not only to follow, but already "to come upon" him and to overtake the one it had previously been following. And "to be swallowed up" by it seems to me heavier than all the things mentioned. And if you attend to what has been said and to the distinction among the sins committed, you will not hesitate, I think, to suppose that something of this sort was in the mind of the one who, moved by the Spirit, wrote these things in the oracles of God.
36. “And six days later” (according to Matthew and Mark) “he brings along with him Peter, and James, and his brother John, and leads them up onto a lofty mountain, apart from the rest. And he was transfigured before them” (17:1-2 [-9]). Let this be established in advance, both regarding the account that appears to us concerning these matters, and regarding the wording itself.
It seems to me that those whom Jesus brings up onto the lofty mountain, and who are deemed worthy to witness his transfiguration in private, are not brought up “six days later” without purpose, following the words spoken before this. For since the entire world came into being across six days, a perfect number — this being the perfect work of creation — for this reason, I think, he who surpasses all the affairs of the world,
in that he has set his gaze no longer on "the things that are seen" (for these are already "temporary"), but on "the things that are not seen" and on these alone (because they are "eternal") — it is after six days that Jesus takes certain persons with him. If, then, any of us wishes, on being taken by Jesus, to be led up by him onto the high mountain and to be deemed worthy to behold, privately,
his transfiguration, let him rise above the six days, by no longer looking to "the things that are seen," nor cherishing any longer the world, nor what belongs to the world, nor desiring any worldly desire — which is desire for bodies and for wealth possessed in the body and for glory according to the flesh, and for whatever things are apt to distract and drag the soul away from the things that are better and more divine.
and to bring down and press him firmly with the deceit of this age through Wealth and glory and the remaining desires that are enemies of truth. Once he has passed through the six (as we have said) <days>, a common sabbath, he rejoices on the high mountain from beholding Jesus transfigured before [...] him; for that word takes on [...] various shapes, appearing to each person as is beneficial to the one who sees,
and revealing itself to no one beyond what the one who sees can take in. You will ask, though, whether, when he was transfigured before those he had led up onto the high mountain, he was seen by them "in the form of God" which he possessed of old, in such a way that those below saw him having the "form of a slave," while those who had followed him after six days up the high mountain saw not that form but rather that of
God. But listen to this — if you can — in a spiritual sense, observing at once that it is not stated in a plain, unqualified way that he was transfigured, but with a necessary addition, which Matthew and Mark set down in writing: for according to both accounts he was transfigured in front of them. And from this you may conclude it possible for Jesus to have undergone this transfiguration in the sight of some, while in the sight of others, at that very same
time, he did not undergo transfiguration. Now if it is your wish to behold the transfiguration of Jesus in front of those who went up onto the high mountain apart with him, consider, I say, the Jesus found in the Gospels: understood in a simpler sense, and known, so to speak, "according to the flesh" by such as do not climb upward by way of the works and words that rise above them, toward the high mountain of wisdom,
but who is "no longer" known "in fleshly terms" by <those who do climb upward>; instead he is spoken of theologically throughout the Gospels, and seen, so far as their knowledge reaches, "in the form of God." For it is before these that Jesus is transfigured, and in none of the lower things [...]. And when he is transfigured, his face will also shine like the sun, so that he may be revealed to the children "of light," who have stripped off "the
works of darkness" and put on "the weapons of light," and are no longer children "of darkness or of night," but have become sons "of day" and walk, as it were, "becomingly in the day," and once revealed will shine upon them, not simply as the sun does, but showing them that he is "the sun of righteousness." And he is not only transfigured before disciples of this kind, nor does he merely add to the
transfiguration the shining of his face like the sun, but his garments too appear white as light to those he had brought up privately onto the high mountain. And the garments of Jesus are the words and the writings of the Gospels with which he clothed himself. I think, moreover, that the things said about him among the apostles are also garments of Jesus,
which become white for those who go up onto the high mountain with Jesus. But since there are also differences among white things, his garments become [...] white as the whitest and purest of all whites; and this is the light. Whenever, then, you see someone not only being precise about the theology concerning Jesus, but also clarifying the whole wording of the Gospels, do not
hesitates to say of such a person that Jesus' garments became white as light. But when the Son of God is understood and beheld in this way as transfigured, so that his face is like the sun and his garments white as light, then at once, to one who sees Jesus in this way, Moses would appear as the law, and Elijah -- synecdochically, not
one alone but all the prophets -- conversing together with Jesus; for that is the sort of thing signified by their speaking together with him, and according to Luke: "Moses and Elijah, seen in glory," and so on down to "in Jerusalem." But if someone has beheld Moses' glory, grasping the spiritual law as one discourse aimed toward Jesus,
and the wisdom hidden in mystery among the prophets, he has seen Moses and Elijah "in glory," when he saw them together with Jesus. Then, since according to Mark it will be necessary to expound the words "while he prayed he was changed in form before them," it must be said that it may perhaps chiefly be possible to behold the Word being transfigured in our presence, if we do what has been said and go up onto
the mountain and see the Word-in-himself conversing with the Father, offering to him such prayers as a true high priest would offer to the one true God alone. And that he might so speak with God and offer prayer to the Father, he ascends the mountain; then, as Mark tells it, "his garments turn white and shining like light, of a kind no fuller upon earth
is able to whiten in this way." And perhaps the fullers "on earth" are the wise men of this age who take pains over their diction, which they consider brilliant and pure, so that even shameful notions and false doctrines seem to be adorned by their -- if I may call it so -- fulling. But he who displays his garments "gleaming," and brighter than what their fulling can produce, to those who have gone up higher, is the Word,
setting forth, in the words of the scriptures despised by many, the gleam of their meanings -- at the time when Jesus' "clothing," according to Luke, becomes "white" and "flashing like lightning." Let us now consider what Peter meant when, replying to Jesus, he declared: "Master, it is a good thing for us to remain in this place; let us build three shelters," and
so on. This especially must be inquired into, because Mark added, as if speaking in his own voice, "for he did not know what he answered," while Luke says "not knowing what he says." You will then consider whether he was saying these things in a state of ecstasy, filled by the spirit that moved him to say them -- which cannot be the Holy Spirit;
for John taught in his gospel that before the resurrection of the Savior no one had yet received the Holy Spirit, saying: "the Spirit did not yet exist, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." But if it is true that "the Spirit did not yet exist," then he who, "not knowing" what he was saying, was speaking as moved by some spirit, it was one of the spirits that was at work producing these words -- one that had not yet been led in triumph in the
...'on the wood,' nor had he been made a public spectacle along with those about whom it is written: 'having stripped the rulers and the authorities, he made a public spectacle of them openly, triumphing over them on the wood.' This, perhaps, was what was called a 'stumbling-block' by Jesus, and it is what is meant by the 'Satan' spoken of in the saying 'Get behind me, you are a stumbling-block to me.' I know well that such statements will offend many of those who read them, since they suppose that it is
not reasonable for the one to be spoken ill of, who shortly beforehand had been called blessed by Jesus for the reason that 'not flesh and blood, but' the Father 'in the heavens' revealed to him the matters concerning the Savior—namely, that Jesus was both 'the Christ' and 'the Son of the living God.' But let such a person attend to the precision of Peter and of the rest of the apostles, and
to the fact that they, while still standing as it were outside, needed the one who would rescue them from the enemy and would purchase them with his 'precious blood.' Or else let those who wish the apostles to have already become perfect even before the Passion of Jesus tell us how it came about that 'Peter and those with him' were 'weighed down with sleep' at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus. But so that I may take up in advance something of what follows and apply it to
the matter before us, I would raise the following difficulty: is it possible for someone to be made to stumble with regard to Jesus, without the devil's activity causing that stumbling? And is it possible to deny Jesus—and that too before a mere servant-girl and a doorkeeper and the most contemptible of people—without a hostile spirit being present to the one who denies, set against the spirit and wisdom given to those who are helped by God, in some measure corresponding to their worth, so as to confess him?
But surely the one who has learned to trace the roots of sins back to the devil, the father of sin, will not say that the apostles stumbled, or that Peter denied him three times before the cock had crowed, apart from that devil's agency. And if this is so, perhaps the one who, in order to cause—so far as lay in his own power—Jesus to stumble, and to turn him away from the
saving dispensation for mankind that was accomplished through the passion with such great eagerness, himself working the things that seem to bring this about, here too wishes, as it were deceitfully, to draw Jesus aside, as though it were a good thing for him no longer to come down to human beings and come to them and undertake death on their behalf, but rather to remain up on that lofty mountain in the company of Moses and Elijah. And he was also promising to make three tents,
one for Jesus alone, another for Moses, and another for Elijah, on the ground that a single tent could not hold the three of them together, even granting that—if indeed they had to be in tents at all, even on the high mountain. And perhaps in this too the one working upon him who 'did not know what he was saying' was doing mischief, wishing that Jesus and Moses and Elijah should not be together, but
wished to separate them from one another, under the pretext of the three tents. And a lie it also was, the statement 'it is good for us to be here.' For if it had been good, they would indeed have remained there; but if it was a lie, you will ask who was at work in causing the lie to be spoken—especially since, according to John, 'whenever he speaks the lie, he speaks out of his own resources, because he is a liar, and so is his father,'
And just as there is no truth without the activity of the one who said, “I am the truth,” so too there is no falsehood without the enemy of truth. Both opposites, then, were still present within Peter—truth alongside falsehood. Speaking from truth he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of God,” yet speaking from falsehood he said, “God be merciful to you, Lord,
this shall never happen to you,” but also “it is a good thing for us to remain here.” But one who does not want Peter to have said this under the influence of some activity of a worse <spirit>, but holds that his words came from his bare intention, when pressed to explain how he would account for “not knowing what he was saying” and “for he did not know what he was answering,” will say that there too he considered it ill-omened
and unworthy of Jesus to accept that the Son of the living God should be killed — the Christ whom the Father had already revealed to him. And here too, as one who had seen the two forms of Jesus, the one at the transfiguration being very different, pleased with this he said it was good to make their stay on that mountain, so that both he
and those with him might rejoice in beholding the transfiguration of Jesus, his face gleaming like the sun and his garments white as light, and besides these, might always behold, in glory, those who had once been seen “in glory” — Moses and Elijah — and might rejoice at whatever they heard them saying to one another and conversing about, Moses and Elijah
speaking to Jesus, and Jesus to them. But since we have not yet troubled ourselves to give a tropological reading of the passage, having said these things by way of examining it according to the letter, let us next see whether, when raised to the height of the doctrines of truth and having seen the transfiguration of Jesus and those who were seen “in glory” with him, Moses and Elijah, the Peter here described
and the sons of thunder would wish to make within themselves tabernacles for the Word of God to take up residence among them, and for his law beheld with glory, and for the prophecy speaking of the “departure” of Jesus “which he was about to fulfill,” and how Peter, having loved the contemplative life and preferred the delight found in it to being among the many
with a certain amount of trouble, for the purpose of benefiting those who wish it, said, “it is a good thing for us to remain here.” But since love “does not seek its own,” Jesus did not do what seemed good to Peter; for this reason he came down “from the mountain” to those unable to climb up and behold his transfiguration, so that they might at least behold him in whatever form they could
see. It is right, then, for one who has that love which “does not seek its own” to be “free from all,” yet to enslave himself to all, so as to win over “the greater number” among them. Someone might say, in response to what has been stated about the ecstasy and the activity of a worse spirit upon Peter regarding “not knowing what he was saying,” not accepting that reading,
...narrative. That among Paul's readers certain people wishing to be teachers of the law “do not know the things about which they speak,” but because they fail to render clear what is meant by what is said, and do not “grasp” its intended sense, they “insist” about matters they do not know. Peter too had experienced something of this sort; for not having grasped what was good concerning the plan of salvation regarding Jesus and the things seen on the
mountain, with Moses and Elijah present, he declares, “it is good that we are here,” and so on, “not knowing what he was saying”; “for he did not know what he was speaking.” For indeed if a wise man “will grasp the sayings from his own mouth, while on his lips he bears discernment,” the one lacking such a disposition “does not grasp what comes from his own mouth,” nor does he comprehend the nature of the things
being spoken by him. Following upon this is: “while he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them,” and so on. I think that God, turning Peter away from making three tents under which they were, so far as his intention went, going to shelter, shows <one and> a better (if I may call it so) and far superior tent, the cloud. For if
a tent exists to cast shade over the one inside it and give him cover, and the luminous cloud cast its shadow over them, so God fashioned for them, as it were, a tent more divine, being as it was luminous too, as a pattern of the rest that was to come. A bright cloud, indeed, overshadows the righteous, who are thereby sheltered while also being illumined and made radiant by it. But who might the bright cloud be that overshadows the righteous,
if not perhaps the paternal power, from which the Father's voice comes, bearing witness that the Son is beloved and pleasing to him, and urging those overshadowed by it to listen to this one and no other? He speaks, as formerly so also always, through whatever means he wishes. But perhaps the Holy Spirit too is the bright cloud, overshadowing the righteous
and prophesying, God working in it and saying: “This one is my Son, the beloved, in whom I have found delight.” And I would even venture to say that our Savior too is a bright cloud. Peter, then, saying, “Let us make here three tents,” one for himself, one for the Son, and one for the Holy Spirit—for the bright
cloud belonging to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit casts its shadow over Jesus' true disciples; or else the gospel, the law, and the prophets are covered by a luminous cloud for whoever is able to see by its light in accordance with the gospel, the law, and the prophets. And the voice out of the cloud perhaps says to Moses and Elijah: “This is the”
“my beloved Son, in whom I take delight; hear him,” to those desiring to see the Son of God, hear his voice, and gaze upon him just as he was “in glory.” Perhaps he is teaching the disciples that the one who is Son of God in the proper sense, his beloved, in whom he took delight, whom above all others must be heeded, was the very one then being gazed upon, transformed in form and radiant with the
face like the sun and clothed in garments white as light. After this it is written that the three apostles, on hearing the voice from the cloud testifying to the Son, could not endure the glory of that voice and its accompanying power, so they fell upon their faces and implored God; for they were greatly terrified by the extraordinary nature of the vision and of the things
said as a result of the sight. But observe, if you can, whether one can also say this about the passage: that the disciples, understanding that the Son of God had spoken an oracle to Moses, and that he himself was the one who had said, "For no man shall see my face and live," and having seen the face of the Son of God become like the sun, receiving the testimony of God about him, were humbled, unable to bear the rays of the word, "under the mighty hand of God."
But once the Word had touched them, they raised their eyes and saw Jesus alone, no one else with him. For Moses the law and Elijah the prophecy became a single thing together with Jesus in the gospel, and they no longer remained as they had been before,
three, but the three became one. Take these things, for my part, as referring to the mystical realities. For as concerns the bare surface meaning of the text, Moses and Elijah, "seen in glory" and conversing with Jesus, went back to where they had originally come from, perhaps in order to convey to those who had hardly yet been benefited by him the words which Jesus had spoken in their presence,
for those on whom he was going to confer benefit at the moment of his suffering, when many bodies of the sleeping saints were about to go forth, once their tombs had been opened, into the truly "holy city" -- not the Jerusalem wept over by Jesus -- and there to appear "to many." After the arrangement on the mountain, the disciples were descending from the mountain so as to come to the crowd
to minister to the Son of God concerning their salvation, Jesus commanded the disciples, saying: "Tell no one the vision until the Son of Man has risen from the dead." Now "tell no one the vision" is similar to what was examined above, when he charged the disciples that they should tell no one that he is the Christ. Hence
the things said in that passage can also be useful to us in regard to what lies before us, since in accordance with these too Jesus wishes that the matters of his glory not be spoken before the glory he would have after suffering; for those who heard, and especially the crowds, would have been harmed by seeing one so glorified being crucified. Therefore, since it was akin to his transfiguration and to his face that appeared like the sun
that he should be glorified in the resurrection, for this reason he wishes these things to be spoken by the apostles then, when he has risen from the dead.

======== Commentary on Matthew, Book 13 ========

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book 13. "And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why is it, then, that the scribes claim Elijah has to come first?'" (17:10). The disciples who had gone up with Jesus recalled what had been handed down by the scribes concerning Elijah, that before the coming of Christ Elijah would come and prepare the souls of those who were to receive him.
But the vision on the mountain, in which Elijah appeared, seemed not to agree with what had been said, since it did not seem to them that Elijah had come before Jesus, but with him. This is why they say what they say, supposing that the scribes were speaking falsely. [...] To this the Savior responds, not setting aside what has been handed down concerning Elijah, but declaring another coming of Elijah,
saying that it was a coming before the coming of Christ that went unrecognized by the scribes, and that, failing to recognize him in accordance with it, and becoming accomplices in his being thrown into prison by Herod and in his being killed by him, they did to him whatever they wished. Then he says that he himself will suffer at the hands of the same men things corresponding to what they did to Elijah. Let this suffice as to what the
disciples asked concerning Elijah and what the Savior answered; and those who heard understood that the statement, "Elijah has already come," and what the Savior said next, had their reference to John the Baptist. Let this be said for the sake of clarifying the passage before us; but now, as far as we are able, let us undertake an examination of the matters it contains as well. In these words, it does not seem to me that "Elijah" refers to
the soul of Elijah — lest I fall into the doctrine of reincarnation, a notion alien to God's church, neither handed down by the apostles nor appearing anywhere in the scriptures. For it is contrary both to the statement that "the things that are seen are temporary" and that this age is to undergo an end, and also to the fulfillment of the saying, "heaven and earth will pass away,"
and "for the form of this world is passing away," and "the heavens will perish," together with what follows these. For if, hypothetically, that same soul could occupy a body twice within the whole span running from the world's origin to its close, doing so for the reason on account of which it would come to be in it — namely a soul that has come to be in a body twice on account of sin —
why should it not also be in it a third time and more times, since the punishments due for this life and for the sins committed in it are, in this scheme, to be rendered to it only by this means, namely reincarnation? And if this is granted as a logical consequence, there will perhaps never be a time when a soul is not reincarnated; for it will always come to dwell in a body on account of its former sins, and thus there will not be
any room for the destruction of the world, in which "heaven and earth will pass away." But even if, on this hypothesis, it is granted that a soul wholly without sin will no longer come into a body through birth, after how many ages do you suppose a single soul will be found wholly purified and no longer in need of reincarnation? And even so, in this way there will always be, out of the fixed number of souls, some one soul...
the number shifting, and no soul any longer coming into a body, at some point the generation [of souls] will fail, as if after a kind of infinite span of time, the world having come down to one, or a second, or a few more, after whom, once they too have been perfected, the world will be destroyed, since those coming into a body will have failed. This does not please Scripture, for it knows sinners in great number at the very season when the
destruction of the world. This is clear when one examines together the saying, "Yet when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith upon the..." which we found stated thus in Matthew: "But as the days of Noah were, so will the appearing of the Son of Man likewise be. For just as they lived in the days prior to the flood" and so on. And for those living then there will be
an exaction of their sins that is not by way of reincarnation. For if they are taken away while still sinning, then either they will afterward be punished by some other mode of punishment — and accordingly there will be two generic modes of punishment, one in reincarnation, the other outside such a body (let them state the causes and how these differ from one another) — or, alternatively, no punishment will follow at all, as though those left behind at the consummation had all at once cast off their sins,
or — which is better — there is a single mode of punishment for those who sinned while in a body: to suffer, outside that body <and> outside this present arrangement of life, according to the worth of what they have sinned. Each of these, to one able to look closely into the matters, overturns reincarnation. And if the Greeks who introduce reincarnation, positing what follows consistently from it, do not
wish the world to be destroyed either, it is time for them too, on looking back at the scriptures that declare it, [to grant] that the world will be destroyed — either to disbelieve them, or to quibble over the account of what happens at the consummation, which, even should they wish it, lies beyond their power to achieve. And further we will say this too to those who venture to say the world will not be destroyed: that if the world is not destroyed but will go on into infinity, God will not
be one who "knows all things before their coming to be." But if he is to, he will know each part, or each thing, "before its coming to be," or some things, and after these again others — for it is not possible for things infinite by nature to be encompassed by a knowledge whose nature is to set bounds to the things known. And it follows from this that prophecy could not be given regarding every conceivable matter, seeing that the totality of things has no limit.
It was necessary, I think, to have lingered over the examination of the discourse on embodiment, on account of the suspicion of some who supposed that the soul in question was one and the same soul of Elijah and of John, called Elijah first and John second, and that it was not without divine action that he was called John, as is clear from the fact that the angel who appeared to Zechariah said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for
your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John," and because Zechariah, once the name John had been written on the tablet, then recovered his voice concerning the child so named. But if the soul was that of Elijah, then he ought also, being born a second time, to have been called Elijah, or some cause for the change of name ought to have appeared,
as happened with Abram becoming Abraham, and Sarah and Sarrah, and Jacob and Israel, and Simon and Peter. Yet even so the word was not preserved unchanged in them; for the changes of name occurred within one and the same life of those mentioned. But one might inquire whether the soul of Elijah was not first
in the Tishbite and second in John, what then would be that which was called by the Savior "Elijah" in both? And my answer is that Gabriel, addressing Zacharias, has hinted at what constitutes the shared essence of Elijah and John; for he declares: "Many among the sons of Israel he will turn back to the Lord their God, and he himself will go before him"
"in the spirit and power of Elijah." Notice this: he did not write "in" the "soul" "of Elijah" — which would leave room for the notion of transmigration — but rather "in the spirit and power of Elijah." Scripture plainly distinguishes spirit from soul, as when it says "and may the God of peace sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the"
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," and "Bless, spirits and souls of the righteous," found in the Daniel current among the Seventy, establishes the difference between spirit and soul. John, then, is called Elijah not on account of the soul, but on account of the spirit and the power, and these things trouble the ecclesiastical account not at all, if it was first in Elijah, but
afterward came to be in John; and it says, "prophets' spirits yield to prophets" — not that the souls of prophets are subject to prophets — and "Elijah's spirit has come to rest on Elisha." One must ask whether that spirit of Elijah is the very spirit of God which was in Elijah, or whether these are, in fact, two distinct things, and whether something extraordinary marked the spirit of Elijah dwelling within him, beyond
the spirit of each individual man that is in him. For indeed the apostle clearly showed that the spirit of God, even though it is in us, is other than the spirit of each individual man that is in him, saying in one place: "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God," and in another place: "Among men, no one knows the things belonging to a man, except
the spirit of the man that is in him; so also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God." Do not be surprised, then, concerning Elijah, if — just as something strange befell him beyond the rest of the recorded saints, in that he was taken up "in a whirlwind into heaven" — so too his spirit possessed something exceptional, such that
it not only rested upon Elisha but also descended together into John's very birth, and John, in his own way, was "filled with the Holy Spirit" — "even while still in his mother's womb" — and, in his own way, went ahead of Christ, bearing "Elijah's spirit and might." A person can indeed carry more than one spirit at once, and not merely lesser ones but greater ones too; at any rate he asks
David was "established by a governing spirit," and "a right spirit was renewed within his inward parts." And if it is so that the Savior imparted to us a spirit of "wisdom and understanding," a spirit of "counsel and might," a spirit of "knowledge and piety," and was filled with a spirit of "the fear of God," it is possible to understand these too as several greater spirits existing in the same one. And we have cited this on account of
"in the spirit and power of Elijah" John went before Christ, so that Elijah has now come, since the spirit of Elijah is shown forth in him who is present in John — a thing the three disciples who accompanied him likewise grasped, that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. On Elisha alone, then, "the spirit of Elijah rested," but John, before Christ, was not
not merely in the "spirit," but in the "power of Elijah" as well; that is why Elisha could never have been styled Elijah, whereas John truly was Elijah. And if the passage of scripture must be produced from which the scribes drew their claim that Elijah has to come beforehand, listen to Malachi's words: "And behold, I send to you Elijah the Tishbite," and the rest, down to "lest
I come and strike the land utterly." And it seems indeed to be shown through these words that Elijah prepares the way beforehand for the glorious advent of Christ, on account of certain sacred words and dispositions in the souls of those who have become fit for this — a glory which those on earth would not have been able to bear, because of its surpassing excess, had they not been prepared beforehand by Elijah. But by "Elijah"
here too what I understand is not the soul of that particular prophet, but rather his spirit and his power; for it is through these that everything will be set right again, so that, once restored, and made able through that restoration to hold the splendor belonging to Christ, the Son of God — he who will appear in glory — may come and dwell among them. But if Elijah is also in some sense a "word," lesser than the Word
"in the beginning with God," of the Word of God, this word too could be able, as it were a preliminary exercise, to dwell among the people being made ready by him, so that it might become prepared for the reception of the perfect Word. One might raise the difficulty, however, whether the spirit and the power of Elijah suffered the things that happened in John, according to "they did to him whatever they wished." And to this it will be said, more simply,
first, that there is nothing absurd in the fact that, through love, the things that help suffer along with those they help — indeed Jesus says, on account of the sick, "I was sick," and on account of the hungry, "I was hungry," and on account of the thirsty, "I was thirsty" — but more deeply, that it is not said, "but they did to him whatever they wished," but rather "whatever they wished" was done to him; for the things that suffered were firmly grounded in the "spirit and power of Elijah,"
the soul of John was in no way Elijah — though perhaps his body was, differently. For in one sense, soul and spirit and power exist within a body, while in another sense the body of the righteous man depends upon the higher realities, as though grounded in them and suspended from them. "Now those who exist in flesh are unable to give God pleasure. But you exist not in flesh, but"
in spirit, "provided the Spirit of God truly dwells within you." For the sinner's soul dwells in flesh, whereas the righteous man's dwells in spirit. And this too deserves examination: to whom does "but they did to him as much as they pleased" refer? Does it point to the scribes, whom the disciples questioned when they asked, "Why is it, then, that the scribes claim that
Elijah has to come beforehand"? Yet John does not appear to have suffered anything much at the scribes' hands, unless it be that they simply refused to trust him, or (as noted earlier) that they shared responsibility for what Herod dared do against him. Someone else, though, might argue that "but they did to him as much as they pleased" points not to the scribes but to
Herodias and her daughter and Herod, referring to their having done to him whatever they wished. And what follows, "so the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands," would then refer, if the former part refers to the scribes, to this as well; but supposing instead that the former part points to Herod, Herodias, and her daughter,
then so does the latter. For Herod does indeed appear to have joined in the vote for Jesus to die, perhaps his wife too sharing with him in the plot against him. "And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him, kneeling before him and saying, 'Lord, have mercy on my son'" (17:14[-20]). Those who suffer, or the households of those who suffer, are among the crowds;
and therefore, whenever Jesus has finished arranging the matters that lie beyond the crowds, he comes down to them, so that those unable to go up, on account of the illnesses holding their soul fast, may be helped, he having come down to them from the loftier things of the discourse. And one must examine in the case of which diseases the sufferers themselves believe and deem themselves worthy of healing <by touching either him or "the fringe of his garment">
..., and in the case of which others do this on their behalf - such as the centurion concerning his servant, and the royal official concerning his son, and the synagogue ruler concerning his daughter, and the Canaanite woman concerning her demon-possessed daughter, and now the man kneeling before him concerning his moonstruck son. And along with these you will also examine when the Savior heals on his own initiative and without being asked by anyone, as in the case of the
paralytic at the pool of Bethesda. For these healings, set side by side and examined together, will present to one able to hear much of God's wisdom "hidden in mystery" - doctrines both about the various afflictions that affect souls and about the manner of their healing. But since our task at present is not to examine all of them, but the passage set before us,
let us see, reading it figuratively, whom we can say the moonstruck boy is, and his father who makes request on his behalf, and what it means that he falls - suffering not constantly but often, sometimes into fire and sometimes into water - and what it means that no disciple was able to cure him, only Jesus himself. And this is indeed reasonable; for if every disease and
every weakness that our savior healed then "among the people" is referred to the various symptoms occurring in souls, so that those who are paralyzed in soul and have it lying paralyzed upon the body are indicated through the paralytics; those who are blind with respect to the things visible to the soul alone are indicated through the blind and are indeed blind; and those who are deafened
toward the reception of the saving word are signified through the deaf. By analogy with these it will be necessary to examine the matter of the moonstruck person. Now this affliction attacks its sufferers at notable intervals, during which the one who has suffered it seems to differ in no way from a healthy person during the time when the seizure is not at work in him. You might find certain symptoms of this kind occurring around certain souls,
souls often thought to be healthy, healthy in self-control and the other virtues. Then there are times when, as if seized by a certain epilepsy arising from the passions, they are struck down and, though seeming to be standing firm, are convulsed around the deception of this age and the remaining desires. Perhaps, then, one would not be wrong to say that such people (if I may put it this way) are spiritually "moonstruck," being cast down by the
spiritual forces of wickedness dwelling "in the heavenly places," so that they are frequently unwell whenever the passions seizing their soul take hold of them; falling at one time into the fire of burnings, when they become — as it is said in Hosea — "adulterers, like an oven burning for the baking of a scorched mass from the flame"; while at other moments they sink into water instead, as when "the king
of all the things in the waters," the dragon, casts them down, so that instead of seeming to breathe freely they arrive at the deep swells where the sea of human existence surges. And to such an account of the moonstruck person there will contribute the words of the one who says in Wisdom, concerning the steadiness of the righteous, "the account of the pious is wisdom throughout," and concerning those
who are given over to folly, "but the fool changes like the moon." And impulses [...] able to carry off toward praise those who have not taken a firm stand against their own instability, so that one might say there is, as it were, a full moon in them, or something close to a full moon. But turn back and you would observe that reputed light within them shrinking away — a nocturnal light, yes, but also a <lunar> nocturnal light — and
failing to such a degree that, in the end, not even what seemed to be light is found in them when looked at closely. Whether or not the first namers of things, in assigning names to things, called the affliction of epilepsy "moonstruck-ness" for some such reason, you yourself will consider. The father of the moonstruck person is perhaps the angel allotted to him — if indeed one must say that every human soul is placed under some angel, as
under a kind of father — who requests the physician of souls on his behalf, as one would for a son, that he might rescue him, since he was unable, because of the inferior teaching among the disciples, to be healed of the affliction. And the spirit "mute and deaf," if one must interpret it tropologically, is to be understood as the irrational impulses toward what merely seems good, being cast out by reason, so that the things a person formerly did by irrational impulse
things thought good by those who see them, but for the rest no longer acts irrationally, but according to the reasoning of Jesus' teaching. And this affliction is hard to heal and powerful, since what has not been done well seems to have been done well; and in such cases this force is so great that it may be compared to a mountain, needing to be moved away from the sufferer through the whole
faith of the one healing him. And all faith is comparable to a mustard seed. This is why Paul too, moved by it, declared: "were I to possess the whole of faith, in such measure that I could displace mountains." For the one who possesses the whole of faith displaces not one mountain only, but several proportionate to it — faith which is like a mustard seed. For faith is held in contempt by
men and appears to be something very small and cheap, yet when it finds good earth — that is, a soul able to receive such a seed well — "it becomes a great tree," so that not any of the wingless creatures, but those winged in a spiritual sense, are able to nest "in the branches" of such faith and find shelter "of the sky." Let us then turn to the wording itself and first inquire how someone is said to be moonstruck
— one who is darkened and cast down by a certain unclean, deaf, and mute spirit — and why the term "moonstruck" is derived from the great luminary in the sky, second after the sun, which "God" appointed "to rule the night." Let the physicians, then, give their account according to natural science, since they do not suppose there to be any unclean spirit at all involved in such a case, but rather some bodily
symptom, and in their natural-scientific account let them say that the fluids in the head are stirred through a certain sympathy toward the moon's light, which has a moist nature. But we, who also believe the gospel, hold that this illness is seen to be brought about, in those who suffer it, by an unclean spirit, mute and deaf; and observing that those who are accustomed, in the manner of the enchanters of the
Egyptians, to profess a cure for such people sometimes seem to succeed with them, we shall say that perhaps — in order to slander the creatures of God, so that "their mouth" too might set "unrighteousness against heaven" — this unclean spirit watches for certain configurations of the moon and acts accordingly, so that, from the observation that men suffer at such-and-such a configuration of the moon,
the blame for so great an evil may seem to fall not on the "mute and deaf" demon, but on the great luminary in the sky, appointed "to rule the night" and having no responsibility whatsoever for such a disease among men. And indeed all who say that the cause of everything that happens on
earth — whether of things in general — [attribute it to the stars]; and such people truly have "set their mouth against heaven," calling some of the stars malevolent and others benevolent, though no star was made by the God of the universe in order to do evil — in keeping, at any rate, with Jeremiah, as it is written in Lamentations: "from the Lord's own mouth neither evils nor good shall issue forth." It is likely, moreover, that
Just as this unclean spirit that produces what is called lunacy watches for those who, for certain reasons, are handed over to it and have not made themselves worthy of angelic guard, so also do other spirits and demons watch in accordance with certain configurations of the other stars, so that not only the moon but the rest of the stars as well may be reviled by those who speak “unrighteousness on high.” It is
possible, at any rate, to hear the astrologers attributing the cause of every madness and every case of demonic possession to the configurations of the moon. That those who suffer what is called lunacy sometimes fall into water is clear; that they also fall into fire is rarer, but this too happens. And this disease is so hard to cure that even those
who have the grace of healing the possessed sometimes give up in the face of it, and sometimes, with fastings and prayers and considerable labors, succeed. You will inquire whether, just as among human beings, so also among spirits there are such symptoms as these—that some of them speak while others are mute, and some hear while others have been made deaf. For it will be found that, just as among these [humans]
there is a cause for their being unclean, so also, on account of their own free will, these [spirits] have been condemned to be mute and deaf. For indeed some human beings too will undergo such a condemnation, if indeed the prophet's prayer, spoken as though by the Holy Spirit, is to be heeded, where it is declared, concerning certain sinners: “let the deceitful lips become mute.” So too, perhaps, those who
have made bad use of their hearing and have received a vain report will be made deaf by him who said: “Who made one hard of hearing, and deaf?”—so that they may no longer receive a vain report. Now since the Savior said, “O faithless and perverted generation,” he shows that evil has crept in through a perversion, having come about contrary to nature and having made us perverse. And I think the whole race of human beings
upon the earth, since the Savior was weighed down by their evil and by his time spent with them, is why he asked, “How much longer must I remain among you?” We have already spoken in part with a view to “should you possess faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain” and so on. Nonetheless, no less clearly, as it appears to us, these things too will be said with reference to that passage.
By “mountains” in this passage, I think, are meant the opposing powers that have become great, poured out in wickedness, powers that are, as it were, fixed firmly in the souls of human beings. Whenever, then, someone has “all faith,” so as no longer to disbelieve concerning anything set down in the sacred writings, and has faith of such a kind as was the faith of Abraham,
who believed God so completely that his faith was credited “as righteousness”—he possesses “all faith” like a grain of mustard seed. Then such a person will say to this mountain (and I am showing that the “mute and deaf” spirit is what is meant in the condition called being moonstruck): “Move from here” (namely, from the person who is suffering) “to there” (perhaps, to the abyss), “and it will move.” And the apostle
It was from this, I think, taking his starting point, that he spoke with apostolic authority the words, "and though I possess faith enough in its entirety to remove mountains." For it is not one mountain alone but several comparable to it that the one who has "all faith" moves — the faith that is like a grain of mustard seed; and nothing at all will be impossible for the one who believes to this degree. But let us also attend to the words,
"This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting," so that, if ever we should have occasion to concern ourselves with healing someone who has suffered such a thing, we should not put the unclean spirit under oath, nor question it, nor speak to it as though it could hear, but rather, "devoting ourselves to prayer and fasting," we should, by praying for the sufferer's <salvation that comes from God>, obtain it, and by our own fasting drive
the unclean spirit away from him. Now while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them: "The Son of Man is about to be handed over into the hands of men" (17:22[23]). And it will seem to some that this is equivalent to the statement that "he began to show his disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests." But it is not so.
For it is by no means identical to point out to “the disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes,” and after the suffering “be killed,” and then, following his death, “rise again on the third day,” as it is for it to have been said to them while they were still in Galilee (which we have not learned above) that the Son of Man was
about to be handed over. For the word "handed over" has not been used above, but now it is used, along with the fact that it is into the hands of men. On this point let us inquire by whom he is to be handed over into the hands of men, or of whom. For in the former passage we are told at whose hands and in what place he shall undergo suffering, while here, in addition to those, we learn that his "suffering many things" comes about at the hands of the aforementioned persons, though it is not
those persons who are the primary causes of his suffering "many things," but rather the one who hands him over, or those who hand him over, into the hands of men. Now one person will say that this is what the apostle relates concerning God: "he who did not spare his own Son but handed him over for us all"; and the Son also gave "himself for us" over to death,
so that he was handed over not merely by the Father, but by his own act as well. Another, however, will not stop at that but, gathering together also the passages set out to the same effect, will say that the Son was handed over first by God, then was to be tempted, then was to struggle, then was to suffer on behalf of human beings or even "the whole world," so that he might lift from it "the sin," being handed over to the ruler "of this age" and
to the other rulers under him, and then by these being handed over into the hands of the men who would kill him. As an illustration one may draw upon what happened to Job: "Behold, all that is his I give into your hand; only do not touch him himself" — as though he had been handed over by the devil to his rulers, the ones who take captive, the horsemen, the one who comes down as fire from heaven, the one who
coming from the wilderness, a great wind, and toppling the house. You will consider whether, just as he handed over Job's possessions to the captors and the horsemen, [...] so also to some one of the powers operating under "the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that even now works within the sons of disobedience," so that the fire descending from there upon the sheep
of Job from heaven might be seen descending upon the man reporting to Job, saying that "fire had fallen out of the sky, consuming his sheep, and had likewise devoured the shepherds." In a similar manner to these you will inquire whether also the "great wind suddenly from the wilderness" that came and struck "the four corners of the house" was one of the powers under the devil,
to whom the devil handed over that gathering of Job's sons, that feast "of the sons" "and daughters," so that "the house might fall upon the children" of the righteous man and they might die. Consider it, then, as in Job's case: the Father first hands the son over to the opposing powers, and these in turn deliver him into human hands, and among those men was Judas, into whom "after
the morsel Satan entered," handing him over in a more governing capacity than Judas. But observe whether, in setting side by side how the opposing powers received the Son handed over by the Father, and how those powers then handed the Savior into the hands of men, you might think the word "handed over" said in both cases means the same thing. For consider that the Father <not simply, but> handed him over "on behalf of
us all," out of love for humanity; whereas the opposing powers, in handing over the Savior into the hands of men, were not intending to hand him over for the salvation of anyone, but (so far as it depended on them, since not one of them had known God's wisdom, that which lies hidden in a mystery) were handing him over to die, so that his "enemy," "death," might take him under its power, like those who die
"in Adam." And the men who killed him, too, <not by the will of God already in place, but> shaped by the will of the powers that wished Jesus to come under the power of death, were doing this. I think it was necessary to examine these points as well, on account of the fact that Jesus, delivered into human hands, was consigned there not through men into the hands of men, but through the powers on whose account "on
behalf of us all" the Father handed over the Son — in the very act of being handed over and coming to be subject to those to whom he was handed over, destroying "the one who holds the power of death"; for it was "through death" that he rendered powerless "him who holds death's dominion" (namely, the devil), and released "those who through fear of death" were subject to slavery throughout their whole life. And one must think that the devil holds
"power" of death not in the neutral and indifferent sense, by which composite beings die when their soul is separated from their body, but in the sense belonging to the hostile and opposing one, to him who said, "I am the life," by which "the soul that sins shall die." This makes clear that it was not God who handed him over into the hands of men, but the
the Savior saying: "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have fought, so that I might not be handed over to the Jews." He was indeed given over into human hands when delivered to the Jews, yet not through his own servants, but through the "ruler of this age," who spoke concerning the kingdoms set up against men by invisible powers, saying: "All these things to you
I will give, if you fall down and worship me." For this reason one must suppose that it was said concerning those: "The kings of the earth stood arrayed, and the rulers assembled together, in opposition to the Lord and to his Anointed one." Those "kings" and "rulers" did indeed "stand arrayed" and "assemble together in opposition to the Lord and to his Anointed one." But we, having profited from the fact that he was handed over
by them into human hands and put to death, we say, having gained benefit: "Their bonds let us tear apart, and their yoke let us throw off from ourselves" [...]. For at the moment we take on the "same form" as the death of Christ, we no longer lie beneath the bonds that the kings "of the earth" impose (as we have explained), nor under the yoke laid by the rulers "of this age" who massed together against the Lord.
And for this reason the Father "did not spare his own Son, but handed him over for us all," so that the rulers who took him and delivered him over to human hands might be an object of laughter to him who dwells "in the heavens," mocked by the Lord himself, having received him unexpectedly for the overthrow of their own kingdom and rule, from... he was raised
by having brought down his enemy, death, and having made us take the "same form," not only of "his death" but of "his resurrection" as well, through which we go about "in newness of life," seated no more "in the land and the shadow cast by death," since the "light" of God has risen upon us. And when the Savior said, "The Son of Man is about to be handed over into the hands of men, and
they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise," the disciples were greatly grieved, fixing their attention, as on things gloomy and worthy of grief, on his being about to be handed over into the hands of men and on his being killed, but not attending to his rising on the third day, since it required no great length of time, "so that through death he might bring to nothing him who holds the power of death." Now when they had come
to Capernaum, those who collect the two-drachma tax approached Peter (17:24[–27]). Among the kings of the earth there are some, and sons of theirs too, who pay no tolls or taxes, and others, apart from their sons, unrelated to earth's kings, from whom those same kings collect tolls or tax. And the sons of these are free among
the kings of the earth, as sons are with their fathers; but those who are foreigners to them are, in keeping with those who lord it over them and enslave them (as "the Egyptians oppressed the sons of Israel and embittered their life," and "enslaved them by force"), slaves. For the sake of these, who are enslaved in a manner corresponding to the slavery of the Hebrews, the Son of God has taken on only the "form" of a "slave,"
doing no earthly and servile work. Since, then, he has the “form” of that “slave,” he in the end also pays the census tax, no different from what his disciple pays; for one stater, the single coin, was enough, given on behalf of both Jesus and his disciple. This coin, however, was not in the house of Jesus
but was in the mouth of the sea fish—a fish which I think itself received a benefit by coming up caught on Peter's hook, since Peter had become a fisher “of men,” among whom was this fish, spoken of figuratively, so that from it might be taken the coin bearing the image of “Caesar,” and it might come to be among those caught by the men who had learned to fish for men. The one, then, who has
“the things of Caesar” should render them to “Caesar,” so that after this he may be able to render “the things of God to God.” But since Jesus, being the image “of the invisible God,” did not have the image of “Caesar” (for “the ruler of this age” had “nothing” in him), for this reason — not from what was properly his own, but — from a place fitting to him, the sea, he receives the image
of “Caesar,” so that he might give it, in place of himself and his disciple, to those who rule as kings over the earth, lest those receiving the two-drachma should suppose Jesus to be a debtor to them and to earth's kings. He discharged the debt without ever having taken it up, without possessing it, without procuring it, without at any point turning it into a possession of his own — so that the image of “Caesar” might never be found gentle
toward the image “of —.” And it could also be stated in another way: among the sons belonging to earth's rulers, some are truly their sons and some are not their sons at all; yet these latter, too, are sons, sons in an unqualified sense, while still others — being estranged from the sons of the kings who rule the earth — belong as sons to none of the earthly ones, yet are sons all the same: sons either of God, or sons of God's own Son.
If, then, the Savior questions Peter, saying: from whom do earth's kings collect tolls or tax — from their own sons, or from those outside their household? And when Peter answers that it is not from their own, Jesus speaks concerning these, who stand as outsiders to earth's rulers and
who, being free, turn out to be sons. It follows, then, that the sons in question are free — since the sons belonging to the kings who govern the earth are not themselves free, for “everyone practicing sin is sin's slave” — whereas free are those who remain steadfast in the truth carried by God's word, and who, having thereby come to know the truth, are set free by it as well.
If, then, someone is a son purely and simply, and not in every sense a son belonging to earth's rulers, that person is free. And nevertheless, free though he is, he has been careful not to give offense even to the kings who govern the earth and collect the two-drachma; hence he states: rather than trip them up, go and pull up the first fish that rises, and so forth. I would like to put a question to those who take pleasure in the study concerning
...by mythmaking about natures, as to what nature the kings of the earth were, or their sons, or those who collect the two-drachma tax, whom the Savior does not wish to cause to stumble. It appears, then (according to the premise), that they are not of a praiseworthy nature, and yet he took care lest they stumble, guarding against any occasion of offense arising for them, so that they might either not sin further,
or, if they are willing to be saved, come to accept the one who has spared them, in order that they not be caused to stumble. And as from the very "consolation" (for so Capernaum is interpreted), calling <him> the disciple and both making him free and proclaiming him a son, he gives him the power first to catch a fish, so that when it comes up Peter might be consoled over what has come up
and been caught, and that from its mouth, once opened, the stater would be taken, to be given to those responsible for the tax and who demand such a coin as their own. One might use this passage elegantly, moreover, against a lover of money, one who has nothing on his mouth except talk of silver, whenever you see him healed by some Peter, as he casts out not only from his
mouth and his words, but also entirely from his disposition, the stater, which is a symbol of all his love of money. For you will say that such a man was in the sea, that is, in the salty affairs of life and the waves of the anxieties and cares of avarice, having in his mouth the stater when he was unbelieving and money-loving, but that he went up from the
sea, having been caught by the rational hook and benefited (by someone, a Peter, who taught him the truth), no longer having the stater in his mouth, but instead of it, the oracles of God which bear his image. Further, as to those who came to Peter demanding the two-drachma tax, you may set alongside it a passage from Numbers, that on behalf of the holy ones, according to the law of God,
it is not simply a two-drachma that is given, but a holy two-drachma. For it is written: "and per head you shall take five shekels, reckoned by the holy two-drachma." And likewise, counted head by head, a holy two-drachma is given for every one of "the sons of Israel" -- that is, for Israel's sons entire. Since, then, one who belongs to the holy God cannot possibly hold, alongside the holy two-drachmas, also two-drachmas (so to call them) that are profane,
for this reason, to those who receive the not-holy two-drachmas and who asked Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" the Savior orders that a stater (in which there were two two-drachmas) be given, discovered in the mouth of the fish that rose up first, so that it might be given on behalf of both the teacher and the disciple. On that day the disciples came to Jesus
saying, "Who then is greater in the kingdom of the heavens?" (18:1[-6]). Although Matthew could, for our instruction, have related only this much -- that when the disciples approached Jesus they asked to learn from him such a thing, and how he answered their question -- he added, according to some of the copies,
In that hour the disciples came to Jesus — but according to other copies, in that day. And it is necessary not to leave the evangelist’s intention unexamined. So then, attending to what comes before "in that day" or "hour," let us consider whether it is possible from those words to find a path toward seeing the addition "in that day or hour" as necessary.
So then, Jesus had come to Capernaum together with the disciples, where "those who collected the two-drachma tax approached Peter" and asked, saying, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" Then, when Peter answered them and said "yes," Jesus, having first spoken on his own behalf about the payment of the two drachmas, sends Peter to draw up with a hook
a fish, in whose mouth he said a stater would be found, to be given for himself and for Peter. So it appears to me that the disciples, regarding this as the greatest honor -- since Jesus had judged him greater than the rest of his companions -- wanted, in line with what they suspected, to confirm it precisely by inquiring, so as to hear from Jesus himself whether, as they supposed, he had judged Peter greater
than they were. At the same time they also hoped to learn the reason why Peter had been preferred over the rest of the disciples. Wishing to make this clear (I think), Matthew, following the words "take that" (namely the stater, clearly) "and give it to them for me and you," added: in that day <or hour> the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greater?" And perhaps
in the kingdom of heaven? And perhaps too they were in doubt because three had been preferred at the transfiguration, and their doubt concerned which of the three had been judged greater by the Lord. For John reclined "upon his breast" out of love, and it follows naturally that in the time leading up to the supper Jesus had shown John numerous marks of exceptional honor, which the others had witnessed.
But Peter had been called blessed at his confession, on account of "You are the Anointed One, the Son of the living God" -- repeated as "the Son of the living God"; yet again, on account of "Get behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to me, since your mind is set not on the matters of God but on those of men," they were pulled this way and that, wondering whether perhaps it was not he who was the greater, but rather the other
of the sons of Zebedee. So much, then, concerning "in that day or hour," in which the events concerning the stater had taken place. Next we must consider the phrase "the disciples came to him," as disciples putting a question to their teacher and examining it -- so who among them ranks as greater within the heavens' kingdom? And indeed we ought to imitate the disciples of Jesus in this: if
ever something we are seeking is not found among us, let us approach Jesus with complete unanimity concerning the matter sought, since he is present wherever "two or three are gathered" in his name, and is ready, according to the presence granted by his power, to illuminate the hearts of those who genuinely wish to be his disciples, so that they may grasp the things they seek. Nor is it out of place also, concerning one of the things ordained by God
of the teachers appointed in the church, that we should come forward and put forth some analogous problem to the question: who then is greater in the kingdom of heaven? What, then, did the disciples already know concerning this question? What equality among those deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven had they grasped, and that (there being no equality) there is one who is greater, and so on in order down to
the least. But what sort of thing the greater is, and how the least lived, and who are those in between, they were still seeking. Unless indeed one can say more precisely that they knew who the least was from "whoever loosens one of these least commandments and teaches men accordingly will be named least within the kingdom of the heavens," but who
is greatest of all remained unknown to them, even though they had grasped "but whoever does and teaches, this one shall be named great within the kingdom of the heavens." What is greater than the great (as among men) was not clear to them. And that there are many great ones, but the great are not equally great, the name "great" set upon Isaac will show, "who as he advanced became greater
until he became very, very great," a word said also of Moses, and of John the Baptist, and of the Savior. And everyone, indeed, will agree that even if all these were great according to Scripture, yet the Savior was greater than they. But whether, in the sequence, John was greater than Isaac and Moses, than whom "no one greater has arisen among those born of women,"
or whether, rather than being greater, he was equal to both, or to one of the two, it is unsafe to state. And from the fact that of Isaac it says "as he advanced he became greater, until he became great," not simply, but with the addition of "very," set down twice, we may grasp that greatness itself admits of degrees: one thing being great, another very great, and yet another very, very great.
The disciples, then, approached Jesus, seeking to learn who, then, is the greater one within the kingdom of the heavens. Perhaps, in hearing his answer, they hoped to learn something of this sort: so-and-so is the greater one in the kingdom of the heavens. But he raises the discussion to a more general level, showing of what quality the greater in the heavens is, which, to the extent of our ability, let us understand from what is written.
16. "For Jesus, calling a child to him," and so on. It is possible first to expound this simply. One expounding the Savior's word here according to the simple sense would say that if a man, being a man, puts to death the manly desires to such a degree, putting to death "the deeds of the body through the spirit" and at all times bearing about "the putting to death of Jesus
in the body," so as to have the condition of a child untouched by sexual matters and unaware of manly stirrings, such a one has been turned and has become like the children. And to the degree that he has added to the children's condition with regard to such stirrings, by that much more than others who practice self-discipline and yet have not attained self-control to that degree, is he greater in the kingdom of heaven.
What is said about children with regard to sexual matters could also be said concerning the other passions, and the maladies and diseases of the soul, into which children are not disposed by nature to fall -- namely, all those that have not yet brought reason to completion: for example, that one might turn and become such a man, with regard to anger, as a small child is; and such, with regard to
grief, as a child is (in that, at the moment when a father or mother or some friend has died, they laugh and play at that very time) -- such would be the one who has turned and become like children, having taken on a disposition from reason that admits no grief, so that he becomes toward grief what the small child is. And you will say the same about the so-called
pleasure, by which the base are irrationally elated, which children do not experience, nor do those who have turned and become like the children. So, then, with a view to precision, it has also been demonstrated by others that none of the passions befalls children who have not yet completed their reasoning powers; and if none does, clearly not fear either, but rather, if anything, something analogous to the
other passions, and these faint and very quickly done away with and cured, occur in children, so that it is a thing to be desired that the one who has turned and become like children should arrive at this point -- as much as belongs to what is, as it were, the underlying substrate of the passions in children. And concerning fear, then, you will understand things similar to what has been given: that children are not subject to the fear that the base experience, but something
else, which those who are not precise about the passions and their names call fear -- such indeed as also the forgetfulness of wrongs in children, who at the very moments of their tears are changed in an instant and laugh and play along with those thought to have grieved and frightened them, though these have not in truth wrought such effects in them. In this way too someone will humble himself as
the child whom Jesus called forward; for haughtiness and a conceit of noble birth or wealth or of any of the things thought to be goods but that are not, do not befall a child. That is why one can see that quite infant children, up to three and four years of age, are alike to those of no lineage, even if they seem to be of noble birth, and do not on the whole seem to love the rich children more than the poor.
If, then, the disciple of Jesus takes up from reason what children experience -- by reason of their age -- as opposed to the passions that elate the unintelligent, he has humbled himself as the child whom Jesus pointed to, not being elated over a little glory, nor puffed up over wealth, nor over rank, nor swollen with pride over noble birth. And such as these especially, whom the argument has shown to have
turned and become like the child Jesus took to himself, must be received and honored in the name of Jesus, since it is especially in these that Christ is. And for this reason it says, "and whoever receives one such child in my name receives me." What follows is laborious to expound in sequence with what has been given before; for one might ask, how does the
Having turned and become like the children — is such a person small among those who believe in Jesus, and susceptible to being scandalized? Let us try to clarify this point as well in due order. Everyone who assents to Jesus, God's own Son, in keeping with the true account concerning him, and who journeys through the deeds set out in the gospel toward living according to virtue, has turned and is journeying toward
becoming like the children — and it is impossible for such a person not to enter the kingdom of heaven. But the one who has not turned toward becoming like the children — it is impossible for him to enter the kingdom of heaven. Now there are many such people, but not all who have turned toward becoming like the children have yet arrived at being made fully like the children; rather, each one
falls short of likeness to the children by just as much as he falls short of the disposition the children have toward the passions. In the whole multitude of believers, then, there are also those who have, as it were, just now turned toward becoming like the children, who by that very turning — in order that they might become like the children — are reckoned as "little ones," and among these, those who have turned in order to become
like the children, but who fall far short of becoming exactly like the children, are "little ones" and are susceptible to being scandalized; and each of these falls short of likeness to the children by just as much as he falls short of the disposition the children have toward the passions. One ought not to furnish such people with occasions for being scandalized; but if one does, the one who caused the scandal will need — as being to his advantage for the healing
of his sin — to have a donkey's millstone hung around his neck and be plunged beneath the sea's waters. For in this way, having paid the sufficient penalty in the sea (where the "dragon" is, "which God formed to sport with it"), and having thus suffered, for his own advantage, the punishment aimed at his end, the one so chastised will afterward be outside those toils of the sea's depths — such were his sufferings
sufferings he endured while being dragged down by the donkey's millstone. For there are also differences among millstones, such that one of them (if I may call it so) is a "human" millstone and another a "donkey's"; and the human one is that concerning which it is written: "two will be grinding at one mill -- one is taken along, one is left behind," while the donkey's is the one that will be fastened on the one who caused the scandal. Someone might say --
though I do not know whether he speaks soundly or mistakenly — that the "donkey's" millstone is the heavy and downward-dragging body of the wicked person, which every sinner will take up again at the resurrection, so that he may be plunged into the abyss called the sea's depths, where the "dragon" is "which God formed to sport with." But another will apply the scandalizing of one of the little ones to those powers hidden from human sight; for many
scandals against those whom Jesus points out as "little ones" arise from these powers as well. And whenever they scandalize a believer among the little ones whom Jesus identifies as such, they will take up the donkey's millstone — the perishable body that weighs down the soul — hung from the neck of the one who is dragged down by it to the affairs of this world, so that through these things their arrogance may be brought down, and having paid
...that they might undergo a punishment to their advantage through the millstone turned by a donkey. But let another interpretation also be given, apart from the one stated more simply, whether for the sake of doctrine or for exercise. And let us inquire what child Jesus called to himself and placed among his disciples, standing there in their midst. See whether you are able to say that the Holy Spirit, which humbled itself, having been called by the Savior, was made to stand among them
of the ruling faculty of the disciples of Jesus, is the child whom Jesus called, whether he wishes us, having turned away from all other things, to turn toward the examples set before us by the Holy Spirit, so that we might become like the children <that is, the apostles>, who themselves also turned and were made like the Holy Spirit; and these are the children whom God gave to the Savior according to
what is declared in Isaiah, in these words: "Behold, I and the children whom God has given me." And indeed it is not possible to enter the kingdom of the heavens without having turned from worldly affairs and having been made like the children who have borne the Holy Spirit; and Jesus, having called this Holy Spirit, having descended from his own perfection to men, set it as a child in
the midst of his disciples, standing there among them. It is necessary, then, having turned from worldly desires, to humble oneself, not simply as the child does, but in the manner described in scripture, as this particular child does. And to humble oneself as that child means <to humble oneself for God's sake and> to imitate the Holy Spirit, which humbled itself for the salvation of men. That the Savior and the
Holy Spirit were sent forth by the Father so that men might be saved has been made clear in Isaiah, where it is said in the person of the Savior: "And now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit." One should know, however, that the wording is ambiguous; for either God sent him, and the Holy Spirit also sent the Savior, or (as we have understood it) it was the Father who sent both,
the Savior and the Holy Spirit. Greater, then, in the kingdom of heaven is the one who has humbled himself beyond all who humble themselves in imitation of that child. For many indeed are those who wish to humble themselves like that child, but whoever has become altogether like the child who humbled itself—he would be found greater than all who deal in such things, in the kingdom
of heaven. <One must, then, receive one such child> in the name of Jesus, especially since Jesus himself is present in him. And just as the one who receives one such child in his name receives Jesus, so too the one who is unwilling to receive one such child in the name of Jesus rejects and casts out Jesus. And if
there is also a difference among those deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit, since believers receive a greater or lesser share of the Holy Spirit; there might be some who are the "little ones" among those trusting in God who are capable of being made to stumble, on whose behalf, avenging those who have been made to stumble, the word speaks concerning those who cause the stumbling — that it is greater for them all <one must — such a one> being truly received, whoever receives one of the children, this one being capable [...] of those who have caused them to stumble, it is better for him
...so that a millstone fit for a donkey be hung about his neck and he be plunged down into the sea's depths. Let this be said in accordance with the text set forth by Matthew. But let us also look at the parallel passages from the rest of the evangelists. Mark, then, says that the twelve “discussed on the road” which of them “was greater”; therefore also, “sitting down, he called” them and teaches
who is greater, saying that the one who becomes, through moderation and gentleness, “last of all” will attain the greater rank of being first, so that he does not take up the place of the one being served but that of the one serving—and this not toward some but not others, but toward absolutely everyone. For attend to the saying, “If anyone wishes to become first, that one shall be least of all, and”
servant of all.” And next after this he says that “taking a child” (namely, Jesus did) “he set it in the midst” of his disciples, “and taking it in his arms he said to them: Whoever receives one of such children in my name receives me.” But what child did Jesus take and embrace, according to the deeper sense of these passages, other than the Holy Spirit?
And to this child indeed some have been made like, concerning whom he said, “Whoever receives one of such children in my name receives me.” In Luke's account, however, no “reasoning” rose up among the disciples; rather it “entered into” them concerning “which of them might be greater.” And “Jesus, perceiving the reasoning within their heart” (inasmuch as he has eyes that see the reasonings
of hearts—for he perceives the reasoning within a person's heart—even without being asked)—according to Luke he took a child and “set it,” not only in their midst, as Matthew and Mark have said, but already also “beside himself, and said” to the disciples not only the saying “whoever receives one such child” or “whoever receives one of such children
in my name receives me,” but already also, going further, the saying “whoever receives this child in my name receives me.” It is necessary, then, according to Luke, to receive that child, whom Jesus took and “set beside himself,” “in the name” of Jesus. And I do not know whether anyone can avoid reading tropologically the saying “whoever
receives this child in my name.” For each of us must receive that child, whom Jesus then “set beside himself, taking hold of” it, “in the name” of Jesus. For it lives as something immortal, and it must be received—having been placed there by Jesus himself, beside Jesus—“in the name” of Jesus, from whom
Jesus, without being separated, comes to be present with the one who receives the child, so that it is on this account said, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me.” Then, given that the Son cannot be parted from the Father, the Father likewise comes to be present, along with him, with the one who receives the Son; therefore it is said: “And whoever receives me…”
...he receives him who sent me.» But the one who receives the child and the savior and him who sent him is »the least« among all the disciples of Jesus, making himself small; and by as much as he makes himself small, by that much he becomes »great« by him who commands him to be made small and who causes him to advance to greatness. For attend to »he who is the least among you all, this one is great.
is great.« And we have also read elsewhere »and he shall be great.« But according to Luke, unless one »receives the kingdom of God as a child, he shall not enter into it.« And the wording admits two senses: either that the receiving one, the person who receives the kingdom of God, should become as a child, or that he should receive
the kingdom of God as it has become to him, as a child. And it may be that here those receiving the kingdom of God take hold of it as it exists in the manner of a child, whereas in the coming age it is no longer as a child, since, matching the magnitude of perfection, it shows itself in the (if I may name it so) spiritual maturity to everyone who at present has accepted it as existing here in the manner of a child. Woe
to the world because of the stumbling blocks (18:7[–14]). Taken on its own, without qualification, the term “world” appears in <ἐν τῷ> »in the world he was, yet the world failed to know him.« But taken relationally, bound up with that of which it is the world, it has been named in »lest, looking up to heaven and
when you see the sun, moon, and all the ordered heavens, going astray you bow down to them and serve them.« And you will say something similar has been said of her in Esther, where it is written that she cast away »all her world«. For “world” taken plainly is simply not the same as “the heaven's world” or “the world
of Esther.” But what we are now inquiring into is something else. I think, then, that “the world” according to the divine writings is not the system composed of heaven and earth, but only the region beneath heaven, and this understood not with reference to the whole earth, but to our inhabited world; for »the true light was present in the world«, meaning the region beneath heaven understood with reference to
our inhabited world, »and the world did not know him«, that is, the people in the region beneath heaven, and perhaps also the powers proper to this place. For it is absurd to say, concerning the ordered whole made up of sky and earth together with what is within them, that the sun and moon and the chorus of the stars and the
angels within this entire world failed to recognize »the true light«, and, being ignorant of it, preserved the order God had assigned them. But also when the savior declares, within his address to the Father: »Father, glorify me now at your own side, with the glory I possessed alongside you before the world existed«, one must take “world” to mean
...the inhabited world upon earth, in our sense. But also when the Savior says, 'I am coming to you now, and I remain in the world no longer,' anyone who understands this of the earthly world would have him uttering contradictions: 'I am coming to you now, and I remain in the world no longer, yet I am in the world.' But also in the saying 'and these things I am speaking while in the world,' one must suppose that this earthly
place is meant. For it is out of this world that the Father gave to the Son the men on whose behalf alone the Savior petitions the Father, and 'not on behalf of' the entire 'world' of men. This point is also plainly shown by the saying, 'The world came to hate them, since they do not belong to the world'; for it came to hate us once we ceased fixing our gaze on 'the things
that are seen, but the things that are not seen,' on account of Jesus's teaching -- meaning not the entire cosmos formed out of sky and earth and what they contain, but the men upon earth who dwell with us. 'They do not belong to the world' amounts to saying: they do not belong to the earthly region. And so the disciples of Jesus likewise 'do not belong to the world,'
just as he himself was not 'of the world' either. Further, the saying 'that the world may believe that you sent me' (spoken twice within John's gospel) is not applied to the more excellent among men, but to those men who stand in need of believing that the Father dispatched the Son into this present world. And in the Apostle too, 'your faith'
'is proclaimed in the whole world.' Now if woe belongs to the men everywhere on earth because of the scandals -- the men whom the scandals also touch -- while the disciples, not looking at 'the things that are seen,' are not 'of the world,' just as the teacher too is not 'of the world,' then no woe from the scandals belongs to any of the disciples of Jesus, since 'there is great peace'
for those who love the law of God, and for them there is no scandal.' But if someone seems indeed to bear the name of disciple, but is still 'of the world' because he loves 'the world' and 'the things in it' (I mean the money, or possessions, or whatever kind of wealth is in it), so that the saying 'they are not of the world' does not fit him,
then truly, since he is 'of the world,' the woe that befalls the world because of the scandals will befall him as well. But the one wishing to escape this woe should not be a lover of life; rather, let him be a lover of God, and let him say, with Paul: 'The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.' For the saints, 'being in the tent,' groan, 'being weighed down' by the body of humiliation,
and they do all things so that they may be found worthy to be in the mystery of the resurrection, because God will 'transform' not everyone's 'body of humiliation,' but that of those who are genuinely discipled to Christ, so that it may become 'conformed to the body of glory' of Christ. For just as none of the woes befalls any of the disciples of Christ, so neither
The "woe to the world because of the offenses." For even if countless offenses occur, still it will not lay hold of those no longer counted 'of the world.' But if someone admits being scandalized because of the unballasted and unstable state of his faith and of his condescension toward the word of God, let him know that he is not yet reckoned a disciple in Jesus' company. So many offenses must be thought to be coming,
that the "woe" reaches not merely certain regions of the earth, but rather the whole world contained within it. And "it is necessary that the offenses come," which I think are things distinct from the human beings through whom they come. The offenses that come, then, are a kind of army belonging to the devil, his messengers together with a wretched chorus of unclean spirits, which, seeking instruments through which to work, find
often those who are wholly strangers to piety, but sometimes also some of those thought to hold faith in God's word, for whom the woe pronounced is graver than the woe upon the one who is scandalized, just as also "on judgment day it will go easier for Tyre and Sidon" than for the places where Jesus performed signs and wonders yet found no belief. One would
be able, as it were, to compile a treatise gathering those who are called blessed and the grounds on which they are called blessed, and likewise, from the things written, to gather the "woes" and the grounds on which the "woe" has been pronounced. Further, you will show that the woe from the one who scandalizes is worse than that of the one who is scandalized by the saying, "whoever scandalizes one of these little ones
who believe in me, it would be better for him" and what follows. For since the little one who was scandalized is avenged against the one who scandalized him, something so heavy and hard to bear as what is recorded concerning the one who scandalizes is fitting. If we consider these things more carefully in ... "against the brothers" and to strike "their weak conscience," so that we may not sin "against Christ," since often not only by our own
"knowledge" are destroyed, but also some others among the brothers around us, for whose sake "Christ died" — for these, since we sin "against Christ," we shall pay the penalty, the soul of those destroyed on our account being avenged from us. After this the term "necessity" must be examined, in the phrase "for it is necessary that the offenses come," and its equivalent in Luke: "it is impossible
for the offenses not to come" (in place of "impossible"). And just as it is necessary for the mortal to die, and it is impossible for it not to die, and it is necessary for the one in a body to be nourished — for it is impossible for the one not nourished to live — so it is necessary that the offenses come, and "it is impossible that the offenses not come," since it is also necessary that evil have pre-existed virtue among the heavenly beings, from which
evil the offenses come. For it is impossible for a human being to be found wholly without sin and to have taken up virtue apart from sin. For the evil among the wicked powers, being the source of the evil among human beings, altogether sets out to work through certain instruments against the people of the world. And perhaps the wicked powers grow even more savage as Jesus' word drives them out
And the demons, nourished by the blood of sacrifices, are enraged as their worship diminishes, since their customary sacrifices are no longer offered to them, and it is necessary that these things come, but not necessary that they come through this particular person. Therefore, since he has given a foothold to the evil working that chooses to give offense, the woe falls upon the person through whom the offense comes. But do not suppose that offenses exist by nature and
by design, seeking out people through whom they might come; for just as "God did not make death," so too he did not create offenses, but free will has, in some people, given birth to offense, when they were unwilling to endure the labors on behalf of virtue. It would be good, then, if the eye and the hand were praiseworthy, so that the eye could not reasonably say to the hand,
"I have no need of you." But if someone in the whole body of the assemblies of the church, having served as a hand for some practical purpose, should change and become an offending hand, let the eye say to that hand, "you are of no use to me," and having said it, let it cut it off and cast it from itself. So too it would be good if the head were blessed and
feet worthy of that blessed head, lest the head, guarding what suits it, be unable to tell the feet, "You I do not need." If, however, some foot should be found becoming an offense to the whole body, let the head declare to that foot, "I have no need of you," and having cut it off, let it cast it away from itself. For it is far better to enter into life
with the rest of the body (lacking the offending foot or the offending hand) than for the offense to be preserved and spread to the whole body, and the whole body be cast into the Gehenna of fire together with both feet or both hands. So too it would be good for the one who was able to become an eye of the whole body to be worthy of the head, Christ, and of the whole
body. If, however, such an eye should at some point change so as to become an offense to the whole body, it would be good, having removed it, to cast it outside the whole body and, apart from that eye, for the rest of the body to be saved, rather than, with the whole body harmed together with it, for the whole harmed body to be cast into the Gehenna of fire.
It is possible to apply these sayings also to those most closely bound to us, and, as it were, to our members, on account of the great closeness, whether of kinship or of some familiarity — soul-familiarity, if I may so call it — of persons regarded as our members, whom we ought not to spare when they harm our soul. Let us therefore cut away from ourselves, as a hand or foot or eye, a father or mother who
wish us to do things contrary to the reverence of God, and a son or daughter, insofar as it lies with us, if they separate us from the church and from the love of him who does not separate. But even if "the wife in one's bosom" or "the friend equal to one's soul" become offenses to us, we ought to show them no mercy; rather, having cut them off from ourselves, let us cast them out of the soul.
us as not our own, but as enemies of our salvation. For whoever “does not hate father and mother” and what follows, when it is time to hate these as hostile and treacherous, in order to be able to gain Christ, this person is not unworthy of the Son of God. And concerning these one may say that it is, as it were, out of necessity that
a lame person is saved, having lost a foot (say, for instance, the brother), and alone inherits the kingdom of God; and a maimed person is saved (his father <or mother> not being saved with him, but they perishing while he separates himself from them), so that he alone attains the blessings. So too a one-eyed person is saved, having cut out the eye of his own household
— his wife who has committed fornication — so that he may not, having two eyes <along with such an eye>, go away into the Gehenna of fire. For it is possible that what is sinfully active (so to call it) and ambulatory in the soul, and what is sinfully perceptive, is the offending hand and the offending foot and the offending eye; and since these are evil, one does better to throw them away, and once he has set them aside,
to enter into life without them [...] as though lame or maimed or one-eyed, rather than lose the whole soul along with them. So too with the soul: it is a fine and blessed thing to spend its power on the best pursuits; but if, on account of some one thing, we are going to perish, it is preferable to cast away the use of that faculty <when it gives offense>, so that with the other faculties we may be
saved. “Take care that you hold none of these little ones in contempt.” It seems to me that, just as in human bodies there are different sizes, so that some of them are small, others large, and others in between, and again there are differences among the small themselves, some being more and some less small, and likewise among the large, and among those in between, so also in
the souls of human beings there are things characterizing their smallness, and others their (so to speak) greatness, and, simply put, <others> corresponding, by analogy with bodily things, to their in-betweenness. But in the case of bodies, this is due not to any cause belonging to the human being, but to the seminal principles — one person being short and small, another large, another in between. But in the case of souls,
it is what is up to us, and such-and-such actions, and such-and-such character, that is the cause of someone’s being great or small or falling in between; and it is possible, from what is up to us, either to progress, advancing in stature with age, or, not progressing, to remain small. And it is in this sense, indeed, that I understand, concerning the Savior, who also took up a human soul,
the saying “Jesus advanced.” For just as the advance “in wisdom” and in “favor” arose from what depended on his soul, the same holds for his growth “in years”; and the apostle writes: “until we all come at last to a full-grown man, matching the full stature that belongs to Christ.” For arriving at manhood — and a mature manhood at that — must, one should suppose, be understood “according to the inner man,” the one who has crossed over the
of the infant and arriving at the man, and having done away with “the things of the infant,” and, in short, having brought to completion the things of the man. In this way one must suppose that there is also a certain measure of spiritual maturity, a height that the soul, once brought to full perfection, is able to reach by magnifying the Lord and growing great. Thus, then, great were also those about whom this has been written: Isaac and Moses
and John, and above all the Savior himself; for it is thus that Gabriel said concerning him, “he will be great.” But small are the “newborn infants” <in Christ [...] “newborn infants”>, who long for the “rational, unadulterated milk,” who also need the nurses and foster-mothers spoken of in Isaiah, who speaks concerning the calling from the nations: “and they will bring
the sons in the bosom, and they will lift the daughters upon their shoulders, and their kings will be your nurses, and their princesses your foster-mothers.” You will therefore pay attention, on account of these things, also to the saying “do not despise one of the little ones,” asking whether their angels are the ones who carry them “in the bosom” when they are sons, but also lift upon the “shoulders” those called “daughters,”
and from these are the “nurses,” namely those called “kings,” and the “foster-mothers,” namely those named “princesses.” And since those pointed out by our Savior as little ones are administered as though by foster-mothers and nurses, on account of this, I think, Moses too—believing himself to have already been placed in the rank of the great—said, in response to “my angel will go before you,” the words “if you yourself
do not go along with me, do not bring me up from here.” For if the little one, though indeed an “heir,” yet insofar as he is an “infant”—since he is in no way different from a “slave” when he is an infant—and insofar as he is little, has the spirit “of slavery unto fear,” while the one who is no longer any such thing no longer has that of “slavery,” but already that of “adoption,” when “perfect
love casts out fear,” it will be clear to you that on this basis the Lord's angel is described as encamping around those who fear him and as rescuing them. You will also pay attention, in accordance with this, to whether the angels of the little ones are those led by the spirit “of slavery unto fear” (since “the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him and rescues them”), while the angel of the great ones is the
one greater than the angels, the Lord (who might say of each one of them, “I stand beside him in his affliction”). And insofar as we are imperfect and in need of one to help us so as to be rescued from evils, we need the angel of whom Jacob spoke: “the angel who rescues me from all evils.” But once we have been made perfect and have passed beyond being under “nurses”
and “foster-mothers” and “stewards” and “guardians,” we now advance to being administered already by the Lord himself. Then again, one might ask when the angels said to preside over the little ones pointed out by the Savior begin their office—whether they begin to manage the administration concerning them from the point at which, “through the washing of regeneration” (by which they were begotten), they long, “as newborn infants,” for the “rational and unadulterated milk,” and
no longer subject to some evil power; or, from birth, assigned according to God's foreknowledge and his predestination to those whom “he foreknew and predestined” God to be “conformed” to “the glory” of Christ. And with regard to having angels from birth, one might cite these texts: “he who set me apart from my mother's womb,” and “from
my mother's womb you are my protector,” and “you took hold of me from my mother's womb,” and “upon you I was cast from the womb,” and in the letter of Jude, “to those who are beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ, called ones” — certainly kept by the watching angels. But with regard to the point that, when they have become, “through the washing,” infants “in Christ,” a holy angel is not present to those who are
still in wickedness [...] but during the time of unbelief they fall under the angels who belong to Satan; but after regeneration, he who redeemed us with his own blood hands us over to a holy angel who, because of his purity, sees the face of God. And there might also be a third such account on this point, saying that it is possible, just as a man changes
from unbelief to faith, and from licentiousness to self-control, and, simply put, from vice to virtue, so too the soul entrusted to someone at the very moment of birth may at first be base, but later, at some point, may come to believe in proportion to the one who believes, and may advance to such a degree that it becomes one of the angels who continually see the face of him who is our Father in heaven,
beginning from this time is joined to the one who is foreknown to believe at this time and predestined — the unspeakable and unsearchable judgments of God, resembling abysses, fittingly bringing together all such harmony between angels and men. It is also possible that, just as with a man and a woman who are both unbelievers, sometimes the husband, having believed first in time, saves the wife,
and sometimes the wife, having begun to believe later at some point, persuades the husband — so it happens also in the case of angels and men. Whether, then, this also occurs with other angels or not, you yourself may examine. But perhaps it is not fitting to say this about every angel, since he is so honored, according to the word of our Savior, that he is said to see continually
the countenance of the Father who dwells in the heavens. Now since, above, we were saying that the little ones belong to the small angels, while the great ones have passed beyond such a rank, someone will object to us, appealing to a passage from the Acts of the Apostles, namely that Rhoda, a certain maidservant, when Peter had “knocked at the door,” came forward to answer, “and upon recognizing the voice
of Peter,” ran in and “reported that Peter was standing before the gate.” And those gathered in the house, astonished, and supposing it impossible that Peter truly stood there, “said, ‘It is his angel.’” For he will say that they, having once learned that each of the believers has an angel, knew this, and knew also that there was a certain angel belonging to Peter. But the one who is set forth by what we have said before
He will say that the account concerning Rhoda is not a necessary doctrine, and perhaps also because they had not determined precisely when a person is governed by angels as one who is small and fearing God, and when already by the Lord himself. After this, in support of understanding “the small one” as we have taken it, it will be said that we do not need the commandment about not
despising in the case of great things [...] , but we need it in the case of small things. Therefore it is not said simply, “Do not despise one of these,” with all the disciples being indicated, but “one of these little ones,” the “little ones” being indicated by one who discerns smallness and greatness of soul. But another might say that “small” is spoken here of the perfect one, making use of the saying, “For the one who is smaller among you all
is the one who is great,” and he will say that the one who humbles himself and becomes an imitator of him who humbled himself for the salvation of mankind, and becomes an infant in the midst of all who believe (regardless of whether he holds the office of apostle or that of bishop), and becomes such a one “as a nurse cherishes her own children,” this is the one shown by Jesus to be small, and worthy indeed
for such a one to have an angel who beholds the face of God. For to call the perfect ones “small” here, in accordance with “for the one who is smaller among you all is the one who is great,” and as Paul said, “to me, the very least of all the saints, this grace was given,” will seem not to harmonize with “whoever causes one of these little ones to be scandalized” and
with “my Father who dwells in the heavens has no wish that a single one of these little ones perish.” For the one who, as has just been granted, is called small would not be caused to stumble nor would he perish; “for those who love the name of God have great peace, and no stumbling-block belongs to them.” And the one who is smallest among the whole body of Christ's disciples would not perish,
being such a one, and for this very reason becoming great; and since he would not perish, he might say, “Who will separate us from the love…” and what follows. But the one who wishes to maintain this last account will say that the soul of the righteous person is also subject to change, as Ezekiel too testifies, saying that the righteous can turn away from the commandments of God, so that
his former righteousness would not be reckoned to him. For this reason it is said: "whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble" — together with this: "my Father in the heavens has no wish that even one of these little ones be lost." But the matters concerning the hundred sheep you have in the Homilies on Luke. "But if your brother sins, go and reprove
him between you and him alone” (18:15–18). The one who, leaning on the wording and presenting the surpassing kindness of Jesus, will say that, since the words do not suggest any distinction among sins, those who would supply this only in the case of lesser sins would be doing something excessive, going beyond even the goodness of Jesus, by saying that this has application only there. But someone else, also relying on the
...resting on the wording, and not wishing to supply anything from outside, will say that these things are not said about every sin, because the one who commits those great sins is not even a brother, but (if indeed) is called a brother, as the apostle says: "But if anyone called a brother is a fornicator, or a covetous person, or an idolater" (and so on), "not even to eat with such a person." For no one
who is an idolater is a brother, nor is a fornicator, nor a covetous person; for if he has any of these things, though seeming to bear the name of Christ, he would rightly be said to be a "so-called brother" but not a brother. Just as, then, the one who says that such things are said with reference to every sin, even if the sin be murder,
or sorcery, or the corruption of children, or something of that magnitude, gave occasion, by an illusion of Christ's excessive kindness, for the wearing away of that kindness — so, on the contrary, the one who has distinguished the brother from the so-called brother would teach that the person who, after being reproved for lesser human sins, does not turn back, should be reckoned as a Gentile and a tax collector for sins that are, in the phrase, "not leading to death," or, as Numbers termed them, not deadly —
which might seem to be rather harsh. For I do not think one would easily be persuaded that anyone who has not been reproved three times for the same kind of sin — say, for instance, for reviling (by which those who revile speak ill of their neighbors), or for arrogance, or for excessive drinking, or for false and idle speech, or for some other of those things common among the many — [should be so treated]. You will inquire, then, whether there is not lurking
in this passage some observation that escapes notice, both of those who, by an illusion of the kindness of the word, grant forgiveness even to those who have sinned the greatest sins, and of those who teach that, even over the smallest sins, one should — and readily so — reckon as a Gentile and a tax collector the person who, after being reproved twice or three times for lesser sins, they thereby make a stranger to the church.
The thing that escapes the notice of both seems to me to be this: the saying "you have gained your brother," which the text sets in the case of the one who listens only once, it no longer places in the case of the person who stumbles a second or third time and is reproved, but left hanging, as it were, the corresponding outcome that would be received, analogous to "you have gained your brother," concerning the one reproved a second or third time. Not in every case, then, is he gained, nor
in every case will he perish or receive blows. And attend carefully to the first saying, which says — attend carefully to the first saying, which says — "if he listens to you, you have gained your brother"; and to the second, which in that place of the text says: "but if he does not listen, take with you one or two more, so that every word may stand firm by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
What, then, will happen, after every word has been established on two or three witnesses, to the one admonished the second time, [Scripture] has left for us to consider. And again, "if he refuses to hear them" — clearly, the witnesses taken along — he says, "declare it to the assembly"; yet he did not state what would befall the man who refuses to hear the assembly, but taught instead that should he disregard the assembly,
he must be to the one who has admonished him three times and has not listened, from then on as the gentile and the tax collector. He does not gain everything, nor does he lose everything, but whatever he will experience — the one who did not listen at first but needed witnesses, or also the one who disregarded these but was brought before the church — God alone would know. For we
do not pronounce judgment, in accordance with "do not judge, so that you may not be judged" and "do not judge anything before the time," until the Lord comes, who will also illumine what darkness conceals, and will disclose the intentions hidden within hearts. But against what seems harsh toward those who have sinned in lesser matters, one might say: is it not permitted, when someone has not listened twice in succession, to listen the
third time, so that on this account he should no longer be as a gentile and tax collector and should no longer need the rebuke before the whole church? For one must remember, "such is not the will, before my Father who is in the heavens, that a single one of these little ones perish." And indeed, if it is necessary that "all of us" stand "before the judgment seat of Christ,
so that each may receive back the things done through the body in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad," it is necessary, as far as one is able, to do the things that are one's own concern, so that one may not receive back for more evil deeds accomplished by way of the body, even should he be destined to receive back worse things for everything he has done; and one ought to be ambitious to receive back a reward for more good deeds. "With what measure" we measure, "it will be measured back" to us also, and "according to the
works of our hands it will befall" us. And those who have sinned will not receive their sins back from the hand of the Lord multiplied without limit, but rather doubled or sevenfold — that is, whenever it is repaid to someone not "according to the works of the hands," but more than what he has done. For as Isaiah taught concerning Jerusalem, she "received double for her sins at the hand of the Lord," while the
neighbors of Israel, no matter who they turn out to be, are set to receive it sevenfold, in line with what the Psalms say: "repay our neighbors, into their bosom, sevenfold the reproach with which they reproached you, Lord." And other manners of repayment might be found as well, which, if we understand them, we will know that it is profitable to repent after whatever sins, so that, beyond escaping punishment for more of them,
some hope for good things might also be left to us later, after the things done, even if before them countless things have been sinned by someone. For it is absurd that the worse things should be reckoned against someone, while the better things after the worse ones profit him nothing at all — which one can also learn from Ezekiel, for those who carefully attend to the sayings concerning such matters. It seems to me well
joined to the case of the one who, after having been admonished three times, was judged to belong among the gentile and the tax collector, the "Amen I say to you" (namely, to those who have judged someone to belong among the gentile and the tax collector), "whatever you bind on earth" and so forth. For rightly did he who admonished three times and was not listened to bind the one thus judged to belong among gentile and tax collector. Therefore
Such a person, bound and condemned by such-and-such a one, remains bound, since none of those in heaven annuls the verdict of the one who bound him. So too the one who, having once been admonished, has acted in a way worthy of being won over is set free through the admonition of him who won him; freed at last from the “ropes of his own sins” about which he had been warned, he will be judged, rightly, as loosed, by those in the heavens as well.
However, the things given above to Peter alone seem to be shown to have been given also to all who bring the three admonitions to all who have sinned, so that, should these go unheeded, they may bind on earth the one deemed to be like a Gentile and a tax collector—such a one counted as bound in heaven. Yet since it was necessary, granting that something is common to Peter and to those who admonished
the brothers three times, as has been said, that Peter should have something distinctive beyond those who admonished three times, this has been set forth specifically and individually in the case of Peter: “To you I will give the keys belonging to heaven's kingdom, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in the heavens,” as against the mere “whatever
you bind on earth,” and so on. And yet, if we attend carefully to the gospel writings, we would find, even here, that the elements appearing shared between Peter and those who three times admonished the brothers reveal a considerable disparity and preeminence in what is said to Peter as against the others. For Peter differs from them by no small measure,
had received the “keys” belonging not to a single heaven but to many, so that whatever he binds “on earth” stands bound not in one heaven alone but in every heaven; whereas concerning the numerous others who tie things on earth and set them free on earth, it is stated in such a manner that these are fastened and released not “in heavens,” as with Peter, but
in one heaven; for they do not pass, by their power, as Peter does, so as to bind or loose in all the “heavens.” To the degree, then, that the one who binds is superior, to that degree the one bound is bound in more than one heaven; and to the degree that the one who looses is superior, to that degree the one loosed is more blessed, since his being loosed takes effect everywhere in the heavens.

======== Commentary on Matthew, Book 14 ========

Origen, from his exegetical works on the Gospel according to Matthew, Book 14. "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them" (18:19[20]). Properly speaking, the term "agreement" (symphonia) is applied in music to the harmony of sounds; and among musicians there are notes that are consonant (symphonoi) with other notes
and others that are dissonant. The gospel writing too knows this term applied to matters of music, in the passage "he heard symphony and choruses." For it was fitting that, at the reconciliation arising from the repentance of the son who had been found again after being lost, a symphony should be heard to mark the household's rejoicing toward the father. But the base Laban does not know the term "symphony,"
where he says to Jacob: "and if you had told me, I would have sent you away with rejoicing and with musical instruments and tambourines and a lyre." Akin to this kind of symphony is what is written in the second book of Kingdoms, when "the brothers" of Aminadab "were going before the ark, and David and the sons of Israel were playing before the Lord on instruments tuned in
strength and songs"; for the instruments tuned "in strength and songs" contained within themselves musical harmony, which has such power that when only two people, along with a request made in accordance with divine and spiritual harmony, bring before the Father in heaven a petition about anything whatsoever, the Father grants the requests to those who agree on earth (which is most paradoxical),
granting what those who have agreed in the aforesaid agreement would ask. Thus I also understand the apostolic saying: "Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer." For since the term "harmony" is applied to those who marry in accordance with God, in the saying so arranged from Proverbs: "a house and possessions fathers apportion
to their children, but from God a wife is harmonized to a husband," it follows that both the term and the deed of harmony from God enjoy the benefit of agreement unto prayer, which is indicated in the phrase "except perhaps by agreement." Then, further explaining that the agreement of two on earth is the same thing as agreeing with Christ, the text adds: "for where
there are two or three gathered together in my name." Therefore those who are gathered together into the name of Christ, two or three, are the ones who agree on earth—not only two, but sometimes also three. But whoever is capable will examine whether this agreement and this kind of gathering, in whose midst Christ is, can be found among a greater number,
since "narrow and constricted is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it." Perhaps, indeed, not even a few, but two or three agree in such agreement, namely Peter, James, and John — to whom, inasmuch as they were of one accord, the Word of God disclosed his own glory. And two agreed, namely Paul and Sosthenes, when they wrote
the first letter to the Corinthians, and afterward Paul together with Timothy, dispatching a second letter to that same church; and three agreed together when "Paul and Silvanus and Timothy" instructed the Thessalonians by letter. But if it will also be necessary to establish from the ancient writings those who agreed on earth as three, so that the word is in their midst uniting them, pay attention to the
superscription of the Psalms, as that of the forty-first has it thus: "To the end; for understanding, for the sons of Korah." For there being three sons of Korah, whose names we found in Exodus - Asher, which is interpreted EDUCATION, and the second, Elkanah, which is rendered POSSESSION OF GOD, and third, Abiasaph, which would be said
in the Greek tongue GATHERING OF THE FATHER - the prophecies were not divided, but as though by one spirit and one voice truly working in harmony in a single soul, so they were both spoken and written, and the three speak, saying, as one: "As the deer longs for the springs of water, so my soul longs for you, O God." And they also speak in the plural,
in the forty-third: "O God, with our own ears we have heard." Yet should you wish to discern still further those who stand in agreement upon the earth, consider those who heard the exhortation: "that with one mind and single judgment you may be made complete," and who were zealous for the saying "the soul and the heart (of all who believed) were one," having become <one>, if indeed it is possible
[...] to find such a thing in more people, so that there is not even the slightest disagreement among them, just as the ten chords of that stringed instrument produce no discord one with another. But those did not agree on earth who declared, each one, "Paul is mine," or "Apollos is mine," or "Cephas is mine," or "Christ is mine," but there were "divisions" among them, and when these were dissolved, they were gathered together with
the spirit that was in Paul, "joined to the power of our Lord Jesus," so that they might cease biting and consuming each other, lest they be "consumed by one another"; for disagreement consumes, just as agreement gathers together, and it separates from the midst of those who agree the one who alone becomes the Son of God, present only among the agreeing. And properly speaking, agreement comes about in two general respects: in the (as the
apostle named it) fitting together of the same mind with respect to holding the same doctrines in mind, and in the same judgment with respect to living in like manner. See: "If two of you agree on earth about anything whatsoever they ask, it will be done for them by the Father of Jesus who is in the heavens." And it is clear that where it does not come about from the Father who is in the heavens
concerning anything whatsoever they ask, there not even two have agreed on earth. And this is the cause for us of not being heard when we pray: our not agreeing with one another on earth, neither in doctrines nor in life. Further, since we ourselves make up Christ's body, and "among the members, each within the body, God has appointed a place," so that "the same
...the members might care for one another,' and be in harmony with one another; when a single member is in pain, the rest suffer along with it, while at the glorifying of one, the rest share the joy. We ought to practice the harmony that comes from divine music, so that whenever we come together under the name of Christ, Christ himself may stand among us — God's Word, God's Wisdom, and his Power. These things, then,
...as concerning the two or three whom the passage calls to be in harmony, understood in the more common sense. But let us now also take up another interpretation, which one of those before us used to give, exhorting married people to chastity and purity. For the two whom the passage says the Word wishes to be in harmony upon the earth are to be understood as a man and a woman who, by mutual agreement, deprive one another of bodily intercourse, so that
they may devote themselves 'to prayer,' at a time when, praying about anything they might ask for, they will receive it, the request that comes from such agreement being given to them, through Jesus Christ, by the Father who dwells in heaven. And this interpretation seems to us not to bring about the dissolution of marriage, but to be an exhortation toward harmony — as, if one partner should wish to remain pure but the other should not wish to <or should not be able to>,
and for this reason the one who both wishes and is able to do the better thing should condescend to the one who does not wish or is not able, then both would not have it — that concerning anything they ask, it should come to pass for them from the Father in heaven, through Jesus Christ. But I know also another interpretation, coming after the one concerning married people, regarding the harmony of the
two, of the following kind. In the wicked, 'sin' of the soul 'reigns,' established as on its own throne in this 'mortal body,' so that the soul 'obeys its desires.' But in those who have raised sin, which had previously reigned, up from the throne of the body, so to speak, and struggle against it, 'the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit'
'against the flesh.' But in those who have already been made perfect, the spirit has prevailed and has put to death 'the deeds' 'of the body,' and imparts its own life to the body, so that even this now comes to pass: 'he will give life also to our mortal bodies, because of his Spirit dwelling in us.' And a harmony of the two (body and spirit) comes about upon the earth, and once this has been rightly established,
the prayer too is offered in harmony, from one who 'believes with the heart' 'unto righteousness' and 'confesses with the mouth' 'unto salvation,' with the result that the heart dwells near to God rather than far off, and the righteous person, along with the heart, draws near to God also with lips and mouth [...]. And it is yet more blessed if the three should be gathered together in the same place in the name of Jesus,
so that what is written might be fulfilled: 'may God sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless when our Lord Jesus Christ comes.' But someone will ask, because of the harmony just described between spirit and body, whether it is possible for these two to be in harmony without the third also — I mean the soul — or whether it is not
it follows the harmony of these on earth, that once the two have joined together under the name of Christ, the three likewise now come together under his name, and into their midst the Son of God arrives, since all things belong to him (I mean, of the three) and nothing is opposed to him — not only is the spirit not opposed, but
nor is the soul any longer, nor the body. It is also pleasant to practice and understand and set forth the harmony of the two testaments, the one before the Savior's bodily coming and the new one; for in whatever the two testaments agree, so that there is nothing dissonant in them of the one toward the other, in these would prayers be found
as concerning any matter whatsoever they might ask, that it come to pass for them from the Father in heaven. But if you also desire the one who joins the two as a third, do not hesitate to name it the Holy Spirit, for 'the words of the wise' (whether uttered before his coming or during and after it) are 'like goads and like nails planted, which
were given by the collectors of sayings, from one shepherd.' Do not let this pass unnoticed either, that his words were not: wherever two or three should be found gathered, there I will be in their midst, but rather 'there I am' — not delaying nor being slow, but at once, together with the harmony, he himself is found and comes to be in their midst. Then Peter came to him and said: Lord, how many times will my brother sin against
me, and I will forgive him (18:21[22])? To suppose that this was said rather simplistically — by Peter, as though choosing to forgive his brother seven sins committed against him, but no longer an eighth; and by the Savior, as though teaching one to sit and count the sins of one's neighbor against him, so that one forgives the seven and the seventy-
seven, but from the seventy-eighth on no longer forgives the one who has wronged him — seems to me altogether foolish and unworthy both of Peter's progress with Jesus and of Jesus's divine greatness of mind. Perhaps, then, these words too partake of an obscurity akin to ‘Hear my voice, wives of Lamech,’ and what follows. Now the true meaning, then, which Jesus himself
would have made clear concerning these things — if anyone has by now grown into friendship with Jesus, so that his spirit teaches him, illumining the leading faculty of one who has advanced thus far according to merit, such a person would know. But we, who fall short of that friendly greatness toward Jesus, must be content if we can even discourse briefly on the matters at hand. It seems, then, that the
number six is a laborious and toilsome one, while seven contains rest; and observe, if you can, whether one who loves ‘the world’ and does the works of the world and practices material things may be said to sin six times, and that for him the end is sin, whereas one who has grasped Peter's meaning is willing to forgive seven sins committed against him by his brother. But since
The tens and hundreds reckoned by units have a certain common ratio of proportion to the number reckoned in units, but he knew that sins are intensified and increased still further; for this reason, I think, Jesus takes the number seventy along with the number seven, and says that forgiveness must be granted to brothers who have sinned here, in matters pertaining to this present life; but
if someone should sin beyond the measure proper to this world and this age, even if this too should be some small thing, such sin could no longer reasonably be granted release; for release reaches only the affairs of this present life and is rightly granted for sins committed within the affairs of this life, whether the release should come more slowly or more quickly. But there is no forgiveness even for a brother who has sinned beyond
the seventy-seven. You might say that such a one sins either against Peter as a brother, or against that Peter over whom the doors of Hades hold no power. With regard to such sins he is within the lesser number of sin; but with regard to still worse sins he is within the number that has no forgiveness of sins. For this reason I say to you: the kingdom of the heavens
was likened to a man, a king, who wished to settle accounts with his servants (18:23[–35]). The general purport of the parable wishes to teach us to forgive the wrongs done to us by those who wronged us, and especially in a case where, once the wrong has been done, the wrongdoer comes to the one he wronged asking that his earlier offenses be forgiven him. The parable also wishes to teach us this, by setting forth
that even for the sins already forgiven us by God, for which we have received remission, exaction might occur even after the forgiveness, if we do not forgive those who have wronged us their sins, so that not even the slightest memory of having been wronged should any longer be left in us. Rather, with a whole heart benefited by freedom from resentment (no ordinary virtue), we should forgive the one who wronged us
the things wickedly and treacherously done by him against one of us. Now after the general purport of the parable, it is possible also to examine it more simply, word for word, in its entirety, so that the one who progresses by diligently seeking to understand rightly each of the things written above may profit from the testing of what has been said. But there is also, as is likely, a more elevated account, and a certain more mystical one difficult to discern, according to which
one might seek out, by analogy with the parables interpreted by the evangelists, the meaning of each element in this one: for instance, who is the king, and who are the servants, and what is the beginning of the settling of accounts, and who is the one servant who owed ten thousand talents among the many debtors, and who is his wife, and who are his children, and what is the meaning of everything else said besides these, which the
king ordered to be sold, so that the debt might be paid from that man's possessions; and what it means that the one who had been forgiven the many talents went out; and who is the one found among his fellow servants who owed, not to the master of the house, but to the servant who had been forgiven; and what the number of a hundred denarii signifies; and what it means that he choked him, saying, "Pay back what you owe"; and who is the
the prison into which the fellow servant was thrown by the one who had had all his talents forgiven; which fellow servants were the ones grieved, the ones who made clear to their master what had happened; and who were the torturers to whom the man who had thrown his fellow servant into prison was handed over; and how, once handed over to the torturers, he paid back everything owed, so that he no longer owed anything. And it is likely that other points as well
could be brought forward by a more inquisitive treatment of the passage — points whose narration and interpretation I consider too great to be attained "according to man," and needing rather the Spirit of Christ who uttered them, so that they may be understood as Christ meant them. For just as no one "knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man that is within him," and likewise no one knows the things belonging to
God except the Spirit of God, so too, apart from God, no one knows what Christ has spoken in proverbs and in parables, save the Spirit of Christ; and whoever partakes of that Spirit, not only insofar as it is the Spirit of Christ, but also insofar as it is of Christ as wisdom and as word, would be able to contemplate what is revealed to him concerning this passage. But as for
the highest level of exposition, we do not promise it, yet neither do we despair of it, trusting that Christ, the wisdom of God himself, will help us grasp what is signified in the parable. But whether it is the case that such things were even dictated for this scripture as it stands, or not, God, through Christ, might suggest — so as to do what is pleasing to him — provided only that concerning these matters too there be given the "word of wisdom" that is given "through the Spirit,"
and the "word of knowledge" that is supplied "according to the Spirit," from God. "The kingdom" (he says) "was likened" — and so on. But if it was likened to a king who had done such and such things, what must we say except that this is the Son of God? For he himself is the King of the heavens, and just as he himself is Wisdom itself and Righteousness itself and Truth itself, so too, perhaps,
he is also Kingship itself. And this is a kingdom not of anything below, nor of a portion of the realms above, but of the whole of what lies above, all of which have been named heavens. And if you ask how "theirs is the kingdom of the heavens," you may say that Christ is theirs, insofar as he is Kingship itself, reigning according to each conception of himself over the one who is no longer ruled by sin, sin which reigns "in the
mortal body" belonging to those who have made themselves subject to it. And if I say "reigning according to each conception of himself," I mean something of this sort: he reigns as righteousness does, and as wisdom does, and as truth does, and as the remaining virtues do, over the one who has come to be (through bearing "the image of the heavenly one") of heaven and of every power, whether angelic or of the rest that are named, "not only in this
age but also in the age to come" — of the holy and those worthy of such a kingdom. This, then, is the kingdom of the heavens, which, when it came to be "in the likeness of sinful flesh," so that it might condemn "sin, concerning sin," when he "who knew no sin" was made "sin on our behalf" for us who bear the body "of sin" — this kingdom was likened to a man, a king, understood with reference to Jesus, having been united to him,
having more (if one may be so bold as to say it) toward being united and becoming altogether one with the firstborn «of all creation,» if «he who clings to the Lord» is made «one spirit» with him. And this kingdom of heaven, likened to the man understood as king according to the Savior, and united to him, is spoken of proleptically, because he wished to settle accounts with his servants.
<For he has not yet settled accounts>, but he is about to settle accounts with them, so that it may be shown how each one used the master's approved silver and rational coins. And indeed the example in the parable is taken from masters who settle accounts with their own household servants. Yet we shall grasp more exactly what the parable indicates in these matters, if we fix our thinking on the
things that happen among the household servants who have managed their master's money and are required to give an account of it; for each of them, receiving a different sum from the master's funds, has used it either as he ought, so as to increase the master's money, or has spent it wastefully on what he ought not and poured out carelessly, without caution, what was entrusted to him. And there are some who have managed such-and-such sums well,
and lost other sums; and whenever they render the account, the master settling it with them, it is reckoned how much each one lost, and it is also counted how much profit each one brought in, and according to the worth of how he managed it, he is either honored or made to pay a penalty, or in some cases forgiven and in others deprived. Come, then,
let us, on the basis of what has already been stated, turn first to examine the rational currency and the master's tested silver coins, of which some persons receive a greater share and others a smaller one. For according to each one's capacity, one is given «five talents,» being deemed able to manage such an amount, another receives «two,» not having the same capacity as the one before him, and yet another is given «one,» being weaker still than the second.
...are [they], or are these spoken of concerning certain persons in what follows in the gospel, and are there also others besides these? And in other parables some are found: in one there are two debtors, one of five hundred and the other of fifty denarii, either these having been entrusted with them and having managed them badly (being of lesser capacity than the one entrusted with the talent), or [...] that these indeed received them,
we have not been told; yet it seems we are taught by the parable that they owed that much. There are also found ten other servants entrusted with a mina each. And if anyone should consider the variety of the human soul and the natural gifts and lack of gifts that differ so greatly from one another, tending toward more virtues or fewer, and toward these virtues or those, perhaps he would come to understand how
each soul has come into this world with some of the householder's coins, which become manifest with the coming to fullness of reason and with the diligence and training that follow upon the fullness of reason—training directed toward what is needful, or diligence and training directed toward other things that are useful (such as the various pursuits), or in some respects useful and in other respects not useful
(such as are opinions neither wholly true nor entirely false). And you will ask, concerning these things, whether all human beings can be called slaves of this king, or whether some are slaves — “whom he foreknew and predestined” — while others are <not slaves but> those who do business with the slaves, called bankers. And you will likewise ask whether there are, apart from the slaves, people from whom, with interest,
the master of the house promises to exact payment — not only those foreign to piety, but also some of the believers. And only the stewards of the word are slaves [...]. And when the king settles accounts with the slaves, he also demands payment from those who have borrowed from the slaves, whether they received “a hundred cors of wheat,” or “a hundred baths of oil,” or whatever else — those outside the king's
household. For according to the parable, the one who owes the hundred measures of wheat and the hundred baths of oil is not found to be a fellow slave “of the steward of injustice,” as is clear from “How much do you owe my master?” <and he did not say, “our master”>. Understand me now: every deed resembles, if it is good or fitting, a gain and a profit, while if it is wretched, it resembles
a loss. And just as there is a gain of more money and another of less, and variously of more and less, so too, according to good deeds, there is, as it were, an assessment of gains, greater or lesser, [which] [...] belongs to him alone who knows how to examine such things — seeing, from the disposition and the reasoning and the deed and the things that work together
with what is in our power out of what is not in our power — and to calculate which deed is a great gain, which a lesser one, and which the least; and likewise, on the opposite side, which sin, when accounts are settled with the slaves, is found to be a great loss, which a lesser one, and which (if it must be so named) a loss of the last small coin or of the
last quadrans. Of the whole of life, then, and of all of it, an account is settled by the aforesaid kingdom of the heavens (likened to a man who is a king), when “it is necessary for all of us to stand before the tribunal of Christ, so that each may receive back the things done through the body in accordance with what he has done, whether good or worthless.” And then, when the account is settled, there will be brought into the account being settled also “every
careless word that people speak,” and whether anyone ever gave to drink “a cup of cold water, only in a disciple's name.” And these things will happen when what is written in Daniel comes to pass: “the books were opened, and the court sat in judgment.” For there occurs, as it were, a written record of everything spoken and done and thought, and every hidden thing is laid bare by divine power
in us will be made manifest, and everything covered will be uncovered, so that if someone is not found to have “made an effort to be released” from his adversary, he will travel, by way of the ruler, the judge, and the officer, to prison, until he pays back the last small coin; but if he has “made an effort to be released” from him and “owes nothing to anyone,” and has already made the mina yield tenfold or fivefold, or the “five
doubling the talents, or making the two into four, might obtain the fitting reward, entering into ‘the joy of his lord,’ or hearing, while being appointed ruler ‘over all his possessions,’ ‘Be one having authority over ten cities,’ or ‘Be one having authority over five cities.’ But let us not suppose that these things require a long time, so that the account concerning all the times
of life here might be gathered for us — as if one should suppose that, since the king is settling accounts with each of so many servants, the matters require so much time, until the things from the beginning of the world to the completion of the age come to their end, not of one age but of several ages [...]. Yet that is not how matters truly stand. For God, wishing all at once, having
to fan into flame in the memories of all — so that each might perceive, better or worse, what has been done by himself — everything that has happened to each throughout the whole time, would do by an ineffable power. For it is not as we, when wishing to bring something to remembrance, need a lasting time for the recounting of what we say and for bringing to memory those things we wish to remind of, that
God, wishing to remind us of the things done in this life, so that, perceiving what we have done, we might grasp for what reasons we are punished or honored, would do it. And if anyone disbelieves the swiftness of God’s power in these matters, this person has not yet understood the God who made all things without needing periods of time to make so great a creation of heaven and earth and
of all the things in them. For even if he seems to have fashioned these things across six days, understanding is needed to grasp how it is said ‘in six days,’ for this reason: the text reads, ‘Such is the record of the origin of heaven and earth,’ and so on. One must therefore be bold and say that the time of the expected judgment does not need periods of time, but, just as the resurrection is said to occur ‘in an instant,’
‘in the twinkling of an eye,’ so too, I think, is the judgment. After this must be discussed the passage: ‘And when he had begun to settle accounts, one debtor of many talents was brought to him.’ This seems to me to have the following sense: the ‘time for the judgment to begin’ is that which begins ‘from the house of God,’ as it is said — as is also written in Ezekiel — to the angels appointed over
the punishments: ‘Begin from my holy ones’ — and these resemble ‘the twinkling of an eye’; but the settling of accounts has its beginning, taken conceptually (for we have not forgotten what was said before), from those who owe the most. For this reason it is not written ‘while he was settling accounts,’ but it says instead that once he had begun to settle accounts, a certain man was brought before him — at the very outset of his reckoning — one
debtor of many talents, as one who had incurred countless losses and had great things entrusted and committed to him, yet brought no profit to his master, but incurred countless losses, with the result that he was in debt for many talents. It may be that his debt of many talents arose because he had often followed after the woman seated on the talent of lead, whose name is Lawlessness. Understand this according to the passage
each of these is the greatest sin, a penalty of talents belonging to the master of a household, and such are the sins committed by fornicators, adulterers, men who lie with men, the effeminate, idolaters, murderers. So perhaps nothing is small, but the single debtor brought before the king, owing many talents, had sinned in everything great and grievous — and if you go searching for him among men, you would perhaps discover him to be the man of sin himself, destruction's own son, the one who opposes and
exalts himself “above every god or object of worship”; yet if the search must range beyond mankind, who could this be but the devil, who has destroyed as many men, receiving him at work in them in sin, as there are talents? “For a man is great, and a merciful man is precious,” precious as being worth a talent, either of gold (such as the golden lampstand weighing a talent was) or of silver, or of whatever
material is taken in a spiritual sense. As symbols this is recorded in Chronicles, where David is enriched with many talents, the number of which is also given — a stated quantity of talents of gold, a stated quantity of silver, and the rest of the material named there, out of which the temple of God was built. Yet this man, having nothing with which to repay the talents (for he had lost them), possesses a spouse, offspring, and other property
concerning which it stands written: “all that he has.” It was possible, then, by his being sold together with what is his, for him to come into means, the one who bought him having paid off, through the price paid for him and for his own, the whole debt — so runs the text, that everything he owns be sold — and he could no longer be a slave of the king, but would become the slave of the one who bought him. And indeed he lays claim to remaining, without being sold, together with his own
in the house of the king; therefore, falling down, he worships him (knowing the king to be God) and says: “Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything”; for it was likely, being also a man of action, seeing that he was able, by a second round of dealings, to make up whatever was lacking from the earlier loss of the many talents. And this good king was moved with compassion also toward the debtor
of the many talents, and at that point released him, granting him more than the favor he had asked to be deemed worthy of. For the debtor had promised the master, who had shown him patience, to repay all his debts; but the lord, who was moved with compassion toward him (not on condition of receiving payment as a result of his patience), at that point not only released him, but released him completely, and forgave him the whole debt.
But this wicked servant, though he himself had asked patience of the master concerning the many talents, acted without mercy. For finding a fellow servant of his who was in debt to him for a hundred denarii, he seized him and began choking him, saying, “Pay back what you owe” — and how did he not display an extreme of wickedness, seizing his fellow servant over a hundred denarii and choking him and depriving him of the freedom to breathe,
when he himself, in the matter of the many talents, was neither seized nor choked, but was first ordered to be sold together with his wife and children and his own, and later (after he had worshiped) was released when the lord was moved with compassion toward him, and was forgiven the whole debt entirely? And indeed it is a task to say, in keeping with the intention of Jesus, who is [...] the one found
a fellow slave who owed, not to his own lord, but to the one owing many talents, a hundred denarii — and who were the fellow slaves who saw the one choking [him] and the other being choked, and were greatly grieved and clearly reported to their own lord everything that had happened. Now as to how the matter truly stands, I declare that no one is able to explain it except Jesus, who "to his own
disciples, privately, explained everything," who set his mark upon the governing faculty and opened, in the parable, all the treasures that are dark, hidden, and invisible, and who, through clear proofs, gives full assurance to whomever he wishes to illuminate with the light of knowledge of everything pertaining to this parable — so that he might at once show who is the one debtor brought before the king who is a man, owing many talents, and so on, and who is the
one who owes this man the hundred denarii, another single person, and the rest — whether it is possible for him to be the "man of sin" spoken of earlier, or else the devil, and if not either of these two, someone else again, either a man or one of those under the devil's power. For it is also a work of the wisdom of God, concerning the things done, or made, in their own way, according to such
qualities — whether among invisible powers or among certain men — to render, in whatever way, what has been prophesied and recorded by the divine Spirit. But since we have not yet attained a sufficient understanding capable of being mingled with the mind of Christ, of reaching as far as such great matters, and of searching out, together with the Spirit, "all things, even the depths of God," we think — still forming an indefinite impression concerning the matters at
hand — that the parable points to one particular wicked servant, the one presented here as owing the many talents. But it is worth examining when the king, who is a man, according to the parable, wished to settle accounts with his servants, and to what time the things said ought to be referred. For if [it is referred] to after the consummation, or to it itself
(according to the time of the expected judgment), how could one preserve the account concerning the one who owed a hundred denarii and was being choked by the man to whom the many talents had been remitted? Yet if the setting is prior to the judgment, how could one show that, before that judgment, an accounting settled by the king who is a man with his servants applies to the sense of every parable whose narrative has not been recorded
by the evangelists — that Jesus also "explained everything to his own disciples privately," and that for this reason those who wrote the gospels concealed the clarity of the parables, since the things signified in them were greater than the nature of writing could bear. And indeed the solution and clarity of each such parable was such that not even "the world itself could contain"
what is written of such parables, "the books." But may a heart be found that is fit, and through its purity capable of containing the writings of the clarity of the parables, so that upon it may be written "the Spirit of the living God." But someone will say that perhaps we act impiously, we who wish — because of the secret and mystical character of certain things — that these letters signify things above them, and who attempt to clarify them, even though it may seem
...on the hypothesis that we have carefully grasped their intention. But it must also be said in response to this that those who have apprehended these things with precision know what they must do; but we, who confess that we fall short of being able to reach the depth of what is indicated in these things, even if we do attain some briefer understanding, to a certain degree, of the matters at hand, will say that some things,
which we think we have found through much toil and inquiry, be it through God's grace or through the strength of the mind that is in us, we do not dare entrust to writing. But some things we set forth, to a certain degree, for the sake of our own exercise and for the benefit of those who will read them. But let this serve as our defense on account of the depth of the parable. As for when the king who is the man of the parable wished to settle accounts with
his servants, we shall say that this appears to concern what has been proclaimed. Two passages establish this: one parable found near the close of the gospel now before us, the other drawn from the Gospel according to Luke. And so as not to lengthen our discussion by setting out the wording itself, since anyone who wishes may take it from the scripture itself, we shall say that the parable according to Matthew
shows that "like a man going abroad, he called his own servants and handed over to them his possessions," giving to one five, to another two, to another one talent. Then those servants did as they did with what had been entrusted to them; a long while afterward the master of those servants returns, and it is written in these very words that "he settles accounts with them." And
consider, then, what it says: "and he settles accounts with them," and compare it with "and when he began to settle accounts," and observe that he named as the householder's going abroad the period during which "we, while present in the body, are absent from the Lord," but named as his arrival the moment when "the master of those servants returns after a considerable time" — the moment of the judgment at the consummation,
the season. For once a considerable time had passed, "the master of those servants returns and settles accounts with them," and what follows takes place. But the parable in Luke presents it more clearly: a nobleman journeyed "to a distant country in order to obtain a kingdom for himself and then return," and before departing he called ten servants and "gave them ten minas, telling them, Trade with this until I return." This
nobleman, then, was despised by his own countrymen, who dispatched "envoys behind him" since they refused to have him rule over them; yet he came back having obtained "the kingdom, and gave orders that his servants, those to whom he had entrusted the silver, be summoned before him, so that he could learn what profit each had made through trading." Seeing what they had accomplished, he praised the one who had turned the mina into ten minas, saying, "Well done, good servant,
because you have been faithful in a very small thing," he gives him authority over it. And to another, who had multiplied the mina fivefold, he withheld the identical praise given earlier and likewise did not name the extent of authority as he had fixed for that former servant, but instead said to him: "And you" — and to the one who had kept the mina wrapped in a cloth he said, "Out of your own mouth I will judge you, wicked servant," "and"
he said to those standing by: 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who holds the ten minas.' Who, then, would deny, regarding this parable too, that the nobleman who journeyed 'to a distant country to obtain a kingdom for himself and return' represents Christ, as one going abroad, so to speak, to receive the kingdom of the world and of those within it, and
those who received the ten minas are the ones entrusted to administer the account which they were entrusted with, while his citizens (he having taken up citizenship in this world by having become man), who were unwilling for him to reign as king — perhaps this is Israel, which did not believe in him, and perhaps also the nations that revolted from him? But I have said these things because I refer his return to his coming with the
kingdom to the consummation, when 'he said that the servants to whom he knew what they had transacted should be called to him,' and because I wish from this to demonstrate also concerning the parable of the talents, that also the phrase 'he who wished to settle accounts with his servants' refers to the consummation, when he is already king, receiving back the kingdom, on account of
which (according to another parable) 'he journeyed to a distant land, there to obtain a kingdom for himself before returning.' Having returned, then, and having received 'the kingdom,' he wished to settle accounts with his servants; and as he set about the settling, one debtor owing many talents was brought before him — brought before him as before a king, by his appointed ministers, angels I suppose. And perhaps he is one of those under the kingdom
who was entrusted with some great stewardship and did not administer it well, but squandered what had been placed in his charge, until he owed, as a debtor, the many talents he had lost. This man, then, having nothing to offer in repayment, receives the king's command that he be sold, his wife with him, she by whom he became, in partnership with her, father of certain children. It is no ordinary task to see, among intelligible realities, a father and a mother
and children. As to the truth, then, God would know what this work is that he intends; and as for us, whether he himself has granted it or not, let the one who is able judge. But we understand something of this sort with regard to this passage: just as the Jerusalem above is mother of Paul and of those like him, so there would be a mother of others, analogous to Jerusalem as mother — for instance
Syene of Egypt, or Memphis, and to others Tyre and Sidon, or as many cities as have been named in the scriptures. Then, just as Jerusalem is a bride adorned 'for her husband,' Christ, so those mothers would be, as it were, wives or brides of certain powers allotted to them. And just as Jerusalem, as mother, and Christ, as father, have certain children,
so too would Syene, Memphis, Tyre, or Sidon, along with the officials appointed over them, each be as children under their fathers. The debtor of many talents to the man who is king has, as we have explained, a wife and children; these the king at first ordered sold, ordered them sold, and all his possessions along with them, but afterward, moved with compassion, released him and all
he forgave him the debt — not because he was ignorant of what was to come, but so that we might learn what had taken place; thus it is recorded that he acted. Each, then, of those possessing, as we have explained, a wife and children, will render account whenever the king sets out to settle accounts, taking the ruler of Syene, Memphis, or Tyre — and each of them holds office as ruler of some place, whether Syene or Memphis or Tyre or
Sidon or some similar place — and the debtors. This man, then, having been released and forgiven the whole debt, upon leaving the king's presence came across one of his fellow servants, and so on. And it was for this reason, I think, that he choked him, since he had already left the king's presence; for had he not gone out, he would not have choked his fellow servant. Then observe the precision of the scripture, how the one
one, falling down, did homage, while the other, falling down, did not do homage but pleaded. And the king, moved with compassion, set him free and cancelled the entire debt on his behalf, but the servant was not willing even to show mercy to his fellow servant. And that one, even before the forgiveness, had ordered him to be sold, along with all he had, while the one who had been forgiven threw him into prison. And observe
that the fellow servants did not slander him or merely speak, but made the matter clear — that they did not call him “wicked” at the outset in the matter of the money, but reserved that word for later, concerning the fellow servant. Observe too the moderation of the king. He did not say, “You did homage to me,” but, “You pleaded with me,” and he no longer ordered him to be sold along with all he had, but handed him over to the torturers, to suffer the worse on account of his wickedness.
Who, then, might these be but those appointed over punishments? At the same time, take note, for the sake of those from the heresies who make use of this parable, that supposing they charge the Creator with being irascible on account of the words that display the wrath of God, they ought likewise to accuse this king, since in anger he handed the debtor over to the torturers. Further, it must be said to those unwilling to have
anyone handed over by Jesus to the torturers: explain to us, you people, who is the king who hands the wicked servant over to the torturers? And let them also attend to the words, “So also will my heavenly Father do to you.” To these same people it might even more fittingly be said, in connection with the parable of the ten minas, that the Son of the good God
said, “But as for those enemies of mine who did not want me [to reign over them]…” and so on. The conclusion of the parable, however, fits even the simpler readers as well. For we are all alike taught that we shall suffer the same fate as the one who, having been forgiven yet not forgiving his fellow servant, was punished — we who have received forgiveness of sins and do not forgive our brothers. “And so it came to pass that, once Jesus had brought these sayings to a close” (19:1–2), he who
goes through each of the problems set before him completely, so as to leave nothing in them lacking — such a one finishes his own words. But one might declare this yet more boldly by attending more carefully to every reading of the old and new covenant. For if the phrase “he finished these words” is set down of no one else — neither Moses nor any of the prophets — but of Jesus alone, then one might venture…
One might say that Jesus alone brought the words to completion, since he came to set a completion upon the matters and to fill up what was lacking in the law through "it was said to the ancients" and what follows. And once more: "so that what was spoken by the prophets might find its fulfillment." But if it is also written somewhere in those prophets, one might then examine together the words completed by them and the words completed by the
Savior, so as to find the difference between them, though even there one might inquire whether "he completed" is applied to the sayings given by way of oracle, or to the sayings of Moses or of one of the prophets, or to both together. For a careful observation would suggest the grandest concepts to persons skilled at setting "spiritual things" side by side "with spiritual," who accordingly speak "not in words taught by human wisdom,
but in those taught by the Spirit." But someone else, hearing "he completed" in a more curious way, taking it as applied to the more mystical matters — inasmuch as one person "handed down to his subjects mysteries and rites" not in a praiseworthy way, while another hands the mysteries of God down to worthy recipients, along with rites suited to such mysteries — might say that he performed a rite, initiating them, a rite through which the words proved themselves powerful, so that "the gospel" was proclaimed
of Jesus "in the whole world" and prevailed, through the divine rite, over every soul the Father draws toward the Son, in keeping with what the Savior said: "No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." And for this reason too the word of those who bring the gospel by the grace of God
and whose "preaching" of the gospel came about "not in persuasiveness" of "words" of wisdom, "but in a demonstration involving spirit and power" — by these the words of the teaching of Jesus were brought to completion. You, then, will observe how often "he completed" is said, and in reference to what. You will take as an example what is said concerning the beatitudes and the whole teaching, after which it is added: "And it came to pass, when
Jesus had finished these words, all the crowds were astonished at his teaching." And now too "Jesus finished these words" is applied, in the nearest sense, to the most mystical parable, in which "heaven's kingdom was likened to a man, a king, who wished to settle accounts with his servants," and further, above this parable, to what is recorded before it.
Only, once Jesus had brought these sayings to their end, having uttered them in Galilee near Capernaum, he then moved on from that place and arrived at the territory of Judea, a region distinct from Galilee. And he arrived at the frontier of Judea, not its central parts, but so to speak its farthest edges; and there great crowds accompanied him,
whom he healed there, at those very borders of Judea beyond the Jordan, where baptism was given to people. You will observe the difference between crowds who merely tagged along, on the one hand, and Peter, on the other, along with the rest who abandoned everything to become his followers, and Matthew as well, who, as it says, "got up and went after him." It was not mere following — rather he "got up"; for that phrase "got up" carries great weight. There are, then, always some who are like crowds
many follow, neither having risen up to follow nor having left all their former things; but few are those who rise up and, <having left all things,> follow — who will also sit “in the regeneration” “upon twelve thrones.” Still, should anyone desire healing, let that person become a follower of Jesus. After this it is written that the Pharisees came to him, testing him and saying: ‘Is it lawful
for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ (Mark recorded the equivalent as well) (19:3–12). So then, among those who approached and questioned Jesus there were some who were testing him as they questioned; and when our Savior, great as he is, was being tested, which of his disciples, appointed as he is to teaching, would be indignant at being tested by some who were inquiring not out of
a love of learning, but out of a wish to test? You would find many instances, were you to gather them together, in which our Jesus was tested by the Pharisees and by others besides them (such as a certain lawyer, and perhaps scribes too); gathering into one place the accounts concerning those who tested him, you would find something [the accounts concerning those who tested
him] useful, on examination, for understanding the character of these sayings. Yet the Savior answers even those who test him with teachings <of piety>; for their question was: ‘May a man send his wife away on any pretext whatsoever?’ But in reply he said: ‘Have you never read that the one who fashioned them at the outset formed them male and female?’ and so on. And
I think that the Pharisees raised this very question in the hope of catching him out, no matter what he answered. For example, had his reply been ‘It is permitted,’ they would have charged him with sanctioning divorce for any petty reason; but had it been ‘It is not permitted,’ they would have charged him with allowing a man to remain joined to a woman even in sin. <But they did not see in what way he would answer them blamelessly and wisely,>
as in the case of the census tax. For if he had said to pay it, they would have accused him of putting <God's people under human rule, treating them as though subject> to Rome rather than to God's law; but if he told them not to pay, of stirring up war and sedition, and rousing those who were unable to stand against so great an army. [But they did not see in what
way he would answer them blamelessly and wisely.] <But see how blamelessly he answered:> first, by denying that a wife may be divorced for any cause, and second, by responding on the matter of the certificate of divorce [...]. For he saw that not every cause dissolves a marriage rightly, and that a husband ought to live with his wife “giving honor to her as to the weaker
vessel," and bearing her "burdens" in her failings. And he shames the Pharisees, who boasted in the writings of Moses, by appealing to what stands written in Genesis, saying, 'Have you not read this: that the creator, from the beginning, fashioned them male and female?' and so on, adding for their sake, on this account, that 'the two shall become
one flesh, in keeping with the teaching that leads to one flesh, so that they are no longer two but one flesh. This is meant to make a man ashamed to divorce his wife for every cause, and also the saying, "what God has joined together, let no man separate." One must observe, however, in the way the Gospel sets out the sayings from Genesis, that
the things are not stated in the order in which they were written. And I think, moreover, that they are not even spoken about the same persons - those made according to the image of God, and those made from the dust of the earth and from a single rib taken from Adam. For where it says, "male and female he made them," this concerns those made according to the image; but where it also says, "for this reason
a man shall leave his father and his mother," and what follows, this is not about those made according to the image; for it was later, at some point after those, that "the Lord God shaped the man, drawing dust up from the ground," and from his rib the helper. At the same time, note that in the case of those made according to the image, it does not say "man and woman," but
"male and female." We have observed this in the Hebrew as well: man is denoted by the word IS, but male by ZACHAR; and woman, on the other hand, by the word ESSA, while female is rendered by OUNKEBA. It is not "man," but rather those who differ are, on the one side, male, and on the other, female. But also, if a man leaves father and mother, he clings not
not to the female but to the woman who belongs to him, and (since man and woman come to be one flesh) they are made into a single flesh - ISSA. Then, describing what ought to characterize those joined together by God, in a manner worthy of having been joined by God, the Savior adds, "so that they are no longer two." And wherever there is concord and harmony and agreement of husband toward wife <and of wife
toward husband>, the one as ruler and the other as obedient to the saying, "he will have mastery over you," it is truly possible to say of such couples, "they are no longer two." Then, since it was necessary that the one joined to the Lord should preserve the fact that he becomes "one spirit" with him, it is said of those joined together by God, after "so that they are no longer two," the words "but one flesh."
And it is God who has joined the two into one, so that they are no longer two - MEIS, ISSA, MEIS, ISSA - <where> "from the Lord a wife is fitted for a husband." And since it is God who has joined them together, for this reason there is a gift of grace among those joined together by God, which Paul, knowing this, says is a gift of grace in the same way that pure celibacy is a gift of grace, and marriage according to God's own reasoning is likewise a gift of grace,
when he says, "I want all men to be as I myself am, but each has his own gift from God, one in this way, another in that." And those joined together by God both think and do what is said: "husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church." The Savior, then, commanded that what God has joined together,
let no man separate; but a man wishes to separate what God has joined together, when, having departed from sound faith, giving heed to spirits of deceit and teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of liars whose own conscience has been branded, who forbid not only fornication but also marrying, he dissolves even those who have already, by providence, been joined together by God. These things, then, let it be said while the precepts about male and female, man and woman, are kept, as the Savior taught in his answer to the Pharisees.
Since the apostle understands "into Christ" and "the church" in the statement "and the two shall become one flesh," it must be said that Christ did not divorce his former wife (so to call her, so to speak)—the former synagogue—for some other reason,
while keeping the rule that what God has joined together, let no man separate, except when that woman committed fornication, was turned into an adulteress by the wicked one, plotted together with him against her husband, and killed him by crying out, "Take such a one away from off the earth," and, "Crucify, crucify him!" That woman, then, put herself away rather than the husband sending her away and divorcing her; and so, reproaching
her for having fallen away from him, he says in Isaiah: "What is this bill of divorce of your mother, with which I sent her away?" And indeed he who from the beginning created the one made according to the image—being "in the form of God"—fashioned him as male and the church as female, bestowing the same image as a shared gift on both. And it is on the church's account, then, that the Lord as husband left the one to whom
he was father when he existed "in the form of God," and he left also his mother, being himself a son of the Jerusalem above, and he clung to his wife who had collapsed down here, and the two here became a single flesh; for on her account he too became flesh, when "the Word was made flesh and made his dwelling among us," and they are no longer two,
but now they are indeed one flesh, since to the woman—the church—it is said, "You are the body of Christ and members individually"; for there exists no body of Christ separate and apart from the church, called "body" of him "and members individually." And indeed it was God who united these, not two, but ones become one flesh, commanding that a man
should not sever the church from the Lord. And whoever gives heed to himself so as not to be cut off from Christ has confidence that he will never be cut off, and declares, "Who will part us from the love of Christ?" Here, then, it is written, addressed to the Pharisees, that what God has joined together, let no man separate; but it could be said to those better than the Pharisees:
what God has joined together, let nothing separate—neither rule nor authority; for stronger than all things anyone could name or conceive is the God who joined them together. After this we shall take up the argument the Pharisees put to Jesus: why, then, did Moses instruct that a certificate of divorce be given and the wife sent away? And fittingly for this purpose we shall bring in the wording from Deuteronomy concerning
of the book of divorce, which runs thus: ‘And if a man takes a wife and dwells with her, and it comes about that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has discovered in her something improper’, and so on down to ‘and you shall not defile the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.’ Now I inquire, in the matters pertaining to this law,
whether nothing beyond the letter needs to be sought in it (since it was not God who gave it), or whether it was said out of necessity to the Pharisees—who had used the words ‘Moses commanded to give a bill of divorce and to send her away’—the statement that Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. But if someone should ascend to the
gospel of Christ Jesus, teaching that ‘the law is spiritual’, will likewise search out the spiritual meaning of this law. And whoever wishes to interpret it tropologically will say this as well: just as it was said by Paul, speaking with the confidence he had by the divine grace he possessed, ‘a woman is bound for as long as her husband lives; but if the husband falls asleep, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, only
in the Lord. But she is more blessed if she remains as she is, in my judgment; and I think that I too have the Spirit of God’ (for in these words, by saying ‘in my judgment’, so that it might not be despised as empty of the Spirit of God, he rightly added, ‘I think that I too have the Spirit of God’)—so too for Moses, on account of the authority given to him to legislate, so that he also, with a view to the
hardness of heart of the people, permitted certain things, among which was also the divorcing of wives, one ought to be persuaded that, in the matters concerning which he legislated according to his own judgment, in these too, God's Spirit was likewise present in the giving of the law. And he will say this: if one law be spiritual, while another is not of that kind, yet since this too is a law, it too must be spiritual
and this one too, and its spiritual sense must be sought. Now recalling what we said above concerning the saying of Isaiah about the book of divorce, we shall say that Christ's mother, the people, withdrew herself from her husband, without having received the book of divorce. But later, when ‘an unseemly matter’ was found in her and she did not find ‘favor before him’, there was written
for her a book of divorce. Calling into his house one from the nations, in place of the former wife he had cast off, he gave the book of divorce to the former woman who had departed from the law and word of her husband. Therefore he too, having departed—if I may call it so—married another, having put into the hands of the former woman the book of divorce; wherefore they can no longer perform the things
enjoined upon them according to the law, because of the book of divorce. And a sign that she has received a book of divorce is that Jerusalem has been destroyed, together with what they called the sanctuary and the venerable things believed to have taken place in it, and the altar of burnt offerings and the whole of the worship connected with it. And a sign of the book of divorce is also the fact that they neither keep festival
them to be able even according to the letter, since the intent of the law commanded them to keep the feast ‘in the place which the Lord God shall choose.’ But also the fact that the whole assembly cannot stone those who have sinned in this way or that, and countless other things among what was commanded, is a sign of the book of divorce, and that ‘there is no longer a prophet,’
still. For (he says) the Lord took away ‘from Judea, and from Jerusalem too, in the words Isaiah used, the mighty man and the mighty woman, the giant and the strong man’ and the rest, down to the intelligent hearer. Now it is possible, first, that Christ took the synagogue as a wife and dwelt with her, but afterward did not find that woman ‘finding favor before him’; and the reason for not
finding ‘favor before him’ was that ‘an indecent matter’ was found in her. For what is more indecent than this: when it was proposed to release one man at the feast, that they should have deemed it right to release for them Barabbas the robber, and to condemn Jesus? And what is more indecent than that all should have said of him, ‘Crucify, crucify him,’ and ‘Take such a man away from the earth’? And how would it not be indecent
also the saying, ‘Let his blood come upon us, and upon our children as well’? For this reason, as vengeance was taken on his behalf, Jerusalem was surrounded ‘by armies,’ and ‘her desolation’ came upon her, and ‘their house’ was left to them, and ‘the daughter of Zion’ was left abandoned ‘like a hut in a vineyard, and like a watchman’s shelter in a cucumber field, and like a besieged city.’ At the same time (I suppose),
to the former wife the husband wrote ‘a bill of divorce,’ placed it in her hands, and sent her out of his house, while for the one from the nations the handwriting has been wiped out; concerning which the apostle says, ‘erasing the record of debt expressed in decrees that stood against us, he removed it from our midst, fastening it to the cross.’ And
Paul indeed, with regard to the one from the nations [...] they became proselytes of Israel. The former wife, then, went out — she who did not ‘find favor before’ her husband because ‘an indecent matter’ was found in her — from ‘the house’ of her husband, and ‘having gone away’ became wife ‘to another man’ to whom she attached herself, whether one should call Barabbas the robber the husband (understood figuratively as the devil),
or some evil power. And for some in that assembly the first thing written in the law came to pass, and for others the second; for the last husband hated the wife, ‘and shall write her,’ at some point at the end of affairs, ‘a bill of divorce’ (God arranging this) ‘and shall put it into her hands and shall send her away from his
house.’ For just as the good God ‘placed’ ‘hostility’ midway ‘between the serpent and the woman, and midway between her seed’ ‘and his seed,’ so too he arranges that ‘the husband who comes last shall hate her.’ But there are those for whom it has happened that the husband dwells with them without hating them, by their remaining in the house of the
...of the last man, and he too takes their assembled wife for himself. But even in their case the last husband dies as well — perhaps at the time when "the last enemy, death, is abolished, which is Christ's." But whichever of these should happen, whether the former or the latter husband to the woman, it says that the earlier husband, having dismissed her, will not have the power, upon returning, "to take her to be his
wife for himself after she has been defiled, because it is," it says, "an abomination before the Lord your God." But this will seem not to correspond with "if Israel shall be saved." Consider, however, whether it can also be said with reference to this passage that assuredly, if she is to be saved, it will be by her former husband's returning and "taking her to be his wife again after she has been defiled" that she will be saved.
she will be saved. A priest, then, "will not take" for himself a wife who is "a prostitute" or "one who has been cast out," but someone else, not being prevented (as one of lesser rank than the priest) from doing such a thing. But if you are inquiring about the calling of the nations under the term "prostitute," you will make use of the text, "take for yourself a wife of whoredom, and children of whoredom," and what follows. For just as "the priests in the temple
who profane the Sabbath are guiltless," so too the one who, at the proper time, takes a wife of whoredom, casting out the former wife, is guiltless, having done this in accordance with the command of him who said (when it was necessary, and for as long as it was fitting) that "he will not take a wife who is a prostitute," and who said (when it was fitting) "take for yourself a wife of whoredom." For just as it is written that the Sabbath finds its master in the Son of Man
and not a slave to the Sabbath as ordinary folk are, so too he who gave the law rules over it, being free both to give it "until the season of correction" and to alter that law; and once the season of correction has arrived, he is likewise free to grant, in place of the earlier path and the earlier heart, "a different path and a different heart," "in a season that is welcome" "and on a day of deliverance." Let this much, then, be said by way of narrative exposition concerning the law of the bill of divorce.
One might inquire, moreover, whether the human soul can figuratively be called "wife," and the angel who presides over it and rules it (toward whom "her conduct" is directed, since he has dominion over her) can be called "husband," so that on this reckoning each soul that is worthy of the oversight of a divine angel lawfully dwells with him. It might happen
also, even after a lengthy period of dwelling together, that causes arise in the soul such that she no longer finds "favor before" the angel who rules and governs her, on the ground that "an unseemly matter" is found in her, and there could be written, as certificates of debt are written, a "bill of divorce," which is written and given "into the hands" of her who is being cast out, so that she who is being sent out "from his house" might no longer belong to her
former guardian. And it might happen that she who has "departed" from her former house, on becoming the wife of "another" man, might fare badly with him too, not only in that, as with the former, she does not find "favor" before him because "an unseemly matter" is found in her, but also in being hated by him. And a "bill of divorce" might be written for her by this second husband as well.
And it might be given 'into her hands' by the last husband, the one sending her away: one might, boldly indeed yet nonetheless, inquire whether a transition of the life of angels who dwell with men can occur, such that their death too (so far as it concerns their relation to us) is of this kind. But however it may come about, she who has once fallen away from a former husband will not return to him; for 'not'
'will the former husband, the one who sent her away, be able, having returned, to take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled.' And if, venturing boldly, one must also draw support for such a matter from a certain writing that circulates in the churches but is not acknowledged by all to be divine, one might take what is said in the Shepherd concerning certain persons
in the Shepherd, concerning certain persons who, at the very moment of believing, come to be under Michael, but who, through love of pleasure, fall away from him and come to be under the angel of luxury, then under the angel of punishment, and after him under the angel of repentance. For you see that once she has indulged in luxury, she no longer comes back to the first ruler, yet after her punishment she comes to be under one who ranks below Michael.
For the angel of repentance is inferior to that one. We must therefore take care lest 'some indecent thing' be found in us, and lest we fail to 'find favor' before our husband — whether Christ, or the angel appointed over us. For if we do not pay attention, perhaps we too shall receive the bill of divorce, and either be left widowed of our protector or shall come to another husband — though for my part I think that
this is not a good omen (and I think it best not to pursue what I mean) — that is, receiving angels in a kind of marriage in relation to our soul. But since I have come to this point, I would say that a certain question raised concerning the apostle's legislation about matters of the church we shall perhaps now be able to grasp and set forth clearly, difficult though it is to seize and hard to see through. For Paul does not wish any of those from
the church who has received some preeminence above the many, as though marked out by tokens of office, to attempt a second marriage. For in legislating concerning bishops, in the first letter to Timothy he says: 'if anyone aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a good work. The bishop, then, must be above reproach, husband of one wife, sober, self-controlled,' and so on. And concerning deacons he says, 'let deacons be'
'husbands of one wife, ruling well over their children and their own households,' and the rest. And in appointing widows he says, 'let a widow be enrolled who is not less than sixty years old, wife of one husband,' and after this he states what follows as a second and third point to this. And in the letter to Titus he says, 'for this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set right what remains,
and appoint elders city by city, in the manner I prescribed to you — if any man is beyond reproach, the husband of a single wife, whose children are believers,' evidently, and so on. We were indeed at a loss, seeing that it is possible for some who have married twice to be far better than those who have married once, as to why in the world Paul does not permit the twice-married to be established in the offices of the church; for it seemed to me that this too was worthy of inquiry —
Something like this: it is possible for someone who has had the misfortune of two marriages, having lost the second while still young, to have lived most self-controlled and pure a life for the rest of his time, even to old age. Who then would not reasonably raise the difficulty: when we are seeking one to rule the church, why is it that we do not appoint such a twice-married man because of the words concerning marriage, but instead we hold on to the once-married man as ruler—
—even one who (as it may happen) has lived with his wife right up to old age, sometimes without ever having exercised himself toward purity and self-control? From what has been said, I come to a stop before the law concerning the bill of divorce, wondering whether, since each of these three offices — overseer, presbyter, deacon — is itself a symbol of realities true to those names, God wished to establish them as symbolic single-married men, so that
the one able to attend to the realities might discover, from the spiritual law, that the man is unworthy of ecclesiastical office whose soul has "not found favor before" her husband, because "some indecent matter" has been found in her, and she has become deserving of the bill of divorce. For once hated a second time by such a man, she is no longer able, once the second bill of divorce is issued, to return to
her former husband. It is likely, then, that other explanations will be found among the many who are far wiser than we are and better able to see into matters of this magnitude—whether concerning the law about the bill of divorce, or concerning the apostolic precepts that forbid twice-married men from ruling the church or presiding in it as men held in special honor. As for us, until better explanations are found, ones able, by the great superiority of the light of
knowledge, to obscure what has been said by us, we have set down what has occurred to us on these topics. And even if we seem to have touched upon matters too deep for our ability with regard to these passages, nonetheless, on account of the wording, this too must be stated: certain of the laws were set down not because they carry equal weight, but rather in accommodation to the weakness of those for whom they were legislated. Something of
this sort, indeed, is indicated in the statement, "Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives"; while what is primary and of greater importance than the law written on account of hardness of heart is indicated in the statement, "yet from the very beginning it was not thus." And in the New Testament too there are certain things legislated analogous to the statement that "Moses, because of your hardness of heart permitted you"
"to divorce your wives." For it is as though it were written, because of our hardness of heart (on account of our weakness), the statement "a woman is better left untouched by a man; yet on account of instances of sexual immorality, each man should keep a wife of his own, and each woman a husband of her own," and the statement "let the husband render to the wife what is owed, and likewise the wife also to the husband." Indeed, he adds concerning these,
"But this I say by way of concession, not of command." But also the statement "a wife is bound for as long a time as her husband lives; but if her husband falls asleep, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, only in the Lord," is spoken by Paul because of our hardness of heart or weakness, to those who are unwilling to be zealous for "the greater gifts" and to become more blessed. Already
Contrary to what is written, some of those who lead the church have permitted a woman to be married "while her husband is living" — acting contrary to what is written (where the phrase runs: "a wife remains bound for as long as her husband is alive," and "So then she will be styled an adulteress if she becomes another man's while her husband lives"), yet not altogether without reason; for it is likely that
this concession was granted by comparison with lesser evils, running counter to what had been legislated and written from the start. But perhaps some bold Jewish man, one who would set himself against the teaching of our Savior, will say that Jesus himself, in saying, "Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery," permitted the wife to be divorced just as Moses did, whom he said had legislated on account of the hard-heartedness of the
people, and he will say that this is the same thing as the matter of sexual immorality, on account of which a wife might reasonably be cast out from her husband — namely, "because he found in her some indecent matter." But it must be said to him that, if a woman convicted of adultery under the law is to be stoned, clearly the "indecent matter" is not understood in that sense; for one is not required, on account of adultery, to write a "bill of divorce"
and to give it "into the hands" of the woman being dismissed. But rather perhaps Moses called any fault of a wife an "indecent matter," which, if it is found by the husband in a wife who does not find favor before her husband, a bill of divorce is written, and the wife is then dismissed "from the house" of the husband. But from the beginning it was not so. After this, our
Savior says, in no way permitting marriages to be dissolved on account of any other fault than sexual immorality alone being found in the wife: "Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery." One might inquire whether, if he commands the wife to be divorced only for this reason, what is to happen if she is not caught in sexual immorality, but, let us say, in sorcery or in the killing
(during her husband's absence) of a child born to them, or in any kind of murder whatsoever. And if she should be found stealing from and plundering or pillaging her husband's house, though not committing sexual immorality, one might ask whether it would be reasonable to cast out such a woman, given that the Savior forbids anyone to divorce his own wife except on the ground of sexual immorality. For in either case something absurd appears —
though I do not know whether it is truly absurd. For to put up with such great sins, which seem to be worse than adultery and fornication, will seem unreasonable; but again, everyone would agree that to act contrary to the intent of the Savior's teaching happens to be impious. I raise the question, then, why it was not said instead, "Let no one divorce his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality," but instead says, "Whoever
divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery." For it is admittedly the case that the one who divorces his wife when she has not committed sexual immorality "makes her" (as far as it lies in him) commit adultery. For if "she will be styled an adulteress while her husband lives, should she become another man's," and by divorcing her he gives her the occasion for a second marriage, clearly he thereby makes her commit adultery. But as for the woman convicted of sorcery or of murder
<or having done something of this kind> [...] whether she has a defense or not, you too might inquire. For a husband can also cause his own wife to become an adulteress for reasons other than the divorce itself — for instance, by permitting her beyond what is proper to do as she wishes, and to descend into intimacy with men she wishes; for often such stumblings occur in wives through the simplicity of their husbands.
But whether or not there is room for a defense for such husbands in such circumstances, you will determine by careful inquiry, and this will also apply to the difficulties we have raised on this topic. And a man who deprives his wife of himself often makes her be made an adulteress, by not fulfilling her desires, even if he does this under the pretense of greater dignity and chastity; and it may well be that this man bears
culpable — insofar as it depends on him — for making her be made an adulteress by not fulfilling her desires, than the man who divorces her apart from a charge of fornication, but on account of poisoning or murder or one of the gravest sins. And just as a woman is an adulteress, even if she seems to be married to a man, while her former husband is still living, so too a man who seems to marry a divorced woman does not marry her (according
to the pronouncement of our Savior) insofar as he commits adultery. After this, the disciples of Christ, considering how many mishaps can occur in marriages, which a husband must bear with, and that on this account either bearing with them he must part with them most harshly, or not bearing with them he transgresses against the words of Christ, say to him that it is more advantageous to take refuge in celibacy, and that this is more expedient than marriage seems to be expedient —
if such is the cause of a man's situation with his wife, marrying does not profit him. In response to this the Savior said to them, teaching us that complete purity is a gift given by God, and that it comes about not only through discipline but is given by God together with many prayers — that not all can receive this teaching, but those to whom it has been given. Then,
since some slander the phrase "those to whom it has been given," as though those desiring to keep themselves pure while unmarried, yet overcome by their desires, had a defense, it must be said that if indeed we believe what is written, why is it that we seize upon "but those to whom it has been given," yet no longer attend to "ask, and it will be given to you," and to what follows it, "for everyone who asks receives"? For if those to whom it has been given can receive
the teaching about being completely pure, let the one who wishes ask, trusting and believing him who says, "ask, and it will be given to you," and let him receive it without doubting concerning "everyone who asks receives." At this point, having arrived here, you would inquire who it is that asks. For no one among those who do not receive, even if he seemed to have asked, actually asked — since it is not permissible to say that "everyone who
asks receives" is a falsehood. Who then is the one who asks, but the one who is persuaded by Jesus when he says, "if you stand praying," "believe that you receive, and you will receive"? And the one who asks must do everything in his power, so that he prays "in spirit," and prays "also with the mind," and remembers "pray without ceasing," and also "he spoke a parable to them about the need for them always to pray and not
from losing heart, saying: "There was a judge in a certain city," and so on. And it is useful for knowing what asking and receiving is, and what "everyone who asks receives" means, and also: "I say to you, even if he refuses to get up and give to him out of friendship, yet because of his persistence, he will get up and give him as much as he needs."
He then adds: "And I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you," and so on. This is a further exhortation, since not everyone makes room for the word, but only those to whom it has been given, toward asking in a manner worthy of receiving; and also: "which of you, if his son asks him for a fish, will hand him a serpent instead of a fish?" and so on. He will therefore give the good
gift — complete purification in celibacy and chastity — God gives to those praying to him "with the whole soul," in faith, and "without ceasing" in supplication.

======== Commentary on Matthew, Book 15 ========

Of the exegetical works of Origen on the Gospel according to Matthew, Book 15. "For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother's womb" and so on, down to "let the one who is able to accept this, accept it" (19:12). Having set forth two interpretations that will arise concerning this passage, prior to the true account of the passage as it appears to us, and having afterward, so far as we are able, overturned them—
so that, as far as what will be said, guarding against every error, if we grasp the true intention of what pertains to the passage, we may live the better, in this way let us come to the matter proposed. For some, supposing—as though it followed from the observed activity of the two bodily castrations—that the third too was bodily, dared to render themselves eunuchs out of fear
toward God, but ignorantly, by a castration of the same kind as the first two, and have subjected themselves to reproach and perhaps even to shame, not only among those alien to the faith, but also among nearly all who show more indulgence to merely human affairs than to one who, out of an imagined fear of God and an unmeasured desire for self-control, has begotten for himself pains and mutilation of the body and whatever else
one might suffer who has given himself over to so great a deed. But others, and indeed the majority, have understood it thus, without examining the manner of the sequence of the words: they have taken the first two, straightforwardly and bodily, to have been spoken by the Savior as indicating nothing more than what is perceptible to the senses, but they have judged that the third was no longer spoken according to the letter, but have supposed that the castration signified in
the third is one that comes from reason, in that, by the will for the kingdom of heaven, having cut off with the most cutting of reasoning the desiring part proper to such things, they have despised the outrages of the body, these no longer being able to conquer a soul that has cut off desire by reason. But it must be known that the former group, having become friends of the letter of the gospel and not having noticed that Jesus spoke these things too in parables
and that they were spoken in spirit, have understood the matters of this passage more consistently than those who confess that the first two castrations were spoken bodily; for they made the third consistent with the first two, not erring as regards consistency among the three, but erring necessarily in that they overlooked the starting point of the passage. For it follows, if the first two are said to be spoken bodily, that the
third too is bodily. But the second group has soundly applied to the third the notion of a cutting off from reason, supposing that thereby was signified the excision of the passionate element from the soul. Yet they have not further considered that it would have been fitting, for such an interpretation, to allegorize the first two castrations also in the same way as the third, or else to make the third consistent with the first two in like manner. If then, in the case of certain other
sayings, not only of the Old Testament but also of the New, it is fitting to say, "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life," this too must be confessed in the case of the matters of the passage before us; for one might say that the letter of the two castrations, kept to, killed those who understood the third in accordance with the first two and dared to say (as concerning
those capable of receiving the word of the Lord to understand it as applying to the fact that, on account of the kingdom of the heavens, they should castrate themselves just as those previously mentioned who had been made eunuchs. And if anyone wishes to take other examples as well of the New Testament having a letter that kills, let him hear, for example's sake, in what way the Savior said to the apostles: "When I sent you without a purse and a bag
and sandals, did you lack anything?" To which is added: "And they said, Nothing. Jesus then said to them: But now let the one who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag, and let the one who does not have one sell his cloak and buy a sword." For if someone, because Jesus said these things, without perceiving the intention of what was said, sells his own perceptible
cloak and buys a murderous sword, as one who has taken such a "sword" and acted contrary to the will of Jesus, having misunderstood his word, will indeed perish—and perhaps will even perish "by the sword." But what sort of sword this is, it is not the present occasion to explain. But also as to "greet no one along the road"—if someone, without examining what Jesus intended
in giving this command, should, as though zealous for the apostolic life, "greet no one along the road," he would appear inhuman <and foolish> to those who observe him behaving so; and they, when they trace the cause of one who has understood it in this way back to the saying on account of which that man thought he should act thus, would be led to hate the word of God, as making those in whom it dwells savage and inhuman.
And taking this as the cause, the one who greets no one along the road might suffer death on the pretext of the letter, the letter itself killing him. And if someone should also gouge out his right eye as being the cause of seeing evil things, or the right hand of his body, or his right foot according to the flesh, he would suffer along with [...] those who are killed on account of the letter,
since he too has remained at the level of the letter, though he ought to ascend to the spirit of what is said. Now others before us did not hesitate, in their own writings, to furnish occasions for some to dare to undergo the third castration on the pretext of the kingdom of heaven, as though it were similar to the previous two. But we, having once understood Christ (the Word of God) "according to the flesh" and according to the letter,
but "now no longer" knowing him so, do not approve of those who suppose they have rightly understood, and who bring upon themselves the third castration also on the pretext of the kingdom of heaven. And we would not have dwelt any longer on the refutation of the one who wishes to take the third castration bodily, just like the previous two, had we not also seen those who dared it and encountered those able to stir a warmer soul (
faithful, indeed, but not rational) to such a daring act. For Sextus says, in his Sentences, a book held by many as reputable: "Every part of the body that persuades you not to be self-controlled, cast away; for it is better to live self-controlled without the part than to live ruinously with the part." And again, proceeding further in the same book, giving occasion for something similar
He says: "You might see men, for the sake of keeping the rest of the body healthy, cutting off and throwing away parts of it; how much better for the sake of self-control?" And Philo too, who is esteemed by intelligent men in many of his treatises on the law of Moses, says in the book which he entitled thus: On the Worse Being Wont to Attack the Better, that "it is better to be made a eunuch
than to rage after unlawful intercourse." But they are not to be trusted, since they have not grasped the intention of the sacred writings concerning these matters. For if self-control is listed among the "fruits of the spirit" along with love and joy and patience and the rest, one ought rather to bear the fruit of self-control and keep the body given by God male, than dare anything else,
so that one might also transgress what is usefully said with respect to the letter: "you shall not mar the appearance of your beard." This is useful as a deterrent for the hot-blooded, but for those younger in faith, of whom one must admit that they have a love of self-control "but not according to knowledge," and the saying "if men fight together, a man with his brother," and
what follows, down to "your eye shall not spare her." For if the hand that seizes a man's testicles is cut off, how much more the one who, through ignorance of the way leading to self-control, has given himself over to such a condition? Let him who is about to dare such a thing consider what he will suffer from those who reproach him and make use against him of "no one who is emasculated and cut off shall enter the assembly
of the Lord," counting him among those cut off in manhood. I do not yet mention what one would suffer from the seeds that (as the sons of physicians say) descend from the head to the male parts, being obstructed at the wrong time, and, in descending through certain veins around the cheeks, by the natural heat of what descends, cause men to grow hair around the chin — hair
of which those who think they must castrate themselves bodily on account of the kingdom of the heavens are also deprived. And what would they suffer — heaviness of head, or dizziness, sometimes reaching even to the ruling faculty and disturbing the imaginative power, causing it to form strange fancies from such matter? But before I come to the exposition of the passages in question, it must be said that, if Marcion had done anything consistent with himself in saying that scripture must not be allegorized, he would also have rejected these passages as not spoken by the Savior,
thinking it necessary either to accept — while also affirming that the Savior spoke these things — that the believer should dare to hand himself over to such things and suffer accordingly, or else, not having reasonably dared such great things, which would result in blasphemy against the Word,
not even to believe that the words are the Savior's, if indeed they are not allegorized. But we, wishing to preserve the sequence of the three kinds of eunuchs, and approving of the tropological reading of the third, will say the same sort of things also about the first two. Eunuchs in the tropical sense would now be called those who are inactive toward sexual matters and do not give themselves over to the lewdness and impurities connected with them, or to
...similar to these. And there are, I think, three differences among those who are inactive with respect to these matters. Some are such by constitution, concerning whom one might say, "There are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb." Others, persuaded by <human> arguments, practice abstinence from sexual matters and from all license connected with that part; yet what produced in them
this resolve and practice and (to call it so) achievement was not a word of God, but human words, whether of those who philosophized among the Greeks or of those "who forbid marriage, and command abstinence from foods" among the heresies. These, it seems to me, are the ones signified in "there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men." But what is worthy of acceptance is if someone, taking up the word
— if someone, taking up the word that lives, is at work, and cuts more keenly than any two-edged blade, and, as the apostle named it, "the sword of the Spirit," should cut out the passionate part of the soul without touching the body, and should do this [...] and, having understood "the kingdom of the heavens" and how greatly it contributes toward inheriting the kingdom of the heavens, the cutting off by the word of the
passionate part of his soul. To such people it would fit — and not, as those suppose who take the passage in a bodily sense — the saying "there are eunuchs who made themselves so on account of the kingdom of the heavens." Great is the capacity to make room for the eunuching that comes from the soul's word, which not all make room for, but those to whom it is given; and it is given to all who ask from
God for the rational sword and who use it as they ought, that they might make eunuchs of themselves on account of the kingdom of the heavens. But if we must also touch on the historical accounts found in the scriptures, together with the elevated interpretation that presents itself to us in connection with them, we will say that there are certain eunuchs of Pharaoh, barren of every good thing, and there are certain eunuchs whose purpose is to build up fallen Jerusalem. Concerning the former, then, it has been written in
Genesis; and of the latter an example is the one who says, "And I was a eunuch to the king. And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king," and so on, down to "and it seemed good before the king, and he sent me." And you too, in reading through the second Ezra, will find the whole passage, and will consider why he was worthy,
having become a eunuch, to be the leader in the rebuilding of the temple of God. For the sons of the Hebrews say that Daniel and the three with him — Ananias, Azariah, Mishael — were made eunuchs in Babylon, in fulfillment of the prophecy spoken to Hezekiah by Isaiah: "They shall take some of your offspring, and make them eunuchs in the house of the king of Babylon." And they say that
concerning these Isaiah also prophesied, saying: "Let not the foreigner who is joined to the Lord say, 'The Lord will surely separate me from his people,'" and so on, down to "better than sons and daughters." It is good, then, with regard to the mystical sense, not to beget children in Babylon, but to be barren toward Babylon, as Daniel was, so that we may beget, having conceived
from the divine Spirit (as that man and those with him did) visions and prophecies. But one must know that whoever wishes to establish the case that there are three bodily kinds of being a eunuch, and to support both what has already been said and those who have taught this in their writings, would find no small number of plausible arguments. We did not wish, however, to set them out, not for the sake of exercise,
laying down statements and then giving the resolution of each, lest we become an occasion for those who do not receive the teaching about eunuch-hood in the way Jesus intends, inclining them to understand "receiving" in a sense other than the one required, and to take it in a bodily way, when instead one ought to be persuaded that, living "by the Spirit" and "walking by the Spirit," the three kinds of being a eunuch too were spoken of spiritually. "Then little children were brought to him," and so on,
up to "and having laid his hands on them he went away from there" (19:13-15). At that time, then, the history that is recorded took place: little children actually were brought to Jesus, since those bringing them wanted him to lay his hands on them and pray. But one must know that there is no time when the soul does not bring little children to Jesus, concerning whom he might say (having received them as a trust from God)
the words, "Behold, I and the children whom God has given me." And of these children, let some be reckoned as infants, and let others be called nurslings, as being still more deficient than the infants; and let our Lord, "out of the mouth" of both, perfect "praise," so that, having perceived such care of his toward us, we may understand the saying, "Out of the mouth of infants and nurslings you have perfected praise."
And one must say that the "children" are those who are fleshly and infants in Christ, of the sort the apostle Paul knew the Corinthians to be, when he said, "And I was not able to speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to fleshly ones, as to infants in Christ." Such children, then, were brought both at that time and are continually brought to Jesus. A sign of the bringing of infants are the many in the church
who are infants and nurslings in Christ, "having need of milk, not of solid food," to whom the one speaking might say (as a nurse cherishing her own children, cherishing them) the words, "I gave you milk to drink, not food, for you were not yet able—indeed you are not even now able." Then, since the evangelists mentioned in connection with this passage record that (as Matthew says)
little children were brought to Jesus, or (as Mark says) "they were bringing children to him," or (as Luke says) "and they were bringing to him even infants"—yet by whom they were brought, or who brought them, all alike have left unstated, leaving it to us to inquire into what was left out. It is worth considering whether such a thing was left out by the three by mere coincidence (since they could have recorded that it was brought to him by the parents, or by
the mothers, or that "their mothers were bringing to him infants" or "children"), or whether they did this by a calculation of knowledge and wisdom, in order to show that angels, coming to Jesus and ministering to him, themselves, seeing with a more divine mind the differences among the children or infants, know which ones must be brought to Jesus, so that, being brought to him, they might have hands laid on them by him—and they know when as well.
...and also which ones it is not fitting, or that for a certain time it is not fitting. For I do not think that such children come to Jesus apart from an angelic dispensation. Now the intention of those who brought the children was, according to Matthew, that Jesus might lay his hands on them and pray; according to Mark, "that he might touch them"; and according to
the one who calls them "infants," Luke, "that he might touch them." For by Jesus' prayer and by his touch, the children and infants — unable to hear what those who are already spiritual hear — are content with the help and with whatever benefit they can receive. For the power of Jesus touches them, once he has merely laid upon them the hands of his own oversight, and no longer does
any of the worse things touch them. Perhaps, too, as regards the literal sense, the intention of those who brought infants and children to him was of this kind: they understood that it was not possible, once Jesus had touched infants or children and had, through that touch, imparted power to them, for any misfortune or demon to touch what Jesus had already touched. And I think that, since many
evil powers have from the beginning busied themselves in various ways with the human soul, plotting against it, for this reason those who brought the children or the infants to the Savior, having already learned his power from earlier experience, did this, so that through the laying on of his hands and through his prayer concerning the children and infants, and through the touch, on the one hand
the worse things might be driven away, and on the other hand a distinct power might come to be present in them, lasting also for what follows, since it is able to prevent contact from hostile powers. The Savior, then, knowing that such a thing was not something trivial and untimely, but salutary for those on whom he laid hands and whom he touched, says to the disciples who were rebuking them and, by rebuking them, preventing the children or infants from being brought to him, the words
"Let the children come, and do not prevent them from coming to me." If, then, what has been recorded about by whom they were brought, or who brought them, makes sense, then, consistently with that, certain outstanding disciples of Jesus might be understood to be holy powers that have been made disciples of the Son of... for it is reasonable that the name of Jesus' disciples should extend even to such beings, so that not only
human beings might be his disciples, but also angels, to whom he appeared, and whoever wishes to believe in him "of every name, not only that which is named in this present age, but also in the age about to come." If, however, someone should regard this as forced, wishing the name of disciples to be assigned to none but human beings, then they would be the ones rebuking those who brought to Jesus the infants and the
children — they would be the simpler among those who undertake to teach the word, whose word reaches only as far as children, giving milk-like nourishment to those who need milk, bringing infants and children to Jesus; for they are not able with a more spiritual word suited to the condition of these ... to persuade ... as one who is able to say, "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish." These, then, bringing
to Jesus infants and children of this sort — that is, those who are infants in faith and still less instructed — those who consider themselves more rational than those simpler teachers, and who for this reason are reckoned disciples of Jesus, before they have learned the truth about such infants and children, rebuke those who teach more simply and who bring such children and infants to Jesus. You will understand this clearly if you attend to
the words, "For consider your calling, brothers: not many wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many well-born; but the foolish things of the world were chosen by God," "the weak things" and "the base things" and "the things that are not, so that he might bring to nothing the things that are." Let someone, then, observe one of those who profess ecclesiastical instruction and offer teaching, bringing forward "the foolish things of the world,"
and "the despised things" and "the base things" [...] and would for this reason themselves be called children and infants, and let him, on seeing this, rebuke — as one acting without judgment — the person who brings such great things as infants and children to the Savior and teacher. And observe whether it is not fitting to refer the matters now under examination to cases of this kind: some brought children so that Jesus might lay his hands on them and pray, while
the disciples, for their part, rebuked those who brought them. The teacher and Savior and Lord might say to those rebuking the children being brought to Jesus: "Let the children come, and do not hinder them from coming to me." Then, urging his disciples, who were already grown men, to condescend to the benefit of the children — so that they might become as children to the children, in order to win the children — let the Savior say
"for the kingdom of the heavens belongs to such as these." For he himself, "though existing in the form of God, did not regard being equal to God as something to be seized," became a child, so that it was said to the Magi by Herod concerning him, "Go and search carefully concerning the child," and it was said by Matthew that "the star which they had seen at its rising kept going before
them, until it came and stood over the place where the child was." And a little later: "having come," he says, "into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother." And the angel who appeared to Joseph called our Savior, so great and so exalted as he is, a "child," saying, "Awake, and take with you the child and his mother, fleeing into Egypt." And again
after Herod had died, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream in Egypt, saying: "Awake, and take with you the child and his mother." Jesus, then, not only according to the history but also according to the higher sense, humbled "himself as a child," so that one might say — just as "learn from me, since I am gentle and humble of
heart" — so too "learn from me," since he had become as a child. How, I say, should one understand the saying [...] "of such indeed is the kingdom of the heavens" — of such as the children are, concerning whom he does not permit the disciples to rebuke those who bring them? And Paul too, as one who understood that the kingdom of the heavens indeed belongs to such as these, though able to be "burdensome"
...to be an apostle of Christ, became an infant, and like a nurse cherishing her own child, speaking words as a child for the child's sake. These things must be listened to carefully, so that we may not, as though we were great, look down through a mere semblance of wisdom and of having advanced beyond, on the little ones in the church, but rather, knowing how it has been said, that the kingdom of the heavens belongs indeed to such as these, let us become such,
so that through us too the children may be saved. Not only by permitting the children to be brought to Jesus, nor only by not forbidding them to be brought to him, but by ourselves also becoming children along with the children, in humility, let us do the will of the Savior, so that, the children being saved through us as well, since we have become such, we, having humbled ourselves, may be exalted by God; and
for something of this sort can be understood with reference to ‘everyone who humbles himself will be exalted,’ especially since it is written above, ‘whoever, then, humbles himself as this child, this one is the greater in the kingdom of heaven.’ Let these remarks, then, be useful against the disciples who rebuke those who bring children to Jesus. But let it be known concerning the children,
even if, as children, they cannot follow everything that is said, that Jesus laid his hands on the children, and having laid them on, went away from there. And having left power in the children through his touch, he went away from the children, [...] since they were not able, like the [...] disciples, to follow Jesus. And if the gospel sayings too are ‘oracles of the Lord,’ and ‘pure oracles,’
and ‘silver refined,’ ‘tested,’ sent forth ‘to the earth,’ and precisely ‘purified’ and ‘sevenfold,’ there ought to be a reasonable cause why Matthew, in setting forth the matters concerning this passage, stated two purposes for which the children were brought to Jesus, but no longer adds the next two to these. For the children were brought, no longer only that
Jesus might lay his hands on them, but in addition to this, that he might also pray. And it is written <after this> that, having laid his hands on them, he went away from there — for it did not add ‘and having prayed’ (for it could have been said: ‘and having laid his hands on them and having prayed, he went away from there’). See, then, whether you can say that the prayer of Jesus is reserved for the greater among the children,
those who are able to receive both the laying on of his hands upon them and the prayer offered on their behalf to the Father, while for the smaller children it suffices to speak of the laying on of his hands. As for what has been given concerning the saying that the kingdom of the heavens belongs indeed to such as these, which exhorts even the wisest not to be arrogant toward the little ones in the church, nor to despise
the children and infants in Christ, it is useful to take up from the Gospel according to Luke the saying, ‘Amen I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child,’ — he who is not a child but a man, who has done away with ‘the things of the infant,’ yet becomes to the children ‘as a child,’ saying to them: ‘I was not able to speak to you as to spiritual people but as to fleshly,’
as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food.' The whole context in Luke, then, is as follows: 'And they were bringing infants to him also, that he might touch them,' and so on, up to 'whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.' And Mark too set out almost the very same words, especially
the last part, in the same way. 'And behold, one came up and said to him, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?' and so on, up to 'but many will be first who are last, and last who are first' (19:16-30). Now it is written in the Psalms, as though a person were able to do good: 'Who is the one who wants life, who loves to see good days? Stop your tongue'
from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit; turn away from evil and do good.' But here the Savior, to the one who said, 'What good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?' said — since the good in the proper sense is referred to none but God — 'Why do you ask me about the good? One is good.' One must know,
that here 'good' is applied in the proper sense to God alone, but elsewhere it is used loosely, both of good works and of a good man and of a good tree, and you would find 'good' applied to still many other things besides. One must not, then, suppose that 'do good' is at odds with 'Why do you ask me about the good? One
is good' — said to the one who asked and said, 'Teacher, what good thing shall I do?' Now Matthew recorded it as though the Savior had been asked about a good deed, in the question 'What good thing shall I do?' But Mark and Luke say the Savior said: 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God,' as though the term 'good,' properly assigned,
could not also be assigned to God and to someone else at once; for God is not good in that sense alone. In this way one might say that a good man brings forth good things from his heart's good treasury. And the Savior, just as he is 'the image of the invisible God,' so too is he 'the image of his goodness'; and <in the case of> everything lesser to which
the word 'good' is applied, what is said of it in itself has a different meaning — since, while toward the Father he is 'image' of 'goodness,' toward everything else he is what the Father's goodness is toward him. Or rather, one can see a closer analogy in the goodness of God toward the Savior, who is the image 'of his goodness,' than in that of
the Savior toward a good man and a good deed and a good tree. For the surpassing greatness toward the lesser goods is greater in the Savior — inasmuch as he is 'image,' the image in the Savior of God himself — than the surpassing greatness of God, who is good, toward the Savior who said, that the Father who had sent him was greater than he, being, toward others too, an image
"of the goodness" of God. Perhaps it holds the intention of what was said in response to "What good thing shall I do?" (for it was said in response to this: "Why do you ask me about the good? One is good") -- namely: "When you have done all that was commanded you, you ought to say, 'We are worthless servants; we have done what we were obligated to do.'" For if we do all that has been commanded, not even so...
(as regards the wording here) have we done anything good; for if the things we do were good, it would not have been said that, upon having done what was commanded, we ought to say "We are worthless servants." But it is possible to call them good in a loose sense, similarly to "Turn away from evil and do good." I think, however, that the one who does what is commanded in "Turn away from evil
and do good" does do good in comparison with what is accomplished by the rest of mankind, but not [good] in comparison with what is truly [...] good. Just as "no one living shall be justified before God" -- every human righteousness being exposed as not righteousness once the righteousness of God is beheld -- so too no one shall be reckoned good before the good God, who
would be called good only in comparison with lesser things, by comparison with those. But someone might say that the Savior, knowing the disposition and purpose of the questioner, which fell quite short of doing the good attainable by human beings, said to him (when he asked, "What good thing shall I do?") "Why do you ask me about the good?" -- as though he were saying: since you are not prepared for what would be said concerning
the good, do you ask what good you must do to inherit eternal life? Then he teaches that there is truly one who is good, concerning whom the law also says, "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord." For in the proper sense this one is Savior, in the proper sense Lord, and in the proper sense good, and I am persuaded that he does everything as good does. But you will ask how
even the things not understood breathe of his goodness -- things slandered, so far as it lies with those who accuse the God of the law of things it would perhaps not even be easy to say about a human being. For I am persuaded that it belongs to the goodness of God to do "I will kill" no less than "and I will make alive," and likewise "I will strike" no less than "and I will heal."
But if it is also said that "he himself makes one suffer pain," one must know that often a physician too makes one suffer pain, and when God has made someone suffer pain, "he restores again." So too it is out of goodness that those whom he struck "he struck"; for "as sons" being disciplined, "God deals with" them -- "for what son is there whom a father does not discipline?" But also "all discipline for the present does not seem to be a matter of joy
but of grief, but afterward it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those trained by it." Therefore, just as God struck, so too he healed; for it is true that "he struck, and his hands healed." And even though what is about to be said is paradoxical, nevertheless it will be said: it belongs to a good God that even that which is called his wrath -- which does a saving work by rebuking --
and his so-called "wrath" (since he is a good God) disciplines, in order that it may correct. Much could be said, to those capable of not being harmed by it, about the goodness of God and "the abundance of his kindness," which he reasonably hid "from those who fear" him, so that they might not, by despising "the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience,"
in accordance with their own "hardness and unrepentant heart," store up for themselves a greater "wrath" than they would have stored up if "the abundance of" God's "kindness" had been kept hidden from them. Concerning, then, who the good one is, and toward what good I should act, let what we have been able to see on the point be said. Next it is possible to consider how it is said, "But if
you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." In this, notice that it is to one who is still outside life that he says, when he inquires about the good, "If you wish to enter into life." Here indeed I ask in how many senses one can understand "being outside life" and "entering into life." Perhaps, then, in one sense he is outside
life who is outside the one who said, "I am the life," and is a stranger to him; but in another sense, everyone on earth (even if he is most righteous) can be in the shadow of life, saying, "The Lord Christ is the breath of our countenance; we said that in his shadow we would live among the nations," yet not in
life itself, insofar as he is clothed with a body of death and says, "Who will deliver me from this body of death?" and, "sitting in a region and shadow of death," and not yet having come to the land of the living. For indeed life was hidden not only from the wicked, but even from Paul himself, still on earth, and from the apostles, in
God. He says, at any rate: "Your life is hidden with Christ in God; when Christ is manifested, who is our life, then you also will be manifested with him in glory." You will keep in view all that concerns "within" and "without," so that you may gather what corresponds to "If you wish to enter into life" — for example: "Ask therefore of the
Lord of the harvest, that he send out workers into his harvest" — for you will ask: send out from where? And if indeed the workers are here, sent out into the Lord's harvest, they are outside the place from which they were sent out, and having done well the works of the harvest, they will enter into life, having been cleansed "from dead works," but doing works opposite to those, living works,
and no longer speaking dead things but speaking, in accordance with the living "word" "of God," living and effective words. And it is analogous in this way — to dead words and to words of eternal life — opposite... to the reasonings that accuse, when, "the reasonings either accusing or even defending," on the day of judgment, that one will be saved whose reasonings defend him, but he will perish whose reasonings become his accusers.
If, then, we too — let us listen to Jesus saying, "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments," and in proportion to our keeping of the commandments we will enter into life, coming to be either in its innermost and most blessed parts, or <in its middle parts, or> wherever the keeping of the lesser and dimmer commandments carries us within life.
But he who heard "keep the commandments" says, "Which ones?" — so that we may learn which commandments Jesus most wants us to keep. For to the question "which ones?" he said: "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother," and "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." And perhaps these are sufficient, so to call it, for entering into
a certain starting-point of life, though they are not sufficient <to bring someone> into perfection — these and things similar to them — so that one who is guilty of even one of these commandments is not able even to enter the starting-point of life. One who wishes to enter even the starting-point of life, then, must be pure from adultery and murder and every kind of theft. For as an adulterer and
a murderer will not enter into life, so neither will a thief. And many of those said to believe in Christ are found guilty of this very sin when examined in the transactions of life and in the monetary dealings entrusted to them and in the middling trades that they practice, as not being pure of theft. But not only will the thief not enter into life, but also
his partner and the one who runs along with him. For in Isaiah it is written: "Partners of thieves, loving gifts," and in the forty-ninth Psalm the one who is convicted by "if you saw a thief, you ran along with him" (as was said first) and by "you set your portion with adulterers" is forbidden to recount "the ordinances" of God and to take up his covenant upon his own lips.
And <notice that> he did not call such a person either a thief or an adulterer, but one who runs along with a thief, and one who sets his own "portion" "with adulterers." But one who is going to enter into life must not even bear false witness, and one who does not fulfill the commandment that says, "Honor your father and mother," is likewise cast out from life. Yet to hold fast to these
commandments is perhaps not very difficult; but it is a greater work, as it were, and useful to those who have been introduced by the earlier <commandments> into it, to fulfill "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" — since, according to the apostle, "you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal," and any other commandment, is summed up in this saying: "you shall love your neighbor
as yourself." <And if every commandment "is summed up in this saying, 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself,'"> and the one who fulfills every commandment is perfect, then clearly the one who has fulfilled the commandment "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" would be perfect too. But if this man is perfect, one might ask how, when the young man said these things,
all these — what do I still lack? The savior answered as though the one who had done all these things was not yet perfect, and as though agreeing that he had done all these things, said: if you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me. Let us then attend to whether we can meet the passage in this way,
namely, that perhaps "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" can be suspected not to have been included here by the savior, but to have been added by someone who did not grasp the precision of what was being said. And what will lend support to the suspicion that "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" was added here is the presentation of the similar passages in Mark and in Luke, neither of whom has added
to the commandments recounted by Jesus at this point in the passage the words "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." And indeed the one who maintains that the commandment "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" was inserted out of place will say that, if the same things had been recorded in different words by all three, Jesus would not have said to the man who professed to have fulfilled the commandment "you shall love your neighbor as yourself"
"one thing you still lack" or "one thing is still lacking to you" — especially if, according to the apostle, "you shall not murder" and the rest, and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying: "you shall love your neighbor as yourself." But since, according to Mark also, Jesus, "looking upon" this rich man (who had said, "all these
I have kept from my youth") "loved him," it seems he agreed that the man who had professed to have done what he professed had indeed fulfilled it. For gazing intently into the man's mind, he saw a man who in good conscience professed to have fulfilled the commandments set before him; and it would not have been the case, had "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" also been spoken among the other commandments, that Mark and Luke would have omitted this commandment, which is the most comprehensive and outstanding of all — unless,
that is, someone should say that the things written are similar, but were not spoken about the same occasion. But how, even so, could Jesus have said to the man who had not yet fulfilled the commandment "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" in addition to the others he had professed to have fulfilled, "if you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor," and so on? And
if there were not also, on many other points, disagreement of the copies with one another, such that all the copies of Matthew do not agree with each other, and likewise also the remaining gospels, then perhaps someone might be thought impious who suspected that the commandment "you shall love your neighbor as yourself," not spoken by the savior to the rich man, had been inserted here out of place. But as it is, it is clear
that great has become the divergence among the copies, whether from the carelessness of certain scribes, or from some wicked audacity in correcting what is written, or from those who neglect to check over what they have copied, or even from those who, in the process of correction, add or remove what seems right to themselves. Now the divergence among the copies of the Old Testament we have, by God's gift, found a way to heal, using as a criterion the
...the remaining editions. For concerning the passages disputed among the Seventy because of the disagreement among the copies, having made our judgment from the remaining editions, we have kept whatever agrees with them; and some things we have marked with an obelus as not lying in the Hebrew (not daring to remove them entirely), and some we have added with asterisks, so that it might be clear that they do not lie among the Seventy but
we have added them from the remaining editions in agreement with the Hebrew. Let whoever wishes accept them, and let whoever is troubled by such a thing do as he wishes about accepting them or not. Whoever, then, does not wish the commandment "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" to have been thrown in here, but wants it to have truly been spoken by the Lord at that later point, after the earlier commandments, will say that it was
gently and without hostility that our Savior, wishing to expose that rich man as not speaking the truth when he claimed to have kept the commandment "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" as well, said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor"; for by this you will be shown to be telling the truth about having kept the commandment "you shall love your neighbor as yourself."
But if someone, looking to human weakness and to how hard it would be for anyone to do such a thing for the sake of perfection before God, disdains the literal sense and turns to allegory, he will be put to shame by certain Greek accounts, in which, because of the wisdom current among the Greeks, certain people are recorded to have done what is here said by the Savior to the rich man. For Crates
the Theban, having chosen, for the freedom of his soul, to set himself before the Greeks as an example of a frugal life and (as he supposed) a blessed one, needing nothing of this world, is said to have sold his whole estate and given it as a gift to the people of Thebes, saying as well, "Today Crates sets Crates free." If, then, through Greek wisdom and teachings that free the soul of man,
someone has done such a thing, how much more possible is it for someone to do such a thing who is striving to receive the perfection of Christ within himself? And if anyone wishes also to be persuaded from the divine scripture that such a thing is possible, let him hear the accounts given by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles about those who were urged on by the power at work among the apostles
to believe and to live perfectly according to the word of Jesus. The words run thus: "And all who believed held everything jointly, together," and so on, down to "praising God and enjoying favor with the whole people." And a little further on it is again written in the same book that "of the multitude of those who believed, there was one heart
and one soul," and so on, down to "he brought the money and laid it at the feet of the apostles." Then follows, next to this, the account of Ananias and Sapphira, who, after selling their "property," kept back part "of the price" and laid down at the apostles' feet not the whole but a part, and on that account suffered the things recorded, as punishment for sin.
For they deserved, by divine oversight, to receive here the penalty for their sin on account of the embezzlement, so that they might depart from this life in a purer state, having been purified by the discipline that met them in a common death, because they had both believed and had laid "a certain portion at the feet of the apostles." It seems to me that Ananias, "hearing these words," was so severely punished through being tested
that he even expired, as Peter's words reached his soul. And we should not suppose that it was Peter who killed Ananias here, but rather that the man could not bear the severity of Peter's saying to him, "Why has Satan filled your heart?" and what follows, up to "and great fear came upon all who heard it." It is likely that, in response to
the account concerning Ananias, in which we offered a defense on Peter's behalf, someone will raise an objection on account of Sapphira, since she "came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter answered her, saying, Did you sell the land for so much? And when she said, For so much, Peter said to her: the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who buried your husband are at the door, and
they will carry you out." "at his feet, and she expired." But it might be said that she too, being reproved and weighed down in soul — partly by the rebuke concerning her sin, partly by the calamity concerning her husband, and partly by grief before God — expired, Peter having foreseen in the Spirit what was going to befall
her. All this we have said because we wish to establish that it is possible for one who wishes to become perfect to be persuaded by Jesus when he says, "Go, sell your possessions" ... and I suppose also that, among those possessing the marks characteristic of a bishop, it was the whole task to urge on those who were both able and persuaded by the exhortation, and, by providing for them out of the common fund the means for the journey, and
to call others to this as well; for it would have become a kind of image of the life of harmony among believers, after the manner of the apostles. One might then consequently ask: if the perfect person is one who possesses all the virtues and no longer does anything proceeding from vice, how could a person become perfect by selling what he possesses and giving it to the poor? For granted that someone has done
this, how, in turn, could he become free of anger all at once, if it should happen that he is prone to fall into anger? And how could he be free of grief and superior to anything whatsoever that might occur capable of provoking grief? And how will he be entirely outside the fear of pains or death or whatever else is able to frighten a soul that is still not yet fully perfected? And in what manner will the one who has sold
his possessions and distributed them to the poor be outside every desire? For someone might say that it is possible, at the very moment of giving away all his possessions, that he could, having undergone some human experience on account of poverty, repent of what he had dared to do and desire the acquisition of similar property again. And if what is called pleasure, being an irrational elation of the soul, is itself a passion, how could anyone at the same time
...and all his possessions be lost and he distribute to the poor, and at the same time be freed from being irrationally puffed up? One might add to the difficulty that: how can someone, from having sold his possessions and distributed them to the poor, become wise and receive the wisdom of God, so as to give an account to everyone who asks him about what is hidden
among the things entrusted, and about what is said hiddenly in the sacred scriptures? But observe that the difficulty is general, that is, genuine and not easily resolved. For if we say that someone has become perfect on this ground alone, even if he has not taken up what we have set forth, we will fall into absurdity, saying that someone is at once both perfect and sinful (for the irritable person is a sinner, and
so is the one who grieves with the grief of the world, and the one who fears hardships or death, and the one who desires things that are absent, and the one whose soul is irrationally puffed up as though over goods that are not goods). Or if we say that, as soon as someone sells his property and distributes it to the poor, he has, as though seized by God, taken up all the virtues and put away all vice, we would be speaking, faithfully
(to put it more commonly), but I do not know whether truly; and perhaps those who hear such a solution offered to the difficulty will laugh at us for not speaking sensibly. Someone would then seem to speak more sensibly who, keeping to the wording and in no way giving it a figurative interpretation, responds in this way: as a believer, yes—but whether he also understands, in a manner worthy of the passage, the things
that are said, or not, you yourself will judge. He will say, then, that if the one who shares with the poor is helped toward his own salvation by their prayer, receiving, in exchange for the abundance in bodily things that he supplies to those who lack them, an abundance in spiritual things for his own spiritual deficiency (as the apostle hinted in the second letter to the Corinthians), who else could experience this and be helped with great
help, since God listens to the prayers of so many poor people who have found rest—among whom there might perhaps be some similar to the apostles, or only slightly inferior to them, poor in bodily things as they were, but rich in spiritual things? This man, then, who takes on poverty in exchange for wealth in order to become perfect (persuaded by the words of Jesus), would be helped all at once, just as
the apostles of Christ also were, toward becoming wise in Christ, and courageous, and just, and self-controlled, and free from every passion. And the one defending it in this way will say that it is not necessary to understand this as happening on the very day that the man who sold his possessions and distributed them to the poor encountered it, but perhaps that from that day the divine visitation will begin to lead
him toward such things—I mean the praiseworthy freedom from passion and all virtue. And "advancing," like Isaac, because of the help from God toward him in Christ, he will become "greater," "until," growing, he becomes "exceedingly, exceedingly great" in every virtue, all vice having been wiped away from his soul. And the one who has offered this account will not be compelled
to say that it is by this very thing that he becomes perfect <, because he gave what he had to the poor,> while sinning in the other respects. But another interpreter (I do not know whether he is flourishing in faith <and> in the fancy of crossing over into prudence, nor do I know whether he too has sought and found, in these places, thoughts worthy of God), abandoning the literal sense, will ascend to tropology
and will say that what belongs to each person is what follows him after his departure, as things that accompany him after death — for the just a good possession, but for the base the opposite. Here, then, he will say that the rich man who has many possessions is a symbol of one who has acquired many base things, among which can be both love of wealth and love of glory and other earthly matters that have filled
his soul with blameworthy wealth. Since, then, it is possible that such a rich man abstains from certain base things, such as adultery and murder and theft and false witness, and renders his duties to his parents with a certain honor, and is even kindly toward his neighbor, yet not perfect, the Savior symbolically commands such a person to sell off the wretched possessions
<all of them> and, as it were, hand them over to the powers that had been at work producing them, powers that are impoverished of every good thing and therefore do not withstand the threat, according to what is written: “but the poor man does not withstand a threat.” But I know well that such a rendering will seem very forced, resolving — not ignobly — the difficulties raised concerning perfection, yet not quite persuading one to understand the man who lays this aside
as laying aside vice, and selling off the possession that comes from vice, and giving it to the poor. <But I will speak> as one who has, on this point, already anticipated the difficulty: the one who holds this view will say that the sinner has been filled with spirits in proportion to his sins — for instance, if he is a fornicator, with what is called in the prophets the spirit of fornication; if he is wrathful, with the spirit of wrath; and likewise if he is a slanderer, with the spirit of slander.
These, then, are the possessions such a person has acquired, being base and having become, through participation in the worse spirits, more intricate than Typhon. And just as he acquired them by purchasing them with a will that yielded to base things, so he might sell them off <and give them> to whomever this reasoning intends by “the poor,” through obeying Jesus; for just as “the peace” of the apostles returns to them, unless
the one who hears “peace to you” happens to be a “son of peace,” so too fornication and all sins would return to the poor who are the causes of the sins, and one need not doubt that the one who thus sells all the possessions he has rendered and gives to the poor becomes perfect <at once>. But if the possessions are rendered over a long time and much time is needed
in order to give them to those we have called the poor, nothing would prevent our argument — giving over time, in proportion to what has been rendered to the poor — from allowing the one who does this to become perfect. And clearly the one who does these things will have treasure in heaven, himself becoming heavenly; for “as is” the earthy man (the wicked one, that is), “such also are the earthy,” and “as is the heavenly” (that is,
the Christ), such also are the heavenly ones.” In his own portion of heaven, then, the one who wishes to become perfect, and who sells all his possessions and gives to the poor, will have a treasure. But do not suppose that so great a man could be found among those who are rich as regards worldly affairs. For which of them has set aside the love of wealth and — if I may call it so — the love of worldly adornment? And who has entirely
set aside the spirit of vainglory, so as to make room in his own heaven for a treasure of the glory of God and of the wealth that is in every word and all the wisdom of God? And who has set aside the spirit of desire and of fear and of pleasure and of anger? For it is a welcome thing, in the case of the apostles and those like them, for one who examines matters truth-lovingly to declare
such things. But this man is also able to follow Jesus — he who, as we have said, has sold everything and has a treasure in heaven; for he is not dragged about by any wretched possession, so that he might fail to follow Jesus. Next after this it is said that when the young man heard this word he went away grieved; for he had many possessions. And you will see, as regards
the higher sense, in what manner we hold fast, hard to tear away, to the belief that wealth is a good thing, or the glory here below — indeed we would rather, since we love desire, obtain the very things wrongly desired than be rid of desire, and would rather not fall into what we imagine to be fearful things than lay aside, in the fear of God, the fear that is our enemy. But no elder is here brought forward as one who stands firm,
nor a man who has done away with ‘the things of the infant,’ but a young man who, having heard the word, went away grieved. For such was he in soul; and therefore, having left Jesus, he went away (for ‘he went away’ is said in reproach), and he went away grieved with the grief ‘of the world,’ which works out ‘death.’ For he had many possessions which he loved, loving anger and grief (for this reason
he went away grieved), and whatever things born of vice had gained mastery over his soul. If, however, you were to remain with the historical sense, according to one of the interpretations already given, you would find this young man half praiseworthy and half blameworthy. On the one hand, he did not commit adultery, nor murder, nor theft, nor false witness, but even while still young he honored his father
and his mother, and he was grieved at the words of Jesus that laid down perfection and promised it to him, if he should sell his possessions — there was something noble in him. But in that he went away from Jesus grieved on account of his possessions, when he ought rather to have rejoiced, since in place of them he was about to have treasure in heaven, and by following Jesus to walk in the footsteps of the Son of God,
he was blameworthy. Now when he had gone away, Jesus said to his disciples: Truly I say to you, that a rich man will enter the kingdom of heaven with difficulty. On this we must observe the precision of the Savior’s recorded words. For he did not say that a rich man will not enter the kingdom of heaven — since if he had said this, he would have entirely shut out
rich man from the kingdom of heaven. He says that a rich man will enter with difficulty, showing the difficulty of the rich man's salvation, but not its impossibility [...] , which, taken at the literal level, seems on its own to have some reasonable sense, since rich men are able, with difficulty, to resist the passions and sins and not be entirely captured by them. But if the rich man is understood tropologically,
then you will inquire how, in that sense too, he will enter the kingdom of heaven with difficulty. The difficulty of the entrance of the rich man, understood in either way, into salvation is illustrated by the parable, in that it is more feasible for a camel to pass through a needle's eye than it is for one who is rich to pass into the kingdom of heaven. In this parable the rich man is compared to a camel, not only because of the uncleanness of the animal,
as the law taught, but also because of its whole crookedness, while the kingdom of heaven is compared to the eye of a needle, to represent how very narrow, and to an extreme degree constricted, is the entrance into the kingdom of heaven for either kind of rich man. And it shows that, on its own, it is impossible for the camel to enter through the eye of a needle, but possible insofar as it concerns God,
it depends on God, so also the rich man, insofar as it depends on himself, cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. But since all things are possible for God, this too is possible for him, by an ineffable power, either by thinning the thickness of the wicked man or by making the narrowness of the entrance passable for him. For that he took the eye of the needle and the camel as an illustration of the rich man entering the kingdom of
heaven with difficulty, and not of its impossibility, is clear from what was said to the disciples (when they said, "Who then can be saved?"): this is impossible among men, but with God all things are possible. Therefore it is also possible for the camel to enter through the eye of a needle. But it is not possible among men; but with
God it is. So too the rich man can enter the kingdom of God. But the means by which God would make such things possible, he himself would know, and his Christ, and whoever his Son reveals it to. Now the one who has advanced far in wisdom and reason might venture further, even into a fuller explanation about the needle and
its eye itself. But we will set forth only this much: that there are certain things done in the Law that require the craft of a needle-worker and a needle, so that one may, according to the wisdom of God, carry out the works of the craft he has taken up. As, then, the works of the needle-worker and that needle itself might be understood, so too what is said here will be understood — matters which to state and clarify now
is perhaps beyond us, and perhaps would also, for one who knew them, involve a great and untimely digression. And since two things are set before us — the camel entering through the eye of a needle, and the rich man entering the kingdom of God — he says the former is easier. And you will inquire whether, among men, one who becomes a camel entering through the eye of a needle is different from the rich man (who cannot
(impossible for men, but possible with God) entering into the kingdom of God; and so too with the camel and the eye of the needle, whatever thing might be found to be a camel and whatever might be understood to be the eye of a needle, it will enter through it; because this too is impossible for men, but with God it is possible. But if these things point to and set forth
certain final mysteries, leading toward some end by paths that are possible only to God, or not, let whoever is able examine it. Next we may see what follows concerning the passage: "Then Peter answered and said to him: Behold, we have left everything and followed you; what then will there be for us?" And of these words, one person will keep to the letter, while another
will set aside the sense of the wording as not being lofty, and will read it tropologically. Now the one who stands by the letter will say something of this kind: just as, in the case of giving, God, accepting not the thing given but the giver's intention, judges rightly and accepts more readily the one who has given the lesser amount with a more perfect intention than the one who has given the greater amount out of greater means but with a lesser disposition (as is clear from what has
been recorded concerning the great gift of the rich and the two small coins which the widow, out of her poverty, threw into the treasury). So too with those who, out of love for the divine, have left behind what they possessed, so that they might follow the Christ of God without distraction, doing everything according to his word — by no means does it follow that the one who has left the greater amount is always more acceptable than
the one who has left the lesser amount, especially when it happens that someone has left the lesser things with his whole soul, in comparison with one who merely seems to have despised the greater things. If, then, Peter, together with his brother Andrew, left small and cheap things, when both of them, on hearing "Come after me, and fishers of men I will make you," "immediately left their nets and followed him," this has not been reckoned as small
by God, who perceived that they did this out of such a disposition that, even if they had possessed many possessions and very great property, they would not have been held back by them, nor would their impulse to follow Jesus have been hindered. And, I think, taking courage in his intention rather than in the substance of what he had left behind, Peter spoke boldly and said to Jesus, "Behold, we have left everything and followed
you; what then will there be for us?" It is reasonable to suppose that he had left behind not only nets but also a house and a wife, whose mother, when Jesus came near, was freed from her fever; and one might further conjecture that he could also have left children behind, and it is not impossible that he had left some small property as well. Something great, then, is indicated concerning Peter and his brother, since
on hearing "Come after me, and fishers of men I will make you," without any delay, "immediately, leaving their nets, they followed him," not imitating the one who said, "but first allow me to go to my house and take leave of those in my house," nor doing anything like the one who says, "allow me first to go away and bury my father." And notice
...carefully, that having been struck in a notable way by the command of Jesus and by his promise, and having believed that, leaving behind a small fishing trade, they were about to catch men for salvation, and as if wounded by devotion to Jesus and by the loving service he had promised them, that they would hunt men, "immediately leaving their nets" and, as it were, forgetting the things at home, "they followed him,"
so that it was fitting for Peter, on the strength of that very impulse, to speak with dignity and to say what has just been quoted. At the same time it should be observed that Peter said this after having taken note of the saying spoken by Jesus: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me," and after having also observed
the young man who heard this and went away grieving, since he had preferred his many possessions on earth to becoming perfect before God, and after having understood as well how hard a thing it is for one who is rich to pass into the kingdom of the heavens — as one who himself was doing no easy thing in having left everything and followed the Savior — he spoke the words now before us. For this reason also,
to Peter, who had spoken boldly, the Savior responds with the great promise that follows, concerning Peter's being destined to become one of the judges of Israel. But someone who regards the wording as not sufficient to persuade a hearer of great capacity — since other wordings of Scripture as well possess their dignity in the higher sense — will say something of this sort: that the very statement, "We have left everything and"
"followed you," when only a small net and a poor household and a life of toil in poverty were left behind, is not at all a great thing, nor has it been spoken worthily of so great a disciple — the one to whom "flesh and blood did not reveal" that Jesus was "the Anointed One, God's living Son," "but rather his Father who dwells in the heavens," and to whom it was said, "You are"
"Peter, and upon this rock I will raise up my church, and Hades' gates shall not overpower it." But the considerations previously set forth for the exposition of "Go, sell your possessions" and the rest are useful and true and apply to the matter now before us. For Peter left behind everything on account of which he had been a sinner, and on account of which he had said, "Depart from me,"
"Lord, for I am a sinful man," and it was great praise for him, now grown confident that he would sin no more, to say: "We have left everything," and not only did we leave behind the worse things, but we also followed you. And the statement "we followed you" can be equivalent to: having enjoyed from the Father — whoever you are, just as Peter did, in every respect — and that you are righteousness, whoever you are, and
that you are righteousness — we followed you inasmuch as you are righteousness; and likewise inasmuch as you are sanctification, and inasmuch as you are wisdom, and inasmuch as you are peace, and inasmuch as you are truth, and inasmuch as you are the way that leads to God, and inasmuch as you are true life. And so, like an athlete who, having won after the contest, inquires of the judge of the games — supposing he does not happen to know the prizes at stake in the contest — inquires
of the Savior, speaking with the boldness that comes from noble deeds, saying, "What then shall we have?" And if we too wish to grasp for ourselves what was said to Peter regarding his question, let us likewise abandon everything, no longer holding fast to possession and its activity, and let us follow the word of God, so that he may say to us, and to all who have followed
him, what follows, which runs thus: "And Jesus said to them, Amen I say to you, that we who have followed me," and so on. These words themselves, taken more simply, contain a certain exhortation to abandon one's possessions, and another meaning besides this one, deeper. The one, then, who interprets the passage of the Gospel literally will say something like this: the word did not say that all
did the word say followed Jesus; rather, it named those who were the apostles at that time, and those who, like them, followed him with steadfast persistence, calling them "those who followed him"; and he indicated the later ones by the phrase "and everyone who has left brothers or sisters," and so on. But someone will overturn this as too forced an account of "following," saying that "following" is spoken of all in the phrase "Whoever
does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy to be my disciple." Those, then, who have followed the Savior will be seated upon twelve thrones, there to judge Israel's twelve tribes. And they will receive this authority at the resurrection of the dead; for this is the regeneration, being a certain new genesis, when a new heaven, a certain new genesis
being, when a new heaven and a new earth are established for those who have renewed themselves, and a new covenant is handed down, and its cup. Now the prelude of that regeneration is what is called by Paul the "washing of regeneration," and the mystery of that newness is what follows the washing of regeneration in the phrase "renewal of the Spirit." And perhaps, too, with regard to
birth, "no one is pure from defilement, not even if his life should be a single day," because of the mystery concerning birth, in view of which each of those who have come into being might say what was spoken by David in the fiftieth psalm, which runs thus: "In iniquities I was conceived, and in sins my mother craved for me." But according to the regeneration that comes from the
washing, everyone born "from above," "of water and Spirit," is "pure from defilement" — pure, if I may be so bold as to say it, "through a mirror" and "in a riddle." But according to the other regeneration, when the Son of Man sits upon the throne of his glory, everyone who has arrived at that regeneration in Christ is most pure "from defilement," and sees "face to face,"
and he himself, arriving at this "through the washing of regeneration" — understand how John, who baptizes "in water" "unto repentance," says concerning the Savior, "He himself will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire." In the regeneration that comes through washing, then, we were buried together with Christ; for "we were buried with him," according to the Apostle, "through baptism." But in the regeneration that comes through fire and
by the regeneration of the washing of the Spirit we become conformed to “the body of glory” of Christ, who sits upon his throne of glory, we too sitting upon twelve thrones, if indeed, having left all things (whichever way [...] or rather in the second sense) we have followed Christ. Then, when the Son of Man sits upon his throne of glory, the prophecy that says, “The Lord said to my Lord,” is fulfilled.
‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’ And then ‘he must reign, until he puts all his enemies under his feet,’ until ‘the last enemy, death,’ is abolished; and once it has been abolished, there will no longer be death before the face of those being saved, but only life, believed in. For while death exists before
the face of <people>, on account of it life is disbelieved by those held under its power; but once death has been abolished, life is believed by all. And in the Law you will also find: “I have set life and death before your face,” and “your life shall hang before your eyes,” and “you shall not believe in your life.”
And the Son of Man sits upon his throne of glory, with no one dishonored or inglorious in God being ruled by him. For then all who do not receive “glory from men,” nor do anything in order to be glorified “by men,” but seek the glory that comes from “the only one,” will be ruled by him who sits upon his throne of glory. And then also
what belongs to the prayer is granted to the Savior who prayed and said, “Father, glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” And if you are able to understand the Word as restored—after he became flesh and underwent all that he underwent for those who are born, becoming for them whatever each one needed him to become for himself, so that he might gain them all—restored so that
he might become such as he “was in the beginning with God” (being God the Word) in his own glory, the glory befitting such a Word, you will see him seated upon his throne of glory, and this is no one other than his Son of Man, understood as the man united with Jesus; for this man becomes one with the Word, more than any of those who, through cleaving “to the Lord,” become
“one spirit” with him. And then, when these things come to pass at the restoration of the Savior, those also who left all things and followed him will sit, having become conformed to “the body” and to the throne of the glory of Christ, seated on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. For the whole life of the righteous will judge the twelve
tribes of Israel who have not believed, and the apostles will judge, as will those who have emulated and set right the apostolic life, judging those who, though well-born because they are Israelites, have not done what is worthy of their noble birth. Perhaps the saying “the world is judged by you,” spoken to the Corinthians, is said with reference to those from the nations, while “you yourselves will sit upon”
the twelve seats from which the twelve tribes of Israel will be judged apply to the apostles and to those who have zealously pursued the apostolic life, and it is these who will sit in judgment over Israel, seeing that Israel is the noblest nation of the whole world. But understand in these matters, in a manner worthy of the greatness of thought of the gospel, that Israel is noble and by nature superior, yet has not believed. And we must proceed, after the discussion concerning Israel, to the discussion concerning
the twelve tribes (so that one might speak of twelve generic classes of souls, and of the nobler ones, of which some are distinguished by their superiority while the rest are arranged in eleven further divisions, in a second rank) — this is beyond us, since we do not perceive such great matters well enough to be able to show how the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are twelve stars, as the prophetic dream of Joseph indicated (if I may so
call it). And it is as though each of the Israelites being judged will be judged by some apostle, or by one who has lived the apostolic life, who is either of the same name as a star or resembles a star. If, then, someone has left everything and followed Jesus, he will obtain what was said to Peter in reply to his question; but if he has not left everything, but still carries some things along with him,
such a person will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But which things are meant not by 'all' but are stated specifically must be understood from the phrase 'and everyone who has left brothers or sisters,' and so on. And that this saying carries no small significance, both in the plain sense of its interpretation, and as an exhortation, in the sense of its interpretation, urging one to despise every fleshly kinship
and every possession — anyone whatsoever will admit. But whether this too admits of a deeper interpretation, one person will hesitate while another will declare what he thinks. And it is indeed clear, according to the letter, that many of those who believed in our Savior were hated by their relatives, and chose to abandon both these relatives and all their possessions, because they were persuaded that everyone who has left
brothers according to the flesh, and sisters related to him only in body, and parents of the body, and children of the flesh, and the fields in this accursed land, and the houses upon it — for no other reason than the name of Jesus — will receive a hundredfold; for he will receive things many times over, and, if one may so call it, infinitely multiplied, not in this temporal life, but in
the age to come, once he has entered it, he will inherit these things. For it is easy to show how someone gains many times as many brothers and sisters as he left for the sake of the word of God; indeed, in this world, the brothers according to faith are many times more numerous than those left behind through unbelief by those who have believed. In the same way, one receives as parents all the blameless bishops and irreproachable presbyters, in place of those
slaves he had left behind. Likewise, as children, one receives all those who are of an age to be children. But as for how someone inherits many times more fields or houses than he left, it is no longer possible to explain in the same way, unless indeed someone should force the point and demonstrate this for a few instances, which is not reasonable. But once one allegorizes the fields and the houses, one will be compelled, by consistency, to give the same account of the things mentioned above as well.
There are, then, I think, among the blessed holy and blessed powers, brothers who have "attained to a perfect man," of those who have reached "the measure of the stature of Christ," and sisters, all who have presented themselves to Christ as a pure virgin — not only, I think, from among human beings, but also from among the rest of the powers. But who would such parents be, if not those of whom it is said to Abram: "You
shall go to your fathers in peace, having been nourished to a good old age"? And if these people (analogous to those fathers) at some point become fathers of others, they too will receive children multiplied many times over, just like Abraham. And understand for me the fields and houses multiplied beyond what was left behind as referring to the rest found in the divine paradise, and in the city
of God, concerning which "glorious things have been spoken" — of which "God is known in her citadels, whenever he lays hold of her" — of which "God is" ... to those who inherit the dwellings there: "Just as we heard, so we have seen, in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God," concerning which it is said: "Divide up her citadels." It is on such terms, then, that inheriting eternal life
is blessed — having so many fields as an inheritance, and so many trees cultivated by God, and houses built by God, houses that are a receptacle of living stones, in which everyone who has left brothers or sisters, and so forth, will find rest. After this comes the saying: "But many who are first will be last, and the last first." And this too, taken in the simpler sense,
can serve to urge on those who are just now coming to the divine word, so that they may rise above many of those thought to have grown old in the faith, to a life and understanding beyond them — since neither time hinders those who come to believe later, nor do wicked parents hinder those who present themselves blamelessly as they strive. And it is also a struggle to cast down the pride of those who, because they were raised from <Christian> parents,
think great things of themselves in Christianity, especially whenever it happens that they boast of fathers and ancestors who were deemed worthy of a position of precedence in the church — of a bishop's throne, or the honor of the presbyterate, or a deaconship toward the people of God. For both groups, having been taught that "many will be first who are last, and last who are first," will be reminded neither to think great things of themselves on the supposition that they are first, nor to shrink back and be humbled, as though they possessed something less
than those who came before, on the ground that they received the teachings of Christianity as the last after them. But I think this saying also carries <another> sense, able to bring us all at once to a halt with regard to the many who, before us, were reckoned first, having come from Israel, and who became last on account of their unbelief and betrayal toward Jesus — while we, the last, are able to take the first rank, if we remain in the
faith, "not being high-minded, but associating with the lowly," being joined to the root of the patriarchs, and, through the fatness that comes from the word of the fathers, growing to share one nature with the intention of the spiritual law and of the prophets understood in accordance with it — then we, the last, shall become first, and those others, the first, having been cut off through unbelief from the good olive tree
...last; for indeed because of Christ's coming, since he came into the world "for judgment," so that the nations, "those who do not see may see, and those who see" (Israel) "may remain blind," because of unbelief, the one is "first," but the one before us, Israel, who was first has become last and "down, down." In this way one can also understand the saying, "if anyone wishes to be first,"
"he shall be last of all," as if he were saying: since now those from the nations who believe in me receive the first rank, though they are reckoned last within Israel, while the whole people of Israel who did not believe are judged by God to be last, even though they are reckoned first "on account of time." If, then, anyone wishes to lay hold of the true first place, let him become one of those now reckoned among the last of the present Israel.
For whoever wishes to be among those supposed to be first will fall away from the first rank, which has passed over to the nations, and will be numbered among the last; for indeed those from the nations become the head through faith, while unbelieving Israel becomes the tail through unbelief. By this reasoning, many (though not
all) who were first will become last, and again many of the last will become first. Yet it is not the case that if someone has come last, seeming to be counted among those from the nations who believe, he will therefore be reckoned among the first. For there are also those who both became first and no less remain first, such as the apostles of Christ, who were Israelites and of the seed of Abraham.
And there are those who, no less remaining last, are last—those who live in a manner far inferior to those who bear the name of the church [...]. After this, consider whether you can say that the race of angels is first, as being more honorable than the race of men, who are reckoned last. For indeed, as it is written in Job: "When the stars were made, all his angels praised"
God, as being older and more honorable not only than man, but also than all the creation that came into being after them. And thus one might venture to declare that many of the angels who were first in relation to men become, for certain men, last, while many of the men who are by nature last in relation to the angels become,
through their manner of life and through the word of God, first in relation to certain angels (who had been ranked among the first, but became last from certain causes). Taking up for this purpose sayings from the first letter of Peter and the earlier letter of Paul to the Corinthians, you will be led on as by a soundly stated argument. For Peter says: "in whom, though now not seeing him" (clearly meaning Jesus
Christ) "yet believing, you rejoice," and so on down to "things into which angels long to look." And Paul says: "Or do you not know that we will judge angels, not to mention matters of this life?" Consider, then, whether these, so long as they kept "their own dominion" and did not abandon "their own dwelling place," differed greatly from men and were first among them—among those men of whom it is said, "he was brought low to dust"
the soul that has come to be in the body of humility, scarcely ever able to say, 'Wretched man that I am! Who shall set me free from this body given over to death?' But human beings, insofar as they are last in comparison with angels, become first of the angels who did not keep 'their own principality' but abandoned 'their own dwelling,' receiving the principality according to the saying,
'Be, having authority over ten cities,' or 'Be, having authority over five cities.' And some who came to be in the dwelling of angels have abandoned it, and thereby become first among humans, whenever they do for themselves the things of the kingdom of heaven that lead them up to it. For those on earth are the last of the heavenly ones, while those in heaven are the first of those on earth—
first. And many of the heavenly ones, the first, become last, kept 'in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day'; while many of the last, even those who have taken on birth on earth, ascend, so that they can say with confidence, 'but our citizenship exists in the heavens,' and become first. And that one himself, who fell like lightning 'from heaven,' was first, when
he walked 'in all his ways' blameless, until lawlessness was found in him, and he became last, having descended into Hades, so that those who saw him marveled at him and said: 'You too have been captured just like us; you have been numbered among us. Your glory, your great gladness, has gone down into Hades.' In this way he too was last of all, and foolish
and disobedient, enslaved to 'desires and various pleasures, living in wickedness and envy,' hateful and hating—yet he became first 'when the kindness and love for humankind of our savior God appeared,' 'through the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit,' and he received the one who said, 'The one who receives me receives the one who sent me.' In these respects, then, we have identified as first those who are going to be saved,
and as last those not worthy of such a rank among those who are to be saved, but instead worthy of punishment and of being abandoned, either until 'the fullness of the nations comes in,' or until they have paid in full for their own sins. The parable, however, that is attached to the saying 'but many will be first who are last, and last who are first' promises salvation also to the <last> of the parable—to those who worked, but who, being last
in receiving the wage, are for this reason first even though reckoned among the last. And he says that they differ from the others in this: that the last, though called to the work last, receive the wage not merely first, but even equal to those who grumbled against the master of the house and said: 'These last worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us who bore the
burden of the day and the scorching heat.' And indeed those called last to the work are called first, on the ground that they were the first to receive the wage. Having prayed to God and called upon 'the name of our Lord Jesus <Christ>,' let us set out the parable and see what it will be given us to examine and say about it, or even to dictate. It goes as follows.
"The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire workers" and so on, down to "For many are called, but few are chosen" (20:1–16). Now the whole parable could well have been included for this purpose: that we might learn how the last who came to the work, as though they had been called first, received their wage first, and in what way those who were called first were placed by the landowner in the last position, so that they received their wage last.
And one must know that, since the parable of Jesus is one "in whom the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden," when it is examined it will be found to hint, to those able to discover such things, at so many doctrines of the wisdom hidden in mystery that one might reasonably
say that it was above all concerning this parable that the Savior spoke the words, "In parables I will open my mouth; from the beginning I will utter problems," and "I will belch forth things hidden from the foundation of the world." For it is necessary for the one who intends to understand the parable to see the day and the hours within it that are being indicated, and to see that it is not by mere chance that the landowner assigns the works of the vineyard to five ranks of workers,
but rather the one who is able will examine the reason why some workers are hired for the vineyard early in the morning, and after this, others not around the second hour but around the third, and next after this not around the fourth or fifth hour but around the sixth, then after this others not around the seventh or eighth hour but around the ninth,
and then finally not around the tenth hour but around the eleventh. For there ought to be some account worthy of Jesus for the fact that after the early-morning time there are three equal intervals—of the third, sixth, and ninth hour—and after that a lesser interval for those standing around the eleventh hour, an interval as great as that from dawn itself to the third hour. And one must attend not carelessly
also to the fact that the landowner agreed with those taken on at dawn on a denarius apiece, whom he sent into his vineyard, but to those called around the third hour he did not name a fixed wage, but rather said, "whatever is just I will give you." And one must note that he did the same with those called around the sixth and ninth hours, and that to those
called around the eleventh hour, when they had made their defense concerning their idleness through the whole day, he said, "You also, go into the vineyard"; and also that, upon coming to the vineyard and finding the workers there, he sends the first ones into the vineyard, and to the second he says, "You also, go into the vineyard," and likewise speaks the same word also to those
called around the eleventh hour: "You also, go into the vineyard." And let the one who is able consider what the marketplace is, in which the landowner, going out, found the idle men standing—the second group. And in the same way let it also be examined who those are who were found standing around the eleventh hour, to whom the landowner says, "Why do you stand here idle the whole day?" And let one also consider
...to the defense of those who had stood idle the whole day, and to the labor of standing there idle throughout the whole day, of those who said with frankness that they had been eager to work but no one had hired them — as though there were many who would have hired them but did not. And let no one pay merely passing attention to the fact that it says, "when evening came," the [lord] of the
vineyard [said] to his steward: "Call the workers and pay the wage, beginning from the last up to the first." What was it that moved the lord of the vineyard to command his steward to call the workers and pay the wage beginning from the last, and so proceeding up to the first, so that first to receive their pay would be those hired at the eleventh hour,
second those hired at the ninth, third those hired at the sixth, and after these, fourth, those hired at the third, and last those hired in the morning? For this is clearly shown by the words "pay the wage, beginning from the last up to the first." But who, in relation to the lord of the vineyard, is the lord's steward, who gives the wage according to the lord's
command? But further, if indeed those called at the ninth hour did not bear the burden of the day and the scorching heat, it is clear that these were not the ones who grumbled against the master of the household, saying, "These last worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us who bore the burden of the day and the scorching heat." But neither did those called at the sixth hour bear the
burden of the day — at most, perhaps, half of the day. And those called at the third hour did not bear the burden of the whole day either, but (if one must name it precisely) half and a quarter of the day. Only those hired from dawn bore the burden of the day and the scorching heat in full — those hired from
dawn, that is — while the rest, apart from the very last, bore it in proportion to the time they had spent working in the vineyard. Now since there are various parables that speak of a vineyard, one might inquire whether in each case the vineyard is to be taken with reference to a different matter, or with reference to the same matter in each. I think it necessary to examine also why the master of the household did not answer all those who had come first
and who thought they would receive more, and who grumbled against the master of the household — but said, to one of them alone, "Friend, I do you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? And I wish to give to this last one as I gave also to you." That, then, this question and others like it are ones the parable before us admits, and that one might inquire into it along these lines, I would affirm
with confidence; but that no one can speak of the parable in a manner worthy of it except the one who could truthfully declare, "yet we possess the mind of Christ," this too I will declare with confidence. Who, then, has the "mind of Christ" in this parable, if not the one who has given himself over to the Paraclete, concerning whom the Savior says, "He will teach you"
"...all things and will remind you of everything I said to you." For if the Paraclete does not teach all that Jesus said, including this parable, nothing worthy of Jesus could be said about it. And if all who read the Gospel according to John sought such things from the Paraclete, in keeping with the voice of Jesus, no one would have paid heed to certain people as though to a paraclete
"spirits of error and teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of liars whose own conscience has been seared," so that the spirits of error and the demons proclaim themselves by the great name of the Paraclete, which the Savior promised to the apostles, and to anyone who resembles the apostles. And I am persuaded that Matthew knew the mysteries concerning this parable, just as he also knew
those concerning the sowing and the weeds sown among the wheat, but he did not judge it reasonable to record an account of this one in the same way as his narratives about those, not trusting to writing even the measure of clarity this parable admits, in the way he recorded the full narrative of those. But if Matthew reasonably kept silent about the account of this parable,
clearly, even if someone should be able to understand it in part, perhaps he would reasonably hint at something of the account as it appears, yet without clarifying all that has been revealed to him and entrusting it to writing — he will then be free of the danger involved in setting forth the mysteries. Come then, let us, who fall very far short of the depth of the matters in this parable and imagine only very little concerning it,
in part, with prayer, render some things, and having shown a little of what appears, thus pass on — once we have spoken fittingly concerning the parable — to what follows it. And first, then, let us look at the day spoken of in the parable under inquiry. And see whether we can call the whole present age a certain day: great indeed as
regards us, but small and short in duration when set against the life belonging to God, to Christ, and to the Holy Spirit. For perhaps, too, in relation to certain of the blessed and more advanced powers, by comparison with the many of the race beneath the original Trinity, the whole present age bears the same relation to their life
as a day among men bears to the whole span of time it is possible for a man to live. And whether some such mystery is indicated in Deuteronomy, in the song where it is written, "remember the days of the age," or not, let whoever is able inquire. Then, if such are the days of an age, it would follow to understand in like manner the passage, "I remembered the age-long years, and meditated;
by night I communed with my heart, and my spirit searched; and I said, will the Lord reject unto the ages?" And perhaps — to speak rather boldly — "unto the ages" the Lord will "not reject" (for it is a great thing even to reject for a single age), but he will perhaps reject for a second age also, when such-and-such a sin is not forgiven "either in this
"...neither in this age nor in the one to come." Who then is capable of raising the six days and the seventh day of rest to such [greater] days, and, after the sabbaths, the new moons and the feasts in the first month, and Passover, kept on the month's fourteenth day, together with the days of unleavened bread that follow it? In the same proportion, one will fall into an abyss
of thoughts, imagining the remaining feasts as such days, and the whole sabbatical year as well, in which God grants to the poor and to the sojourners and to the wild beasts of the land the crops that spring up from the earlier cultivation, at a time when the land is not being cultivated. But who is able to ascend to the number of days of the abyss in the fifty-year period
(I call it an abyss because of the depth of the doctrines), so that one might go up and see the fiftieth year and the things enacted by law within it being fulfilled? But indeed, while seeking the single day of the parable set before us, and supposing it to be the whole present age, we have without noticing fallen into the depths of God, needing the Spirit that searches "all things, even the depths of God."
But I think that, just as it is said that certain things must occur at the completion of the year's end, so too, as it were, "at the end" of many "ages" - whether ages that complete some year, or whatever else they may be - our Jesus "was made manifest for the abolition of sin," so that after the completion of the ages, as of a single year of days, another beginning might succeed in its place, and "God might show forth in the
ages to come the surpassing riches of his kindness" toward those to whom he himself knows it fitting to show it. Let this much be said concerning the day mentioned in the parable set before us - things which you can also work out from John's epistle, which says: "Little children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour."
For it is the last hour after the tenth hour of the parable before us, since it was around the eleventh hour that the man who is the master of the house in the parable went out and found others standing idle, and says to them, "Why do you stand here idle the whole day?" After this we ask how it is not by mere chance that the master of the house hands over the works of the vineyard to five ranks of workers: to the first,
when he set out at daybreak to hire laborers for the vineyard; to the second, when he went out around the third hour and saw others standing idle in the marketplace; to the third and fourth, when, going out again around the sixth hour and the ninth, he acted just as before; and to the fifth, the one around the eleventh hour, when he went out and found others standing, and says to them,
"Why do you stand here the whole day idle?" And see whether you can call the first rank the one under Adam, together with the creation of the world; for the master of the house went out early in the morning and - if I may so name him - hired Adam and Eve, that they might work the vineyard of true religion; and the second rank, the one under Noah and the
covenant with him, and third the one concerning Abraham, along with which the affairs of the fathers up to Moses are understood to be included; and fourth the one concerning Moses and the whole administration of Egypt and the legislation in the wilderness; and the last rank is the one concerning the coming of Christ Jesus, the one around the eleventh hour. Yet it is one man, the householder (insofar as
in the matter set before us he has gone out five times and has come upon the affairs here below), so that he might send out unashamed workers, rightly dividing "the word of truth," into the vineyard, to work its works. For it is one Christ who, having condescended to men many times, has always administered the matters of the calling of the workers. And if, from the perceptible world and from those who began
to do the works from perception, the five receptions of the workers have some symbol, let the one who is able take note. But let anyone practice this reasoning too, even if he does not wish to accept what will be said as doctrines. For someone will say that touch belongs to the first calling — hence "the woman said to the serpent," "God said, do not eat from it, nor shall you touch
it," while smell belongs to the second — whence, concerning Noah, "and the Lord smelled a fragrance of sweetness"; and taste belongs to the time of Abraham — hence, entertaining the angels, he sets before them cakes baked in ashes from fine flour and the tender calf; and hearing belongs to the time of Moses — when the voice of God became audible out of heaven; and sight, more honored than all the senses,
belongs to the coming of Christ — when they saw Christ with their blessed eyes. Let these things too be said, whether for the sake of a rational exercise or, if one prefers, a doctrinal one, on account of the five callings. And I think that the works of the vineyard also needed workers according to the hour. For it was necessary that works take place in the vineyard at once at dawn, and the
householder who was calling the workers saw which ones were suited for the works from dawn. And another work, around the third hour, was the one concerning Noah, when God established a covenant with him. Then the ten generations from Noah down to Abraham, ending at Abraham, the beginning of another surpassing calling; and Abraham was a worker
of the vineyard, beginning then. And after him Moses, together with those with him, was taken up into the vineyard. But one final work was still lacking for the vineyard, one that required a fresh and new calling, working at its height and all at once, in a short time, the work still lacking in the vineyard; and this was the work of the new covenant. Now the intervals of those called around
the third and sixth and ninth hours are equal; but proportionate to the interval from the beginning to the third hour is the interval from the ninth hour of Moses to the eleventh hour of the coming of Christ Jesus in the flesh. And the householder agreed with those taken on at dawn — on a denarius; and this, I think, is the coin of salvation, since it is not weighed together with
...the things pertaining to glory. For the denarius, I think, is the name for salvation, while what is beyond the denarius is for glory — if indeed coins have anywhere been named for the one who made the mina given him fivefold or tenfold. But he who said to those brought in around the third hour, "Whatever is just I will give you," urged the workers of the third hour on toward the whole of whatever they are able
to accomplish; but he kept for himself the judging of the just wage in proportion to the work done. And since he did likewise with those around the sixth and ninth hour, evidently he also said to them, "Whatever is just I will give you." And indeed those who wish, in a shorter time, to intensify their power and effort toward the
work, without having grown weary beforehand, can have done work equal to the vineyard-work of those who labored from dawn on — which is what happened with those called at dawn. But someone will ask how it is that, being not only idle but standing the whole day — that is, throughout all the time before the eleventh hour — the householder, going out around the eleventh hour, says, "Why do you stand here idle the whole day?" But I suspect
that the ineffable account concerning the soul lies hidden in these words too: that they were idle the whole day until the eleventh hour, wanting indeed to work but not being taken on into the vineyard — those who defend themselves boldly, saying, "No one hired us." We, then, have ventured to say certain things of this sort, forming an impression from many scriptures and from the parable now before us, in order to
establish how those called around the eleventh hour have stood idle the whole day, given that no one had hired them. But let those who are not pleased with such teachings tell us what the whole day is, and who those are who stand idle the whole day, wanting to work but not venturing boldly into the vineyard, in the words "no one hired us." For if
the soul was sown together with the body, how had they stood idle the whole day? Or let them tell us what the whole day is, and the different callings of the workers within it at the different hours. And whether those hired by the householder in the parable are blessed, while there were also other hired workers, either under other householders or under the same one,
and these are either not blessed, or not blessed in the same way — such a thing is beyond us to understand worthily, or even to commit to writing the things we understand just as we understand them. I also inquire about what is outside the vineyard, where the workers too were found by the one who went out to hire them, and I consider whether the region of souls before the body is the place outside the vineyard,
while the vineyard is not only the things here, but also the things outside the body, where, I think, the workers labor. For the souls released from the body are not idle, once they have been taken on as workers into the householder's estate. Samuel, at any rate, worked outside the body by prophesying, and Jeremiah by praying "on behalf of the people." Let us then be zealous and work the vineyard, "whether
whether at home or away, receiving whatever is just. And no one, so far as the parable goes, who does not do the work of the vineyard is sent out into it; for the householder found fault with no one as having done the work more deficiently, even though he found fault with them for hoping for a greater and larger wage. And perhaps the place outside the vineyard is the marketplace, where
those standing idle were. Indeed a great defense toward their becoming worthy of the wage of the whole day has been offered for those who said, ‘No one hired us’; and this is why he hired them and, so to speak, gave them a wage for having stood patiently the whole day and waited until evening for the one who would hire them. After this, when evening came, that is, the completion of the
age and of the day according to the parable, the lord says to his own steward—whether to some angel set over wages, or to one of the many who have served as stewards, according to what is said, that the heir is ‘under stewards and guardians’ for the time in which ‘he is a child.’ At the command of the householder, then, the workers are called by the steward, so that
the wage may be given to the last first; for the earlier workers, ‘having been attested through faith, did not receive the promise of God, since he had foreseen something better concerning us’—the householder, that is, having in view those called at the eleventh hour—‘that they should not be made perfect apart from us.’ And we were shown mercy in having stood the whole day and having wished for the one who would hire us to come to us, though we had been idle,
yet were also deemed worthy of the work, along with an excuse; and having been shown mercy, we who are acquaintances of Christ expect to receive the wage first. Then, moving back up the line, he will give the wage to those who worked before us, then to those before them, and so on up to the first. And someone who has seen the place where Samuel dwelt, and who accordingly considers the workers called before the eleventh hour, will see in what
manner the earlier ones bore the burden and the heat of the day; but we who were called about the eleventh hour, though we did not bear the burden of the day and the heat as those did, did bear the burden of standing idle before the coming of the householder to us, who said to us: ‘Come to me, all who labor
and are burdened, and I will give you rest’; for this very idleness was a burden, and so was not yet being judged worthy of the works in the vineyard. And indeed those called before the eleventh hour bore the heat, each in proportion to his calling. But the first, not knowing the dignity of the householder, and that one ought not to grumble against him, thought they would receive something more of salvation
than what the last receive, and grumbled against the householder, begrudging us the last, who had worked but a single hour up to the completion, and had become equal to those called from the beginning to the divine vineyard. But the householder said to one of them (perhaps to Adam): friend, I do you no wrong; did I not agree with you for a denarius? Take what is yours and go (yours
for salvation is the denarius) — "for I wish," he says, "to give to this last one also as to you." And he did not say "to these," but he pointed out a certain one in particular — whom, though it would be bolder to say who he is, one might not implausibly conjecture to be Paul the apostle, who worked one hour, and perhaps beyond all who were his own. But if
it is also necessary to say something about the vineyard, taking a starting point from the very interpreter who, in his discussion of another parable, explained the vineyard, we shall say that the vineyard is the kingdom of God. For he himself said this in the saying: "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits." All, then, who do the works of the vineyard,
working, accomplishing the works of the kingdom of God in a manner worthy of salvation, will receive the denarius. After dictating these things concerning this parable that lies before us, these thoughts too occurred to us regarding it, which can be useful to those who stumble over the deeper and more hidden exposition. Someone, then, will say that the whole life of human beings is the day spoken of in the parable.
It is shown, then, that those called from childhood and earliest age to work the works of the kingdom of God are those hired by the householder at dawn itself; and those who come to the reverence of God after adolescence are those who arrived from the third hour; and those who are already men, around the sixth hour, are those sent out to the vineyard.
And the elders led to reverence of God are those around the ninth hour, taken up into the word of God after the heat of youth and the burden of deeds up to the age of old men; and those who are old right at the very departure are shown to be those called around the eleventh hour to the works of the vineyard. Since, then,
it is purpose and not time that is examined — the purpose with which someone has acted in faith — for this reason, to all who have done what was incumbent upon them from the time they were called, an equal reward of salvation is given. At this the faithful from childhood, who have toiled and constrained their youth, grow indignant, if they are to have salvation equal to those who were idle from youth in matters of reverence for God until old age and idle
in unbelief, and who for a short time came to faith and its works. And the vineyard, according to this exposition, would be the church of God, and the marketplace and what is outside the vineyard would be what is outside the church, from which the word takes up those who are called and sends them to the vineyard, the church. But there would not be counted, according to this exposition,
among the workers of the vineyard, as many as were called earlier to reverence of God but did not keep the things of faith, having been overcome by their passions and having gone out; for even if, after having been glutted with the pleasures found in sins, they wish, as though repenting, to work the vineyard again, they cannot say to the householder, "no one hired us"; for they had been hired at the time when previously
...they were called to believe. But it will not even be said to them, "Why do you stand here idle the whole day?" — especially if, having "begun in spirit" and later being brought to completion "in flesh," they should wish to return again to the original desire to live by the spirit. And we do not say this in order to discourage those who have fallen from rising up, or to hinder those who have gone astray, or to prevent the debauched sons who have squandered the substance of the gospel teaching from running back to their father's house.
For let them have, on account of repentance and being found living a converted life, a better consolation of salvation than those found in their sins. Yet one must not suppose of them that they are like those who sinned in this way in their youth, on the ground that they had not even learned the elements of the faith from the start. The householder wishes, then, to give to the last as well
as to the first the denarius — salvation — since it is in his power to do what he wishes with what is his own, and he rebukes the one who has an evil eye on account of the householder's being good. Many of the last, then, will be first, and some of those called first will be last; for the called are many, but the elect are few. It is likely, then,
that one wiser than we, and judged by God worthy of a clearer gift of wisdom in discourse through the gift of the Spirit of God, and of a richer endowment of knowledge in discourse according to the Spirit, will find things loftier and greater with full comprehension in the parable, and will be well supplied with proofs, drawing on more magnificent sayings for them. And we too, as far as we have been able, having set forth the sense
of the parable, ask pardon from those who read it, if we have not been able to attain, in a manner worthy of it, to the intention of what is written here; for perhaps, on account of our eagerness and our not having shrunk back, we shall be thought to deserve some approval.

======== Commentary on Matthew, Book 16 ========

"Now as Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve aside on the way and said to them" and so on down to "and on the third day he will rise" (20:17-19). The equivalent passage is recorded in Mark in this way: "Now they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was going ahead of
them," and so on down to "and on the third day he will rise." And Luke too would seem to agree with these, writing: "And taking the twelve aside, he said to them," and so on down to "and they did not understand what was said." Paul, who exhorts us to imitate him, as he himself imitated Christ, and who said, "Be imitators of me, just as
I also am of Christ," having seen Christ going to meet dangers already foreseen and going up to Jerusalem eagerly, even while knowing beforehand that he would be handed over to the chief priests and scribes and condemned to death, and so on, did something similar. For Agabus, taking his "belt," bound his own hands and feet and said: "Thus says the Holy Spirit: the man to whom
this belt belongs will be bound in this way" when he has gone to "Jerusalem." When Paul learned this, imitating his teacher, he went up to Jerusalem eagerly. But being affected by something human on account of those who, out of love for him, were weeping and trying to keep him from going up to Jerusalem, he said: "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound
when I come to Jerusalem, but even to die for the name of my Lord Jesus." Considering these things, then, sometimes even when we know that burdensome trials are pressing upon us, let us ourselves go to meet them, in accordance with the saying "let us go forward," taking as our example for such conduct first the Savior himself, and after him also his apostle. But do not suppose that these words contradict what
we have said elsewhere, namely, "Should they persecute you in one town, flee to the next," and so on, and that Jesus, on hearing "that John had been handed over" to prison, withdrew. For we say that it is not always fitting to avoid dangers, nor always to go to meet them directly; rather one who is wise in Christ is needed to judge
which occasion calls for withdrawal and which for eager engagement in the contest without withdrawal, and much more without flight. Let this much be said in accordance with the intent of the passage before us, as an exhortation to disregard the dangers of death at the proper time. Next it must be observed that when Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, if indeed he took the twelve aside, and one
of the twelve was still Judas, then he took Judas aside as well; for it was likely still fitting that he be taken aside along with the other eleven. And when on the road he said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem," and so on, clearly he judged this man too to be one of those who would hear what the teacher would suffer, not
denying that Judas yet knew what he would do, just as each of us — for it has been said to all of us: "Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what the coming day will bring" — for the devil had not yet, I think, thrown "into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, that he should betray" Jesus. And since it now lies before us to examine the Gospel according to Matthew, let whoever is able attend more carefully
from the beginning of the gospel up to the passage now before us, and inquire whether Judas has nowhere yet been accused by Matthew, but only in the list of the twelve he has said, "Judas son of Simon Iscariot, who also betrayed him." But we have said more, for the establishing of the point that Judas too was at first like the rest of the apostles, when we were examining the passage "these twelve Jesus sent out"
"Jesus, having charged them, saying" — the things that are recorded there. Now we must compare what is said here with the similar things recorded above, since there, upon such words being prophesied by the Savior, Peter took him aside and started rebuking him with the words, "Be merciful to yourself, Lord; this shall never happen to you." But here nothing is recorded of the disciples having said or done anything
in response to the gloomier things reported about what was going to happen. And I think that the disciples were silent now for this reason: because earlier, when Peter "took" Jesus aside "and, rebuking him, began to say: God be merciful to you, Lord; this shall never happen to you," Jesus "turned and said to Peter: Get behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to me, because you are not thinking the things
of God but the things of men." It is likely, then, that they, remembering what had been said to Peter, took care to avoid hearing the same or even worse things from the Teacher. There is no harm in setting out the earlier passage, similar to the one before us, which reads thus: "Then he charged his disciples that they should tell no one that he was the Christ," and so on, down to "and
be raised on the third day." For it was in response to these words that it was said, "And Peter took him aside," and so on. Moreover, above it was said that the Savior was going to "be killed," but here the manner of his execution is also written, that he would be crucified. Now as long as Jesus was not being handed over in Jerusalem to the chief priests and scribes, nor condemned to death, nor mocked or scourged
or crucified, Jerusalem stood firm and the place called the sanctuary was not thrown down. But when they had dared to do these things to Jesus, then those who had handed him over were themselves abandoned, and the chief priests ceased to be chief priests, so that after them there were no more chief priests; and then too the scribes who had condemned Jesus to death, hardened in mind and blinded in reasoning, could not see
the intent of the holy scriptures. And all those who handed Jesus over to death were themselves handed over to death by the enemy of Christ, and having mocked Jesus they became an object of mockery when Jerusalem was "surrounded by armies," when also "her desolation drew near"; but moreover, having scourged Jesus, they themselves were scourged and are being scourged until "the fullness of the nations comes in"; for "he who throws a stone on high, upon
"...throws his head." And all this happened so that oversight might depart from them and pass over to those from the nations, who are saved together with the remnant "according to election." For "unless the Lord Sabaoth had left" them "a seed, they would have become like Sodom" and "been made like Gomorrah." But I think that, just as the worship performed of old "by way of example and shadow"
"of the heavenly things" was abolished on account of the heavenly things themselves, and when the true high priest came, the symbolic high priest ceased, and once the true sacrifices for sins were being performed, the symbolic <sacrifices> were done away with — so too, when the true Jerusalem received Jesus, having mounted his own beast of burden, the body (over which the daughter of Zion also greatly rejoiced, and the daughter of the Jerusalem above proclaimed),
then the shadow-Jerusalem was torn down, and the temple made of dead stones fell, on account of the temple <that was to be raised> from living stones; and the altar below was also razed, since the heavenly altar had come into function, Jesus having performed its dedication in the true worship. But if, according to one of its meanings, the people are the city, then even now in Jerusalem (this is
how I mean those who have set their hopes on the place on earth) Jesus is handed over to the Jews who profess the service of God, and > just as though they were high priests, the scribes too, who boast of expounding the divine writings, condemn Jesus to death by the evil things they say about him, and there is no time when they do not hand Jesus over to the nations, mocking him and
his teaching among themselves, and they forever scourge with their tongues the reverence for God that comes through Jesus Christ. And they themselves crucify him through the very acts by which they anathematize him and wish to destroy his teaching. But he, being greater than <all> of them, after a brief interval is raised, and living, appears to <the nations> who have received the power to see. For now, "who is blind as Isaiah, speaking from the person of the
God, says) except my servants, and who are deaf except those who lord it over them?" For he says, with a great and prophetic bearing and spirit: "You who are deaf, hear; and you who are blind, look up so as to see. And who is blind but my servants, and who are deaf but those who lord it over them? And the servants of God have been blinded" — for
Jesus came "into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see — these are the nations — might see, and those who see — that is, Israel — might become blind." Now that so great a true light has risen, and the Word shows itself and declares, "Behold, a man, Dayspring is his name," they did not see the light, because their wickedness had blinded them, and
"they did not know the mysteries of God," and this proved a paradox both for that people and for the nations. For the people saw each of the prophets as a lamp, but when the sun of righteousness rose they did not recognize it; hence even if they seemed to have some lamp, it was taken away from them. But "the people" of the nations, "sitting in darkness, saw a light," not the kind that the
...Israel a little (for each of the prophets was a small light), but ‘the people seated in darkness beheld a great light’ — our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whose greatness is seen extending ‘from one end of the earth to the other mightily, and governing’ the churches ‘graciously,’ since his spirit has filled the inhabited world, the prophecy being fulfilled that says, ‘in
the last days the mountain of God’ will be made manifest’; and now ‘all the nations are going up to it,’ and this is Christ Jesus. ‘Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons,’ and so on down to ‘and when the ten heard this, they were indignant at the two brothers’ (20:20–24). The
passage parallel to it Mark also recorded in this way: ‘And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come up to him and say to him,’ and so on down to ‘they began to be indignant at James and John.’ It is worthwhile, in the passage before us, to inquire into a sense that is not to be despised and that truly befits the gospel of Jesus Christ. We have set this out beforehand, since the saying, to
simpler people, wholly unmixed and not knowing how to search out the depths of God and of his scriptures, exhibits the simplicity of a certain request and of Jesus’ reply to it. But to those who are able to some degree to examine problems, the sense that appears on the surface is slight and cheap and contains nothing great, especially since Jesus answers in a manner befitting his own greatness of mind. For just as
in the case of an earthly kingdom those who sit alongside the king when he is seated in royal vesture and administers some royal business are regarded as being in a position of advancement, so — to follow the letter of the text — it will seem that the mother of the sons of Zebedee (or, as Mark wrote, James and John), imagining such a thing, is asking of the Savior that one of the two sit at his right hand in
his kingdom, when he attains it, and the other at his left. And it would be nothing strange for a woman, out of feminine and untrained thinking, to suppose she ought to ask for such things. But let it be granted also that the two apostles, as men still imperfect and understanding nothing deeper about the kingdom of Christ, supposed such things about those who would sit alongside Jesus. But when Jesus too, as though agreeing
that it is a great thing for someone to sit at his right hand or at his left, raises the request higher and says, ‘You do not know what you are asking; that is not mine to grant, but belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father’ — one who considers himself a discerning hearer of scripture might well ask what it means to sit at the right hand or at the left hand of Jesus in his kingdom.
And against those who suppose that we are inquiring into these matters too officiously, we must gather together the passages written concerning the sittings of God or of Christ, so that, by testing what has been collected on this subject and comparing them with one another, some greatness of doctrine may be able to arise even from a simpler example taken up. For instance, in the Third Book of Kingdoms it is written that ‘Micaiah said: I saw the God of Israel sitting
upon his throne, and the whole host of heaven was standing around him, on his right and on his left," and so forth. And in the second book of Chronicles the same Micaiah says things similar to these, in: "Hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting upon the throne of his glory, and all the power of heaven stood on his right
and on his left," and so forth. And in Isaiah it is likewise written: "In the year king Uzziah died, so it came to pass that I saw the Lord seated upon a throne, lofty and exalted," and so forth. And further, in Daniel such things are written: "I watched until thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days sat," and so forth. Similar
to these one can find also in Ezekiel, at the beginning of his prophecy, when he says: "above the firmament that was over their heads" (it is clear that this refers to the cherubim) "was, as it were, the appearance of a sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne upon it, and upon the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man, from above." And in the hundred and ninth psalm, the word "the Lord said
to my lord: sit at my right hand," shows one sitting of the Father and another sitting of the Savior, seated at his right hand. And again, in another psalm, the prophet, praying, says: "You who sit upon the cherubim, appear," and again: "God sits upon his holy throne." But if you also wish to take an example
from the gospels, hear Matthew recording how Jesus spoke to the disciples: "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits upon the throne of his glory," and so forth; and: "from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power." And Matthew also says this: "when the
Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon the throne of his glory," and so forth, and: "from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power." And Mark recorded the equivalent of this, in: "and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power
and coming with the clouds of heaven." And Luke likewise says the same thing, in: "for from now on the Son of Man will be sitting at the right hand of the power of God." And why should I gather still more examples of this kind, wishing, after the plain and simpler and lower reading concerning the sitting
of Christ in the kingdom, and of those who sit at his right or his left, to set forth also a more mystical reading, so that it may reasonably be examined by those capable of rising to divine thoughts, and something worthy be found by the one who judges "all things" as a spiritual person and "is judged by no one," corresponding to Paul's statements about spiritual and evangelical matters. For as Paul, according to
Taking the law spiritually, he speaks of the manna and the rock and the water from it: "and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ" -- so might say the one who stands upon this rock spiritually, and
giving thanks to God for this and saying also concerning himself: "He set my feet upon a rock, and directed my steps," since the sitting of God upon a spiritual throne is spiritual, and likewise that of Christ, and the sitting of Christ "at the right hand of power" is spiritual. For nothing in these passages indicates a bodily sitting, which they have defined as a settling
upon the hips of one seated upon some seat -- for it is ridiculous, just because these things are named in bodily terms, to suppose that there are certain thrones <bodily> fashioned, I know not from what material, capable of receiving the sitting of God or of Christ or of those seated at the right or left of Christ, for whom the Father has prepared such a thing. Nor do I know whether
it is reverent to suppose that it is bodily -- that "the host of heaven" stands "at the right hand and at the left" of God bodily -- or again to suppose that those who are being saved and praised are situated at the bodily right of our king Jesus Christ, while those who are blamed and about to perish are at the corresponding bodily left. But perhaps
that Christ, having recovered his own rule, be restored to the kingdom, once the sin that reigns in the mortal bodies of men has been abolished, along with the whole rule and authority and power of the wicked that holds sway -- this is his "being seated upon the throne of his glory"; and the making of both right <and left> into all things for God, so that nothing may any longer be "contrary" toward him -- this
is what will come to pass among those who are to be "at the right hand of power," who are destined to look, as to an example, at his "being seated at the right hand of power," as they themselves are seated at his right and at his left in the kingdom of Christ the Word; whom God restores, working together with them and preparing their drawing near to the preeminence of Christ, so that the one who is foremost among the others <who are with Christ> may be at
the right, and as it were touching him and clinging to the right hand of the Word, while the one who is lesser is near his left. And as for "right," see whether you can understand it as Christ's invisible creatures, so called, and "left" as the visible and bodily ones. But Christ reigns over all; yet already, of those drawing near to him, some have been allotted the right and the intelligible things, and others the
left and the sensible things. And perhaps the true mother of the sons of Zebedee, whom the Savior called Boanerges, that is, "sons of thunder" -- the thunder <herself> -- having made great judgments concerning her sons James and John (for indeed they were great), and supposing that they could hold the first places beyond every begotten nature, as being able to contain her loud voice, came forward and asked
the Lord, so that he might set one of them at his right hand and the other at his left hand. But the Savior, refuting even so loud-voiced a mother of James and John as one who did not know who the truly superior ones are, and that so great a gift is a grace belonging <solely> to the God who is over all, who breathes with, works with, and establishes in such a preeminence
those whom he saw to be fit, said: "You do not know what you are asking," and: "To sit at my right hand or at my left hand is not something I may grant; rather it belongs to those for whom it has been made ready by my Father." Now whoever is capable will consider carefully which things are given by the Savior and which by the Father, seeing that there are certain things which the Son would not give
but the Father himself. And if the gospels present something of this sort too, in one place introducing the Savior praying concerning certain powers, that his requests be granted to him by the Father, and in another place acting without prayer, as one who already possesses those things he had been deemed worthy of — it is a bold thing to inquire into this, yet nevertheless let whoever is capable examine even these matters with reverence. But wishing, I think, to make plain
to the mother of Zebedee's sons and to them themselves that they still lacked what was needed to bring to perfection things attainable among men that are no ordinary things, he answered, after "you do not know what you are asking," "Are you able to drink the cup which I am about to drink?" — or, as Mark recorded it: "Are you able to drink the cup which I drink, or
to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" And in these words too one will ask what the cup is and what the baptism, as being <two things different from each other, both so named> and requiring no ordinary power on the part of the one who is to drink or the one who is to be baptized — and the one who was to drink would drink no other cup than the one Jesus was about to drink, and likewise the one who was to be baptized would be baptized with a baptism similar to that
with which the Lord himself was about to be baptized. Now most people refer both of these to the dispensation concerning martyrdom, without making clear either whether the two names, existing in one and the same reality, signify two distinct notions, or whether two distinct things can also be signified by them. We for our part do not reject this interpretation either, but we do raise the question
whether they can also signify something else besides these two things. And since it would take a great deal to treat this matter with precision at present, we will lay out a handful of observations, in order to fix what appears to us, and move on to the passage. Now, as regards the view that martyrdom is signified in these words, one will make use not only of the saying "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from
me," as though drunk with toil by the one who takes up the struggles involved in martyrdom, until one drains it, having endured all the things brought upon him in the trial that comes with martyrdom — but also of what is said in Psalm 115 (116): "What shall I render to the Lord for all that he has rendered to me? I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the Lord's name."
“I will pay my vows to the Lord before all his people.” “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his holy ones.” For we can render nothing greater to the Lord for the benefits we have received than to take up readily the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord in order to drink it — in the drinking of which a person renders his vows
all of them to the Lord before all his people.” He taught clearly in these words that the cup is martyrdom, by adding, in connection with the cup, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his holy ones.” In conception, martyrdom is twofold: the one is called “the cup of salvation,” the other, baptism. And insofar as
someone endures the sufferings, it is a cup drained by the one who takes upon himself everything brought against him, taking it up and, as it were, stifling the pains, neither pushing them away nor casting them off or vomiting them out. And insofar as the one who endures receives forgiveness of sins, it is baptism; for if baptism promises forgiveness of sins, as we have received concerning the baptism in water and spirit,
and the one who endures the baptism of martyrdom likewise receives forgiveness of sins, then martyrdom might reasonably be called baptism. That forgiveness of sins comes to everyone who endures martyrdom is clear from: “Everyone who confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father who is in the heavens.” Indeed
the Savior confesses before the Father who is in the heavens everyone who has confessed him, even if that person happened to have sinned in some way before the confession; for if he will not confess those who have sinned in some way but have confessed, then it will not be true that “everyone, then, who confesses me,” and so on. But I do not think that the Savior will confess before the Father in the heavens
a person guilty of any sin whatsoever; for the confession is the son’s speaking freely before the Father concerning the one confessed, as one worthy of Christ’s confession before the Father. Let it not disturb us that in Mark the Savior himself also drinks the cup and is himself baptized with the baptism; for indeed, when John came into all the region around the Jordan proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness
of sins, Jesus too “comes to John to be baptized by him,” as it were washing away our sins, so that we might be cleansed by his washing. But it is shown more fully that we are cleansed through his own martyrdom, insofar as he was baptized taking up our sins upon himself, in order to release them both from us and from himself; wherefore “what he died, he died to” our “sin,” since
“he himself died to sin,” not his own but ours — if indeed such a statement will seem to some to make sense. And accordingly, as it seems to me, the sons of Zebedee have both drunk the cup and been baptized with the baptism, since Herod killed “James the brother of John with the sword,” while the king of the Romans, as tradition teaches, condemned the
John, bearing witness on account of the word of truth, on the island of Patmos. And John himself teaches us about his own testimony, without saying who condemned him, declaring these things in the Revelation: ‘I, John, your brother and partner in the affliction and kingdom and endurance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the
word of God,’ and so on. And it seems that he beheld the revelation on the island. And the one who, after the account already given, adds the following concerning the cup and the baptism: just as there is a certain food of the Savior, about which he says, ‘My nourishment lies in doing the will of the one who sent me and bringing his work to completion,’ so
there is a cup analogous to that food. It is a bold thing to distinguish it from the food and set it forth in a practical way, but nevertheless let the one who is able consider whether the food is the practical element and the drink the contemplative one. For corresponding to Christ’s ‘eating,’ which consists in doing the will of him who sent him and completing his work, so also his ‘drinking’
consists in understanding the will of him who sent him and bringing knowledge of him to completion. But whether or not ‘my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink’ can be referred to this same distinction, you yourself shall judge. For one might say that action is truly food, and contemplation is truly
drink, and the one who says this will say that this is why he first gives the ‘bread, having blessed’ it, and having broken it, ‘to the disciples’ — since action comes first — and after this, ‘having taken the cup, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: drink from it, all of you’ — since it is necessary that the one who has set his actions in order and has set the practical life aright should thus proceed, through those who have gained foreknowledge, and
on to their contemplation. For indeed, according to the prophet it is said, ‘Sow for yourselves unto righteousness, reap unto the fruit of life,’ so that we may first do what is required; and after this he says, ‘Light for yourselves the light of knowledge’ — as one who, after clearing the way, would then travel on toward knowledge and be illumined in it. These things have been said digressively for the sake of a
deeper examination concerning the cup. And in the twenty-second Psalm it is said, first, ‘You have prepared a table before me in the presence of those who afflict me,’ and next, ‘Your cup that inebriates me is like the strongest wine.’ But let the one who reads this writing not suppose that we are congratulating ourselves for having somehow explained the matters concerning the recorded sittings of God
or of Christ. For we offer this defense: our purpose was only, from the words themselves, to induce reverence concerning the ‘sitting,’ and to turn the reader away from the more lowly interpretation. For it would require another occasion to make some preliminary examination concerning the sitting and standing and walking of God or of Christ, which the present discussion does not demand; for the digression would become excessively great and untimely.
However, when these things had been said by the Savior in response to the request of the mother of John and James—or of the sons of Zebedee themselves—the ten, hearing this (he says), became indignant about the two brothers, on the grounds that they had asked to be preferred over the rest. Note that Judas too was among those who were indignant (Mark also recorded this). But if he was among those who were indignant along with
the other nine, then perhaps the devil had not yet "cast into his heart" the intention that he should "betray" our Lord; yet already, in his choice, Judas was one of the apostles. But having said much about him in what preceded, we do not now resume the task of showing that Judas fell by the same sort of choice by which the
rest also fell, and he fell into the snare of the evil one, having loved money and having betrayed the Savior. But Jesus, calling them to himself, said: "You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them," and so on down to "and to give his life as a ransom for many" (20:25–28). Mark too recorded the equivalent of these things. And we have observed, as
in many other instances, that Matthew and Mark keep the order of the things recorded, whether of healings or of sayings, so also here. For in sequence, from "Now as Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve aside" down to "and immediately he sends them," Mark too has kept everything in order, from "they were
on the road going up to Jerusalem" down to "immediately he sends him out again here." But go and set the Gospels beside one another at these places and compare them, and you will find what is being said. Luke, moreover, recorded in part something similar, prefacing it with "And a dispute arose among them" as to "which of them might be greatest." In
this passage he adds: "But he said to them, 'The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called benefactors. But you are not to be so,'" and so on. Let this, then, be said, so that the correspondence observed at this point between Matthew and Mark, and in part Luke, may not escape our notice. And now let us also examine
the sense of what is being said. It has been said before that James and John were laying claim to the first place with Jesus, and were asking to receive a seat at his right hand and at his left in his kingdom (or their mother was asking this on their behalf), and it has been said that at this the rest, since they themselves too were laying claim to the first place with Jesus,
"became indignant, the ten," at the thought that James and John wished to snatch away, as though they were above the other ten, the nearness to Jesus in glory. Now that these things have been said beforehand, as is fitting, Jesus calls to himself either the ten who had become indignant, or these together with the other two, and teaches the way by which someone will be great and first with God.
What was being said was something like this: that the rulers of the nations, or those who seem to rule them, not content with lording it over their subjects, wanting to hold power over them more forcibly, also dominate them. Likewise, those who are great among the nations according to the rank valued in this life do not stop at exercising authority over their subjects, but, rising up against them, exercise power over
them. But among you, my acquaintances, let this not be so. Nor let those among those who believe in me who have been entrusted with some office, or who are reckoned to hold authority in the church of my Father and God, lord it over their own brothers, or exercise power over those who have taken refuge in the reverence for God that comes through me. But if anyone wishes to be judged great before my Father, and by comparison
surpasses his own brothers, let him serve all those whom he wishes to be greater than. And if anyone also aspires to the first places among those who are with me, let him know that he will be first of none to whom he has not rendered a slave's service — a service marked by moderation and praiseworthy humility, one able to benefit the one who serves, and to help or give rest also to those who are served. But Luke brings kings and those who exercise authority over
the nations into the account beforehand, turning away the one who wishes to be greater among the brothers from imitating royal power, or the desire for flattery of those who exercise authority, teaching us so that the one who truly becomes greater among us may become like the younger — that is, like a child — for the sake of simplicity and equality, while the one who leads (for so, I think, he calls the one
called a bishop in the churches) may be like one who serves those he is served by. This is what the word of God teaches us. But we, either not understanding the intent of Jesus' teaching in these matters, or despising such great counsels of the Savior, are such that at times we even exceed the arrogance of those who rule badly among the nations, and all but seek
to have bodyguards as kings do, making ourselves fearsome and hard to approach, especially to the poor; we behave toward them — toward those who come to us and ask something of us — as not even tyrants and the cruelest of rulers behave toward their suppliants. And indeed one can see, in many so-called churches, and especially in those of the smaller towns, that the leaders of the people of God permit no one
equal speech, or to speak with them on equal terms; there are even times when even the finest of Jesus' disciples find it so toward them. And the apostle gives a command to masters concerning their household servants, saying: "Masters, grant your slaves what is just and fair, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven." And he also teaches
masters to relax their threats against their household servants. But one can see some bishops threatening cruelly, sometimes on the pretext of sin, sometimes out of contempt for the poor, contrary to the apostolic word in which it is said: "They gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision — only that we should remember the poor," and again
the equality toward the humble, neither considering nor imagining that it is fitting to have no pretension, and that above all Christians should practice equality among themselves, and especially those who bear some preeminence in the title of the church; for it is written: “The greater you are, the more you should humble yourself, and before the Lord you will find favor.” And we ought to know also what is said thus in Proverbs: “Before destruction a man's heart is exalted, and”
“before glory it is humbled,” and to avoid falling into thinking great things of oneself, or saying the word that the one “wishing to justify himself” said to Jesus, who had taught “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”—the man who was not ashamed to say to the Savior, “And who is my neighbor?” We ought also to have read from Paul the phrase, “though we could have been a burden, as apostles of Christ,”
“we became gentle in your midst, as a nurse cherishes her own children.” We ought also to imitate the words, “Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted?” Let the rulers of the nations, then, lord it over them, but let them be slaves to the church. And let the great ones among the nations exercise authority over them, but let the faithful listen to “Learn from me,”
“for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” Let us also be trained not to accept flattery, nor to be gladly called by people, for whatever good we may seem to have done someone, “benefactors.” We do not say this out of ignorance, wishing to humble ourselves “under the mighty hand of God,” and, according to his word, under
the ministry of the church. But there are times when it is necessary, according to the apostolic voice, to rebuke “those who sin, before all,” so that “the rest also may have fear.” And there are times when one must, making use of authority, “hand over” someone “to the adversary for the ruin of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” But this must be done rarely; for one must admonish
“the unruly,” and comfort “the fainthearted,” and support “the weak,” and be patient “toward all,” and render “evil for evil to no one.” And one must not consider the one who sins to be an enemy, but must listen to the apostle saying: “Do not consider him an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” And I have said all this because I wished to establish, according to my argument, that
the ruler of the church ought not to imitate the ruler of the nations, nor ought one to emulate those who lord it over others and exercise authority, and kings; but, so far as one is able, in these matters too one must imitate Christ, who is most approachable, conversing with women and laying his hands on children. And even if it carries less weight that Jesus “poured water into a basin” and washed “the feet of the disciples,” nonetheless
one must listen to him, according to the letter, as he speaks about these things: “You call me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for I am,” and so on. For through these words he teaches the disciples to become imitators of his praiseworthy humility. And perhaps also, since, being Lord, he became a slave for the salvation of mankind, for the sake of our race, it is on this account that he is said to have taken “the form of a slave.”
and to have humbled himself, having become obedient unto death. And if indeed “God exalted him” for this reason, let the one who wishes to be exalted do the like of what someone is exalted for. For indeed the Son of Man did not come so as to be served but rather to render service; since even though he was served, when “angels came and served him,” and again he was served by Martha, yet
he did not come for this reason, to be served; for he came to dwell among the human race in order to serve, and to travel so far in serving our salvation as to give his own soul a ransom for many who would believe in him. And if, hypothetically, all had believed in him, he would have given his soul a ransom for all. But to whom did he give his soul
as a ransom for many? Certainly not to God; was it then to the evil one? For this one held us fast, until there should be given to him, on our behalf, as ransom, the soul of Jesus — he having been deceived, <clearly, and made to imagine> that he was able to have mastery over it, and not seeing that it does not endure the torment of holding it fast. Therefore also “his death,” having seemed to gain mastery, “no longer
has mastery,” since he became <alone> among the dead free, and stronger than the power of death, and stronger to such a degree that he is able to set free even all who wish to follow him from among those held fast by death, death no longer having any power over them. For everyone who is with Jesus is beyond the reach of death. Now in the passages of the gospel under examination
it is written that our savior gave his own soul a ransom for many. But in Peter it is said that we were ransomed not with perishable things, silver and gold, from our futile way of life handed down from our fathers, but with precious blood; and the apostle too says: “you were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.” We were bought, then, with the precious blood of Jesus, and there was given as ransom
on our behalf the soul of the Son of God, and neither his spirit (for he had already entrusted it beforehand to the Father, saying, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”) nor his body (for we have as yet found nothing of this sort written concerning it). And since his soul has been given as a ransom for many, but did not remain with him to whom
it was given as ransom for many, therefore he says in the fifteenth Psalm, “You will not abandon my soul to Hades.” Having arrived once at this point, I would remind those who, through a fanciful notion of glorification concerning Christ, confuse what pertains to the firstborn of all creation with what pertains to the soul and body of Jesus, and perhaps also his spirit, and
suppose that what was seen and dwelt among us in this life is altogether without composition, that they do not speak soundly. For let us ask them whether the divinity belonging to “the likeness of the God who cannot be seen” and the preeminence of “the firstborn of all creation” — whether that one in whom “all things were created, the things in the heavens and the things on earth, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones
whether dominions or principalities or powers, a ransom was given in exchange for many. And to whom was that ransom given? To the enemy holding us captive, until he should receive the ransom — if indeed that enemy could have taken so great and so large a ransom in exchange for the captives. And I do not say these things as though I were despising the soul of Jesus and belittling it, but because I wish this soul, so far as
possible, to be understood as the ransom given by the Savior of the whole, while that surpassing dignity and that divinity could not, even in principle, have been given as a ransom. Yet today I am not separating Jesus from Christ; rather, I know all the more that Jesus the Christ and his soul are one thing in relation to the firstborn “of all creation,” and that his body too — if it must be named still further — belongs wholly to this same one thing, even as “whoever cleaves to the Lord is made one spirit with him.”
“And as they went out from Jericho, a great crowd followed him. And behold, two blind men sitting by the road,” and so on (20:29–30 [34]). Let the facts of the history concerning the place also be true: that as Jesus went out from Jericho with his disciples,
a great crowd followed him; and that two blind men sitting by the road at the point where one leaves Jericho, having heard that Jesus was passing by that place, themselves cried out and said, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David”; and that, agreeing together in their crying out, they spoke the words recorded; and that, because the blind men had asked to be shown mercy, Jesus stood still and called out to them, so that
he might call to them not while passing by and going past them, but while standing still; and that, inquiring, he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” And that the blind men, now stating their request more specifically, said to him that they wanted their eyes to be opened by Jesus. And that our Savior, who loves mankind and is compassionate, was moved with compassion for the blind men — moved with compassion, I think, because he had already grasped
that which called forth, so to name it, the mercy of Jesus, which was this: that they had cried out saying, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David,” and, having believed, had asked that their eyes be opened; and that, touching their eyes and infusing into them a healing power, he made the blind men see again, and that they, in gratitude, followed Jesus. And let one who believes these things and knows
also the saying, “if you do not believe, you will not understand,” receive understanding, out of having believed, “according to the proportion of faith”; and having received it, let him speak of these matters, interpreting them in accordance with the foundation of faith concerning them, according to “I believed, therefore I spoke.” And let such a person be not only one who believes Jesus and the things recorded concerning this passage,
but also one who knows the meaning of them. For the one who remains in the truth of the faith, and through works abides in “the word,” according to the promise of Jesus, “knows the truth,” and is set free by it. And we too, since when we do not believe we do not understand the intent of what is said, but when we understand, we understand from believing,
Let us bring forward what occurs to us on this passage. Having prayed to the one who delivers us from having the gospel "veiled to us," let us set it out to the extent that we are able. And first let us consider what it means that, as the disciples of Jesus were going out from Jericho with the Savior, a great crowd had followed him. See, then, if you can, recalling what we said in expounding the parable in the Gospel according to Luke,
the one that begins, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers," noting whether here too Jericho is a symbol of the earthly region customarily called, according to scripture, "the world." The one, then, going down "from Jerusalem to Jericho" is Adam (that is, man), and he has fallen among "robbers." But because of the many in Jericho (for there is a great crowd in Jericho), our Jesus,
having come to be there together with the disciples, is going out from it, transacting business (namely, through having entered into Jericho) so as to guide those who wish to follow. For those in Jericho do not know how to go out from the worldly mindset unless it is given by God — not only Jesus going out from Jericho but also his disciples. And having observed these things, a great crowd follows him.
And one can observe that people desiring to live in accordance with the word — despising the world and all things earthly — follow Jesus and his disciples, and, treading in their footsteps as they set out from Jericho, watch what happens along the way. The great crowd, then, follows Jesus, so that, walking behind him and using him as their guide, they may go up to Jerusalem
[...] . (A little further on it is added that when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus then sent forth two disciples, and so on.) Then next it is written, as though the word were showing those who were about to be healed very soon — the blind men — thus: "And behold, two blind men sitting beside the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by,"
cried out, saying, "Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David." And pay attention, in these words, to whether "and behold, two blind men" contains something being pointed out by the word "behold." If, then, we are able to follow the word as it points out the two blind men and to see them, we shall say that Israel and Judah, before the coming of Jesus, were blind, yet were sitting beside the road, spending their time occupied with the law
and the prophets — blind, on the one hand, because the true word in the law and the prophets was not seen by them in their souls before the coming of Jesus, but crying out "Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David" because they perceived themselves to be blind, not seeing the intent of the scriptures, yet wishing to regain their sight and to see the glory that is in them.
But since they were still blind and imagined nothing great concerning Jesus, but understood only what pertains to him according to the flesh, they call the one born from David's offspring in the flesh — since they understood nothing more than this — Son of David; and all their seemingly loud proclamation, made out of piety, knew nothing more to say about the Savior than that he was a son
of David. But if I say 'two blind men,' meaning the one who, before Jesus' arrival, dwelt in their soul, Israel and Judah, take yourself up to the two kingdoms, and observe that in the time of Rehoboam the people were divided into Israel and Judah; and next look at the prophets, at one time prophesying to Israel, at another to Judah,
and sometimes to both together. Privately, then, how they prophesy to each you would find by attending to the succession of the prophets, but together to Israel and Judah, when through Jesus God promises to establish upon the house of Israel and upon the house of Judah a common covenant, not according to the covenant which God made with the fathers when they came out from the land of Egypt. And
being blind — Israel, concerning whom we have often explained, distinguishing him from the Israel according to the flesh — and Judah likewise, having heard, it says, that Jesus was passing by, cried out; having heard, it says, that — for, I think, from those proclaiming the things concerning Jesus' arrival and that he was passing through, on his way to Jericho, which was about to pass away, sojourning in it but about to go out from it — they are blessed if he does not pass them by
without their being shown mercy. Therefore they cried out to him, saying: Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David. But the Savior, in doing good, does not pass by, but hastens, so that once he has stood still the benefit may not flow past and pass away, but may come to those benefited as from a standing spring. So then Jesus, having stood still and struck by their outcry and their request, calls them
to himself, already making the beginning of the benefit at the moment he called them; for he would not have called in vain, with nothing accomplished in those called. Would that we too, crying out to him and saying: Have mercy on us, Lord, he might call us, beginning from 'Son of David,' and, having stood still, might call us as one attending to our request. He said,
then, to them: What do you want me to do for you? Which I take to mean something like this: state, declare, what you want, so that all who are going out from Jericho and following me may hear and see what happens. They answered: Lord, that our eyes may be opened — an answer which they, being noble by birth (in being Israel and Judah) but blinded by ignorance and
having become aware of it, and having heard those speaking about the Savior, cried out to him and say that they want their eyes to be opened. And this especially do those say who, in reading the sacred scripture, are not insensible of their own blindness toward the mind within it. For these say 'have mercy on us' and 'we want our eyes to be opened,' that is,
our eyes. Would that we too, perceiving in what respects we are blind and do not see, sitting beside the very road of the scriptures, and hearing that Jesus is passing by, might through our own request make him stand still and say that we want our eyes to be opened. And if we should say this out of a disposition longing to see what he grants to be seen, leaping up with the eyes of the soul
Jesus, our Savior, will be moved with compassion, and being power and word and wisdom and everything that is written about him, he will touch our eyes, which did not see before him. And when he has touched them, the darkness and the ignorance will flee, and immediately we will not only see again but will also follow him, since he himself cooperates in our seeing again in order that
we do nothing else but follow the one who will make us see again, so that, always following him, we may be led by him to God and may see God with our eyes that have seen again through him, together with those who are blessed for having a pure heart. We have, then, those going out from Jericho and following Jesus, being a great crowd, not Israel nor
Judah; but the two blind men, having heard that Jesus was passing by, and having learned that he is the son of David, and becoming aware of their own blindness, and requesting that their eyes be opened, are Israel and Judah restored, whose eyes, though shut and closed together, see again through the touch of Jesus. These things, then, according to Matthew. But since Mark and Luke, according to some, set out
the same story, but according to others a different but similar one, it is worth also examining what they say. And first one must consider the account according to Mark, who writes of the place in this way: "And he comes to Jericho. And as he was going out from there, with his disciples and a considerable crowd, behold, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind man" and so on, up to "and
he followed him on the road." Now the one who takes his stand on the bare history and does not wish the evangelists to disagree will say that what is according to Matthew and what is according to Mark did not happen at the same time, but that on one visit to Jericho the events concerning the two blind men who received their sight occurred, and on another visit the events concerning this one, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, and on yet another
the events according to Luke. For if indeed we believe accurately that the Gospels were written with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, and that those who wrote them were not mistaken in what they recorded, it is clear that, since it is not possible for it to be true that two blind men and one blind man were healed on one and the same visit, one visit is indicated by Matthew, another by Mark,
and yet another by Luke, as one who pays attention can, from the difference with respect to the others, confidently declare this point as well. And it is nothing to marvel at if someone, having noticed the first healing at Jericho, should have wished to be healed in the same place through the same wording and a similar request. But someone might say that in this way the blind man healed according to Luke is also
a different person. But whoever seeks a deeper account of all these things will say that one and the same matter is presented in different wordings; for there are two blind men, as it has been recorded, standing for Israel and Judah, but there is one people made up of both of these, when one blind man is shown being healed. "A considerable crowd," then, is the crowd from the nations going out together with them from
of worldly things to Jesus and his disciples, a certain remnant of Israel sitting “beside the road” <that is, beside the prophetic scriptures> and poor in understanding and begging for what the soul needs, having heard that it is Jesus the Nazarene, begins to cry out loudly, asking the savior, as son of David, to show him mercy. And whenever you see those of
the Jews who believe in Jesus, believing concerning the savior—at one time supposing him to be from Mary and Joseph, at another from Mary alone and the divine Spirit, yet not along with the theology concerning him—you will see how this blind man says, “son of David, have mercy on me,” whom the “many” rebuke; for many
of those going out from Jericho, from the nations, rebuke the poverty of those among the Jews who falsely claim to believe. And if you apply such things, though seemingly unreasonable, to the noble soul that has become poor in this way and come even to begging, you will not miss the sense of the passage by much. Since Mark also thought it good to record the name of the blind man’s father, that he was Timaeus,
and that of the blind man, that he was called Bartimaeus, we inquire whether Mark had in mind something deeper at this point. And perhaps he simply added the name, taking it from the historical account without variation; though one might also say he did so because it served a purpose. And if we shall not be thought to grow tediously cold by pressing on to the examination of such matters, let us inquire about the one named for honor, Timaeus,
and his son Bartimaeus, which means “son of Timaeus.” Could it be, then, that because of the honor of the patriarch Jacob, that is, Israel, he is figuratively “Timaeus,” while those who have obtained their nobility from him are “Bartimaeus,” blind for the reasons already stated, and likewise “sitting beside the road” and “begging” as well? Then, when he said, “Son of David, have mercy on
me,” the many rebuked him that he should be silent, I ask whether you can say that the many rebuke “that he should be silent” the Ebionite — who is poor with regard to faith in Jesus — being themselves those from the nations, who have almost all without exception believed him to have been born of a virgin, while they rebuke “that he should be silent” the one who supposes him to be from the seed of a man and a woman, tracing his lineage from David.
But although the many were rebuking him, he cried out “all the more,” believing in Jesus, yet believing in a more human way, and crying out he says, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” But the savior, who loves mankind, stood still, and no longer—according to Matthew—does he himself call him, but he ordered that he be called; and those who were commanded said to him, “Take courage, rise” (for to him, sitting and having fallen back, they say, “Rise”), and they say,
“He is calling you.” After this Mark says that, having thrown off his cloak, [he came to] Jesus. Did he then record nothing meaningful about the man who threw off his cloak and leapt up and came to him, or are we to think these details have been tossed into the gospel at random? I, for my part, do not believe that a single iota or a single stroke is empty of divine teachings, but I consider that succeeding in interpreting them requires a great deal of reasoning, because of
matters difficult to interpret. Perhaps, then, the things belonging to him as a blind man and a beggar [...] indicate the marriage-garments and wraps with which Bartimaeus was clothed; which the blind man cast off when he heard, "Take courage, rise, he is calling you," and, having cast off the coverings and wraps of his begging, "he leapt up and stood," so that he might come to Jesus and, upon obtaining the answer given by him in response to
the request, "What do you want me to do?" — he himself might utter a greater cry than "Son of David, have mercy on me"; for a greater thing than "Son of David" has been conceived by the one who says "Rabbouni" and who sets forth the kind of mercy through "that I may see again." And the Savior, indeed, through "Son of David, have mercy on me" does not grant the benefit, nor even when the garment of
<blindness and of> begging... nor when he was sitting beside the road, dwelling there. But because of "Rabbouni, that I may see again" he said to him, "Go, your faith has saved you." And the Savior indeed said to him, "Go"; but he did something better than this command, for he did not go away, but "was following" Jesus on the road, since "immediately he saw again." Let us also consider
the account in Luke, which runs thus: "Now it happened, as he was drawing near to Jericho, that a certain blind man was sitting by the road begging," and so on down to "and all the people, seeing it, gave praise to God." Of this account, the elements common to the others, already treated in the discourse we have set forth according to what has become apparent to us, we will not repeat, but
the timely and distinctive points we will set forth as far as we are able. And first observe that Matthew and Mark recorded that the matters concerning the blind men, or the blind man, occurred as Jesus was going out from Jericho with his disciples; but Luke says, "Now it happened, as he was drawing near to Jericho." Therefore, according to Luke, it is on entering
Jericho and coming near to it that he accomplishes the dispensation concerning the blind man. And one might say, according to the mystical sense, that Luke's account is first, Mark's second, and Matthew's third. For first one must draw near to Jericho, then enter it, and after that go out from it. Accordingly
Luke wrote, "Now it happened, as he was drawing near to Jericho"; Mark, "And he comes to Jericho, and as he was going out from there"; but Matthew recorded neither the drawing near to Jericho nor that he comes to Jericho, but only that, as they were going out from Jericho, a great crowd followed him. It is possible, then, that what is according to
Luke he did upon drawing near to Jericho, what is according to Mark upon coming to Jericho, and what is according to Matthew upon going out from it. And you see that the blind man according to Luke, "having heard a crowd passing by" (and not, presumably, Jesus), asked what this might be, while the one according to Mark, "having heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, began to cry out,"
...according to Matthew, two blind men sitting beside the road, having heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out. And in Matthew's account the blind men do not say "Jesus of Nazareth," but the one found in the other Gospels, of which, according to Mark, the blind man hears that "it is Jesus the Nazorean," while the one according to Luke, when he was inquiring of the crowd
"what this might be," learned it when they reported to him that Jesus the Nazarene was passing by. Next, after these things, observe that those going ahead rebuked the blind man who was crying out and saying, "Son of David, have mercy on me," so that he would be silent — as if they were saying: those who had believed first rebuked the one saying "Son of David," so that he would be silent and not proclaim him by the lesser name. But it is as if he were saying instead
"Son of God, have mercy on me." But that man "cried out all the more, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.'" Then it says, "Jesus stood still and ordered him to be brought to him." And observe whether, as we have noted, this blind man is not somehow inferior: for Jesus neither called him himself nor said that he should be called, but, as one who could not manage this on his own, "he ordered him"
unable by himself to be "brought to him." Then (it says) "when he had come near, he asked him, saying, 'What do you want me to do for you?'" And he did not ask him before the one being asked had drawn near, but since he had drawn near, therefore, when asked, he said, "that I may see again, Lord." Then, laying this aside, it says "Jesus said to him: 'See again; your faith has saved you.'"
But the blind men in Matthew have something more, concerning whom it is written that Jesus, moved with compassion, touched their eyes; but neither the one in Mark nor the one in Luke touched them. Again, the one in Luke has some further advantage, since, when "immediately he saw again," he not only followed him, but had something more beyond
the rest: for it says, "he followed him, glorifying God." And the outcome of this was that, in his following and glorifying God, all the crowd, upon seeing it, gave "praise to God." These things, then, for the present we have set down concerning these passages, whether by knowing them or by receiving them from others; and may God grant to whomever he wishes a richer word of wisdom and
a clearer word in the light of knowledge, so that these things, when compared with such gifts, may be found like a lamp beside the sun. And "when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, by the Mount of Olives," and so on, down to "having mounted on a donkey and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden" — and Mark too recorded it in this way at this point: and when
"they draw near to Jerusalem and to Bethany, by the Mount of Olives," and so on, down to "and immediately he will send it"; but Luke, in this manner: "and having said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem," and so on, down to "thus you shall say: that the Lord has need of it." It is especially worthwhile, in cases like these, to consider the
of the words of the gospel, to attend to the intention of those who recorded them and their purpose, at what they were aiming when they recorded, alongside the marvelous and paradoxical things done by the Savior, also things that show nothing of that sort. For let it be granted that the evangelists dealt with the giving of sight to the blind, the healing of the paralyzed, the raising of the dead, and the cleansing of lepers, for the edifying, concerning Jesus, of those who would encounter
their writing, what does the passage before us intend, namely that when Jesus drew near to Jerusalem with his disciples and had come to Bethphage near the Mount of Olives, he sent two disciples, instructing them concerning a donkey and a colt, that having untied them they should bring them to him — to him who at times did not shrink from traveling a longer road on foot, and completing the journey with his own feet,
as when he passed from Jerusalem through Samaria <to the place, and> having arrived, being weary from the journey, he sat down beside it? But what does it mean that Jesus himself has need of a donkey tied up together with a colt, ordering them to be untied, and instructing that it be said to whoever speaks about this, that their lord has need of them, and that he will send them back at once? For so great a lord,
having need of a donkey and a colt long since tied up, let him show ... something worthy of his own magnificence. The inquiry concerning this passage is intensified by the prophet Zechariah son of Barachiah, who prophesied concerning these things a prophecy worthy of attention, in which it is written in these very words: "Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; proclaim, daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your king comes to you,
righteous and saving, he himself gentle and mounted on a beast of burden and a young colt." And if you wish to learn from the prophet how the things prophesied are matters worthy of great joy for the daughter of Zion, hear also: "and he will destroy the chariots out of Ephraim and the horse out of Jerusalem, and the battle bow will be destroyed, and abundance and peace out of the nations; and he will rule over waters as far as
the sea, and the outlets of the rivers of the earth. And you, by the blood of the covenant, have sent forth your prisoners from the pit that has no water. You prisoners of the congregation shall sit in a stronghold, and instead of one day of your exile I will repay you double." And so that we may not draw out the discussion further, let us leave it to whoever wishes to compare the prophecy with the account according to the gospel, to examine all the details
concerning the places, with the text set alongside. We have noted, as in other cases, that Matthew and John did not set forth the prophetic word in the very same words; for "rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; proclaim, daughter of Jerusalem" is not the same as "say to the daughter of Zion," <or "do not fear, daughter of Zion,"> but also the words that come after "behold, your king comes to
you" and before "gentle" Matthew did not set forth, having it thus: "righteous and saving, he himself." Further, instead of "and mounted on a donkey and a colt, son of a beast of burden," he has <"and mounted on a donkey> and a young colt," or, as in some copies, "colt of a beast of burden." John, instead of "mounted on a beast of burden <and a young colt>," has made it: "sitting, he comes"
upon a colt of a donkey.» Showing that knowledge of the place is needed, he adds, »but his disciples did not know these things at first.« One might inquire how it is reasonable that, according to the prophet, the daughter of Zion is commanded to rejoice greatly and the daughter of Jerusalem to proclaim, because of the one mounted on a beast of burden and a young colt,« when shortly afterward, having seen
Jerusalem, Jesus wept over it, saying, »Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets,« and so on. Observe, then, if you can, that Zion, now called the daughter of the one commanding her to rejoice, and Jerusalem the city, the daughter of the one bidding her to proclaim, must be said to be not the one who crucified the Lord, but the one who longs for the crucified one — the heavenly Zion, concerning which
it is written in the letter to the Hebrews: »but you have drawn near to Mount Zion, the city of the God who lives, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels gathered in festival,« while in the letter to the Galatians: »but the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother.« For perhaps these are symbols of the Savior loosing, through his disciples, their own mounts from their bonds — both those from
the people who believed at that time, and those from the nations. For the synagogue of that time was bound by sins, and the colt too was bound along with her — the new people believing from the nations, who came to be later. And bringing both of these near to the ascent to the Jerusalem above, the Savior commanded them to be loosed by the disciples as they taught, having given to them
the Holy Spirit, and saying: »Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven them; if you retain anyone's, they are retained.« And indeed always the disciples — whom he made sufficient to serve as ministers of a covenant that is new, belonging not to the letter but to the Spirit « — loosing the bound donkey and the colt, lead them to Jesus, who wishes to make use of the mounts
that had been loosed from the ancient bond of sins. And it is indeed fitting for the Son of God to have need in this way — for he is a lover of humanity — of the bound donkey and of the colt bound along with her; and he has need of them so that, seated upon them, he may give rest rather than be given rest by those upon whom he sits. But someone will ask how the sense of what follows will be consistent with what has been given,
given that they run thus: »and immediately he will send them« — or »and immediately he will send it back here again.« You will resolve the difficulty raised by inquiring into the sending, whether it concerns the two animals according to Matthew or the one colt according to Mark. For the Lord was none other than the one of whom the apostle says: »but for us there is one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things,« to whom, that no one of those who said, »why are you loosing the colt?« or whatever else the herders might say, was going to object at all, is clear; for it is as though they would not object to him that the Savior said, »and if anyone says anything to you, you shall say that the Lord has need of them,« or, »if anyone says to you, 'why are you loosing
the colt: "if ever anyone says that its master has need of it." And according to Luke as well: "if someone," he says, "asks you, Why are you untying it? you shall say this: that its master has need of it." And you should inquire whether, after the Savior's entry into Jerusalem and his having mounted upon these animals, or upon it, some mission to some
necessary work was about to take place with respect to that place, so that the donkey and the colt might do some work in keeping with what is passed over in silence — not plainly manifested, yet obscurely indicated. I derive an idea of this sort by attending to the order of the beatitudes in the Gospel according to Matthew. Among these, after "blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of the
heavens," it is written next, "fortunate are the gentle in spirit, since it is the earth they will receive as inheritance." Observe in these words that, first, of those pronounced blessed, "the kingdom" belongs to "the heavens"; and second, "the earth shall be given them as an inheritance" — not so as to remain upon it for the whole age. For having been comforted, and, on account of having hungered and thirsted for righteousness, having been satisfied with it, and having received mercy, and having seen
God, and having been called his sons, they are restored again to the kingdom of the heavens. But if the donkey and the colt, upon which the Savior mounts, happen to be those who are given back, do not stumble at the saying that compares to irrational, burden-bearing animals those who carry Jesus mounted upon them. For perhaps the prophet too, understanding something of this sort, said that he had become like a beast — not simply so, but
before God, or before Christ, in accordance with "I too became like a beast before you." For in relation to the self-subsistent Word and to God's majesty, we are like beasts — not we alone, but also those far more rational and wiser than we. And in the same way, in relation to the rational power of the Shepherd, we are his sheep, in that the reason present in human beings, even in the most perfect of them, when set beside the self-subsistent Word, is at
a greater distance from him than the distance a donkey's or a colt's soul — or a sheep's — has from a human being. And perhaps, while Jesus is being carried up, mounted, into Jerusalem, the beast of burden, or the colt, is of this sort; but once they have arrived there, they no longer remain a beast of burden or a colt, but are sent away, having been transformed, and having been benefited, and having partaken
of the divinity of the Word and the surpassing greatness of knowledge, so that, being deemed worthy of the glory of God, they are dispatched back toward the region out of which they had first been loosed — the Lord having transformed them and having given them a reward for having borne him, such a transformation, that they are even sent back to their former place, but no longer for the works they did before. For our
Lord, who loves mankind, having once received them, and having honored them both by loosing them from their bonds and by his own being carried upon them, was not going to send them back again to bonds, or to lesser works than the work they had done in receiving upon their backs the Son of God. And it was fitting that at such a mystery, and at what is said along with it, there should be great rejoicing, and that the fruit of joy should be intensified
to proclaim to the daughter of God, Zion, and her daughter Jerusalem; for there was coming to her “the righteous and saving king,” <and not simply “saving”> but <“righteous and saving,” that is,> along with keeping to being righteous and saving with righteousness, and preparing for salvation those who are being saved. And he himself was coming to Zion and Jerusalem “meek and mounted
upon a beast of burden and a young colt,” as we have rendered it) watching over Israel by destroying “chariots out of Ephraim,” which happen to be like the chariots of Pharaoh, when “he cast the chariots of Pharaoh and his host into the sea.” And he was coming also destroying “the horse,” the animal of war, from Jerusalem, so that he might make peace for Israel by turning back his lost sheep, and peace also for
Jerusalem, by bringing back her children who had fallen away. And how was it not bound to be a matter of great joy that the righteous and saving and gentle king should come in this way into Jerusalem, when every “bow of war” was about to be destroyed, so that “sinners” might no longer stretch their bows nor prepare arrows for the quiver, to shoot down in the moonless dark those who are upright in heart? And there was then to be
both multitude and peace,” from the believing and saved “nations,” with the Savior as ruler, as it says, “from sea unto sea, and from the river,” ruling too over the “outlets of the rivers of the earth” as they make their courses and water most of it. But whoever wishes to understand more simply, concerning <the sojourn among the Jews> in which the Savior dwelt, the phrase “daughter of Zion” and “daughter of Jerusalem,” will say that the word indeed commands rejoicing
to the daughter of Zion and proclaiming to the daughter of Jerusalem; but if some disbelieved, neither doing what was worthy of rejoicing nor heeding the command about proclaiming, they themselves became responsible for suffering what they have suffered, so that it is said to them: “The word of God had to be announced to you first; but since you judge yourselves unworthy, behold, we are turning to the—” it is necessary
also to know this, that upon coming across five editions of Zechariah we found in the Seventy and in Aquila the reading “he himself meek and mounted upon a beast of burden and a young colt,” or “upon a donkey and a colt, the son of she-donkeys,” but in Theodotion: “he himself giving heed and mounted upon a donkey and a colt, the son of a donkey,” but in Symmachus: “he himself poor and mounted upon
a donkey and a colt, the son of a she-donkey,” and in the fifth edition: “he himself poor and mounted upon a beast of burden and a colt, the son of donkeys,” and one can indeed apply these readings to the history of the Gospel passage under examination, since it was meek and heedful and poor that the Savior came into Jerusalem; for “he became poor, though he was rich, so that” those who hear him,
who heeds us, might become rich by his “poverty.” Let us look at Bethphage according to Matthew, Bethany according to Mark, and Bethphage and Bethany according to Luke. These places were by the mountain called “of Olives.” We say that Bethphage is interpreted “OF JAWS” (which was a district belonging to the priests), and Bethany “HOUSE OF OBEDIENCE.” Concerning the house
...of obedience, then, is the thing being loosed, or the things being loosed, led so that Jesus might mount upon them from there, or to the house of the jawbone, concerning which one can speak, taking occasion also from Judges, in which there is a spring called "of the jawbone," from which Samson, being thirsty, drank — or perhaps because to the one who strikes on the jawbone one must offer the other also,
Bethphage was a symbol of the patience of those being saved, whence Jesus mounted upon the animals loosed by the disciples according to Jesus' command. And the Mount of Olives is the church, whose members are said to bear fruit, being fine olive trees: "But I am like a fruitful olive tree in the house of God"; and those who are beginning and being introduced
among them are like newly planted olive shoots around the table of Christ, being his little children and "sons." But if we must also give attention to the two disciples whom Jesus sent for the tethered donkey and the colt with her, so that, having loosed them, they might bring them to him, it must be said — perhaps not unreasonably — that the two disciples are, in a sense, Peter and Paul, giving each other the right hand of "fellowship,"
so that Peter might be assigned to the circumcision in relation to the beast of burden, the people who had come to be under the yoke of the law, while Paul was assigned to the nations in relation to the young and untamed colt. And both — I mean the beast of burden and the colt — were before Jesus in a village, not a city, where they had been tethered. But the disciples of Jesus loose and
lead both animals to Jesus. Bringing the discussion back further to the two disciples, one might say that there is one order of those who minister to those of the circumcision, and another for those from the nations; yet there is fellowship in their works, since they loose what has been commanded by Jesus to be loosed. And as they loose them, if anyone says to them, "Why are you loosing the colt?",
whatever the case, he speaks concerning both: we proclaim that their Lord has need of them, of those previously bound. He has need of them in order to mount them once they have been loosed from their sins and have received forgiveness of them; for upon those still bound and constricted by the chains of their own sins, Jesus does not sit. According to Mark and Luke, however, the colt is bound, "on which no man
has ever sat" — for nothing rational, in a human manner, had ever before been done to the colt from the nations either. And this colt, on which no rational being had previously been seated, had the good fortune that God, the Word, the Son of God, should sit upon it, so that, being led by him as he held the reins, it might arrive at the Jerusalem of God. So much, then, have we seen concerning this passage for the present; but
whoever is able and has room for a greater grace concerning this passage, let him say something greater and better, and let him rather be heard by those who thirst for the clarity of the gospel. "So the disciples set out and did just as Jesus had directed them, bringing the donkey and the colt," and so on, down to "the one from Nazareth of Galilee." Mark, however, renders the passage thus:
he set forth: “and going away they found a colt bound outside by the door, at the corner of the street, and they loosed it” and so on down to “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; peace in the highest.” And Luke also says something similar: “And those who were sent went away and found, just as he had told them, the colt standing” and so on down to
“if these keep silent, the stones will cry out.” Following what has been given concerning the two disciples sent to loose the tethered donkey and the colt with her, and everything said on this subject, we will also relate what is set down, in which it is said that the two disciples, having gone and done what had been commanded them by the Savior,
brought to him the donkey and the colt; and they did not leave them bare, but placed an adornment on them in the form of garments, procuring for them a becoming appearance, having decked the donkey that had been loosed by her and the colt with her in the very garments by which they themselves also were adorned and covered—and] so that, the donkey and the colt having been adorned with the garments of the teaching disciples, the Word of God might mount, and settle, and
be enthroned upon it, becoming alone the one seated above and the charioteer of those who had been loosed and were bearing him. But it is upon the garments laid by the teaching disciples upon the donkey and the colt that Jesus sits down, since each one had to contribute something to Christ, the meek king mounted upon a beast of burden and a young colt [...] <And the very great crowd spread their own garments in the
way, and others struck off branches from the trees and spread them in the way.> Indeed it was a very great crowd that was entering Jerusalem together with Jesus, and these showed the fruit of their acceptance of the Savior by spreading their own garments beneath him, and whatever adornment and covering they had, for him who was seated upon the donkey and the colt. In the way, then, along
which he led the donkey and the colt toward Jerusalem, the very great crowd spread their own garments, so that with feet pure of earth and earthly things, and having no dust whatever, the donkey and the colt might tread upon Jerusalem. And a third order, distinct from the two disciples and the very great crowd that spread their garments in
the way, is now enumerated; for others procured a certain beauty for the way by which Jesus traveled toward Jerusalem, borne by those already mentioned; and the beauty consisted of branches cut from trees and strewn on either side of the spread garments—unless perhaps this was a fourth order. For the disciples who loosed the animals were one group, and the donkey and the colt with her another,
and third the very great crowd, and fourth those who were cutting the branches from the trees and strewing them in the way. But consider from these that also a fifth and sixth order are being enumerated, namely those going before Jesus and those following him. And you will say that those going before were, from among those before his coming, of the people, perhaps the righteous
...and of the prophets; and those following are the ones from among those who, after his coming, follow the word and accompany him, whether they are righteous ones or even apostles of Christ. Yet those going before were not saying different things from those following; for all of them cried out together, as it were a chorus singing in unison and in harmony, and they spoke, hymning also the human nature of the Savior in the "Hosanna" to the
Son of David, and his second coming in "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," and the restoration into the holy places in "Hosanna in the highest." Now when these three acclamations were being spoken by the harmonious voice of those going before and those following Jesus, he himself was entering into the true Jerusalem; and the heavenly powers, astonished,
who are said to be the whole city, kept saying, "Who is this?" — corresponding to what was prophesied in Psalm twenty-three concerning the ascension of the Savior and the astonishment of the heavenly powers, astonished at the common spectacle of his bodily vehicle. It runs thus in the Psalm: "Lift up your gates, O rulers, and be lifted up, everlasting gates, and the
King of glory shall come in," and so on. And in Isaiah too something similar is prophesied concerning the ascent of the Savior after the dispensation; for it is written: "Who is this who comes from Edom, the redness of his garments from Bosor — this one beautiful in his robe?" And you yourself will be able, by reading through the whole passage, to observe what the astonished powers say at
the ascent of the body of salvation, and what is answered to them. Now I have set these things down because I wished to preserve the sequence of the tropological reading of the scripture, namely that once he had gone into Jerusalem the entire city was shaken, saying, "Who is this?" And after this it is written next that many were saying, "This is Jesus the prophet, the one from Nazareth of Galilee," acknowledging the one
prophesied, that "he shall be called a Nazorean" — the one properly always devoted to God. But let what belongs to this passage, according to this narrative, be marked off as a boundary, and let the things that follow be made the beginning of a different section, so that no one is compelled (by joining the narrative about those things to what precedes) to inquire about certain people being cast out of the temple of God, who are rebuked as having made the "house of prayer"
a "den of robbers." I do not know, however, whether, even if one should force it, one can save the whole sequence of what follows in agreement with "Rejoice greatly, daughter Zion." After this let us examine also what sense "Hosanna to David's Son; blessed is the one who comes in the Lord's name; hosanna in the highest heights" carries. Now clearly "Blessed is he who
comes in the name of the Lord" stands, in these very words, in the psalm before the greatest psalm, called in some copies the hundred and seventeenth; and it seems to me that what stands in place of "O Lord, save now," placed before "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," is set out in Hebrew fashion in "Hosanna to the Son of David"; and indeed so the Hebrew word had it.
ANNA ADONAI OEIANNA. ANNA ALONAI ASLIANNA, BAROUCH ABBA BSAIM ALO— it seems to me that these words, being continually copied out by Greeks who did not know the language, have become garbled in the manuscripts that contain them at this point, deriving from the psalm mentioned above. But if you wish to learn the precise sense of the wording, hear how Aquila rendered it: "O Lord, save now"; "O Lord,
prosper now"; "blessed is the one who comes in the Lord's name." But let us return to summarizing the matter at this point and say that it was either Paul and Peter, or two other kinds of teachers, who, having loosed from their bonds, in accordance with Jesus' command, both the circumcised and the uncircumcised alike, adorned them and made them fit to carry
the word as it went up into Jerusalem. And as for the rest, according to one account it will run thus, but according to another it always stands that ... of those who received Jesus, spreading the road before him with their own garments and adorning it with branches, both going ahead and following after. And in yet another way, each person, through what has already been done, goes before
Jesus, while through what is yet to be done he follows after him — and this is what is recorded. On these points we ourselves have seen this much; let him who surpasses us see and teach more. Still, in one of our comments on the Gospel according to John we examined these matters to some extent as well, when it was proposed to give an account of "on the next day, then, the great crowd that had come to
the feast" and what follows. "And Jesus entered the temple of God and cast out all who were selling and buying in the temple," and what follows at this point — this the other three evangelists likewise set forth, and it is not the business of the present occasion to explain their difference from one another; it will suffice for us to clarify, so far as we are able, what stands in the gospel now under examination
As for the four evangelists, since they have recorded the matter at this point, we have examined more fully, so far as we were able, when dictating our comments on the Gospel according to John, and have clarified as best we could the words "and he found in the temple those selling oxen and sheep and doves" and what follows. There we were establishing that this was no lesser a display
of Jesus' extraordinary powers than his other deeds, and we were setting forth the point that, though he was reputed to be a carpenter's son, he exercised such boldness and authority — casting out at a festal gathering, from the temple, those we have mentioned — of a kind that not even the leader of the nation could easily have accomplished with the same facility as Jesus did what he did. And we gave a tropological interpretation, serving the wording as far as we were able to follow John's intent. But since now too
the sequence of our task demands that we speak, according to Matthew's wording, about the matters set out here, let us call upon the Father of wisdom and see whether we are able to say anything worthy about Jesus' bold action, with respect to this passage. And first it must be said what the temple of God is, which God himself, acknowledging it, said through the prophet: "My house is a house of prayer
...shall be called. Now, corresponding to the circumcision according to the flesh and to the bodily feasts and sacrifices of the law, the structure built of insensate stones was considered to be a temple of God — built first by Solomon and rebuilt again by Ezra, though after the dispensation of the Savior it was torn down by the Romans. And that house was supposed to be a house of prayer, and now that it has been torn down, it is necessary that the Jews,
as no longer having a house of prayer, say that they no longer have the special visitation of God, which they thought they possessed by praying in the house of prayer, nor the carrying-out of the worship prescribed by the law. And let our Savior — who also made symbols of his own spiritual acts — be understood to have physically driven out from that place those who sold and those who bought, and to have overturned the tables
of the currency-dealers, and the benches belonging to those who sold doves, and to have proclaimed the words laid out for the turning of the people then living, since instead of the solemn gathering-feast kept in God's name, they gave themselves over to buying and selling — not in the fitting place where buying and selling ought to occur, but within the temple, where those assembling should rather have prayed as though in a house of prayer,
but instead did the opposite of prayer in it, as in a house of commerce, selling and buying and exchanging money and sitting on seats in order to sell doves. And let our Jesus be understood to have done away with the unseemliness of what was then happening among the Jews, rebuking those who, instead of keeping festival according to the law, were engaged in trade and bodily indulgence. And now too I think that a temple built of
living stones is the church, and that there are in it some who serve not as in the church of the Living One but "according to the flesh," who indeed make the house of prayer, built of living stones, into a den of robbers through their own wickedness. For whoever considers what is sinned in certain churches by such Christians as suppose "godliness"
to be "the gain" of others, and though it is necessary to live "from the gospel" alone, not doing this, but instead gathering wealth and much property — will he not say that so great a mystery of the church has become a den of robbers? So that Jesus might say, concerning those sinning in the living temple that he built, the saying from the Psalms which runs thus: "What profit is there in my blood,
in my going down into corruption?" And the saying from (as I think) Hosea, where the soul of Jesus, displeased with the life of those who sin and yet seem to be in the temple, says: "Woe is me, for I have become like one who gathers stubble at the harvest and like a gleaning at the vintage, there being no ear of grain to eat the first-fruits. Woe is me, O soul, for
the godly man has perished from the earth, and there is none upright among men." And if you stumble at the idea that Jesus says this, and, mourning over our failings, utters the words "Woe is me, O soul," examine alongside these the passage from the Gospel where it is written that when he saw Jerusalem "he wept over it, and said" — and all the more so, if indeed he reasonably wept over Jerusalem,
he would with more justification weep over the church, built indeed that it might be a house of prayer, but made through the shameful greed and self-indulgence of certain people (but would that this were not true also of the leaders of the people!) a den of robbers. But then Jesus entered the temple of God and cleansed it, casting out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and the tables
of the money-changers he overturned, along with the seats on which sat those who were selling doves. But now, insofar as they are not examined, those who gather together in Jesus Christ have in their synagogues people who sell and buy in the temple and do all the rest, and nowhere does Jesus appear to them, so as to cast them out and save the rest, or make even those
who were cast out come to a recognition of their sin and enter the temple, no longer selling and buying or doing the other things; but whenever he visits our sins, coming among us as one who loves us, so as to discipline and scourge us as sons in order that he may receive us, then the power of Jesus will enter as we are gathered together, together with the Holy Spirit, and having entered
it will cast out all who are selling and buying in the temple — selling, as it were disposing of whatever good thing they had, and buying in its place worthless things, and doing these things in the temple of God, that is, the church. But would that Jesus, entering the temple of the Father, the church, the house of prayer, would overturn the tables of the money-changers
and of those greedy for shameful gain and lovers of money, and of those who break the approved coins into many cheap pieces of no value, so that they harm those with whom they exchange money while not themselves using the money as they should. There are also others in the temple who sell and buy the doves of Christ and hand over the innocent as though they were doves — those who prayed and said, "Who
will give me wings like a dove, that I may fly away and be at rest?" — and, having been heard, are handed over to rulers to whom they ought not be. And I think the account concerning those who sell the doves fits those who hand over the churches to bishops or presbyters or deacons who are greedy for shameful gain, tyrannical, unlearned, and irreverent. This is why Matthew and Mark named "seats" only of those selling the doves
which they say were overturned by Jesus. Would that those who boast of sitting on the seat of Moses heard these things with the understanding befitting the divine scripture, and would stop selling whole churches of doves and handing them over to such leaders, concerning whom what is said by the Lord in Jeremiah might be spoken: "The leaders of my people have not
known me; they are foolish children and without understanding; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have not known" — and what is said, I think, in Micah in this way: "The leaders of my people shall be cast out of their house of luxury." For if they had listened, they would not have sold the doves of Christ, but would have appointed as their rulers people who spared the doves and took thought for the
...of their salvation, and not looking around to see which dove appears plump enough to slaughter and feast upon. Jesus addresses those being driven out as buyers and sellers, and the currency-dealers and those selling doves, shaming them by the prophecies uttered as if from the Father's own person, in that this stands recorded: 'A house of prayer is what my house shall be named.' For nothing else ought to be...
...in God's assembly except the prayer belonging to every holy deed, prayer that summons God's oversight, being reckoned as prayer before God — in this sense it is possible to 'pray without ceasing.' But you, you men, through your own wickedness have turned the prayer-house into a robbers' cave. And it is possible to find, in many places, little by little, the matters of what passes for a church having wandered into such distortion...
...that the assembly gathered together in the name of Christ differs in nothing from a den of robbers, so that it might be said of them: ‘Because of us my name is continually blasphemed among the nations.’ But if it is necessary, having contended somewhat for the clarity of Scripture, to explain more carefully the three kinds of persons enumerated here, perhaps those among the people who occupy themselves with nothing in the world...
...but have their pursuits solely in selling and buying, and rarely persevere in prayers and in the works the divine word demands — these are the ones selling and buying in the temple of God. And those deacons who administer the church’s funds not rightly, but are forever handling them, not managing them well but heaping up...
...the supposed wealth and money, so that they may grow rich from what is given for the sake of the poor — these are the money-changers who have tables of money, which Jesus overturned. And the bishops and presbyters entrusted with the first seats among the people, who, as it were, sell off entire churches to those to whom they ought not, and set up as rulers those who ought not to be set up — these are the ones selling the doves, whose seats...
...Jesus overturned. Let each, then, of those who sit on ecclesiastical seats and love ‘the first seats in the synagogues’ take heed, lest he so sit on his own seat that Jesus, when he comes, overturns it as deserving to be overturned. But let each of those who, through their ministry, gather wealth for themselves and defraud the poor of money, upon grasping the passage set before us, no longer heap up upon the tables...
...silver, lest Jesus overturn them. But let those too who are constantly driven by worldly cares and anxieties into buying and selling take heed, lest Jesus, when he comes, cast them out of the temple, since the one who is cast out has no hope of entering again from the place out of which he was cast. And it occurs to me, as I search out the passage set before us, that Jesus may do these things also...
...at his second coming, or at the divine judgment that is expected. For entering into the whole temple of God — the entire church, the church that has stood in the name of Christ from the time it was established until the consummation of the age — whomever he finds occupied with selling and buying among those supposed to belong in the temple, as unworthy of the temple of God...
he will cast out. And whoever he finds setting up tables and becoming money-changers, he will expose, overturning their tables and showing by his word what sins they have committed regarding money. Then he will also overturn the seats (as we have explained) of those selling doves. But if someone has none of these three kinds and is found in the temple of God, let him take courage. For neither
will he be cast out by Jesus, nor will anything belonging to him be overturned, nor will he be branded a thief for turning the prayer-house into a robbers' cave - even as those will be chastised who through their own thievery and wrongdoing turned the prayer-house into a robbers' cave. Since, then, the narrative bearing on the literal meaning has been set out for us, and handed down twofold to the church, come let us next see whether it is also possible
also to understand the matters concerning the place in this way. Every rational nature is by nature no less a temple of God than the church, having been constructed so that it might hold the glory of God, concerning which it is written (in the second book of Chronicles and the third of Kingdoms) that it appeared in the temple after its building. This then, the temple of God by nature, the soul, we who sin have filled
with reckonings that buy and sell, and with other computations that weigh everything by reference to silver; and we too, sinning, have filled it with others buying and selling off whatever holy remainder had come to exist within our soul, which was the dove. Jesus therefore tells those sinning, filled with the reckonings of thieves, what stands recorded: "A house of prayer is what my house shall be named," yet you have turned it
a den of robbers. Jesus, then, drove out of the temple as robbers those who turned the house of prayer into a robbers' den. But those who share the outlook of the robbers said concerning Jesus: "Crucify, crucify him," and concerning the robber Barabbas: "Release to us Barabbas." For this reason, to this day the Jews do not have Jesus - for they have not believed in the
son of God - but they have with themselves, from the spiritual things "of wickedness," Barabbas the robber, already seized and shut up in prison, whom they thought worthy to have released in preference to themselves. For this reason Barabbas the robber rules over the unbelieving Jews. "And blind and lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them," and so on, down to "out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have prepared praise."
The matters of the text are clear. Following the anagogical readings already given, it must be said that in the temple of God, the house of prayer, the church, not all are seeing, nor (so to call them) - for there are some also blind, and others lame, among those gathered, who, from perceiving their own blindness
and lameness, and from knowing that it is the work of none other than God, and of the word of God, to heal them, come forward to him and are healed. After this it is written that the chief priests and the scribes, although indeed they saw the wonders that Jesus did, and heard the children glorifying the son of God in the temple, the church, were indignant, disdaining
of the children who were praising Jesus, and being indignant they say to the Savior, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And he, rebuking them, answered that, for so long a time have you been occupied with the divine scriptures, reading up to this very point, in order that you not despise the little ones and children in the church who praise me and my Father in the heavens, since out of the mouth of infants and
nursing babes you have prepared praise? Perhaps, then, just as according to the historical sense these chief priests and scribes are blameworthy, so too according to the higher sense there are certain blameworthy chief priests, who do not adorn the name of their office with their own life, nor are clothed in knowledge and truth; these, then, although they see the wonders of God, nonetheless despise those in the church who are
little ones and infants but who praise God and his Christ, and are indignant at their progress and accuse them before Jesus himself as though he were one who does not disapprove of sinners, and as though he were not listening nor keeping order, they say to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And we shall understand this yet more if we give attention to the way in which, often, toward those who are fervent in
spirit and are brought even before prisons on account of the unbelieving, and who despise every danger, with how much vigor they practice chastity and virginity — to put it in the language of ordinary people — the blameworthy chief priests rebuke them as being disorderly and bring accusations against them before Jesus, as though they themselves were acting more justly than such simple, earnest, and good children. But Jesus bears witness in favor of the children, while against the chief priests
he charges ignorance of the scriptures, by saying: "Have you never read that out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have prepared praise?" And whenever you see, in the church, those who, like Peter, "as newborn infants" long for "the reasonable milk without guile" and suck at it, being given drink by it, and moreover who praise God by their faith and by their life, observe that there is fulfilled in them the
"Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have prepared praise." For God prepares praise for himself in such as these, on account of whom the Son, giving thanks to the Father, says: "I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these matters from the wise and the intelligent, and disclosed them instead to infants; yes, Father, for so it was well-pleasing to you," and so on. And,
leaving them, he went out of the city [as far as] to Bethany, and so on up to "and all things whatsoever you ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive." Leaving certain people behind, Jesus went out from the city of Jerusalem, from which, having gone out, he was in Bethany — leaving behind those who saw, namely the people's chief priests and scribes, "the wonders that he did, and the"
children crying out in the temple and saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David," who were nonetheless indignant at those who were praising Christ, and were for this reason shown to be convicted of not having understood, "Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have prepared praise"? And since he left that Jerusalem behind and came to be outside the city, for this reason it fell, and "stone upon stone" began not
...to remain, but even to be torn down, until everything is dissolved. And he came to Bethany, THE HOUSE OF OBEDIENCE, the church, where he also lodged and rested, since he had nowhere in Jerusalem "to lay his head," seeing that such chief priests and scribes were among them. And when he had rested in Bethany, THE HOUSE OF OBEDIENCE, after the beginning of the church's being constituted...
...and after Christ had rested in it, then he goes back to the city which he had left and of which he had gone outside; and going back into it he is hungry, and seeing a single fig tree by the road, the tree of the people, he came to it, and found nothing edible on it but only an appearance of life; for there were leaves without fruit on the fig tree.
Then, since this fig tree was ensouled, on account of this he speaks to it as to something that hears, the curse fitting for it. And what was said was something like this: as long as the present age holds together, may there no longer be fruit in you. For this reason the synagogue of the Jews is fruitless, and this remains its condition until the completion of the age, until "the fullness of the nations comes in."
But the fig tree was withered while human life was still going on and while Jesus was still, as it were, living as a human being among them. And the disciples, seeing it, marveled, saying: How did the fig tree wither at once? For with the eyes of the soul they saw the mystery of the withered fig tree, and they marveled not so much at its having withered as at its having withered at once; for they saw
the fig tree dry, that people Israel. And when the disciples marveled at having seen the fig tree instantly withered, Jesus answered and said, confirming what was said with the "amen," that if you have faith and do not doubt, you will do not only what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain: Be lifted up and thrown into the sea, it will happen.
Accordingly, the disciples who believe and do not doubt also do what was done to the fig tree, saying to it: "we were obliged to speak the word of God to you first; but since you judge yourselves not worthy, behold, we turn to the nations," and leaving it, they wither it, so that its vital power might pass over to those from the nations, and the spirit that formerly held that people together
might shift over to those from the nations. And besides making the disciples do what was done to the fig tree, the word of God promises them further that, if they have faith and do not doubt, then even to the mountain seen and pointed out by him, the opposing power that rises up against human beings, they will say: Be lifted up and thrown into the sea, and
it happens. For from each of those benefited by the disciples of Jesus the heavy mountain of evil, Satan, is lifted, he who has overcome it lifting it away, and it is thrown into the sea, the abyss, he who throws it casting it into the place of punishment worthy of it. And concerning this sea it is said in the psalms: "This is the sea, great and wide,..."
there ships pass through, small creatures along with great ones, this dragon which you formed to play with in it." And in another psalm: there "you crushed the heads of the dragons upon the water" — clearly meaning in the sea — and again: there "you crushed the head of the dragon, you gave him as food to the peoples, to the Ethiopians." So then, in the case of each of those
who are being fitted by the word for salvation, the mountain that is seen and pointed out by Jesus is lifted up and thrown into the sea, in accordance with the word of the disciple of Jesus who succeeds in his teaching, saying to the mountain within each of his hearers, "Be lifted up and be thrown into the sea," and saying this while having faith and not doubting, so that what is said may
actually happen. And everything whatsoever the one who has faith and does not doubt asks for in prayer, believing, he will receive. This is Bethany, where the friend of Jesus who was raised from the dead used to live. And everyone who obeys the word of God and holds within himself the word of obedience, established <and lodging there>, is a HOUSE of OBEDIENCE, that is, a Bethany,
in which Jesus lodges and finds rest. But since we must draw from what is said matters worthy of the wisdom of God from which the Gospels were written, observe whether, according to those who understand in a more simple way, the statement "having left them he went out of the city" is superfluous — for how could he have come to be outside the city without having left the earlier people with whom he was? But according to
those who listen to what is said with more understanding, he does not leave the earlier ones altogether when he comes to be among others; rather, he leaves behind the base and the sinful, while, remaining with the righteous, he also comes to be with others, after them and together with them. Indeed, even when lodged in Bethany, he does not leave Bethany when he leads back into the city; for he was both in Bethany and was leading back into the
city. And Jesus is always hungry, wishing to partake of the fruits of the <holy> spirit that are in the righteous, and his foods are — if I may call them so — the figs which, in its hunger, the love of the one who bears it eats, love being the first "fruit of the spirit," and also joy and peace and patience and the rest. And to the degree that we
bear fruit we shall not wither, but whenever he stands by and seeks such fruit to eat and we do not supply it, it will be said to us: "Let no fruit come from you ever again," for apart from the interpretation already given concerning the fig tree as representing the people, it is also possible to apply the word to each individual, who is a fig tree either withering or bearing fruit and living and being cultivated, so that it may bear more
fruit. Perhaps, then, just as in the case of the sowing "the sower went out to sow," and "some fell beside the road, and the birds of heaven came and devoured them," while others fell upon the rocks and others among "the thorns" and others upon "the good" and fertile earth, so too there are fig trees of different kinds. And if indeed
It is a fig tree on good and fertile earth, and bears “fruit,” and offers it to Jesus when he is hungry. But when it is “by the road,” like the one about which it is written, “and seeing one fig tree by the road,” it gives no fruit to Jesus when he comes; for he finds nothing on the fig tree “by the road” except leaves only.
For this reason he says to it, since it was “by the road” and had only leaves, giving the impression of being alive but without fruit, “let no fruit ever again come from you.” Now as long as he does not come upon some fig tree, and does not yet seek its fruit, but is patient, waiting to see whether the fig tree will somehow bear fruit, it is not withered. But when...
...when the hungry one stands over us <and seeks out> our fruits and we are found to have nothing but the mere profession of faith [...] with no fruits accompanying it, we shall be withered at once, and shall have lost even the appearance of being faithful; and it is possible to find some such people who for a great many years have worn the name of faith and shown that they are alive, and yet are altogether dried up; whom
one can see, because they do not bear fruit, falling away entirely from the word and being withered. Here, then, the fig tree that has not given fruit to Jesus when he is hungry is withered; and another fig tree is ordered to be cut down, so that it not render the earth useless. Then the disciples, whenever they see someone withered after having shown a semblance of life, marvel, saying: how was the fig tree withered at once? But we shall understand this still more
if we apply the details of the passage point by point, considering in what way, in trials, Jesus seeks the fruits—for instance, in persecution, the confession and the martyrdom, and, when a woman is infatuated with someone, Joseph’s self-restraint and moderation, and thus, in each trial, the fruit that corresponds to it. But the one who has not prepared himself to give
fruit to Jesus when he is hungry and stands over him demanding the confession or the self-restraint is withered at once; for the one who has denied withers, and likewise also the one who has fornicated, even though, before the time of the trials, he displayed a living power and was, so to speak, clothed about with the leaves of the fig tree. And the disciples marvel at such people, how Jesus stood over them hungry and seeking the fruit,
and, not having found it, immediately “said” and “it happened,” and at once the fig tree not prepared to bear fruit was withered. And often someone who has been a fig tree for many years is not withered, but when Jesus stands over him in the time of trial and demands the fruit, and he has not given it to him, he is withered at once and has lost the fruit of so many years; and this happens because, according to the
word of the Savior: “to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken away from him,” so that what he seems to have not be idle. And each of the disciples, if he has faith and does not doubt, does the same as the fig tree, and also what follows next upon it. And it is a task to show how Jesus
A disciple, seeking fruit on a fig tree and not finding it, says to it: ‘May fruit come from you no longer, forever,’ so that at once, upon that very word, the fig tree also withered. And consider also someone who professes the things of faith and imagines that he eats and drinks in the name of Jesus, and has taught Jesus in the broad streets
of his own soul. Then let a disciple come seeking in him the fruit of wisdom and reason, in keeping with his profession of teaching divine things, and seeking and searching him out by reason, let him find no fruit whatever; and therefore, exhibiting him to onlookers as empty of Christ, let him show by reason that it is no longer possible for any fruit ever to come from him,
since he has been damaged by his own conceit. Consider, then, whether the one who has faith and does not doubt does something rather like what Jesus did in the case of the fig tree. And it is indeed better that the deceptive fig tree, which is supposed to be alive yet bears no fruit, once convicted of being fruitless, should appear withered at the words of Jesus’ disciples, than that it should go on deceiving, by its supposed life and
by its pretense <of profession>, the ‘hearts’ of the innocent and easily deceived. So the deed done, concerning the withering fig tree, by both Jesus and his disciples proved good. And in every faithless and lawless person, I think, there lies a mountain, proportioned to his faithlessness and lawlessness, which is lifted up by the word of Jesus’ disciples and cast into the sea of
his punishment. And everything that Jesus’ disciples ask for in prayer, believing, they will receive, since as disciples they will ask for nothing improper, and since, obedient to their teacher, they will ask for nothing but what is great and heavenly; for Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Ask for the great things, and the small will be added to you; and ask for the heavenly things,
and the earthly will be added to you.’ Now Mark, recording the events at this place in a way that seems somewhat at variance with the saying, added — having made it so — that Jesus, ‘seeing from a distance a fig tree that had leaves, went to it’ as one expecting to find something on it; but ‘coming to it’ and finding nothing ‘but leaves’ (‘for it was not the season for figs’), ‘answering, he said’
to it: ‘let no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ For one might say: if it was not ‘the season for figs,’ how did Jesus go expecting to find something ‘on it,’ and how could he justly say to it, ‘let no one ever eat fruit from you again’? To this it will be said that the fruits of the
Spirit enumerated by the apostle — love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, self-control — are at times rendered in their own proper season. But it is better that, when circumstances urge one toward the opposite of fruit-bearing, one should nonetheless be able, on account of the great benefit gained from reason, to give the fruits of the Spirit no less even then. What I mean is something like this: one of the fruits
...is love of the Spirit. Of this fruit there is a season in which it is not hard to render the fruit of being loved; and to love the one who loves you is fruit of the spirit, yet not in a season - if I may call it so - of 'figs.' But when someone provokes the believer toward hatred by deceiving him and plotting against him and being corrupted in character, so that he seems worthy
to be hated, the righteous man does not hate even such a person but, as a son 'of him who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good,' loves him even then, giving the fruit of love, as it were, in a season not of figs - he is blessed. You will understand the same concerning joy as well. For to bear the fruit of the Spirit that is joy
when nothing provokes one to grief and displeasure is not hard; but when circumstances provoke one to grief and despondency and displeasure, and yet one has advanced through the benefit that comes from the word to such a degree as to be well pleased even in what seems displeasing, and to rejoice in seasons of being dishonored and scourged, and simply to remember, in every circumstance of trial,
the command 'rejoice always' - such a person would be blessed, bearing the fruit of joy even in a season - if I may call it so - not of figs. It is not hard to do the same with the other fruits of the Spirit as well. For God wants the one who comes to his word to be better than human nature, and he demands of him things beyond the ordinary and, if I may call them so,
works of God rather than of man. Therefore he also says to all whom he calls to blessedness: 'I said, you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High,' while reproaching those who do not wish to be deified and to become sons of the Most High he says: 'but you die like men'; for with every sin, when we are 'fleshly and walk according to man,' we accomplish nothing other than dying,
and it is plain that if we live 'according to the flesh,' we are going to 'die,' as the apostle taught. I have said these things also because of the phrase 'for it was not the season of figs.' Peter, according to Mark, seeing the fig tree 'withered from the roots,' said to the Savior: 'Look, the fig tree you cursed has withered'; for what does not bear
fruit for the word that seeks it is worthy of a curse from the word. At the end the passage contains an exhortation for the believer to receive; for we shall not receive otherwise unless we ask. Let, then, our disposition also be worthy of obtaining what we ask, and let our prayer, sent up with knowledge, be worthy of being granted, and let our requests be heavenly and great and worthy of being given by God.

======== Commentary on Matthew, Book 17 ========

And when he had come into the temple, the people's chief priests and elders came up to him as he was teaching, saying: 'By what authority do you do these things?' and so on, up to 'Nor will I tell you by what authority these things are done by me.' Since three evangelists have, as it were necessarily, recorded this passage before us, it is worth seeing what on earth the chief priests and elders
of the people had in mind in questioning the Savior — not putting one question, but bringing him two: one, 'By what authority do you do these things?', and the other, 'And who gave you this authority?' And with what purpose did the Savior, on this matter alone, ask a question in return, so as not to answer their question? For he saw that they were not worthy of the answer
to their question, or of the explanation of the problem it raised. But that the matters of this passage are not, as some suppose, simple and easily grasped, but mystical and requiring a deep heart, will be clear from what follows. Let us then plead the case for the plausibility of those who take the matters of this passage more simplistically; for they will say that, knowing two general <authorities>, one better, namely that of God,
the worse being that of the devil, the people's chief priests and elders were asking the Savior by which of these two authorities he was working his wonders, and from whom he had received it. Then Jesus, so as not to have to dispute the point, asked a question in return, at the same time wishing to expose those who were questioning him as having acted contrary to right reason in having disbelieved John the
Baptist. And his counter-question served a double purpose: both a rebuke for their unbelief toward John, and a diversion of the questioners, so that it might seem to them that they had good reason not to answer. But someone might say in response to this that it would have been absurd to ask by what authority Jesus was doing these things; for they would not have answered that it was by that
authority [of the devil] — and I do not say that the Savior would not have given this answer — but rather that not even 'the man of sin, the one opposed and exalted above everything called god or object of worship' would say to those who questioned him the truth: that he does every work of power by the authority of the devil, and 'signs by which he will astound and lead astray, if possible, even the elect.' But if
not even that one would say that he does his signs and the wonders of his 'falsehood,' which are worked 'in every deceit of wickedness for those who are perishing,' by the authority of the devil, how much more would the Savior — even if he did not ask a counter-question — have answered nothing else than that it was by the authority of God? And that, in the face of so evident an answer, they should go on questioning, and
the Savior not answer, seems to me foolish. Perhaps, then, the matters of this passage are as follows. In the wisdom of God, which encompasses the knowledge of divine and human affairs and of their causes, there are 'treasures' of the kind that the treasures 'of wisdom' and 'of knowledge' ought to be, and these are 'hidden'; and if there is anyone found worthy to know the 'unspeakable
"words which it is not permitted for a man to speak" would know that "wisdom hidden in a mystery," "foreordained by God before the ages, unto glory" of the righteous. There are, then, in the hidden treasures "of wisdom and knowledge," deep and unspeakable words concerning various authorities — generically two, but specifically, under each of the two, more numerous and hard to discover.
The two generic authorities are of this kind: some belong to the better order, and just as there are men of God who are not the ordinary sort, and blessed angels of God, and prophets of God who are God-borne, so too there are certain authorities of God, concerning whom the apostle, glorifying Christ in his letter to the Colossians, says that the Savior is "the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn of all creation," in whom all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — "all things have been created through him, and unto him they belong, and he himself is prior to all things." One class, then, among those under God, are the authorities created in Christ, distinct from
the principalities and the thrones and the dominions; and each exercises authority over certain beings, appointed by God according to some ineffable rank to exercise authority over those deemed worthy, according to the distinction among them, under each of these authorities. And "the discussion would be long and hard to interpret" concerning the matters pertaining to these authorities and the affairs governed by them. And just as there are
certain authorities of God, so too there are opposing ones, corresponding to the men of sin and to the angels of the devil. And indeed, for those who no longer wrestle "against blood and flesh," but, because they have advanced in power to what lies beyond these things, contend further, "the wrestling" is "against" the authorities that contend against the athletes of piety. And just as there were several orders under
God, so too in the opposing region there are not only authorities but also world-rulers "of this darkness" and "spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places," and perhaps also principalities — and I for my part think that all of them even bear the same names as those of God, by way of opposition. Those, then, who had been allotted the distinguished names in Israel, that is, the
chief priests and the elders of the people, moved by many considerations concerning the authorities <and the mysteries in heaven>, whether by traditions [or also] or also out of hidden sources (I do not know whether reasonably or unreasonably), saw Jesus accomplishing his prodigious deeds not apart from some authority present with him. They wanted, then, to learn from Jesus the nature <and the peculiar character> of this, or of the
knowledge that seemed to them to be in him. Now if those who then questioned the Savior had been certain holy and blessed chief priests (of the sort Aaron was, or Eleazar, or Phinehas, or as many as administered the tasks of the liturgy in a praiseworthy manner), and elders comparable to those whom, at God's command, Moses chose, it would be reasonable to suppose that, since they were not testing him but were eager to learn and worthy of such great
...of teachings, the Savior would have set forth an account, one that not even the whole world could have contained. And having begun, he would have handed down the knowledge concerning the blessed authorities and their differences and the reason they came to be authorities, and of those under them, whether souls or any kind of rational beings whatsoever; and he would also have gone through the account concerning
the opposing authorities, and would have set forth their differences. And it is likely that he would have taught something analogous to "the law" "ordained through angels" and to "if the word spoken through angels proved firm" (I mean analogous to an account concerning the angels who served the law and the authority according to the scriptures) — such as, by what authority serving God, or
by what opposing authorities, the wonders in Egypt came about, and what the authority was that served in the transformation of Moses's rod into a serpent, and what authority, opposed to this one, served in the transformation of the Egyptians' rods into serpents; and he would have told the power of the authority by which Aaron's rod swallowed those of the Egyptians. And he would also have told what the
authority was of the transformation of Moses's hand into snow, and from among the opposing ones, what authority worked in concert, in each case, with the enchanters of the Egyptians, when they seemed to imitate the signs of God. And thus he would have gone through the ten plagues of the Egyptians and their infliction upon them, also through evil angels. And he would also have told what authority ministered to the
crossing of the Red Sea by the people and the drowning of the Egyptians, and what authority ministered to the transformation, by means of wood, of bitter water into sweetness. And he would also have told the authority that ministered the water from the rock. And he would have set forth either this same authority or another for the rain of manna and the coming of the quail.
And he would also have told what the authority was that turned that same manna, on the six days, into worms and a foul smell, but preserved it on the day of the Sabbath. And why should I need to go on listing the wonders in the wilderness up to the death of Moses, to show that the Savior would have spoken about the matter of authority, as to whether the chief priests and the
elders of the people were worthy of an answer to their question? And it is possible for you too, as you go through the whole of scripture, to see the analogous thing — what the authority was for the sun to stand still over Gibeon and the moon over the valley of Elom, and much earlier, for the Jordan river to be crossed and for the manna to cease. And in the book of Judges too,
many such things might be sought out and found, such as the extraordinary things concerning Gideon and Samson; and also, from the Kingdoms, the things concerning Samuel and Elijah and Elisha and Hezekiah. And thus, going through all this and expounding the mystery according to the different authorities, the Savior would have taught by what authority, and how it surpassed
he was doing the marvels that the people saw, this power having been given to him not from some angel or minister of God, nor through some being lesser than God, but from the Father himself. But since the ruling priests and the elders governing the people here were in no way worthy of such spectacles, for this reason he does not answer them but questions them in return, so that by their not answering,
he too might reasonably persuade those inquiring, with respect to the matters concerning John, that he did not answer them in vain, saying: "nor will I disclose to you the authority by which I act in this." Now I inquire, with regard to this passage, whether each of those who have worked wonders by some authority has always worked them in one and the same authority, or whether some, having begun in this one at first, advanced to some greater one. However,
the Savior appears to have done these things by one authority, which he received from the Father; for the statement "nor will I disclose to you the authority by which I act in this" was teaching that he had acted by a single authority, but he did not make plain to them by which one, nor did he unfold its distinctive character, nor set forth whatever he might have determined concerning it, so as to display its preeminence over the rest
of the authorities by which the prophets before him had worked. And even now, in the temple, that is, in the church, Christ is present and teaches in it, and certain people similar to those chief priests and elders of the people inquire of him but do not obtain the answer, being unworthy to know the things they wish to learn. But one might inquire whether, wishing to shake them off,
he asked about John by way of a random lot, as though he had asked about some other such matter, or whether he asked about John of necessity, so that in answer to the question about him he might answer the following question about the authority as well. To me it seems that the matter in this passage is not by lot, since John was "a voice crying aloud: in the desert make ready the Lord's path," and
this was he of whom the prophet said, "behold, I send my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way before you." For this reason, I think, he inquires about him, not being ignorant that, upon reflection, they will say "we do not know," on account of the things that had been written, but he would have spoken hypothetically, so as to draw out, in answer concerning the baptism of John being "from heaven," the authority consequent upon its being
from heaven. "But what do you think? A man had two children; he came to the first and said, 'Child, go work today in my vineyard,'" and so on, down to "but you, when you saw it, did not afterward repent so as to believe in him." Matthew alone has recorded this parable, as it seems to me, containing
the account concerning the Israel that disobeyed the word, and the account concerning the people from the nations who would believe -- for these are the two children whom he had, who as a man "bore the manner of his Son," being God. And he, having come to the first, whom he "acquired" "from the beginning," whom he "foreknew and predestined," said to him: "Child, go work today in the vineyard,"
...of mine. And he put it off, fleeing this place because of the “scorching heat” in it and the labors, and said, ‘I do not want to.’ But later, at last, having repented of having said to the father, ‘I do not want to,’ he went into the vineyard and did the will of the father. When, however, the first said, ‘I do not want to,’ the father approached the other and
said the same. Then, in answer, the second said, ‘I will, lord,’ but did not go to the vineyard of the word and to the field of the father. And it is clear that the one who said ‘I do not want to’ and afterward repented and went off and worked in the vineyard did the will of the father <not in word, but> in deed. For the one who made a promise in word
but did not carry it out in deeds refused to do the will of the father. Observe, if you can, whether the parable can also be applied to those who promise less, or nothing at all—neither virginity nor any other <spiritual> practice according to the gospel—yet by their deeds display the opposite, things which not even at the outset did they promise by mere utterances of words of good deeds; and further
to those who promise great things but accomplish nothing in keeping with the promise. For one, as it were, says: ‘This is too great for me—I do not want this virginity,’ and, ‘It is better, given my worth, to renounce this life and devote myself to leisure for the word.’ But another, hearing of each of the great deeds in scripture, says: ‘I will, lord.’ And it is possible to see, as it were,
some who, out of repentance, advance toward the better and take care of themselves for the better beyond their original expectation, while others, having rashly promised many things, act by their deeds contrary to their promises. After the parable it is added, concerning the one who said ‘I do not want to’ and afterward repented and went, ‘Amen I say to you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes
go before you into God’s kingdom’; but to the one who said ‘I will, lord,’ and did not go, ‘For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him.’ And again, to the former: ‘But the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him’; but to the one who said ‘I will, lord,’ and did not go, also
‘you, however, having seen this afterward, did not repent so as to believe in him.’ Now if one attends to those who, from a most wretched life, come to the word and believe in Christ, and to those who boast in the law and the prophets yet disbelieve the Son of God, and live licentiously, and turn out to be harsher toward their own kin, he will see the word of Jesus to be true, that
the tax collectors and the prostitutes go before Israel into the kingdom of God. But that Israel who saw Jesus does not repent even to this day, so that it might at some point later believe the truth. But observe also the phrase ‘go before… into the kingdom of God,’ which does not shut Israel out from entering at some point into that of God; for no one
leads on the one who will in no way be in that place to which he led the way. Consider, then, whether it is not indicated that, when “the fullness of the nations has come in,” then “all Israel will be saved.” Let Israel be understood not as the one “according to the flesh,” but as the one characterized by nobility of soul, possessing a good nature for understanding and insight, yet not
raised up in a manner worthy of that good nature, in faith and a good life. “Hear another parable. There was a man, a householder, who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it,” and so on, up to “and it will be given to a nation producing its fruits.” To one who does not probe the details of the parable further, nor examine each word, it will seem quite clear
if it received such an explanation: the people before us, who were God's “portion,” were the vineyard planted by the householder of the parable, and God's protection around it was the fence, and the tower was the temple, and the winepress was the place of libations, and the farmers were the elders and wise men of the people, and the departure of the
master was when the Lord, who was with them in a cloud “by day” and a “pillar of fire” by night, until he planted them, bringing them in “to his holy mountain and to his dwelling places,” no longer appeared to them in that way. And the approaching time of the fruits was the time of the prophets demanding the fruit from the farmers and the vineyard, so that they might now show
that, having received the law, they had lived according to it. The servants sent to the farmers to receive the fruits were the first prophets, whom the rulers and wise men of the people abused, beating them, and some they even killed, and others they had stoned. And other servants after these, more numerous than the first, were the time of the many prophets, whose names are written in the
second book of Chronicles, and in Jeremiah and the Twelve and Daniel; for one might also say that Ananias, Azarias, and Misael were prophets. So then, they treated these, who were more numerous than the earlier prophets, in the same way, beating and killing and stoning them. Finally, the householder sent his son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to shame
the vineyard and the farmers, being able to do so. But the chief priests and the elders and the wise men of the people, when they saw the son — not being entirely unaware of his superiority — supposed him to be the heir. And they dared even to kill him, so that they themselves might become lords of the vineyard, and, casting him out and judging him outside the affairs of Israel, they killed him. And
immediately the lord of the vineyard, whom they had killed, comes among them, having risen from the dead, and he destroys those wicked farmers wickedly, and hands over to other farmers, his apostles, from among the people who would come to believe — that is, the vineyard — who render the fruits to the householder in their proper seasons. Then, when those mentioned above who had asked the earlier question spoke, after the parable, the [saying] concerning
"By what authority are you doing these things?" To this the Savior answers with the words "he will destroy those wicked men wickedly," teaching them from the prophecy that he was rejected by <the builders>, but is honored by God and is head of the whole building and of its cohesion, and indeed a head marvelous in the eyes of those who know how to see it. Then, prophesying about
the calling from the nations, he says to the teachers of the Jews who do not believe in him: "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits." But, as we said before, such an exposition is somewhat general and not according to the letter; concerning which anyone who is "spiritual" and able to "examine all things" would raise many questions, knocking on the obscurity
of it — that is, on the closed door of the thoughts hidden here — and, having sought rightly, would find, and having asked, would receive from God. And we too, according to our modest measure, form such an impression regarding this passage: that the master of the house, the man, is God, about whom it is written: "the LORD your God bore you as a man would bear his son,
his own son." For it is in this way, because of bearing and carrying, in a human manner, the one who benefits people, that he who benefits people is said in some parables to be a man. And here he is called a man, master of the house, because of the vineyard and the hedge placed around the vineyard and the winepress which he dug and the tower which he built and the servants whom he owns and whom he sends
to the farmers, and a second time he sends more. And as master of the house he leased the vineyard out to farmers, from whom, taking it away, he gives it to others. Further, above, "a man, master of a house" is spoken of in these words: "the heavens' kingdom, indeed, resembles a man who is master of a house, and who set out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard"; and as master of a house
indeed he has a vineyard and hires farmers, and he also has a steward to whom he says: "call the workers and pay the wage, beginning from the last to the first." But in the parable about the dinner and the wedding of his son and the calling, he is spoken of not as master of the house but as king; for he is greater than a master of the house, sending
an army as a king and destroying those who seized "his servants" and insulted and killed them, and by royal authority, not merely as master of the house, "he said to the attendants" to bind "the feet and hands" of the one who entered the wedding feast without a "wedding garment," and to cast "him into the outer darkness." But when above it is said: "a man
had two children," he is named neither master of the house nor king but simply man. There are, then, just as there are many conceptions of God according to the divine scriptures, so too differences in his being named man — either simply, or master of the house, or king. This is according to Matthew; but according to Luke, the parable similar to the one set forth named him a man in the passage:
"A man planted a vineyard, and gave it out to farmers." But Mark too says: "A certain man planted a vineyard, and put a fence around it." And again Luke, setting out the parable of the calling, says, "A certain man" made a great dinner, and invited many." You too, then, should gather together wherever God is called "man," and comparing "spiritual things with spiritual" in the discourse concerning this,
and searching out the relevant passages rightly, you would find, in proportion to your inquiry, a good many more instances where God is called "man." This householder-man, then, planted a vineyard, which one must investigate more carefully, not passing over so great a parable without examination. What, then, is this vineyard, distinct from the first farmers and the second, which the
householder-man planted? Now this vineyard is first let out to insolent farmers, and second, according to those who answered concerning the vineyard, let out to other farmers, who will give its fruits in their seasons, in keeping with what the Savior says: "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to a nation producing its fruits." Will it then be necessary
to say that the kingdom of God is the vineyard, taken away from the former <farmers> and given to a nation producing its fruits, or that the vineyard is one thing and the kingdom of God another? Let us first see, having established from Scripture that the vineyard is called "the people," whether everything in the passage can be fitted to
such an interpretation. Isaiah, then, says: "Let me sing now for the beloved a song of the beloved concerning my vineyard. A vineyard came to be for the beloved on a horn, in a fertile place. And I put a fence around it and hedged it, and I planted a choice vine" and so on, down to "but it wrought lawlessness and not righteousness, but a cry." I have set out this song from Isaiah wishing to
examine it together with this parable, since the vineyard is understood, in each of the two Scriptures, of the same thing signified. And observe what points the passages set out have in common and what points they do not, so that, seeing the differences of the similar points from the dissimilar, you may in this way fix your mind on the sense of the Scripture. Similar, then, is "he planted a vineyard, and put a fence around it," and "he dug"
"a wine-vat in it and built a tower," to "a vineyard came to be for the beloved on a horn, in a fertile place. And I put a fence around it and hedged it, and I planted a choice vine, and I built a tower in the middle of it, and I dug a wine-vat before it in it." For compare "he planted a vineyard" with "I planted a choice vine," and "he put a fence around it" with "I put a fence around it," and
"he dug a wine-vat in it" with "and I dug a wine-vat before it in it," and "he built a tower" with "and I built a tower in the middle of it." But in both passages something dissimilar is said concerning the fruits of the vineyard: in Isaiah, that "I waited for it to produce a grape-cluster, and it produced thorns," whereas in the parable of the gospel it is clearly not the
The vineyard is accused of not having given its fruits when their season had drawn near, but the farmers, who took the householder's servants, beat one, killed another, and stoned another. And when he sent other servants, more than the first, again the farmers are accused of having done the same to them. And a third time the farmers are accused, saying: This is the
heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance — and casting him out of the vineyard, and killing him. And in Isaiah the word itself threatens the vineyard, saying: »I will take away its hedge and it will be for plunder, and its wall will be for trampling. And I will let my vineyard go, and it will not«
be pruned nor dug, and thorn will come up on it as on barren ground.« But also when it declares that it will command »the clouds« »to rain rain upon the vineyard,« it is threatening the vineyard, which the prophet said to be the house »of Israel« and the man of Judah, since it has not produced the fruit — »judgment« and righteousness — but has produced thorns,
»lawlessness« and »outcry.« But in the gospel we find the vineyard suffering nothing at all; rather (if one must put it so) it is being cared for, so that it may bear its own fruits for the householder. For this man, caring for the vineyard, takes it away from the former farmers, who answer the Savior when he asks and says: When, then, the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do
to those farmers? And they say — whether compelled by the argument and its logical sequence, or even unwillingly, so to speak, prophesying about themselves — that the lord of the vineyard, when he comes, will destroy those evil men evilly, and, caring for the vineyard, will hand it over to other farmers, who will render him the fruits in their seasons. But
also in Jeremiah, consistent with »for the vineyard of the Lord Sabaoth is the house of Israel, and the man of Judah his beloved new planting,« it is said to the sinning people: »But I planted you a fruit-bearing vine, wholly true,« and, corresponding to »I waited for it to make grapes, but it made thorns,« and to »I waited for it to do judgment, but it did lawlessness, and not
righteousness but outcry,« the saying »How have you turned to bitterness, you strange vine?« Do you see, then, that in the prophetic sayings the people is said to be the vineyard, and the one who planted it threatens it and says to it: »I will take away its hedge, and it will be for plunder,« and so on, whereas in the gospel sayings no blame at all is brought against the vineyard, but the whole of it
is brought against the farmers; and besides there being no threat at all to the vineyard, there is care taken for it, so that it may give the householder the fruits in their seasons. And you could not, wishing to preserve the precision of the gospel writing, clearly establish that the vineyard was the people. But perhaps the vineyard according to the gospel is the kingdom of God, the
this (I think) is the very same as the teaching of those who have God's oversight. For the statement "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits," being attached to the parable of the vineyard, clearly (I think) shows that the mysteries of the kingdom of God are said to be the vineyard which the man, the master of the house, planted. This vineyard, then, being
(as I think) the law and the prophets and all of divine scripture, the lord of the vineyard let out to farmers - to the former ones, namely to that people (for they were the first to be entrusted with the oracles of God), and to the latter, namely to the nation producing its fruits, the church from the nations. But it is a task to smooth out, when the vineyard according to the gospel is understood in this way, the fence placed around it
which experiences nothing like the fence in Isaiah, the fence concerning which it is written: "I will take away its fence and it will be given over to plunder," and the winepress dug within it, and the tower that was built. And see whether we are able to say that the vineyard, according to divine scripture, is the natural science, while the life that follows true natural science, bearing fruit in virtue and in the finest character,
we may call the fruit of the vineyard, while the domain of reasoning and the whole letter of scripture is the fence lying around the vineyard from outside, so that the vineyard is not seen by those outside, and especially its fruit hidden within; and the depth [...] of the soul that receives these fruits, having cast off everything superficial, is the winepress dug within
the vineyard. And the tower built in the vineyard, having height and elevation and loftiness above the vineyard and the fence and the winepress, is (I think) the discourse concerning God, being a temple of the mind that dwells within it. And I think it is concerning such a tower that it was said by the savior: "Which of you, wishing to build a tower, does not
first calculate whether he is able to lay the foundation and complete it, so that those watching may not begin to mock him for not finishing?" For there too, I think, it is being said through a parable that when you are about to speak of God, consider whether you are able, once you have begun, to complete everything that the discourse concerning God requires of you, so that, having begun the doctrines of piety, you may not leave the tower concerning God unfinished and
fail to build the cornice upon it; for if you do not build the cornice upon it, someone will fall from his conception of God and die. This vineyard, then (as we have said), God let out to farmers, to the people before us, and went away to his own watchtower, giving the farmers the means, from what he himself had planted and fenced and dug and built, to bring forth
the fruits in their seasons. Now the seasons of the fruits drew near for each one individually, and I think also, generally, for the whole people. But to explain precisely what it is for the seasons of the fruits to draw near belongs to a state greater than ours, and to a heart much purer and more perceptive than ours. Nevertheless, to the best of our ability we shall apply ourselves to the passage in this way,
starting from each one individually. And let the word be understood, in every soul, as a vine planted by the master of the house, and the vineyard as the starting points of all the problems necessary for salvation. Just as with vines there is a season when it puts out leaves, and another when it shows the first beginnings of fruit, still small, and another when what has been shown begins to take on color, and another
when it turns into an unripe grape, and another, and another, when it is the season to harvest the fruits now fully formed and ready to yield the quality of wine — so let the first season of a human being's life, that of infancy, have the vine with nothing yet attached to it, possessing only its vital principle. Then, when the word begins to be completed, let that be the season
of the first flowering; and to the degree that the soul, being cultivated, makes progress, to that same degree the cultivated vineyard yields samples of the clusters to come, at first taking on color and a fragrance of the excellence that is to come, but later already turning into unripe grapes, when a certain vice is present in youth — not the kind that remains, but the kind that necessarily arises and never inclines toward the worse, but always
(if I may put it this way) journeys on toward virtue. But if the vice remains, and we do not take another path leading always toward progress in virtue, it becomes an unripe grape, which, according to the prophet, sets the teeth of anyone who eats it on edge. But one who progresses further has, as it were, a cluster that is turning color but not yet fully ripened. And there is also
a serious condition after this progress, when the cultivated vine bears its fruit — a cluster, perfected, of love and joy and peace and patience and the rest that are listed by the apostle and in countless other scriptures. For there is a cluster corresponding to "blessed are the poor in spirit," and another corresponding to "blessed are those who mourn," and another corresponding to
"blessed are the meek," and another corresponding to "blessed are the peacemakers," and another corresponding to "blessed are the pure in heart." And why should I need to list the clusters that are the causes of the beatitudes? I have examined these things at greater length, wanting to understand and clarify them, inasmuch as it was the time when the season of the fruits had drawn near. But it belongs to the master of the house alone, and to his divine knowledge,
to know the season proper to each of the human beings — when it has drawn near, and when the season of the fruits is still far off. And we too, if we attend more closely, comparing the time since we were called with the whole span of our faith, will be able to see how some, though by rights they ought, because of the time that has passed, to be teachers, again have need to be taught
"what the elements" of the oracles of God are — thus, though some ought, as far as the time of God's dispensation and the calling of all is concerned, already to be bearing fruit, either they do not have it at all, or, though they ought to have it, they have it only as untimely coloring grapes and unseasonably unripe ones. If then you have grasped this in each case, how one ought to understand
As for 'when the season of the fruits drew near, pass, if you can,' in your reasoning to those who received the law through Moses, noting that for them too the season of the fruits once drew near, and he sent his own servants to the farmers who had first been entrusted with 'the oracles of God,' in order to receive the fruits of the vineyard in each case. Now it is easy
to say that by 'servants' he means the prophets. But one must inquire how they are sent to the farmers to receive the fruits of the vineyard. For someone might say that the prophets are not sent in order to receive the fruits, but rather to cultivate the ground and to work together with the fruits. See then whether we can say that the spiritual fruits and the divine offerings are given by
those who cultivated the vineyard to the servants who are sent, so that they might bring forward, as priests, to God the fruits of the people who make the offering. But the farmers, having seized among the people the servants who were sent to receive the fruits of the vineyard, beat one of them, as 'Zedekiah son of Chanaan struck Micaiah on the jaw,' when the false prophet also said to him as he prophesied: 'What sort of spirit
of the Lord is it that has spoken in you?' And another they killed, as they killed Zechariah 'between the temple and the altar'; and another they stoned, as they stoned Azariah son of Jehoiada the priest, just as it is written in the second book of Chronicles. For when 'the Spirit of God clothed Azariah son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood up above the people and said: Thus
says the Lord: Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord? You will not prosper, because you have forsaken the Lord, and he will forsake you' — they set upon him, and by order of Joash the king they stoned him in the courtyard of the house of the Lord. And Joash did not remember the mercy that Jehoiada his father had shown him, and he put his son to death. And as
he was dying, he said: 'May the Lord see and judge.' Next in the parable is that again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did the same to them. Now Scripture is full of the things that happened to the prophets, whom he sent on behalf of the people, so that they might offer up their fruit as holy priests to God through their prayers. But afterward he sent his son
after the prophets — Christ. But you will ask how he who sends the son says: 'They will respect my son,' as though he said this without having foreknown what was going to happen to him — for according to the letter, they do not appear to have respected him. And to claim on this basis that the Father of the son who was sent did not foreknow the future, but was mistaken, saying one thing when other things
turned out to happen, is impious. And again to say that the farmers did respect him runs contrary to what is plainly evident; for the farmers, on seeing his son, said among themselves: 'This is the heir,' and so on. Now someone will say to these points that it was necessary for 'they will respect my son' to come to pass, even if it did not come to pass at that time. But
But someone will say that the father, in sending the son, did not say, "My son will receive the fruit from the tenants," but rather, "They will respect him." For they did respect him, in that they knew this was the son and had said among themselves that this is the heir; but it is not altogether the case that, if they showed respect and were struck with awe at the beginning, they had already also done what those who show respect do.
At the same time one will also ask who these tenants were who said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." For the Jews do not appear to have killed him as the son of the master of the house. And to this too someone will say that, when they were arguing among themselves as to who he was, some said that this is the Christ, to whom
others answered, "When the Christ comes, no one knows where he is from; but we know where this man is from." Then, since they were struck by the signs and the marvels and the divine powers, they thought in their minds that he was the Christ of God, but did not confess it, and it is true both that "they will respect my son" and also that (they having despaired that he was the
son) it was said, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." For this reason the Savior says, "You know me, and you know where I am from." And if one attends to what is written concerning Herod, when he learned from the magi that the "king of the Jews" had been born, he will see that those who killed the Savior, though they knew he was the son, could nonetheless have plotted against him. For
indeed Herod, having learned from the scribes that "the Christ is born" "in Bethlehem," and having agreed that the one being born was the Christ, sends them off, saying, "Go and search out carefully concerning the child, that I too may come and worship him"; and nonetheless, when they had returned, he plotted against the child, not disbelieving that he was the Christ. For he would not, if wholly disbelieving,
have killed all the children "in Bethlehem and in its territory, ages two and younger, reckoning by the time he had precisely learned from the magi"; but he even believed him to be the Christ who was prophesied, and wished to kill him, and, so far as it depended on him, did kill him. Thus, then, those who plotted against the Savior can also have known him to be the son but not
so as to have their word reach others too — for they said among themselves, "This is the heir" — and nonetheless to have destroyed him. For they thought that by killing the Christ, and not understanding his resurrection ("had they known it, never would they have nailed the Lord of glory to a cross"), they themselves would be masters of affairs, since their wickedness had blinded them and they did not
know the mysteries of God, and, as not knowing them, they cast the son out of the vineyard and killed him. Now the phrase "they cast him out of the vineyard" seems to me to mean something like this: so far as depended on them, they judged him to be a stranger even to the vineyard of the tenants, when they passed against him the sentence of death. And upon these things the Savior inquires of the
and of those wicked vine-dressers, saying to them, ‘When therefore the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vine-dressers?’ And they say to him—being about to be judged out of their own mouth and condemned as evil men, and to perish evilly, and no longer to have “the oracles of God”—‘He will destroy those evil men evilly, and will hand over the vineyard to other vine-dressers,’ who
will render to him the fruits in their seasons. And they prophesy, as it were, in the same way as Caiaphas the high priest “of that year,” who spoke the truth not “of himself,” but prophesied because he was “high priest”—prophesying concerning the nations, that they would give the master of the house the fruits in their seasons. Then the Savior, upon these words, puts them to shame from the Scripture,
since they supposed themselves to be builders of the people as well, showing that he, being a stone and rejected by them, the Father would set as the head of the whole building, holding together the two corners of the old and the new covenant and the buildings of the two peoples. For this is what is meant by ‘Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner; this came about from the Lord,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Now this saying is found in the hundred and seventeenth Psalm, which is placed before the Psalm with the greatest number of verses, and the text runs thus: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner; this came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord has made;
let us exult and be glad in it.’ And if anything else among the things prophesied concerning Christ can put to shame the one who examines the Scriptures ungratefully, this too would be counted among them. For if the prophet is not speaking these words about a senseless stone—as some foolish man might say—it would be clear that the one rejected by the wise men among that people,
and by the chief priests and elders and scribes—Jesus—truly became, as the head of the church, the head of the corner, uniting and gathering together into one the two covenants. And this head is a gift given by the Lord to the whole building, and a marvelous head in our eyes, for those able to see it. And this is so precisely because the builders rejected this
stone, “the oracles of God,” in which was the kingdom of God, were taken away from those vine-dressers and those builders, and given to a nation producing its fruits. But if it is true that ‘the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and’ will be given to a nation producing its fruits, it is clear that the kingdom of God is given to none of those who do not produce the fruits of the
kingdom of God; for the kingdom of God is given to no one who is ruled by sin. But someone will say: how, if the kingdom of God is given to no one who does not produce its fruits, was the kingdom of God given to those from whom it was taken away, according to what was said: ‘the kingdom of God will be taken away from you’?
And observe whether we are able, being in so great a difficulty of a problem not at all easy to resolve, by attending to the difference between what was said first concerning the vineyard and second concerning the kingdom of God, to resolve the question at hand. For what was said concerning the kingdom of God was not said concerning the vineyard. For concerning the vineyard it is written in the first instance
that he leased it out to farmers. But concerning the kingdom of God, that it will be given to a nation producing its fruits. Now the point at issue would be unresolvable if, just as it was written of the first, 'he leased it out to farmers,' so also it had been said of the second, 'it will be leased out to a nation producing its fruits,' and if, just as it was said concerning the
second, 'and it will be given to a nation producing its fruits,' it had also been said of the first that he gave it to farmers. These, then, are the difficulties we have raised concerning the passage, and we have stated what appeared to us; but let him who is able to understand and to speak better be heeded rather than us. 'Now once the chief priests and Pharisees had listened to his parables, they recognized'
that he was speaking about them; and seeking to seize him, they feared the crowds, since they held him to be a prophet. Having heard his parables — of which the beginning of the one was, 'A certain man had two children,' and of the other, 'There was a man, a householder, who planted a vineyard' — the chief priests and the Pharisees knew that he was speaking about them, on the one hand according to
the one parable, in that the second son said, 'I will, lord,' and did not go, and on the other, according to the remaining parable, in that, since it had been said, following what was stated concerning the former farmers who sinned, <Jesus said,> 'the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits.' And knowing that he was speaking about them, they sought indeed to
seize him and do to him whatever they might be able to do; but they were not able, since they were not capable of withstanding the impulse of the crowds who held Jesus to be a prophet. And as many as wish, with hostile intent, to seize the word, so that, once it has been seized by them, they might destroy it, these could never seize it <nor put it to death>, since the crowds on its behalf regard it as a prophet
of God, distracting those who wish to seize him and plot against him. After this it should be understood that there are differences among those who seek to seize Jesus. For the chief priests and the Pharisees sought to seize him in one way, and the bride in the Song of Songs in another — she who, seeking him, and rising up and going about in the city, 'in the marketplaces and'
'in the streets,' scarcely found him at last, when she had gone a little past those keeping watch and going about 'in the city,' and having found him, seized him, when she also says, 'I seized him and will not let him go, until I brought him into my mother's house and into the chamber of her who conceived me.' But this same bride too, according to the Song of Songs,
"I held him fast," she says, "in my mother's house, and in the chamber of her who conceived me"; and toward the end of the same book, as one who has advanced and is now about to hold him in a different way, and better than before, she says: "I said, I will go up into the palm tree, I will take hold of its heights." And so that you may understand those who sought to seize him—the chief priests and Pharisees—and did not seize
him, observe that with regard to other things it is possible, by Christ's own word, to grasp and lay hold <both of the mind (of those who set out doctrines)> and, having contemplated it, to overturn it, and, as scripture named it, to reconcile it. [...] For thus the wise man of the gospel, wise in that he, as "spiritual," judges "all things," yet is himself subject to no one's judgment, does judge and test
and refute the other arguments, whether of those wise in the eyes of the world or of those who seem to excel among the heresies; yet the mind of Christ within him is not condemned, nor is it apprehended, nor is it seized by those who set out to overturn it: "for who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct him?" And it is clear that if anyone is going to instruct another's mind, he must first
know it, and only then instruct it. But "the mind" of the Lord—"who" shall know it, "that he will instruct him"? For he will instead be captured by it and yield to it. And let this be said by me because those who sought to seize him also feared the crowds, since they held him to be a prophet. Yet even if the crowds speak well of Jesus, they think something true about him, but they do not
grasp his greatness. For Jesus was indeed also a prophet, as is clear to one who understands the words, "A prophet from among your brothers the Lord your God will raise up for you, as he raised me; to him you shall listen in all that he says," that prophet. And whoever "does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed." Yet his surpassing greatness did not lie in
his being a prophet, but in his being the firstborn Son of God "of all creation," and the image "of God," he in whom "all things were created, in heaven and on earth, whether visible or invisible," and so on. And still more, his surpassing greatness lay in his being the Wisdom that says, "God possessed me as the beginning of his ways,
for his works," before he made anything, and "before the age he founded me, in the beginning, before he made the earth," and so on. And though these crowds held such thoughts about him and were ready to fight fiercely on his behalf against those warring against him, the chief priests and the Pharisees were afraid, and although they wished to plot in order to seize
Jesus, they were unable to seize him. So here it is written: since they held him to be a prophet. But beyond this you might further observe that the crowds, even if in this expression they hold him as a prophet, whatever they may hold him to be, hold him to be far less than what he is, not even attaining to the "partial" knowledge of those who know him "in part," and
expressing nothing worthy of him. I say this about those who truly think rightly about him. For those who hold false opinions about him, under the impression that they are glorifying him, must not be reckoned as being ‘for’ him — such as those who confuse the concept of Father and Son, and hold that the Father and the Son are one in hypostasis, dividing the one substrate only in thought and in name alone
— that one substrate. And those who come from the heresies, under the impression that they think great things about him, ‘speaking iniquity against the height’ and speaking evil of the Creator, are not ‘for’ him; for they are not ‘with’ him, and for this reason they are ‘against’ him, for he says, ‘whoever is not with me is against me.’ So too, even if they gather together, those who do not
think the truth about the Son in the name of Jesus, scatter rather than gather. For the Savior says: ‘and he who does not gather with me scatters’; and observe that it is not said simply, ‘he who does not gather scatters,’ but with the precise addition ‘with me’ — for the one who gathers must gather with him. And you will understand the one who gathers with him
by attending to the passage: ‘when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus, to hand such a one over to Satan, for the flesh’s ruin’ — for the phrase ‘when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus’ shows the one who gathers with him. And you would not say that ‘when you are gathered together in the power of the
Lord Jesus’ fits those who gather, or are gathered, either while living wickedly, or while thinking wickedly and impiously about God or about his Christ. I say these things also because the crowds who thought about Jesus — being for him, yet thinking far less of him than his worth — are said to have held him to be a prophet. And if you examine alongside these the
wording of Luke on similar matters, you will establish, I think, more clearly what has been said above; for he says: ‘and day after day he kept teaching in the temple; but the elders, together with the scribes and the chief priests of the people, kept seeking a way to do away with him, yet could find no course of action, since the whole people clung to him, hanging on what he said.’ For in these words too it is shown
that those who unlawfully preside over the Jewish crowds — called chief priests, and the scribes hostile to Jesus, and the elders of the people — seek to destroy Jesus and to blot out his name from among men, along with the faith concerning him; but they cannot find what to do to accomplish what they wish, since all the people who had come to believe in him had already been won over and were attached
to love for Jesus, and hung upon hearing his teaching and his word. And indeed this may be seen even to this day — the manner in which those who put themselves forward as his high priests in the service of God, and as scribes in the scripture, and as elders of the people by ancient standing, seek to bring him down; and they seek to destroy Jesus
and to make his glory disappear, doing everything toward this end in accordance with the will of their fathers, yet not finding what they might do to separate from Jesus the people attached to him and to erase him from their thinking. Perhaps, indeed, all who hold any opinion whatsoever about the divine and champion it in a manner foreign to the teaching of Jesus
want to destroy Jesus but cannot, since the whole crowd hangs on him as they listen. But also those who devote themselves to the writings of whatever wisdom, and who for this reason are figuratively called scribes, want to destroy Jesus from among men, but they do not find any effective means to accomplish this. And all the elders too, the learned men foreign to the teaching of Jesus,
of the Greeks and the barbarians, want to destroy Jesus, but they cannot, being overpowered by the whole people of Jesus, since that people hangs upon the teacher in hearing and taking in his teaching. And Mark too puts forward similar things, saying: "And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and were seeking how they might destroy him; for they feared him, because all the people"
"were astounded at his teaching." For all the people of Christ are astounded "at his teaching," and nothing can be accomplished by the aforementioned chief priests and scribes, who are seeking to destroy Jesus from among men and to extinguish the astonishment of all his people. And Jesus answered and spoke to them again in parables, saying: "A man to whom the kingdom of the heavens has been likened"
who was a king, who, when he made a wedding feast for his son, sent his servants," and so on, down to: "for many are called, but few are chosen." And this parable, understood more comprehensively, will appear to be clear, in which the man who is king is said, figuratively, to be God the Father of Christ Jesus, and the wedding feast of the king's son is the restoration
of the bride, the church of Christ, to Christ her bridegroom. And the servants who are sent to call those invited to the wedding feast are the prophets at their various times, turning those from the people, through the prophecies, toward the joy that is brought about at the restoration of the church to Christ. And those who were unwilling to come, though they had previously been called, were those who were not listening
to the words of the prophets, and the other servants who were sent were another gathering of prophets, prophets, and the prepared banquet, in which the king's bulls and his fattened animals had been slaughtered, were the solid and rational foods of the mysteries of God; and in this way all things too are ready, the accounts concerning all the things that exist are ready, to which, when the perfect one
comes, those who have followed the calling will eat and drink. But since, of those called through the prophets, some merely neglected what was said and busied themselves with the affairs of daily life, without indeed acting wickedly against the others, while others also acted wickedly against them, for this reason, wishing to set forth the difference between them, he said: "But those who neglected it went away, one to his own"
the field, and another to his business; and the rest, seizing his servants, insulted and killed them. Then, following <this> more complete account, the wrath of the king is to be understood, which the apostle also, naming it with reference to the Jews, speaks of: "but wrath has come upon them at last." Then the war against the Jews is prophesied, and the capture of Jerusalem, and
the destruction of the people after Christ's coming among them, in the words: and having sent his army he destroyed those murderers and burned their city. And then he says to his servants: the wedding feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy; go therefore to the crossroads, and as many as you find, invite them to the
wedding — this could be referred to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who says to the Jews: it was needful for God's word to be declared to you first; but since you judge yourselves unworthy of it, behold, we turn to the nations. The crossroads, then, are the affairs that lie outside Israel, among which those found by the apostles are invited to the wedding, the apostles gathering together all whom
they found. And they found those who were listening and did not concern themselves, in calling them, with whether those called had, before the calling, been wicked or good; for they called all who were found. And here "good" should be understood, in a simpler sense, as referring to the more moderate among those coming to the reverence of God, to whom the following apostolic saying might well apply: whenever the nations, who do not have the law, do by nature the things of the
law... Such people, not having the law, are a law to themselves; they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness together with them. And indeed the wedding feast of Christ and the church was filled, and those found by the apostles, having been reconciled to God, reclined to make merry at the wedding. Then, since both the wicked and the
good had to be called — not, indeed, so that the wicked would remain wicked, but so that, having changed their clothing and put off the garments that do not belong to the wedding, they might put on the garments of the wedding — "a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, patience" (for these are the garments of the wedding) — for this reason the king enters to look over those reclining at table, before he sets before them the prepared banquet,
the bulls and the fattened, slaughtered animals, and everything that is ready, so that, having looked them over, he may keep those who have the wedding garment and make them merry, but condemn those who do not. Entering, then, he finds one of those who had been called and had come to the calling without having changed his character or put on a wedding garment, and he says to him: how did you get in here without having a wedding garment? Then
since the one who has sinned and has not been renewed, nor put on the Lord Jesus Christ, is silenced as one who has no ground for a defense, for this reason it is written: but he was silenced. And it is not enough that the one who dishonored the invitation be thrown out of the wedding feast; for he must, bound by the servants of the king who are appointed over the chains, be led away on a path by which he cannot
He used it for what was needed, and the active power by which he accomplished no good deed [caused him] not only to be cast out from the wedding, but also to be condemned to a place foreign to light, where there was a darkness that was, as it were, deeper than in the darkness, and is called the outer darkness. And if any of us, having come to the king's calling to the wedding
of his son, seems indeed to obey and to come along with those who were called, yet is not clothed in the aforementioned wedding garment, he will suffer these things, and, bound hand and foot, will be cast out into the outer darkness, where, in accordance with "Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall weep," the weeping belongs to those who have committed sins worthy of weeping and lamentation; and they will weep, lamenting their
own miseries. Then, so that the discourse might set before us the fear and trembling and the grim circumstances and the toils in which those not clothed with a wedding garment will be, he said that there would be weeping there, and not only weeping but also the gnashing of teeth. And this is added to the whole parable because it had been shown that many were called,
but that not all had come, only a few of them - the words "many are called, but few are chosen." Let this, then, be said concerning the parable in a more general way; but we shall try, returning to it, to search it out according to the power presently available to us, in case, aided by the spirit of wisdom, we may be able, having found certain deeper things in the parable as well, to build upon them, and, as is reasonable, either to keep silent, or
to hint at them, or to set them forth. The kingdom of heaven, then, was likened - as regards the one who reigns, to a man who is king; as regards the one who reigns together with the king, to his son; as regards those who are ruled, to the servants and to those called to the wedding, of whom some were unwilling to enter, while others, neglecting to enter, went away - one to his own field,
and another to his business, while yet others seized the servants, mistreated them, and killed them. Further, among those ruled belongs also the king's army, and those gathered from the crossroads of the streets, both evil and good, until the wedding was filled with those reclining at table; and the one among those reclining who did not have a wedding garment; and the servants who were commanded to bind the one
who did not have a wedding garment, hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness. Now it could have been written, "the kingdom of heaven was likened to a king," without the addition of "man"; but since "man" has also been added, it is necessary to explain this too - in this way, as it seems to me, it may be clarified. One of those before us, having composed books of allegories on the sacred laws,
setting forth expressions that ascribe, as it were, human feelings to God, while expounding upon God and the things that reveal his divine nature, used one saying concerning God being spoken of as a man administering human affairs - namely, "the LORD your God carried you as a man carries his son" - and another concerning God not being as a man - namely, "not as
"a man, God, be torn apart." We ourselves have great abundance from the examples in the gospels about God, in which he was likened, according to certain parables, to a man. We will therefore make use of the parables that name God "man" as a defense against those who say, on the basis of the wording alone, that the Father of Christ is subject to human emotions. And we will say to those of a different persuasion that, because they have not understood the things
said in this way in the old writings, they stumble at the God whom the Law, the Prophets, and the creation of the world proclaim, on the grounds that: if God is likened to a man according to the parables of the gospel, why then, in keeping with these same parables, do you not also accept that his anger and his repenting and the turning away of his face and his sitting and
his standing and his walking are also a parable? For his sleep, which is recorded in the prophecies, they have either failed to notice, or they will have to admit that it too is a parable. And further we will say to them: if you are unwilling, in keeping with God being called "man" in a parable, to hear in a parable also those scriptures that report things about him in human terms, then show us how the God of all things
is, according to the gospel, called God without having, as you suppose, anything human said of him. And from our abundance we will further convict them of not having examined even the writings of the New Testament, in which, according to the parable here, the king who made a wedding feast for his son — himself a man — grew angry at those who were unwilling to come to the wedding at his summons, and at those
who neglected to come to dine at the wedding but went off to their own field or to their business, and he grew angry also at those who seized his servants, mistreated them, and killed them. Let them tell us, then, whether this one who grew angry, in that he was making a wedding feast for his son, is the Father of Christ, or is someone else besides the one who — so far as concerns the parable — grew angry, who is his father.
Either way they will be hard pressed: whether by their unwillingness to have the one who grew angry, the one making the wedding feast for his son, be the Father of Christ, because of the anger; or by being compelled, on account of the wedding feast and the son, to admit that he is indeed the Father of Christ, and that he does grow angry. And if they should attempt to bring some other explanation for his growing angry,
we will say to them: my good sirs, what is the basis for choosing not to flee from the one in the gospel who makes a wedding feast for his son because of the anger, and seeking another, while in the Law and the Prophets, because of that same word "anger" and things resembling it, you seek to fashion some deity other than the one proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets?
Inasmuch, then, as we are men, and it does not profit us to gaze upon the riches "of the kindness" of God and the great abundance of his kindness, hidden by him lest we be harmed, the kingdom of heaven was of necessity likened to a man who is a king, so that he might speak to men as a man and might order the affairs of men who were not able to be ordered by God remaining wholly God and in
by speaking through the prophets and by administering human affairs. And the kingdom of heaven will then cease to be likened to a man, when, jealousy and strife and the rest of the passions and sins and the walking "according to man" having ceased, we become worthy to hear from God: "I said, you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High," or of his Christ, no longer
doing such things for which it might be said to us: "but you shall die like men." I think, however, that not only will the kingdom of heaven cease to be likened to a human king, but also countless other things that sinful man has need of, as it is written in Hosea: "I am like a panther to Ephraim, and like a lion to the house of Judah," and in
another place he says, "I will meet them like a bear bereaved of her cubs." He will therefore at some point cease being like a panther and like a lion and like a bear bereaved of her cubs, when, because those who have done such things no longer need him as a panther and as a lion and as a bear bereaved, since he no longer has such people needing such a one, he will manifest himself "as he is." I understand in the same way
also the saying, "our God is a consuming fire," since to the extent that there is in us what deserves to be consumed, to that extent our God is a "consuming fire" for those things; but when what is by nature fit to be consumed has been consumed by the consuming fire, then he will no longer be "our God, a consuming fire," but only, as John said, light,
saying, "God is light." Now that these points have been raised, observe, if you can, whether the passage from John's catholic epistle, which reads thus - "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet been made manifest what we shall be. We know that if it is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is" - should be understood in this way. For now, even if we are deemed worthy to see
God with the mind and the heart, we do not see "him as he is" but as he becomes to us on account of our condition; but at the end of all things, and of the "restoration of all things which he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old," we shall see him, not as he is now, which he is not, but as befits him then, which he is. Having said this once,
with a view to "the kingdom of heaven was likened to a man, a king," we can also find the reason why the savior repeatedly named himself son of man, or son of a man, making clear that, just as God, in administering human affairs, is said - as though in parables - to be a man, and perhaps in some way even becomes one, so also the savior, being primarily son of God, and being
also "son of his love," and "image of the invisible God," does not remain in that which he primarily is, but becomes, according to the arrangement, the man spoken of in parables, being God, son of man, by imitating, when he administers human affairs, God, who is spoken of in parables and in some way becomes man. And one ought not to look for some [particular] man and say of him
that the Savior is a son, but rather, standing on the concept of God and of the parables that speak of him, understand intelligently that he is a man when he calls himself Son of Man. Now among us human beings the kingdom of heaven has been likened to a human king, but among those called gods according to the scriptures, among whom "God stood in the assembly, in the midst of
gods," passing judgment, the kingdom of heaven is likened, likened to a divine king. But you will ask whether, just as among the lesser beings, so far as their own nature goes—angels and thrones and lordships and rulers and authorities—a human king has been made the likeness by which the kingdom of the heavens is figured, so too among thrones a king who is a throne is the figure of the kingdom of the heavens, and among lordships to a king who is a lordship, and among rulers to
a king who is a rule, and among authorities to a king who is an authority. For someone will say: what is the reason that for the lesser beings the kingdom of heaven should be likened to a human king, while for those greater than human beings nothing analogous to this occurs? This one, then, likened to a human king making a wedding feast for his son, sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding. And
you will consider whether, just as in bodily matters the bride who is being married is distinct from the slaves who call and from those who are invited to the wedding, so too in mystical matters some are taken up into the company of the bride, while others are assigned to the rank of the slaves sent to call those who have been invited to the wedding, and a third group besides these are
those invited to the wedding. God alone would know the different ranks of souls, or of the powers together with them, and the reason why some are taken up into the company of the bride, while others are assigned to the slaves who minister to this calling, and others to those who are called. And in spiritual marriages, understand the fellowship of the word as bridegroom, the reception,
and the offspring rightly produced as belonging to the bride-soul, who is married to the word and is not corrupted by him, but rather at each act of fellowship with him receives a share of incorruption and gives birth—to whatever rational offspring might come from such marriages. And in such marriages understand the breakfast that is being prepared as consisting of solid food among spiritual sayings. And understand the solid part of the food, interpreted allegorically for me,
not in the bulls, but also the spiritual sense of the same contemplation in the fattened animals that are sacrificed, and the rest of the variety as well, the spiritual contemplation analogous to the bodily things, in the fact that all things are ready. For the king, in royal abundance worthy of his kingdom and his wealth, makes such a breakfast. It seems to me indeed that the leading calling to the wedding was addressed to certain noble Israelite souls,
for it is preeminently through those who call, by the word of teaching, that God wishes those more naturally suited for understanding to come to this blessed hearth. And one can see that such people do not wish to come to the calling, and for this reason other slaves are sent, inviting those who do not wish to come, and promising, if
...that those who had been invited might come and partake of the breakfast prepared by the king, and of bulls that, as among clean things, are greater than the clean, and of fattened animals, by the varied and abundant demonstration of the thoughts pertaining to each problem. For he who brings forward a full and abundant demonstration concerning the problem before us sets out, as it were, a fattened discourse — one that is divided and spoken of in tropology, and slaughtered.
As if, for the sake of argument, one were to bring forward certain slight and weak points for the demonstration of the problems, constructing them according to mere appearances, the things slaughtered would be certain thin and lean ones, and (likewise) dry and fleshless. But such are not the things prepared at the king's breakfast, in which he says: "My bulls and fatted beasts are slaughtered" — and thus also
all things are ready, so that in the standing of the servants and the ministry of the spiritual wine-pourers, each of the deacons appointed to the breakfast might bring forward especially those things in which he learned to minister. And indeed, exhorting those who (as I said) are second according to the parable, he said, "Behold, I have prepared the breakfast; my bulls and fatted beasts are slaughtered." And all things
are ready; come to the marriage feast. But those who were first invited, as being poor and needy, neglected this in their minds and went away, tending to their own affairs and rejoicing in them rather than in what the king promised through the servants he had sent. And observe that the one of them who had a field of his own did not come to the marriage feast, while the one who had acquired a business wished in some way to imitate
what is said in the parable of the merchant of pearls, who sought "goodly pearls" and, having found "one of great price," sold off the many in order to buy the one. Yet this business was not a fortunate one, since the one invited, having gone off to it, did not partake of the breakfast prepared by the king, nor of the slaughtered bulls and fatted beasts, nor of all that was ready.
As many, then, of the discerning as, having been invited, do not come to the calling, yet do not also insult and kill the servants sent to call them, are more moderate than those who have dared to do these things; and they rest, one in his own field, the other in his business. But there are those — it seems to me — who have fallen away into the preparation of contentious and
sophistic arguments, in which, prevailing over the servants sent, who are not prepared to refute sophisms, or seeming to prevail, they insult those ministering the call. And indeed one may see those who are devoted to the practice of the divine words, and who wish, together with divine wisdom, to advocate for them, being insulted by the discerning who are unwilling to believe the truth; and some
of them are even killed by those against whom the king is said to have been angered, since "the anger" that is called "came upon them." Now let us see who are next after these, and who were sent as "the army of the king" — either the multitude of the heavenly host, or the angels appointed over punishments; and they indeed kill the murderers of the servants of the
...word, and the king burns down their entire city. For each of the doctrines compounded together “in the wisdom of the rulers of this age” is, as it were, a city of the impious, which the king burns and utterly destroys, as being built up out of wicked structures. And whenever you observe a demolition, whether of “knowledge falsely so called” or of any words at all that profess truth, and their noble overthrow,
do not hesitate to say that such a thing has come about through the soldiers of God burning down the cities of the enemies of the truth of God. Indeed, the city of Jewish teaching was also burned after the coming of Christ; and when it had been burned, the king said to his servants — the apostles of Christ, or the angels of God appointed over the calling of the nations —
“The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy; go therefore to the crossroads, and call to the wedding as many as you find.” And one can see, from every road of private and non-private doctrines belonging to the customs of the nations and cities and villages and places, those who are called to the wedding by those
appointed to do this. And the servants went out — whether the apostles of Christ from Judea and Jerusalem, or the blessed angels from the inner regions in which they were — and coming to the roads they gathered, and will gather, all whom they find, wicked [...] , so that, having put off wickedness, the garment foreign to the wedding, and having put on
along with what are called good works the garment of the wedding, they might fill the hearth of the wedding as they recline. When, then, the wedding has been filled with those reclining and resting upon faith and reverence toward God, then the king will enter to inspect and judge those reclining, so that, having exposed the one who does not have a wedding garment, he may punish him, but set before the rest the prepared breakfast, and
the fattened animals that were sacrificed, along with the bulls, and all the rest that he had prepared. But he saw one man clothed — clothed not in a wedding garment — referring to a single class or kind all those who kept the wickedness they had before faith and did not strip it off. And indeed he finds fault with such a man, as having done wrong in daring to enter into such a wedding without having put on
the wedding garment, the woven fabric of virtue, the bright robe, concerning which Solomon in Ecclesiastes commanded, saying: “At every season let your garments be white.” And the one who dared to enter this bright wedding without a wedding garment is muzzled, and is unable to speak — condemned as deserving punishment and judgment by the one who said to the servants,
to others (that is, the armies), “Bind his feet and hands” — the members he did not put to proper use, for he neither walked the journey he ought to have walked, nor performed the deeds he ought to have performed — “cast him out,” not only from the hearth of the wedding but also throw him into the outer darkness, utterly unmixed with light, so that, thirsting for light after having been in darkness,
in the outer darkness weep toward the God who is able to do him good and to rescue him from there, and gnash the teeth of one who, through wickedness, has eaten the sour grape and for that reason has had his teeth set on edge. For "the teeth of the one who eats the sour grape" "will be set on edge"; and there too the sour grape must be understood to mean the wickedness of the one who does not forget "the things behind" nor [reach forward] "to the things ahead," but remains in it, when he ought instead to journey on
toward what is ripe, and to make the cluster of virtue's vine sweet. He adds, to the whole parable, on account of the many who were called and did not prove worthy, the words "for many are called"; and on account of those who entered into the wedding feast and reclined there, being few, the words "but few are chosen." And if one were to observe the crowded gatherings of
(to name them more simply) the churches, and examine how many live more decently and are transformed "by the renewal of the mind," and how many conduct themselves more carelessly and are conformed "to this age," he would see that the Savior's saying is apt: "for many are called, but few are chosen." And elsewhere it is said: "many will seek to enter and will not be able," and
"strive to enter through the narrow gate, because few find it." "Then the Pharisees went and took counsel against him, how they might entrap him in speech," and so on, down to "and leaving him they went away." The intent of the passage set before us seems to me, on the literal level, to be as follows. The Jews, since they had their own teaching according to the law of Moses, and
a way of life estranged from the conduct of the nations, and held the doctrine which says, "Strive even unto death for the truth, and the Lord will fight on your behalf," resisted the nations that ruled over them, so as not to transgress the law of God. And indeed they often risked utter destruction under the Romans, when these wished to bring a statue of Caesar into the temple of God, resisting and preventing
those who had grown stronger than they, because of the sins of the Jews. We have found, in the histories concerning the time of Tiberius Caesar, accounts of how, under Pontius Pilate, the people were placed in danger, Pilate forcing the setting up of a statue of Caesar in the temple, while they, beyond their strength, prevented it; and a similar thing is recorded to have happened also in the times of Gaius
Caesar. And we conjecture that, so long as the people were watched over and "the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, the house of Israel, and his beloved new planting, the man of Judah," was walled about with the hedge spoken of according to the prophets, nothing of such magnitude occurred. But the most paradoxical thing is this: it was Pilate himself, to whom they handed Jesus over, who was the first to dare defile the temple of God. And so, in the time
of the Savior, when the Jews were commanded to pay tribute to the Romans, there was deliberation and counsel among the Jews as to whether it was fitting for those set apart to God, being his portion, to pay tribute to the rulers, or to fight for freedom, if they were not permitted to live as they wished, and not pay tribute. And it is recorded that Judas the Galilean, whom Luke also mentions
in the Acts of the Apostles, having drawn away a large crowd of Jews, he taught that they must not pay tribute to Caesar nor proclaim Caesar as lord; but the tetrarch of his time wanted to persuade the people to yield to the present state of subjection and not choose war of their own accord against stronger powers, but to pay the tribute. And the passage of the gospel before us does not clearly
show these things, yet to one able to look with careful scrutiny, the text set out shows that this is how matters stood. For the Pharisees, wishing to catch Jesus in speech, would have had no occasion for sending their own disciples together with the Herodians to ask Jesus whether it is lawful to give the census-tax to Caesar or not, if it were agreed that one ought not to give it. And if
it had been agreed to give it. And observe whether the facts of the story before us are not made clear by this: that the Pharisees, wishing to trap Jesus in speech, did not send only their own disciples to inquire about the census, but sent them together with the Herodians. For it is likely that at that time, among the people, those who taught that the tribute should be paid to Caesar were called Herodians by
those who did not want this to happen; while those who, under the pretense of freedom, forbade paying the tribute to Caesar, were thought to be the ones who kept the teachings of the Jews strictly, the Pharisees. But if someone does not wish this to be so, let him explain how it is that the Pharisees, wishing to trap him in speech, send their own disciples, and send the Herodians as well, to inquire about the tribute. For what
trap would there be in Jesus answering, whether he wanted the census to be given to Caesar or not, unless (as we have explained) if he forbade giving the census to Caesar, the Herodians were going to hand him over to the Romans as one teaching rebellion, while if he permitted it, the Pharisees were going to accuse Jesus of looking to the face of a man rather than teaching the way of God in truth? Examine
for yourself that the disciples of the Pharisees, saying: Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God in truth, and you care about no one, for you do not look at the face of a man — see how by this praise they provoke him not to show favor to the Herodians and to those who thought as Caesar did, so that
having declared himself, according to the wish of the Pharisees, that one ought not to give tribute to Caesar, he might be handed over by them to the Herodians. Observe also that Jesus, knowing their cunning, said: Why do you test me, hypocrites? He therefore knew he was being tested by the Pharisees, who approached him with cunning, so that whatever he might answer, they would plot against him from his answer. Let this much,
then, be said from the gospel before us on this passage, as regards the wording, with which the words of Mark and Luke concerning similar matters agree, as you can see for yourself by setting the gospels side by side and examining them together; for the sense expressed here by Matthew concerning these matters is no different, and likewise
...Matthew has that Mark also has. At the same time we are also taught by our Savior not to pay attention to what is said by the many and therefore appears reputable, under the pretext of piety toward God, but rather to what is established by an examination of the coherence of the argument. For observe that when the question was raised whether it is right to give Caesar the census-tax or not, he did not simply declare his own opinion,
but having said, "Show me the coin of the census," he asked whose image and inscription it bore, and when they said, "Caesar's," he answered that one must render to Caesar what belongs to him when he asks for it, and not deprive him of what is his own on the pretense of piety toward God. For surely it is not the case that one must render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's but not also render the things of God
to God, and no one is prevented, in rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, from also rendering to God the things that are God's. Now one might allegorize the passage in this way. We are composed of soul and body (let us pass over for now saying also of spirit), and we owe a certain payment, as it were a tribute of bodies, to the one called the ruler of bodies, Caesar — namely, the things necessary for the body, which bear the bodily
image of the ruler of bodies. These are food and shelter and the necessary rest and periods of sleep. And we owe other things as well, since the soul is by nature according to the image of God, to its king, God — namely, whatever is beneficial and fitting to the nature and being of the soul. These are the roads that lead to virtue and the
deeds that accord with virtue. Now those who are taught the law of God concerning the affairs of the body and what is owed to it do not all hold the same opinion. For some do the equivalent of those who advise not giving the census-tax to Caesar, afflicting the body as much as they can with fasts and sleeplessness and abstinence of every kind from what pertains to the body and its necessary functions. Others, distinct
from these, hold confused views about the passage but imagine that one must render dues to the body as well. But our Savior, the Word of God, clearly separating the reasonable debts owed to the body from the spiritual debts, says: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." For the
tribute that belongs to Caesar and to bodily affairs bears his image, and this alone — and nothing more than this — do we owe to the body. I know also another account of this passage that is in circulation. The ruler of this age is called, in the allegorical sense, Caesar; but the God of all the ages, who appears on no symbol, is named everywhere. Since, then, we bear a certain
image of the ruler of this age — that is, the things that pertain to vice — and we cannot render to God the things that are God's until we first render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, having laid aside everything that pertains to vice, for this reason the Savior, once the coin and the image on it had been displayed, says: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And this
Let us consider, on this point, that if ever, being tested by those seeking occasions against us, who put forward certain problems not in order to learn but so that they might accuse our power, we hear words that test us, we ought neither to keep entirely silent nor to answer at random, but circumspectly and with due consideration, so as, as far as possible, to deny occasions to "those wanting" occasions, and to teach without reproach the things that save those who wish
to be saved by hearing. Now the Pharisees can be taken as the teachers of the various Jewish traditions, and the Herodians as belonging to what most people reckoned the royal party of the Jews, spoken of in this simpler sense. From both sides, then, they inquire of the Savior about the census. And he answers them as we have already recorded; except that, since they do not wish to learn from
questioning him, but to entrap him in speech and to test him, for this reason, having heard what seemed good to him in answer to their question, and having marveled that he gave them no occasion to plot against him, they did not remain with him as the disciples did, nor did they simply depart, as is written concerning others, but they left him and went away. And such indeed are those who abandon
the word, and disbelieve him, and go away from him after hearing him. And one would not err in saying, of those who fell away after hearing and after that hearing, that such people abandoned Jesus and went away; but we shall say the word of the bride: "I held him, and I did not let him go." On that day the Sadducees came to him, saying that there is
no resurrection, and so on, down to where they were astonished at his teaching. The things equivalent to these, or the same as these, are also said in Mark and in Luke, in slightly different words in each. "On that day" — which day? Or was it when the Pharisees, having gone off, took counsel against him how they might entrap him in speech, and inquired about
the census? For it is likely that, when our Savior had answered concerning the census and had said, "Render therefore the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God," and they had marveled at his answer, the Sadducees, knowing his shrewd answers, thought that either they themselves, through raising this difficulty, would show themselves to have the better argument, saying there is no resurrection
for those who hope for it, or perhaps also that they would learn how there can be a resurrection according to the writing of Moses, and what kind of life those who rise again will have. Observe that almost the whole of our Savior's teaching at this time arose in response to questions. And first, when he had come into the temple, as he was teaching, the elders and chief priests of the people approached him, saying
"By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you this authority?" To them, having asked in turn about John, he seems reasonably to have declined giving an answer to their intent. Then after this he tells the parable of the two children, the one who promised to work in the vineyard and did not work, and the one who professed
...not having worked. Then after this he tells the parable about the vineyard and the tenant farmers who killed the servants and the son, and after these things another parable about those called to the wedding feast. And after this Matthew recorded a second question, the one about the census tax, and a third, the doubt of the Sadducees concerning the resurrection. But also
a fourth question was raised after this one, from a certain Pharisee testing him about "which is the great commandment in the law?" And after so many questions had been brought to him, he himself, "when the Pharisees were gathered together, asked them" about the Christ. The Sadducees, however, saying that there is no resurrection, did not <only> set aside the resurrection of the flesh, so called in common usage,
but they also did away entirely with not only the immortality of the soul but also its continued existence, supposing that nowhere in the writings of Moses is the life of the soul after these things indicated. And to this day the Samaritans, along with those among them accounted skilled in the law, hold the same opinion as the Sadducees concerning the soul of human beings, and they contend even to the death for the law of Moses and for circumcision.
And this meaning concerning the resurrection — I mean the one held by the Sadducees and the Samaritans, who reject this life of the soul — some of the Corinthians in the apostle's time also had in mind when they held the doctrine that there is no resurrection, about whom he writes these things: "But if Christ is preached, that he has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that
there is no resurrection of the dead?" And that those in Corinth who said there is no resurrection of the dead were, according to the meaning intended by the Sadducees, setting aside the resurrection — that is, the continued existence of the soul — he makes clear from: "If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." Which, if you examine it carefully, you will see that the one who sets aside the
resurrection of the dead that is believed in the church, even if he sets it aside falsely, is by no means "hoping in Christ" "in this life" "only." For supposing, hypothetically, that the resurrection believed by the majority were not true, the one who sets it aside has not hoped "in Christ" "in this life" "only," since the soul lives on, not indeed receiving back that body but being clothed instead
with something ethereal and better. But neither would we be "of all people most to be pitied," if we were to say that the soul lives and exists, even without attaching this body to it or saying that it receives it back. Further, in support of establishing that the apostle is chiefly concerned with this very meaning, we shall also make use, in the first letter to the Corinthians, of the passage: "if the dead are not raised at all, why then are people even
baptized on behalf of them? Why do we too face danger every hour?" And also: "if, humanly speaking, I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what benefit is it to me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." For let it be supposed that what is thought true by the majority is not true concerning the resurrection of the dead — how
From this it follows that we are risking ourselves in vain when we strive for the salvation of our souls. And how is it of no benefit to the one who has fought with beasts for Christ's sake [...] being administered according to merit, if he does not receive back his former body? And how does it follow, from there being no resurrection of the flesh, that “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”? But we do not say these things because we disbelieve what is written in Isaiah
in this manner: “all flesh shall behold the deliverance wrought by God,” or what is said by Job: “that he who is to release me is eternal upon the earth, and will raise up again this skin of mine that endures these things.” Nor do we disbelieve the apostolic voice which says: “he will give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit dwelling”
“in you.” But, as far as we are able, let us purify the meaning signified in the passage of the gospel set before us, from the language of resurrection; and for this reason we have also set alongside it the sayings from the first letter to the Corinthians. The Sadducees, then, came to Jesus, who say that there is no resurrection — but resurrection (as we have explained) in the proper sense — and they questioned our Lord, saying: Moses said, if
someone dies without having children, his brother shall marry his wife and produce offspring on his brother's behalf. It seems worthwhile to me, then, to set out at this point the text of Moses, to which the Sadducees referred what was said by them to have been written in the gospel. It runs thus in Deuteronomy: “if brothers dwell
together, and one of them dies,” and so on, down to “the house of him whose sandal was loosed.” Now the Sadducees, since they had no hope of the resurrection, having heard this text carelessly and having conceived nothing worthy of God concerning the law here set forth, supposed that it followed, if there is a resurrection, that the man would rise as a man having male
parts, and the woman would rise clothed with a woman's body. And, understanding in a lowly way what is said about the resurrection, from what they thought followed from this, having fashioned a certain myth about seven brothers who married one woman, they raised the difficulty of whose wife such a woman, once risen, would be, since she had already been the wife of seven men in succession. But they could have raised the same difficulty, even without such a fiction, from
women who had many husbands, and perhaps also from men who had many wives. And our Savior, in answering them, did not explain the intention of the law of Moses, since they were not worthy of the knowledge of so great a mystery; but he simply declared, saying that the divine scriptures also proclaim concerning the resurrection from the dead, that there there are no marriages, but those who rise
from the dead become like the angels in heaven, and just as the angels in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage, so too (he says) are those raised from the dead. But I think it is shown through these words that it is not only in respect of not marrying and not being given in marriage that those who are counted worthy of the resurrection from the dead
of the resurrection, but also that their bodies, being transformed with respect to “their lowliness,” become such as the bodies of the angels are, ethereal and gleaming with light. One might inquire into a doctrine that startles many of the faithful — perhaps arising from many places, but clearly also from this one — raising the difficulty whether, just as there are those who rise from the dead and become like the angels in
heaven, and a certain order of angels who change over from being human beings, so too there are other angels in heaven who were once human beings and, having contended well in a human body, have become angels in heaven, just as certain others before them did. Let the person seeking out this startling doctrine from the passage before us — and perhaps from elsewhere as well — look closely and survey the whole
scripture and the sequence of the matters, and consider what follows for one who posits these things, and let him examine whether one ought to accept such a reasoning as entails what is shown by “we shall judge angels” and by “things into which angels long to look.” And if one should also accept the letter of Jude, let him see what follows for the argument on account of “the angels who did not
keep their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling, he has kept in everlasting chains under gloom for the judgment of the great day.” And let the one who dares to inquire into such things see how one must understand what is written in Genesis, that “the sons of God, seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took for themselves wives from all whom they chose.”
But to raise difficulties over the matters in this passage and to examine their sequence, and to entrust to paper the clarification of such weighty things, might perhaps not be safe; for it is enough that we have ventured so far even in what has been said. Having set out once for all the wording of the law from Deuteronomy, I judge it not unfitting to see what its intention is. One must therefore inquire in
it who the one wife is, and who the two brothers are who are brothers of one another, of whom the one, marrying first, does not bear fruit from her, while the brother of the deceased, marrying second, begets a child in the name of the one who has died. And after this you will inquire who is the one who is unwilling “to take his brother’s wife,” and
who on that account, “before the elders,” has “the one sandal” loosed and is “spat upon in the face” by the woman, who has gone up “to the gate” and says, “my husband’s brother is unwilling to raise up his brother’s name in Israel.” One might also inquire in this passage who the elders are, and what the gate is, up to which
“the woman” goes to say what is written. Now that every law professing to be of God must be believed to be something dignified and worthy of reverence, or else, if it is not dignified, is not a law of God, anyone not utterly without understanding would agree; but whether we find the dignity and reverence of this law to be so or not, first of all God
his Christ too would know, and after this the one called in Scripture the "approved money-changer," who knows to "test all things," to hold fast the "good," and to "abstain from every form of evil." Come then, since we wish to expound the problem set before us, let us call upon the one who said, "I will utter problems from the beginning," and let us say that it is "good" if we hold to the things given by him,
but if not, then to the things that fall to us with respect to the topic. The one who reads what is said will judge. Now it seems to me that, according to one way of explaining it, the woman is the soul of the man, married first to the letter of the law and bearing no children from it, and second to the spiritual law, and from this one bearing fruit and begetting, and not departing
from the honor owed to the letter of the law that died for her in the person begotten to her. And perhaps every soul that is to be blessed, and is figuratively called a "woman," is necessarily first, in the introductory stages, married to the letter of the law, which dies as the soul-as-woman advances, so that she may attain the more venerable and child-bearing marriage, at which time "she will be saved through childbearing," provided the children remain in
"faith and love and holiness, with sound-mindedness"; for she will not be saved before childbearing, or apart from it. And the children of this woman-soul, from the second husband, the spiritual law, are the works that accord with it. Now the two brothers, born of one mind, are the laws [...] , which always dwell "together"; for
their house is not divided from one another, but they are "brothers," and both interpretations are as it were in one house, that which contains them, namely the letter. And see whether this cannot be shown from the words "if brothers dwell together." Then next comes: "and one of them dies, and he has no seed," which I have expounded to the best of my ability.
Let us also look at "the wife of the dead man shall not be outside, married to a man not near of kin," and consider which woman-soul transgresses this law and which keeps it. It is in such passages, I take it, that after the death of the letter-interpretation of the law and its overturning, one soul acts contrary to the divine commandment,
having previously been the wife of the dead man and having trusted in him, becoming altogether a "woman to a man not near of kin" to the law, when she accepts a word that does not belong to the interpretation of the letter, but is altogether foreign (such are the souls of the heterodox, for whom the interpretation of the letter according to the law came to an end, and who were unwilling to be married to that one who forever dwells "together" with them,
namely the spiritual law, but instead to some word "outside" both of these, and in no way to have communion with one who is "near of kin." Another soul, however, [is the woman who], living according to God after the death and overturning of the former husband, is unwilling to become "outside" and belong to "a man not near of kin," but is married to the brother of the deceased, who dwells "together" with him, at the time when "the brother of her husband comes in to
‹her,› and he comes to be within her soul and takes ‹her to himself as wife,› and dwells together with that soul, to her blessing, since she is being married according to God's will to the second, spiritual law. ‹And the child that she bears›—that is, the child that the soul, having become wife and dwelling together with the second and spiritual brother, brings forth—is established ‹from the name›
of his brother ‹who has died,› and comes to be, not indeed from the former, yet bearing the same name as the former; for the name given to the offspring by the spiritual law is the name of the one who died, since that one too was called the law of God, and it is not right that ‹the name› of the dead man be blotted out from the one who is discerning and truly Israel, even if he himself is blotted out.
Let this, then, be said in part concerning the law. But we have need of God again, or rather still more, to enlighten our mind in Christ for the contemplation of what follows. ‹For if,› he says, ‹the man is not willing to take his brother's wife, his brother's wife shall go up to the gate, to the elders, and shall say›
what follows. And first observe that, for as long as the woman also was doing what was commanded by the law, and the man, going in to her, dwelt with her and had children by her, he was not called a man but ‹brother› of the woman's husband; but when he is not willing ‹to take his brother's wife› and ‹does not wish to raise up his brother's›
name in Israel,› and, being called by the elders ‹of the city,› says, ‹I do not wish to take her,› he is dishonored, having ‹his sandal› loosed, and is spat upon ‹in the face› by the woman, and is renamed, so that ‹his name› may be ‹the house of him whose sandal was loosed›—then he is called, no longer brother but [...]; for it is as though, by the keeping of the
law it was said to him: ‹I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High›; but for doing the opposite of the law he is, as it were, convicted by the word that says to him: ‹But you die like men.› And observe, if you are able to understand, that after death there is, apart from the interpretation of the letter, some other understanding of the law that is mistaken and neither spiritual nor blameless, except
that it has its origin ‹from the law,› though a mistaken origin, beginning from an occasion afforded by what is written in the law, and not willing ‹to raise up the name of his brother› and to honor the name of the law. Now such an interpretation, taken as a soul, does not wish to take the wife of its brother; for it does not wish to bear fruit for the glorifying of the name of the dead
brother. Therefore the woman does not stand below, ready to honor her former husband, but goes up ‹to the gate,› which holds for itself the entrance of the city, and ‹the elders.› And let this be understood as happening with reference to the church and the introduction and entrance into it. The woman, then, convicts the man who is unwilling to bear fruit with this kind of speech: And
she says: "My husband's brother is not willing to raise up the name of his brother in Israel." Then "the elders of that city," examining such a man, inquire whether he truly does not wish it. And when he answers that he does not wish it, she comes forward to the man who was not willing to raise up seed for his brother, and refutes him before the elders,
and dishonors him by loosing "his one sandal." And observe, in connection with this, what is said to Moses and to Joshua about "loosing the sandal from your feet," and the saying "of whom I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal," written in the Gospel according to Luke and according to Mark and according to John,
lest perhaps "to loose the sandal" is not the same as "to unloose" it; for Moses or Joshua is not bidden to unloose it for himself, nor did John, speaking of the Savior, use the word "unloose" but "loose." This lawgiver, then, is neither wholly unloosed nor wholly adorned with the fastening of the sandal, but has each condition by half. For this reason the woman who has refuted him before the elders "spits in his face";
for every soul spits upon the word that does not beget children nor bear fruit, and by this overthrow unlooses him in the very points where he stumbles, and "answering" says, "Thus shall it be done to the man who does not build up the house of his brother." And observe here carefully that the word "man" is used a second time of the one who sins, but now
already also of one who does not build up "the house of his brother." Everyone, then, who sees this man being unloosed by the woman and spat upon, and hears her saying, "Thus shall they do to the man who does not build up the house of his brother," let him do everything toward the building up of his brother; for if he should fail to build up "the house of his brother" (that is, of the law), there will be unloosed
"the one sandal," and he will be spat upon, and "the name" of every such man "in Israel," in the sight of all who see it, "shall be called the house of him whose sandal was unloosed." Let us also look at a second interpretation of the passage before us, and let there be two brother laws, according to which the one who kept the former was not "lawless before God," while the one who keeps the second is "under law
to Christ." And understand me: at the coming of Christ the former law died, being, as it were, a man of the soul of men, since "that which was glorified in this part" was not glorified formerly, "on account of the surpassing glory" belonging to the second; and understand the second law of Christ, brother to the former and, through Moses, likewise a son of the same Word, who also
begot the former. While, then, these two brothers were "dwelling together," especially at the coming, the one of them died and had no seed. But the wife of the dead man, after the death of the former husband — that is, the soul that is under the law — does not become "the wife of a stranger who is not near of kin"; for a kinsman draws near, the law of the gospel, as a brother
with the husband dead under the former law, and he goes in to the wife of his brother. Take, for example, the soul of Paul: see it "under the law," and then, ransomed by Christ from the law, coming to be under the gospel. And consider whether the husband of Paul's soul has not died, and whether, nonetheless, though that one has died, the wife of the deceased
has not become "outside," as those of the heresies suppose, nor "belonging to no man who comes near her." For "the brother of her husband" went in to her and "took her to himself as wife" and lived with her, and there came to be "the fruit and the offspring and the child" and "that which was born in the name of the deceased." For according to the spiritual law
the gospel calls everything by name, and the name of the deceased has not been blotted out, now that the law of the gospel has come; for among the true Israel the name of the former one is kept as well. Who, then, after this, is the man unwilling "to take the wife of his own brother," if not the reasoning found among the heresies, unwilling that the soul who honored the former
husband should also accept remembrance of the former husband? Against such a man the wife of his brother "goes up to the gate," concerning which it is said, "the Lord's gate is this one; through it the righteous shall enter," and she goes up "to the elders" and testifies against the one unwilling "to raise up seed for his brother in Israel," nor to honor the law of
God given through Moses. When, then, "the elders" inquire of such a man whether the woman speaks the truth about him, and he is unwilling to raise up seed for his brother, then "the wife" of the deceased comes forward "before the elders" and "looses the one sandal from off his foot," so that, even if he is shod with the name of Christ, he may be
stripped of the name of God, and for this reason bears the name of Christ neither gloriously nor truly. And the woman also "spits in the face" of such a man and reproaches him as a mere man, one unwilling to be made divine by bearing fruit; and she declares that this shall happen to everyone who has not built up "the house of his brother," that is, of the evangelical word,
which is both lawful and prophetic. And he who does not build up his name among the Israelites shall have no other name than this, that his "house" is "the house of him whose sandal was loosed." Every man, then, who wallows among the heresies — especially those that sever the deity and separate the law from the gospel — is "the house of him whose sandal was loosed," spat upon "in the face"
and having "the one sandal" loosed from him. And we have also received a third such interpretation of this passage, which we shall state briefly. The wife is said to be Wisdom, because of the saying "her I sought to take as a bride for myself," whom one must also love, according to Solomon who said, "love her, and she will keep you," and her husband is the wise man. If, then, the wise man, having begotten no children,
...departs from life by means of wisdom, the brother who dwelt with him and rested in the same words should be an ambassador for the same words, so that from wisdom might be born the glory that will secure for the one who departed from that companionship someone to present it. But if the surviving brother should be unwilling to be an ambassador for the words, he will be dishonored by wisdom, which will half loose his sandal from him; for neither
will such a one's sandal fail to be loosed, nor will it be completely loosed. Now to establish that, according to scripture, the law is called the husband of the soul as wife, we shall set forth what stands thus in the letter to the Romans: "Or are you ignorant, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has dominion over a person for as long as he lives?" and so on, down to "having become another man's." More has been said
by us on this passage of the letter to the Romans when we expounded it in our commentaries on it. Let these things, then, even though they may seem to have been said by way of digression, be said for the clarification of the law given through Moses, which the Sadducees recalled when they questioned the Savior, saying, "Moses said, If anyone dies having no children," and so on. Come,
then, let us next examine the other parts of the gospel, from "Now there were with us seven brothers, and the first, having married, died," and so on. Isaiah, in his prophecy, says: "Seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread and wear our own garments; only let your name be called upon us;
take away our reproach." But the Sadducees, approaching the Savior, speak of the opposite of the prophecy, concerning seven men who married one woman. Now their problem seems to me to be a fabrication, since by means of the fabrication they intended to overturn the doctrine of the resurrection, supposing it follows from the resurrection that each of those raised has the same relation to those whom he had in
this life, so that the husband would receive back his wife as well after attaining the resurrection, and the father would remain in his relation to the son, and the brother to the brother. But they were, it seems, unaware that the Creator, doing everything for what is useful, has of necessity made such relations wherever there is generation and decay, so that
one man might be served by a woman for the begetting of children, and those begotten might have something in common through being begotten by the same parents, being brothers; and it was a function of generation that there be both father and son, mother and daughter. If, then, in that blessedness those deemed worthy of honor on account of the present age in which they lived well are to be in that
life, and none of those who did not strive here is deemed worthy of the resurrection from the dead, it is clear that whatever here was needed on account of generation will not exist there. For God does nothing superfluous, nor does anything happen in vain with him. But those who draw this consequence from their supposition—that each will receive back his own wife—ought to have seen that a city
there would be the begetting of children, births and deaths of children; and if these, then also illnesses; and if births, then also infancies, and advances from infancy to the completion of speech, and afterward, in the completion of reason, wickedness as well — and only rarely, and among the few who seek it, is virtue ever found in a city. What could be more futile than these things? And it would be better
for there to be no resurrection at all than for it to be of the sort the Sadducees supposed, assuming that it follows from the resurrection of the dead that each man gets his wife back — which entailed that each of the things mentioned would also occur. If, then, the age to come is hoped for as new, and as Isaiah named it, "a new heaven and a new earth," and as it is written in the gospel, "the cup" of a new
covenant — from a new vine, I suppose — then all the things belonging to the life there must be different, and truly blessed. But just as, as the argument has shown, it followed from there being a wife and a husband that there would also be children of fathers, and brothers of brothers, and a mother of those born, so perhaps it likewise follows, from there being neither wife nor husband, that there will no longer be a father and mother
or any of them brothers to one another — perhaps not only with respect to those to come but also to those already past. For there, among those who reasonably hear "Do not remember the former things, and do not dwell on the ancient things; behold, I am making all things new," there will no longer be any remembrance of kinship according to the flesh. And accordingly, in the age to come, Terah will not be called the father of Abraham, nor
will Abraham be called the father of Ishmael and of those from Keturah — perhaps not even of Isaac; for "the ancient things have passed away," and then it will be said, "behold, all things have become new." And if there is some other kind of brother besides the one "according to the flesh," and some other kind of father and son besides those that occur in the affairs of begetting — no longer through a woman nor through the unseemly parts of the body,
but by analogy with the way the Savior too is Son of God — this the one who is capable of inquiring rightly into such great matters will grasp, having made room for the Spirit that "searches all things, even the depths of God." And I take this otherness, this virtual homonymy, to apply not only in these cases — I mean those of brother and father and son — but also in the case of wife and husband. For in the resurrection
of the dead it is also true that they neither marry nor take spouses, but exist as the angels do in heaven; and it is also true, as stated in the parable, concerning a marriage different from those on earth, in "The kingdom of heaven has been compared to a king who held a marriage feast for his son," and what follows; and in "Then the kingdom of heaven will be compared"
"to ten virgins, who took their lamps," and what follows. The son of the king, then, in the resurrection of the dead, enters into a marriage beyond every marriage — one that eye has seen and ear has heard and that has "arisen upon the heart of man"; and that solemn and divine and spiritual marriage will take place in unspeakable words, which it is not
it is permitted for a man to say. But someone will inquire whether, corresponding to the bridegroom's marriage in the resurrection of the dead, there are also other marriages, or whether in the resurrection of the dead the bridegroom alone, having abolished every marriage, contracts a marriage — not where “the two shall become one flesh,” but where it is more proper to say that the bridegroom and
the bride are one spirit. But watch that you do not slip, on hearing such words, into accepting the myth-making about the aeons — males and females — in the manner of those who have fabricated their unions, which nowhere exist and are nowhere indicated by the sacred writings. Since the Sadducees' question about the seven brothers who had one wife requires no allegorical interpretation, come, let us examine the savior's
words about these matters, in which he says: ‘You are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection people do not marry, nor are they given as spouses, but exist as the angels do in heaven.’ But in response to this someone will raise questions of the following kind: the savior, in saying to the Sadducees, ‘You are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God,’ indicates
that it is established, in accordance with the scriptures, that in the resurrection of the dead there are no marriages, inasmuch as human beings will be made like the angels, among whom there is no marriage. Which scripture, then, shows that once raised, people do not marry, nor are they given as spouses? And where in the law or the prophets do we learn concerning those who will rise again that they will be like the
angels in heaven? For plainly we find nothing of this sort in the old scripture. Now according to Luke this would not be raised as a question, since he records the savior as having said: ‘The sons of this age beget and are begotten, marry and are given in marriage,’ and so on, and did not say anything at this point to the Sadducees, even about these things
being indicated in the scriptures. But according to Matthew this would be raised as a question, and likewise also according to Mark; for according to him, Jesus answered and said to the Sadducees: ‘Is it not for this reason that you are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God? For once they have risen from the dead, they do not marry, nor are they given as spouses, but exist as the angels do who are in the heavens.’ Each one, then,
of those who attend to our difficulty, let him seek out from the scriptures what is established as having been said by the savior concerning those after the resurrection. But we for our part will say this: that the scriptures contain these things not literally, nor in a way to be understood by ordinary people, but in an allegorical sense. For since ‘the law possesses a mere shadow of the good things that are coming,’ having legislated certain matters concerning women and men,
and having narrated lawful marriages, does not speak primarily about the things one might take from the plain wording, but about the matters we ourselves have already set forth above when we cited what concerns the marriage of the savior and the church that is to be in the age to come. As, for instance, [if] ‘Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. And the one from the
was born of the slave-girl according to the flesh, but the one from the free woman was born through the promise," it is not at all necessary for me to stand upon the sense-perceptible marriage of the free woman and her association with the slave-girl; for these things are said allegorically. But even, "for this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will be
one flesh," this saying is not to be heard as though it reveals no mystery; for "this mystery is great," and, as Paul says, it is referred "to Christ and to the church." And a little before this, having set out the matter concerning the woman married to the brother of her deceased husband, we examined, as best we could, the intention of the law. There are also
countless other laws concerning woman and man - as, for instance, about the bill of divorce, and about the two wives belonging to one man, one loved and the other hated, and about the woman taken captive who is married by the man who desired her, married after she has shaved her head and mourned her father and her mother in mourning - each of which has
something solemn and divine in the true tropological sense that is found in it. If, then, someone reading the law and going through the matters concerning the marriages of women and men supposes that nothing more is signified than what is indicated by the letter, he is in error, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. One might inquire whether the statement "you are in error, not knowing the scriptures"
was addressed to the Sadducees, who accept no scripture other than that of the law, and whether it also refers to scriptures other than the law of Moses. One person will say that the Sadducees are accused on precisely this ground, that by not accepting the scriptures that follow the law they err through not knowing it. Another will say: it is enough, for the error of the Sadducees to be exposed, that they do not
know the scriptures of Moses themselves, in that they fail to grasp the divine sense within them. Yet he says that the Sadducees do not know two things: one, the scriptures, and the other, the power of God, from which power the events of the resurrection come about, and the common life within it. But one might say that "not knowing the power of God" is
also said of the Sadducees as referring to the Savior himself; since Christ is God's power and God's wisdom, and the Sadducees were ignorant of him, as ones not knowing the scriptures concerning him, nor the things he would accomplish in service of the resurrection from the dead of those who are to be saved. But whoever is not satisfied that the difficulty about "you are in error, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God" is resolved by tropology
will have to do one of two things: either disbelieve the passages as they stand written, on the ground that they have not been well recorded - since the Savior would not have spoken as written things that were not written - or he will dare to disbelieve on the ground that Jesus did not speak truly. And a third person, taking refuge in the apocryphal writings, where the matters concerning
...to have been written concerning the blessed life, he will say that the reference of what is written here is to them, in the phrase ‘you are led astray, not knowing the scriptures.’ And see whether he will not fall into absurdities on every side by avoiding the preliminary argument. For if he disbelieves the scripture, he will act contrary to the ecclesiastical position; and if he disbelieves Jesus, he will do so as one who is a Jew according to the flesh; or if...
...he turns to the apocryphal <sayings>, he will not arrive at a matter agreed upon among believers. For this reason it does not seem to me that ‘you are led astray, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God’ can be resolved in any other way except through the phrase ‘since at the resurrection people neither take wives nor are given as wives,’ or through the allegory laid down analogously by the apostle in the letter to the Galatians concerning the slave woman and...
...the free woman, which is to be applied also to the rest of the scriptures wherever something is said about a man and a woman. And just as those are led astray who, because they do not interpret the prophetic writings figuratively, suppose that after the resurrection we shall eat and drink bodily food <and drink>, since <also> the wording of the <prophetic> scriptures is of such a kind, and likewise concerning the things written about marriages and about men and women, holding fast...
...to the letter, and supposing that we shall then also make use of intercourse — on account of which it is not even possible to have leisure ‘for prayer,’ since those who make use of sexual intercourse are in some sort of defilement and a certain impurity. After this I ask whether ‘you are led astray, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God’ refers only to the clause ‘since at the resurrection people neither take wives nor...’
...are given in marriage,’ or also to ‘but they are like the angels in heaven.’ For I do not find where in scripture those who are to be saved are said to be like angels in heaven — unless perhaps someone will say that this too is shown in ‘but you shall go to your fathers in peace, having been nurtured to a good old age,’ and in ‘he was added to...
...his own people,’ and in ‘he was added to his people.’ Or by what is said in Deuteronomy concerning a man as one appointed by God in heaven and on earth — keeping the wording for yourself, you will find it. Next after this it is possible to see the passage concerning the resurrection of the dead: ‘Have you not read what was said to you by God, who says: I am the God of Abraham...
...and the God of Isaac and of Jacob? He is no God of the dead, but rather of the living. And to this too we shall say that, although the Savior was able to set out countless proofs from the prophets that the coming life exists for human beings, he did not do this, because the Sadducees accepted only the writing of Moses, from which he wished to put them to shame by a syllogism...
...indicating something of the following sort: to Moses God declared, 'I am Abraham's God, Isaac's God, and Jacob's God,' when he spoke to him from the bush. Therefore God is either the God of things that exist, or the God of things that do not exist. But it is absurd to say that the God who said, 'I am the one who is; this is my name,' is the God of things that in no way exist.
But if this is absurd, he is God of beings that exist and live and subsist and perceive the grace which God has bestowed on them, proclaiming himself their God and saying, "This is my memorial forever." Abraham, then, and Isaac and Jacob live, perceiving God and his grace, and with respect to each of them he is called God.
For it is not written, "I am God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob," but rather, "I myself am Abraham's God, and Isaac's God, and Jacob's God." And that is exactly how Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded it, in order, I think, to demonstrate to attentive readers that with respect to each patriarch individually God is God, granting them this as a special favor. For they were not like the Hebrews,
so that God should be spoken of collectively of these as he is of those. For of those it is written, "The God of the Hebrews has sent me," but of these, one by one, so that the statement might show that Abraham alone is of equal honor to the whole nation of the Hebrews; for God is not equally God of Abraham and God of the Hebrews. And you will say the same
about his being God of Isaac and God of Jacob as he is God of the Hebrews. And I think Elijah too was deemed worthy of such an honor, which is why it is written in the fourth book of Kingdoms, "the God of Elijah." Of Abraham, then, God was only God, and likewise of Isaac and of Jacob. But of our greater Savior
God is not only God but also Father. Hence it is well said by the apostle: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." This same Jesus Christ, of whom "blessed be the God and Father," granted to his own genuine disciples that the same one should be not only their God but also their Father. For he says,
having risen from the dead, to Mary: "Do not cling to me, since I have not yet gone up to my Father; instead go to my brothers and tell them: I am going up to my Father, who is also your Father, and to my God, who is also your God." And I think that then he granted this also to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,
so that God should no longer be only their God but now also their Father. And Luke appended to the statement “God is not the God of dead men — he is God of the living,” a statement also found in Matthew and Mark, the phrase “for to him all are alive.” This was no ordinary praise of the patriarchs, since so great a Savior as ours testifies of them not only that
they live, but also that they live to the God to whom they live, and to no one else. And this phrase, "for to him all are alive," it is good for us to practice in every way and to take to heart, so that all of us may live to none other than God, in Christ. But the concise proof from the writings of Moses, for those who accept only those writings as divine, concerning the living...
...the patriarchs, the crowds, on hearing this, were astonished, welcoming the Savior's teaching as most wise and able to turn back to him those who were inclined to disbelief.

======== Homilies on Luke — Preface ========

Here begins the preface of the blessed priest Jerome to the Homilies of Origen on the Evangelist Luke. JEROME TO PAULA AND EUSTOCHIUM. A few days ago you said that you had read certain commentaries on Matthew and Luke, of which one was dull both in thought and in words, while the other trifled in its words and dozed off in its judgments. For this reason you asked that, scorning trifles of this sort, I should at least translate the thirty-nine homilies of our Adamantius
on Luke, just as they stand in the Greek, translating them — a troublesome task, and, as Tullius says, like writing with a stomach not one's own but another's; yet I shall now do this for the very reason that you are not demanding loftier things. For as to that which holy Blaesilla once urgently requested at Rome — that I render into our tongue his twenty-six volumes on Matthew, and another five on Luke, and thirty-two on
John — you see plainly that this is beyond my strength, my leisure, and my labor. See how much weight your authority and your wish carry with me! I have set aside for a little while my books of Hebrew Questions, so that, at your bidding, I might dictate this profitable work, such as it is, not my own but another's, especially since from the left I hear an ill-omened crow croaking, and marveling in a strange way at
the colors of all the birds and laughing at them, though he himself is entirely dark. I confess, then — before he raises the objection himself — that in these treatises Origen is playing, as it were, like a child at games. His other works are the serious, manly works of his old age; and if it please me, if I am able, if the Lord grants me leave to turn them into the Latin tongue, and once I have finished the work I have set aside for now, then you will be able to see — indeed, through you, Rome
will come to know in its own tongue how much good it once did not know and has now begun to know. Moreover, I have arranged to send you, after a few days, the commentaries of that most eloquent man Hilary and of the blessed martyr Victorinus, which they published on Matthew in different styles but by one and the same grace of the Spirit, so that you may not be unaware how great a devotion to the sacred scriptures once existed even among our own people. Here ends the preface. Here begin the homilies of Origen on Luke,
thirty-nine in number, translated into Latin by Eusebius Jerome, delivered on the Lord's days. Here begins the first homily.

======== Homily on Luke 1 ========

Just as formerly among the people of the Jews many claimed to prophesy, and some were false prophets — of whom one was Ananias, son of Azor — while others were true prophets, and there was among the people a grace of discerning spirits, by which some were received among the prophets, while others were rejected, as it were, by the most experienced money-changers, so also now, in the new instrument, many have attempted to write gospels, but
not all were received. And that you may know that not only four gospels but very many were written, of which these that we have were selected and handed down to the churches, let us learn from the very preface of Luke, which is composed thus: ‘Since indeed many have attempted to compile a narrative.’ What he says here, ‘have attempted,’ carries a hidden accusation against those who, without the grace of the Holy Spirit, rushed forward to
write gospels. For Matthew and Mark and John and Luke did not ‘attempt’ to write, but, full of the Holy Spirit, wrote their gospels. ‘Many,’ then, ‘have attempted to compile a narrative of the things that have been most clearly known among us.’ The church has four gospels, heresy has very many, of which one is written according to the Egyptians, another according to the Twelve
Apostles. Basilides too dared to write a gospel and to give it his own name as its title. Many have attempted to write, but only four gospels have been approved, from which doctrines about the person of our Lord and Savior are to be set forth. I know of a certain gospel called ‘According to Thomas,’ and another ‘According to Matthias’; and we have read a good many others as well, so that we might not seem ignorant of anything, on account of those who
think they know something if they have become acquainted with these. But in all of them we approve nothing other than what the church approves — namely, that only four gospels are to be received. We say this because at the outset it was read: ‘many have attempted to compile a narrative of the things that have been confirmed among us.’ They tried and ‘attempted’ to write about these things, which to us have been most clearly
ascertained. Luke reveals his own feeling in the expression he uses, ‘have been most clearly shown among us,’ that is, something the Latin language does not express in a single word. For he had come to know it with sure faith and reasoning, and did not waver at all as to whether it was so or otherwise. This is what happens to those who have believed most faithfully, and who have obtained what the prophet begs for, when they say:
‘Confirm me in your words.’ Hence the Apostle too says of those who are firm and steadfast, ‘that you may be rooted and grounded in faith.’ For if someone is rooted in faith and grounded, then even if a storm should arise, even if the winds should blow, even if the rain should pour down, he will not be uprooted, he will not collapse, because the building is founded ‘upon the rock’ with a solid mass.
Nor should we suppose that firmness of faith is given by these bodily eyes, when it is mind and reason that bestow it. Let unbelievers, whoever they are, believe signs and wonders, which human sight beholds. But let the faithful, prudent, and steadfast person follow reason and the word, and so judge what is true and what is false. ‘Just as those who from the beginning were themselves eyewitnesses and ministers of the word handed it down to us.’ It is written
the people saw the voice of God. And indeed a voice is heard rather than seen, but it is written this way so that it might be shown to us that we “see the voice of God” with other eyes—the eyes with which those look who deserve to. Furthermore, in the Gospel it is not a voice that is perceived, but a word, which is superior to a voice. Hence it is now said: “just as they handed down to us, who from the beginning themselves saw and”
were ministers of the word.” Therefore the apostles themselves saw the word, not because they had looked upon the body of the Lord and Savior, but because they had seen the Word. For if to have seen Jesus according to the body is the same as to have seen the word of God, then Pilate too, who condemned Jesus, saw the word of God, and so did Judas the betrayer, and all who cried out, “crucify him, take such a man away from the earth,” saw the word of
God. But far be it that any unbeliever should see the word of God. To see the word of God is such a thing as the Savior speaks of when he says: “He who has seen me has seen the Father also, who sent me.” “Just as they handed down to us, who from the beginning themselves saw and were ministers of the word.” By the very words of Luke we are already being taught that of a certain [text missing]
[text missing]. … teaching, the end is the teaching itself, whereas of another teaching the end is reckoned in the work it produces. For example: the science of geometry has as its end only that science and teaching itself. But there is another kind of science whose end requires a work, such as medicine. I must know the theory and the principles of medicine, not merely so that
I may simply know what I ought to do, but so that I may do it—that is, so that I may cut into wounds, prescribe a measured and restrained diet, perceive the heat of fevers through the pulse of the veins, so that through cyclical treatments I may dry, temper, and check an excess of the humors. If someone knows these things only and has not followed them up with practice, his knowledge is empty. Something similar to this relation between the science of medicine and its practice holds also in the knowledge and ministry
of the word. Hence it is written: “just as they handed down to us, who from the beginning themselves saw and were ministers,” so that from his saying “themselves” we may understand that teaching and knowledge are meant, while from his saying “were ministers” we may recognize that works are being pointed to. “It seemed good to me also, having followed from…” He impresses this and repeats it, because the things he is about to write, he did not
learn by hearsay, but had himself followed from the beginning. [text missing]. Hence he is also rightly praised by the apostle Paul, who says: “whose praise in the gospel is spread through all [the churches].” For this is said of no one else; it is handed down as being said of Luke.
[text missing]. “It seemed good to me also, having followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write them to you in order, most excellent…” One might suppose that he wrote the Gospel to some particular Theophilus. But all of you who hear us speaking—if you are such that you are loved by God, then you too are a “lover of God,” and the Gospel is written to you. If anyone is a “lover of God,” he is also “most excellent”
and is strongest—for this is said more forcefully in the Greek: No one is weak. And just as it is written about the people of Israel, when they were going out of Egypt, that there was not among <them> x > in their <x> oxen x <: so I will boldly say that everyone who <...> is, is robust, having both strength and vigor as much
from God as from his word, so that he may be able to recognize the truth of those words by which he has been instructed, understanding the word of the gospel in Christ: to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen. < , x >

======== Homily on Luke 2 ========

On the text that is written: "Both were righteous in the sight of God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without blame." Those who wish to offer some excuse for their sins think that no one is without sin, and they make use of the testimony that is written in Job: "No one is clean of defilement, not even if his life on earth has lasted but a single day;
and the number of his months..." — of which they merely produce the sound, while remaining wholly ignorant of its meaning. Against these we will answer briefly, that "being without sin" is understood in the scriptures in two ways: the one, that a person has never sinned at all; the other, that a person has ceased to sin. If, then, they say that the one who is called "without sin" is the one who has never sinned, we too agree that no one is without sin,
since all of us have at some time sinned, even if we later pursued virtue. But if they mean that no one is called "without sin" who has ever sinned, we likewise agree that no one is without sin in that sense, since we have all sinned at some time. If, however, they understand by this that a man is not without sin in such a way as to deny that anyone, after his vices,
can turn himself to the virtues so completely that he never sins at all again, their opinion is false. For it can happen that one who sinned before, having ceased to sin, is said to be without sin. So too our Lord Jesus Christ "presented to himself a glorious church, not having spot" — not because a member of the church never had a spot, but because he is no longer spotted at all;
"not having" a "wrinkle" — not because the wrinkle of the old self was never at some time present in him, but because he has ceased to have it. In the same way what follows is to be understood: "that she may be holy and" — not that she was immaculate from the beginning (for this cannot even be supposed of a human being, that his soul
was never stained) — but that she is reckoned pure and sincere because she has ceased to be stained any further. We say these things in order to show that a person can, for this reason — because he has ceased to sin — be called without sin and immaculate. Hence it is also written most clearly of Zechariah and Elizabeth: "both were righteous in the sight of God, walking in all
the commandments and ordinances of the Lord without blame." Let us look more carefully at the praises of Zechariah and Elizabeth, which holy Luke records in his narrative, not only that we may know that they were praiseworthy, but that, taking up the same holy zeal, we too may become worthy of praise. It could have been written simply: "both were righteous, walking in all the commandments" — but instead it necessarily adds:
"both were righteous in the sight of God." For it can happen that someone is righteous in the sight of men, but is not righteous "in the sight of God." For example: when a person has nothing that he can say ill of me, and considering everything about me finds nothing to disparage, I am righteous "in the sight" of men. Suppose everyone were to say of me
to hold the same opinion, and to look for something to find fault with, and yet not be able to find it, but to praise me with one accord — "I am righteous in the sight of many men." But the judgment of men is not sure; for they do not know whether I have ever sinned in the hidden places of my heart, whether I have looked at a woman so as to desire her, and adultery has been born in my heart. Men do not know, when
they see me giving alms according to my means, whether I have done it because of God's commandment or have sought the praise and favor of men. It is a difficult thing to be righteous "in the sight of" oneself, so that you do something good for no other reason than for the sake of the good itself, and seek God alone as the rewarder of the good work. Something of this sort the Apostle also says
: "whose praise is not from men, but from" — blessed and praiseworthy indeed. Men — who is righteous "in the sight of" — although they seem to hold a sure judgment, nevertheless cannot pronounce it with certainty. For it happens at times that they praise one who is not praiseworthy, and disparage one who least deserves disparagement.
God alone is a righteous judge both in praise and in blame. Hence it is fittingly added here also, in the praise of the righteous: "both were righteous in the sight of" — To this same purpose Solomon also exhorts us in Proverbs, saying: "provide good things in the sight of God and" — There follows another praise of Zechariah and Elizabeth,
this praise: "walking in all the commandments and ordinances" — When we judge rightly and correctly about certain things, we walk "in the ordinances"; when we do the opposite, we walk in the ordinance of that other thing. Hence I think that holy Luke too, wishing to proclaim them
with perfect praise, said: "both were righteous, walking in all the commandments and ordinances" — Someone may say to me: if this praise is perfect, what is the point of what is then said, "blameless"? For it would have been enough to say: "walking in all the ways and ordinances," unless it could happen that one walks in all the commandments
of God, and yet does not walk "blameless." And how can it happen that one walking "in all the commandments and ordinances" should be under blame? To him I will say briefly: unless this were so, we would never read elsewhere it written —
— is said to refer to: "follow justly that which is just." For if there were not something just which we might follow unjustly, it would never have been commanded us to "follow justly that which is just." For when we carry out God's commandment, and in our conscience we are spattered with the filth of vainglory, so as to please men, or for some other reason that is not
it is pleasing to God, the cause of the good work comes first; even though we do what God commands, we nevertheless also pursue, unjustly, what is just. It is difficult, then, to walk in all the commandments and righteous requirements of the Lord without... according to the testimony and praise of God in Christ Jesus, which must be rendered on the day of judgment by him, before whom we must all appear...
...we do not do that... it is necessary to appear before his judgment seat, that each may receive what he has done through the body, whether good or... For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God, that we may receive what we deserve in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion for ever and ever.
Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 3 ========

HOMILY III. On what is written: "an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar." Those things which are corporeal and lack sense, so that they might be seen by another, do nothing themselves, but only the eye of another, intent upon them, whether they wish it or not, sees where it has directed its gaze and contemplation. For what can a man or
any other thing, which is surrounded by a dense body, do, while it is present, so as not to be seen? On the contrary, those things which are heavenly and divine, even when they are present, are not seen unless they themselves wish it; and it lies in their own will to be seen or not seen. It was the grace of God that he appeared to Abraham or to the other prophets, not because the eye of the heart alone
was the cause of Abraham's seeing God, but because the grace of God of its own accord offered itself to be seen by the just man. This you should understand not only of God the Father, but also of the Lord the Savior and of the Holy Spirit, and, to come to lesser things, of the Cherubim and Seraphim. For it can happen that even now, while we are speaking, an angel is present with us, and
yet, because we do not deserve it, we are unable to see him. For although the eye, whether of the body or of our soul, may direct itself toward beholding, unless the angel appears of his own accord and offers himself to be seen, the one who desires to see will not see. Therefore, wherever it is written: "he appeared" to him or to her, and as here: "an angel of the Lord appeared to him,
standing at the right side of the altar," understand it as I have said. Whether it is God or an angel, to Abraham or to Zechariah, when he does not wish it or does wish it, he will either not be seen or will be seen. And we say this not only of the present, but also of the future, when we shall have departed from the world, since not to all will either God or the angels
appear, so that, namely, the one who has gone out from the body may at once be worthy to see both the angels and the Holy Spirit and the Lord the Savior and God the Father himself; but only he will see who has kept his heart clean and has shown himself such as to be worthy of the sight of God. And although they may be in the same place, both the one who
is clean of heart and the one who is still spattered with some filth, the one place will be able neither to harm nor to help either one, because the one who has a clean heart will see God, while the one who is not such will not see what the other sees. Something of this sort, I think, must be understood also of Christ, when he was seen in the body, in that not everyone who saw him could see him. They saw
indeed only his body, but according to what Christ truly was, they could not see him. The disciples, however, saw him and beheld the greatness of his divinity. For this reason, I think, the Savior also answered Philip, who was pleading and saying: "Show us the Father, and it is enough for us" — "Have I been with you so long, and you have not known me? Philip, he who sees me,
...sees; and < for Pilate, who beheld Jesus, was not gazing upon the Father, nor was Judas the betrayer, because neither Pilate himself nor Judas saw the Christ according to what he was as Christ, nor did the crowd that hemmed him in. Only those saw Jesus whom he judged worthy of his gaze. Let us also strive, then, that even in the present God may appear to us -- for indeed the holy word of the scriptures
has promised: x > that he will be found by those who do not test him, and he appears to those who are not unbelieving in x < -- and in the age to come may he not be hidden from us, but may we see him x >face to face< and have confidence of a good life, and enjoy the sight of almighty God in Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit: to whom is
glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen. x <.

======== Homily on Luke 4 ========

On the passage that is written, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah,” down to the point where he says of John, “he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah.” Zechariah, when he had seen the angel, was terrified. For a new appearance, presenting itself to human eyes, disturbs the mind and unsettles the soul. Hence the angel,
knowing this to be the nature of a human being, first cures his disturbance, saying, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah,” and revives the trembling man with
new and glad tidings, telling him: “Your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John, and he will be to you a joy and an exultation.” When some righteous man is born into the world and enters the arena of this life, the attendants of his birth rejoice and exalt themselves on high. But when the one is born who is destined for a wicked life,
and who is banished, as if for punishment, into a workhouse, the attendant is dismayed and collapses. Do you wish to receive an example of a holy man whose whole fruit consists in praise? Consider that Jacob fathered twelve sons, who all became the peoples of God and the tribal heads and princes belonging to that patriarch: in all of these Jacob their father rejoiced, just as now, at the birth of John, joy
is announced to everyone; and whoever has once, for the benefit of others, undertaken the task of raising children and has wished to devote himself to this office, let him beseech God that such a one among his children may enter the world, at whose birth he may rejoice all the more. It is written, then, of John: “he will be great in the sight”
This statement, “he will be great in the sight,” shows the greatness of John's soul, which lies open to the eyes of God; there is also something lesser, which is properly seen in the virtue of a soul. I understand in the same way that saying in the Gospel, “Do not despise one of the little ones” who are in the church. There it is understood with reference
to someone greater. I am not commanded not to despise the one who is great, because the one who is great cannot be despised; rather I am told, “do not despise one of—” And that you may know that this is not said by chance, but for the reason we have proposed, it is written: “whoever causes one of the
little ones to stumble”—the little one is made to stumble; the great one cannot sustain a stumbling block. There follows, concerning John: “and even from within his mother's womb he will be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And the birth of John is full of miracle. For just as an archangel announced the coming of our Lord and Savior, so also an archangel announces the birth of John. “With the Holy Spirit”
he will be filled, even while still in his mother's womb. The people of the Jews did not at all see our Lord performing signs and wonders and healing their infirmities; but John, while still placed in his mother's womb, exults and cannot be held back, and yearns to burst forth from the womb at the arrival of the mother of Jesus. 'For behold,' says Elizabeth, 'as soon as the sound of your greeting came into my
ears, the infant leaped for joy in my womb.' John was still in his mother's womb, and already he had the Holy Spirit. For that was not the beginning of his substance and nature. Then Scripture says that he 'will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God.' John turned 'many'; but the Lord turned not many, but all. This is his work,
that he should turn all to God the Father. 'And in the spirit and power of Elijah he will go on before Christ.' It does not say 'in the soul of Elijah,' but 'in the spirit and power of Elijah.' There was in Elijah a power and a spirit, as in all the prophets, and, according to the dispensation of the body, also in the Lord Savior himself, of whom it is said a little later to Mary: 'The Holy Spirit will come upon
you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.' That which had been in Elijah came into John, and the power that was in him appeared in this one too. That one was taken up, but this one was the forerunner of the Lord and died before him, so that, descending even to the underworld, he might proclaim his coming. I think that the mystery of John is fulfilled in the world even to this day.
Whoever is about to believe in Christ Jesus - before him the spirit and power of John comes to his soul, Origen, and 'prepares for the Lord a people made perfect,' and in the rough places makes the paths smooth and straightens the ways. Not only at that time were the ways prepared and the paths straightened, but even to this day the spirit and power of John goes before the coming of the Lord the Savior. O the great mysteries of the Lord and
of his dispensation! Angels go before Jesus; angels daily either ascend or descend for the salvation of men in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 5 ========

HOMILY V. When the priest Zechariah offers incense in the temple, he is condemned to silence and falls mute — indeed he speaks only by nods — and remains mute until the birth of his son John. Where does this story lead? [The silence of Zechariah] [Concerning Zechariah's becoming mute.] It is the silence of the prophets among the people of Israel. God no longer speaks to them at all, and <the Word, who in the beginning was with the Father
and was God>, has passed over to us, and Christ is not silent toward us — but among them he remains silent to this day. That is why the prophet Zechariah, too, fell silent. For it is proven most clearly from his own words that he was both a prophet and a priest. But what does this mean, what follows: 'he nodded to them' and made up for the loss by nods? I think that those are deeds which, without
speech and reason, differ in nothing from nods. But where reason and speech have gone before, and the deed has followed accordingly, such things ought not to be reckoned as mere nods, since they are adorned with speech and reason. If, then, you observe the conduct of the Jews to be without reason and speech, such that they cannot give an account of what they do, understand that what then took place in Zechariah is being
fulfilled among them to this day, as an image. Their circumcision is like nods. For unless an account of circumcision is given, circumcision is a nod and a mute deed. The Passover and the other festivals are more nods than truth. To this day the people of Israel are deaf and mute; nor could it be otherwise than that the one who had cast the Word away from himself should be deaf and mute. And once,
indeed, Moses used to say: 'I... but I am' — though he expressed it thus, it can properly be rendered: 'without speech, without reason' — and after he said this, he received reason, or rather the very thing he had before confessed he did not have. But the people of Israel in Egypt, before they received the law, were in a certain sense without speech and reason; then they received the Word, of whom
Moses was the minister. This one, then, confesses now what was then confessed in the case of Moses — namely, that he is mute, and by nods alone shows that he has neither speech nor reason. Does it not seem to you a confession of folly, when none of them can give an account of the legal precepts and the prophetic utterance? Christ has ceased to be among them; the Word has abandoned
them, and what is written in Isaiah has been fulfilled: 'the daughter of Zion will be left like a shelter in a vineyard, and like a watchman's hut in a cucumber field, like a city that...' When these were abandoned, salvation was transferred to the nations, so that there they might be provoked to jealousy. Beholding, then, the dispensation and the mystery of God — how Israel was cast aside for our salvation — we ought to take care, lest perhaps
they were cast out for our sake, and we prove worthy of a greater punishment — we, on whose account others were abandoned — and we do nothing worthy of God's adoption and of his mercy, who adopted us and reckoned us among his own sons in Christ Jesus: to whom be glory and dominion for the ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 6 ========

Homily VI. On what is written: "But when Elizabeth had conceived, she hid herself," down to the place where it says, "He will be great." "When she conceived she hid herself for five months, saying: Thus the Lord has done for me in the days in which he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men." I ask for what reason, after she understood that she was pregnant, she
hid herself. Unless I am mistaken, this is the reason: even those who are joined in marriage do not have every season free for intercourse with one another, but there is a time when they refrain from the work of marriage. For if the husband is an old man and the wife an old woman, it is a matter of the greatest shame for them to serve lust, to serve the marriage bed, which by the decay of the body, by old age, and, it seems, by the will of God, have been taken away.
But she, because at the word of the angel and by the dispensation of God had once again been joined to her husband, was ashamed that, an old woman and nearly decrepit, she should have returned to the work of the young. Hence she also hid herself for five months, not all the way to the ninth month, until the birth came upon her, but only until Mary also had conceived. For when Mary had conceived and came to her, and the greeting was made
to her, the infant leaped for joy in Elizabeth's womb, and she prophesied. And filled with the Holy Spirit she spoke the things which the account of the Gospel describes. And these words were spread abroad through all the hill country. For when a report went out among the people that she had in her womb a prophet, and that what she was carrying was greater than a man, then she is not hidden, but with complete freedom
reveals herself and rejoices that she has in her womb the forerunner of the Savior. Then the scripture recalls that in the month in which Elizabeth had conceived, Gabriel was sent by God into a city of Galilee, whose name was Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, from the house of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary. Turning this over again in my mind, I ask why God, when he had once decided that the Savior should be born of
a virgin, did not choose a girl without a betrothed, but rather chose above all one who had already been betrothed. And unless I am mistaken, the reason is this: he had to be born of that virgin who not only had a betrothed but, as Matthew writes, had already been given over to a husband, though the husband did not yet know her, so that her outward state itself might not display the virgin's shame, were she to appear a virgin with a swelling womb. Hence elegantly
I found it written in the letter of a certain martyr - I mean Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, second after Peter, who in the persecution at Rome fought with beasts: "The virginity of Mary was hidden from the ruler of this age; it was hidden on account of the marriage, it was hidden because she was thought to have a husband. For if she had not had a betrothed and, as was supposed, a husband, she could by no means have been hidden from the ruler of this world." For at once a thought
would have crept silently into the devil's mind: how is this woman, who has not lain with a man, pregnant? This conception must be divine, something more sublime than human nature must be at work. On the contrary, the Savior had so arranged his dispensation that the devil should not know of the assumption of his body; hence also at his birth he concealed it from him, and afterward instructed his disciples not to make him known. And when by him
when he was tempted by the devil, he nowhere confessed himself to be the Son of God, but only replied: it is not fitting that I worship you, nor that I make these stones into bread, nor that I throw myself down from the height. And while saying these things, he kept silent throughout about his being the Son of God. Look also in another scripture, and you will find that it was Christ's will that the devil should remain ignorant of the coming of the Son of God,
so that the devil would not know it. For the Apostle, asserting that the hostile powers were ignorant of his passion, says: "we speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are being brought to nothing; but we speak the wisdom of God, concealed within a mystery, a wisdom none of the rulers of this age has come to know. For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." The mystery of the Savior, then, was hidden from the rulers of this age. But as for what
can be raised as an objection from the opposite side, it seems to me that I ought to resolve it before someone else brings it forward: by what reasoning is it that what escaped the notice of the rulers of this age did not escape the notice of the demon, who was speaking in the gospel: "have you come here to torment us before the time? We know who you are - the Son of God"? But consider this: the one who is lesser in malice recognized the Savior, whereas the one who is greater in wickedness, and cunning, and evil,
is prevented, precisely by the fact that he is greater in evil, from knowing the Son of God. We too, if we have less evil in us, can more easily make progress toward virtue; but if there is more evil in us, we must sweat with immense toil in order to be freed from the greater malice. So much, then, for the fact that Mary had a betrothed. But as for the angel greeting Mary with a new form of words, which
I have not been able to find anywhere else in scripture, a few things must be said about this too. For as to what he says, "Hail, full ," I do not recall having read this elsewhere in Greek; nor indeed was such a phrase - "hail, full of grace" - ever addressed to a man; this greeting was reserved for Mary alone. For if Mary had known that a similar expression had been used toward anyone else -
since she indeed had knowledge of the law, and was holy, and had come to know the prophets' utterances through daily meditation - she would never have been terrified by the greeting as by something unfamiliar. For this reason the angel says to her: "do not fear, Mary! for you have found favor before the Lord. Behold, you will conceive in the womb, and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and the Son of the Most High." It is also said of
John: "he will be great," and the angel Gabriel testifies to this very thing; but when Jesus came, truly great, truly exalted, the one who had previously been "great" became lesser. For, it says, "he was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for an hour in his light." The greatness of our Savior did not appear then, when he was born, but only now, after being
oppressed, as it seemed, by his adversaries, has it shone forth. Behold the greatness of the Lord: "into all the earth has gone out the sound of his teaching, and to the ends of the world his words." Our Lord Jesus, because he is the power of God, has been spread throughout the whole world, and is present with us even now, according to what we read in the Apostle: "when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus." The power of the Lord Savior
He is with those who, in Britain, are separated from our world, and with those who are in Mauretania, and with all who under the sun have believed in his name. See, then, the greatness of the Savior, how it has spread through the whole world — and indeed I have not yet set forth his true greatness. Ascend into the heavens and see him, how he has filled the heavenly places: for he “appeared”
to the “angels.” Descend in thought into the depths, and you will see that he has descended there too. For “he who descended is himself also the one who ascended, that he might fill all things,” “so that every knee should bend at the name of Jesus, whether of beings in heaven, upon earth, or beneath the earth.” Consider the power of the Lord, how he has filled the world — that is, the heavenly, the earthly, and the infernal — how he has both penetrated heaven itself and ascended to the heights.
For we read that the Son of God passed through the heavens. If you see these things, you will likewise perceive that it was not said in passing, “he will be great,” but that the word has been fulfilled in deed. Great is our Lord Jesus, both present and absent, and he grants a share of his strength even to this assembly and gathering of ours; that we too, each one, may be worthy to receive it, let us beseech the Lord Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion for
ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 7 ========

On what is written: "And Mary rose up and went with haste into the hill country," down to the place where he says: "there will be a fulfillment of the things that were spoken." The better come to the lesser, so that by their arrival they may confer some benefit upon them. So too the Savior came to John, that he might sanctify his baptism; and Mary, as soon as she heard the angel announcing
that she had conceived the Savior and that her kinswoman Elizabeth was with child, rising up with haste went into the hill country, and entered the house of Elizabeth. For Jesus, who was in her womb, was already hastening to sanctify John, who lay in his mother's belly. And so, before Mary came and greeted Elizabeth, "the infant did not leap in the womb"; but as soon as Mary spoke the word which
the Son of God in his mother's womb had prompted, "the infant leapt for joy," and then for the first time Jesus made his forerunner a prophet. It was fitting too that Mary, most worthy of bearing God's offspring, should after the angel's address ascend into the hill country and dwell among the higher places. Hence it is written: "Mary, rising up in those days, went into the hill country." It was also fitting that she, being of unslothful diligence, should hasten eagerly and, full of the Holy
Spirit, be led up to the higher places and be protected by the power of God, by which she had already been overshadowed. She came therefore into the city of Judah and into the house of Zechariah, and greeted Elizabeth. "And it came to pass, when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the infant leapt in her womb, and she was filled with the Holy Spirit." There is no doubt, then, that she who was then "filled"
with the Spirit was "filled" on account of her son. For the mother did not first merit the Holy Spirit; rather, when John, still enclosed in the womb, had received the Holy Spirit, then, after her son's sanctification, she too was "filled with the Holy Spirit." You will believe this the more readily if you learn something similar also concerning the Savior. Blessed Mary is found, as we have discovered in a number of copies, to prophesy. For we are not unaware that according to other
manuscripts these words are uttered as a prophecy by Elizabeth. Mary, then, was filled with the Holy Spirit the moment she began to carry the Savior within her womb. For as soon as she received the Holy Spirit, the maker of the Lord's body, and the Son of God began to be in her womb, she herself too was filled with the Holy Spirit. “The infant” therefore “leapt in Elizabeth's womb; she was filled with the Holy Spirit, crying out with a loud voice, and”
said: "Blessed are you among women" — this, so that simple souls may not be led astray, refutes what the heretics are accustomed to object. For someone or other has burst out into such madness as to assert that Mary was repudiated by the Savior, on the ground that after his birth she was joined to Joseph; and he has said what he said with whatever mind he had — he himself knows, the one who said it. If, then, the heretics
should ever raise some such objection against you, answer them and say: Surely Mary is hailed as "blessed among women" by the Holy Spirit — how then did the Savior repudiate her? Furthermore, as for their assertion that she married after giving birth, they have nothing by which to prove it; for those who were called Joseph's sons were not born of Mary, nor is there any scripture that records any such thing. "Blessed are you among"
...blessed are you among women, and the fruit of your womb is blessed. And whence is this granted to me, that my Lord's mother should visit me?" She says, "Whence is this granted to me?" — and though she was filled above all with the Holy Spirit, it is not that she failed to know that the Lord's mother had come to her by God's will; rather she is speaking in this sense: What good have I done? What great works of mine are there,
that my Lord's mother should visit me? By what righteousness, from what good deeds, by what faithfulness of mind have I deserved this, that my Lord's mother should visit me? "For behold, as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant leapt for joy in my womb." The soul of blessed John was holy, and though still enclosed in his mother's womb
he already knew the one who was coming into the world, whom Israel did not know; hence he "leapt," and not simply "leapt," but "in joy" — for his Lord had come, in order to sanctify the servant before he came forth from his mother's womb. Would that it might happen to me, that I be called a fool by unbelievers for having believed such things. The work itself and the truth show that I have believed not in folly but in wisdom, because this thing, which is thought
foolish among them, becomes for me an occasion of salvation. For unless the birth of the Savior had been heavenly and blessed, unless it had possessed something divine, something surpassing human nature, his teaching would never have penetrated the whole world. If he had been only a man in Mary's womb and not the Son of God, how could it have come about that both at that time and now not only diseases of bodies, but also
the many diseases of souls were healed? Which of us was there who does not now, because of the mercy of God, have understanding and know God? Which of us was not a stranger to righteousness, who now, because of Christ, has righteousness and follows righteousness? Which of us was not wandering and astray, who now, because of the coming of the Savior, does not waver and is not troubled, but is on the way — namely, in him
who says, "I am"? And gathering these things together, we can see that everything written about him is recounted as worthy of divine admiration, because his birth and his nurture and his power and his passion and his resurrection are at work in us not only at that time but even now. Who gathered you, catechumens, into the church? What goad drove you,
to leave your homes and come together into this assembly? For we do not go around your homes one by one, but the almighty Father, by an invisible power, instills into the hearts of those whom he knows to be worthy this ardor, so that you come to the faith as though unwilling and holding back, especially at the outset of your life in religion, when, as if trembling and afraid, you receive the faith of salvation with fear. I beg you, catechumens: do not
hold back; let none of you be afraid and fearful, but follow Jesus who goes before you. He draws you to salvation, and gathers you into the church — now, indeed, upon earth, but if you bear worthy fruits, into "the church of the firstborn, who are enrolled in heaven." "Blessed is she who believed," and blessed is he who believes that there will be a fulfillment of the things "that were spoken to her by the Lord" — the Lord Jesus. "My soul magnifies" the Lord, "and my spirit" rejoices in "God."
...may have their interpretation, if the Lord grants it, when we gather again in the church, so that you come joyfully to the house of God and lend your ears to the divine reading; we will inquire, we will winnow, we will discuss, in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 8 ========

On the passage that is written: "My soul magnifies the Lord," up to the place where it says: "he has done a mighty deed for those who fear him." Before John, Elizabeth prophesies; before the birth of the Lord the Savior, Mary prophesies. And just as sin began with a woman and afterward reached even to the man, so too the beginning of salvation had its origin from women, so that the rest of women too, having set aside the frailty of their sex,
might imitate the life and conduct of the holy women, and especially of those who are now described in the Gospel. Let us then look at the virgin's prophecy. "My soul," she says, "magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has exulted in God my savior." Two things, soul and spirit, perform a twofold praise. The soul proclaims the Lord, the spirit proclaims God: not that the praise of the Lord is one thing and that of God another, but because he who is God is the same one
who is also Lord, and he who is Lord is also God. It is asked how the soul can magnify the Lord, since the Lord can receive neither increase nor decrease, and what he is, he is; for what reason, then, does Mary now say: "My soul magnifies the Lord"? If I consider that the Lord the Savior is the invisible God's very image, and I see that my soul was made "according to the image" of the Creator, it would be the image of that image
—for my soul is not, strictly speaking, the image of God, but was made after the likeness of the prior image—then I shall see that, after the example of those who are accustomed to paint images, and who, having received, for instance, one face of a king, apply the skill of their art to expressing the principal likeness, so each one of us, forming his soul to the image of Christ, gives it either a greater or a lesser
image, either faded and dingy, or bright and shining and answering to the likeness of the principal image. When, then, I make the image of the image—that is, my soul—great, and magnify it in deed, in thought, in word, then the image of God is made great, and the Lord himself, whose image it is, is magnified in our soul. And just as the Lord grows in our image, so too, if
we are sinners, he is diminished and decreases. Or rather, the Lord is neither diminished nor decreased, but we, instead of the image of the Savior, put on other images for ourselves; instead of the image of the Word, of wisdom, of justice, and of the other virtues, we take on the form of the devil, so that it is said of us: "serpents, brood of vipers." But we also put on the persona both of the dragon and of the foxes, when we are venomous, cruel, and cunning, and also that of the goats,
when we are more inclined toward lust. I recall that once, when discussing Deuteronomy, at the place where it is written: "you shall not make any likeness of male or of female, the likeness of any animal," I said that it is the spiritual law that some make the image of a male, others of a female, that one has the likeness of birds, another of reptiles and serpents, and another makes the likeness of God. How these things are to be understood, he will know who has also
read those passages. So Mary's soul first magnifies the Lord, and afterward her spirit exults in God; for unless we have first believed, we cannot exult. "Because he has looked," she says, "upon the humility of his handmaid." Upon what humility of Mary did the Lord look? What lowly or abject thing did the mother of the Savior have, she who bore the Son of God in her womb? What, then, does she mean when she says: "he has looked upon the humility"
..."his handmaid," it is as if he had said: he "looked" upon the justice of his handmaid, he "looked" upon her temperance, he "looked" upon her fortitude and wisdom. For it is fitting that God should look upon the virtues. Someone may object and say: I understand how God looks upon the justice and the wisdom of his handmaid, but how he attends to her humility is not quite clear. Let whoever asks such things consider that, properly speaking, in the scriptures one of the
virtues that is proclaimed is humility. For the Savior says: "Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls." ... to hear the name of this virtue, however it may also be called by the philosophers, listen: it is the very "humility" that God looks upon, whatever they may call it. But we too can name it by a certain roundabout way, namely, when someone is not puffed up, but
casts himself down. For whoever is puffed up falls, according to the Apostle, "into the judgment of the devil" — since that one too began from being puffed up, and from pride — so that, not being "puffed up," he may not fall into the judgment of the devil. God "looked" upon the humility of his handmaid, and God looked upon the virtue of one who pursues gentleness and self-abasement. For behold, "from now on all generations will call me blessed" — let me understand "all" simply as all who believe, concerning
that I offer this interpretation. But if I search into it somewhat more deeply, I shall observe how great a step forward it is to say: "because he who is mighty has done great things for me"; since everyone who humbles himself will be exalted — and God exalted the humility of blessed Mary; he "did" great things for her, he who is, whose name is holy. His mercy, moreover, extends to generations; the reckonings of God are not confined to one generation, nor to two, nor
to three, nor even to five, but are extended forever, "from generation to generation." "He has done a mighty deed with his arm." Even if you have come to the Lord in weakness, if you fear him you will be able to hear the promise which the Lord pledges to you on account of your fear of him. What is this promise? "To those who fear him," it says, "he has done a mighty deed" — or rather, dominion is royal power. For indeed what
we call "dominion" is so named from the fact that it commands, or that it holds all things beneath itself. If, then, you fear the Lord, he gives you strength, that is, dominion; he gives you a kingdom, so that, being made subject to the "King of kings," you may possess the kingdom in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 9 ========

The reasoning behind both what is said and what is reported as done ought to be worthy of the Holy Spirit and of the faith of Christ, to which we who believe are called. Hence now too we must ask why Mary, after conceiving, came to Elizabeth and stayed with her for three months; or what the reason was that Luke, who was writing the history, included this too, that
she stayed with her for three months, and afterward returned to her own house. There must be some reason for this, which, if the Lord opens our heart, the following discourse will show. For if merely from Mary's coming to Elizabeth and greeting her, the infant leaped for joy and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, prophesied the things that are written, and in a single hour
attained such great progress, it is left to our conjecture what progress John made in the three months, while Mary was staying beside Elizabeth. For it would be quite unworthy that the infant leaped in a single instant and moment, and in a certain way frolicked with joy, and that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, but that over three whole months neither John nor Elizabeth made any progress from the nearness of the mother of the Lord and of the Savior himself, and his presence. He was therefore being trained, and in a certain way
anointed in the athletic training-ground for three months, and John was being prepared in his mother's womb, so that, born in a marvelous way, he might be nourished still more marvelously. For because he was nourished outside the ordinary custom, it is not recorded in writing how he was suckled at his mother's breasts, how he was set in the bosom of a nurse, but immediately what follows is: and he was in the deserts until the day of his manifestation to Israel. Then we read: Elizabeth
'now the time was completed for her to give birth, and she bore a son' — it might seem superfluous to say: 'Now for Elizabeth the time was completed for her to give birth, and she bore a son.' For what woman can give birth unless the time for giving birth has first been completed? But one who examines the scriptures most diligently, and who hears Paul saying: 'Give heed to reading,' will find, whether in the old or in the new instrument, if it is anywhere written, in connection with the birth of a sinner, that
'the time was completed for her to give birth' — he will never find this at all. But wherever a righteous person is born, there the days are completed, there his coming into the world is completed. The birth of a righteous person has fullness, but the nativity of a sinner has, so to speak, emptiness and vanity. This is enough concerning what is written: 'the time was completed for her to give birth.' Next follows the fact that, when John was born, his neighbors and
relatives rejoiced with his mother, and wanted to give the child a name in honor of his father, that he should be called Zacharias. But Elizabeth, prompted by the Holy Spirit, said: 'John is his name.' When they sought just reasons why he should be called John above all, since no one in his family bore this name, they asked the father, who, not being able to answer, spoke by hand and by letters. For he wrote on
a writing-tablet: 'John is his name.' And as soon as the stylus was pressed into the wax, his tongue, which before had been bound, was loosed — an utterance not human. As long as his tongue was bound, it was human; for unbelief had bound it. As soon as it was loosed, it ceased to be merely human, and he spoke, blessing God, and the things that are written in the Gospel, concerning which, with the Lord Jesus Christ granting it,
...when the time comes, we shall discuss it: to whom belong glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen. HOMILY X. On what is written: "full of the Holy Spirit," as far as the place where it says "to prepare his ways." Full of the Holy Spirit, Zacharias announces two prophecies in general, the first concerning Christ, the second concerning John. This is clearly shown from his own words, in
which he speaks of the Savior as if he were already present and dwelling in the world, and then of John. For he prophesied by the Holy Spirit, saying: "Blessed be the God of Israel, because he has visited and worked redemption for his people." For when God was visiting and willing to redeem his people, Mary remained with Elizabeth, after the angel had spoken to her, for months, so that by a certain ineffable power
the Savior, being present, might instruct not only John, as we said before, but also Zacharias, as the gospel text now makes clear. For little by little, over these three months, he too was receiving increases of the Holy Spirit, and, without knowing it, was being taught, and prophesied concerning Christ, saying: "who gave redemption to his people, and raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David" -- "born according to the flesh from the seed of David"
is Christ. And there truly was a horn of salvation in the house of David, for this prophecy is sung together with it: "For a vineyard was made into a horn." In what horn? In Jesus, in him of whom it is now written: he raised up for us a horn of salvation within the house of his servant David, even as he spoke of old through the mouth of his holy prophets. "Salvation from our enemies"
-- let us not think this is now said of bodily enemies, but of spiritual ones. For the Lord Jesus came, mighty in battle, to destroy all our enemies, that he might free us from their snares: "out of the grip of every enemy of ours, and out of the grip of all who hate us." "To show mercy to our fathers" -- I think that at the coming of the Lord and Savior, both Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob enjoyed the mercy of God. For it is not credible that those who earlier saw his day and rejoiced should afterward, at his coming and his birth from the virgin, have received no benefit. And why do I speak of the patriarchs? Following the authority of the scriptures I will boldly rise to higher things, since the presence of the Lord Jesus and his dispensation benefited not only earthly things, but
heavenly things as well. Hence the Apostle also says: "making peace through the blood of his cross, whether on earth or in heaven." But if the presence of the Lord benefited both in heaven and on earth, why should you be afraid to say that his coming also benefited even the greater ones, so that this might be fulfilled which is said: "to show mercy to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which"
he swore to Abraham our father" -- that we should be delivered "without fear from the hand of our enemies"? Often some are delivered from the hand of enemies, but not without fear. For when fear and danger have gone before, and someone is thus rescued from the hand of enemies, he is indeed delivered, but not without fear. But the coming of the Lord Jesus rescued us "from the hand of our enemies" without fear. For it was not our enemies
nor did we see them fighting back, but, while we did not know it, we were suddenly snatched from their jaws and their snares. >In a moment< we were brought into the inheritance and portion of the just, >and freed from the hand of our enemies without fear, that we might serve God in holiness and righteousness before him all our days<. >And you, prophet of the Most High, you will be called<. Seeking within myself the reason why not as if from
John, but speaking to John himself, prophesying: and you, child, will be called prophet of the Most High—and—for it would have been superfluous to speak to one who could not hear, and to make an apostrophe to a little one still at the breast—this I think I am able to find: that just as John was born wondrously, and came into the world with an angel proclaiming it, and while for three months Mary stayed with Elizabeth
he was poured out onto the ground, so too all the things that are written about him are reported as having come about wondrously. But if you doubt that one just poured out from his mother's womb could hear and know his father's words, what this means, that is said to him: and you, child, will be called prophet of the Most High—it was far more wondrous, what came before: >behold, as the sound of your greeting came into
my ears, the infant leapt for joy in my womb<. For if, while still shut up in his mother's womb, he heard Jesus and, on hearing him, leapt out and rejoiced, why would you not believe that, once already born, he was able both to hear and to understand his father's prophecy, saying to him: >and you, child, will be called prophet of the Most High; for you shall walk ahead of the Lord's face, making his paths ready<? For this reason Zechariah
hastened to speak to the little child, because he knew that after a little while he would be dwelling in the desert, and that he would no longer be able to have his presence. >For the child was in the deserts until the day of his showing forth to Israel<. And Moses too dwelt in the desert, but only after completing forty years of his life did he flee from Egypt, and for another forty years he kept Jethro's flocks; John, however,
as soon as he was born, passed over into the deserts, and he who >was the greatest among those born of women< proved worthy of a greater upbringing. Of him the prophet speaks: >behold, I send my angel before your face<. Rightly is he called an angel, since he had been sent before the Lord, and, as soon as he was born, was able to hear and understand his father as he prophesied. For this reason let us, who believe such great wonders, likewise believe
in the resurrection, and let us believe also the promises that are to come, of the kingdom of heaven, which the Holy Spirit daily pledges to us. All these things, since they are written wondrously, we shall receive beyond what we are able to perceive, in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and power for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 11 ========

On what is written: "But the child grew and was strengthened," down to the place where it says: "This is the first registration, which took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." In the holy scriptures "to grow" is spoken of in two ways: one, where human will accomplishes nothing; the other, spiritually, where the cause of growing consists in human effort. Concerning this second kind, then, which we have set down,
that is, the spiritual kind, the evangelist now narrates: "But the child grew and was strengthened." What he says amounts to this: he grew, and did not remain at the same measure at which he had begun, but the spirit in him was always growing, and through each hour and moment he was receiving increases of spirit. And not only did increases of spirit follow. There is that which God commands: "Grow and multiply,"
which they take simply and according to the letter — how they are able to explain it, I do not know. Granted that "multiply" refers to number, so that, as they become more numerous than they were before, multiplication has its place; but what follows, "grow," is in our power. For what man would not wish to add to his own stature, that he might become taller? Why then is it commanded that this be done
— for it is foolish, indeed, to command what the one you command is unable to do — and we are commanded to grow, surely what is commanded is something we are able to do. Do you wish to know how "grow" is to be understood? Listen to what Isaac did, of whom it is said: "Isaac advanced and became greater, until he became great, even exceedingly great." His will was always stretching itself toward better things,
and as his soul also grew along with it, not only did his frame increase, but his sense and mind advanced, and his memory exercised itself, so that it might store up more in its treasury and hold it more firmly. And it came about in this way, that he who had cultivated all his virtues in the field of the soul fulfilled the command given: "Wherefore." For this reason John also, while still a little child, grew and
was multiplied; but it is most difficult, and exceedingly rare among mortals, for a little child to grow in spirit. "But the child grew and was strengthened in spirit." It is one thing to grow, another to "be strengthened." Human nature is weak, and in order to become stronger it needs divine help. We read: "the flesh is weak." By what help, then, is it to be strengthened? By the spirit, surely; "for the spirit is willing,
but the flesh is weak." He who wishes to become stronger ought to be strengthened by nothing other than the spirit. Many are strengthened in the flesh, made vigorous in body; but the athlete of God must be made vigorous in spirit, and when he has been thus strengthened, he will crush the wisdom of the flesh, and, having been made spiritual, will subject the body to the rule of the soul. Let us not think, then, that a simple history has been written concerning John, one that has nothing
to do with us in what is said: "he grew and was strengthened" — but rather for our imitation, so that, multiplied according to that meaning we have spoken of, we may receive increases. "And he was in the deserts until the day of his showing to Israel." I said recently that even John's conception had something astonishing about it, when "the infant leaped" in the womb and, though not yet born, recognized his Lord,
and the birth was a miracle no less than the conception, since Zechariah's prophesying speech turns to him as though he were listening, saying: 'And you, child, will be called prophet of the Most High.' Fittingly, then, he who had been so conceived and born did not wait to be nourished by his father and mother 'until the day of his manifestation to Israel,' but withdrew, fleeing the tumult of cities, the crowds of people, the vices
of cities, and went away into the deserts, where the air is purer, the sky more open, and God more familiar, so that, since the mystery of baptism and the time for preaching had not yet come, he might devote himself to prayers and converse with angels, call upon the Lord, and hear him answering and saying: 'Behold.' For just as 'Moses spoke and God answered him,' I think that John spoke
in the desert, and the Lord answered him. This I judge, moved by a sure reasoning drawn from the Scriptures. For if 'among those born of women there was no one greater than John the Baptist,' and God answered Moses, then he consequently answered John as well, who was greater than Moses — who was nourished in the wilderness, whose birth the same Archangel who announced the Lord's also announced, whose father, who
did not believe that he would be born, was struck mute. John, therefore, 'was in the desert' in a manner both new and beyond human custom, as Matthew likewise records: 'his food was locusts and wild honey.' For since he was the minister of the first coming of the Savior and spoke only of the dispensation of the Lord's flesh, and his prophecy sang beforehand of him who had been born of
the virgin, he did not have domestic honey strained by human care, but 'wild honey,' and a winged creature that was his own — a winged creature not large, not lifting itself on high, but a small winged creature that scarcely rises from the ground and leaps rather than flies. What more need be said? It is most plainly stated that 'locusts' were his food, a small and clean animal. Consider,
then, dearest brothers, that he who had been born in a new way was also nourished in a new way. After this the Scripture adds: 'It came to pass in those days that an edict went out from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be registered. This was the first registration, under Cyrinus, governor of Syria.' Someone might say: Evangelist, how does this narrative benefit me, that a registration of the whole world under
Caesar Augustus took place, and that among all, 'Joseph too, with Mary betrothed to him and pregnant,' entered his name in the census, and that, before the registration was completed, Jesus was born? To one who considers it more carefully, a certain mystery seems to be signified: that Christ too had to be registered in the enrollment of the whole world, so that, being written down along with everyone, he might sanctify everyone, and, being entered into the census along with the world, might offer to the world communion
with himself, so that after this registration he might also register, from the world, together with himself, 'in the book of the living,' so that whoever believed in him might afterward be 'written in heaven' with his saints: to whom be glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 12 ========

My Lord Jesus was born, and an angel descended from heaven announcing his birth. Let us then see whom he sought out, in order to announce his coming. He did not come to Jerusalem, he did not seek out the scribes and Pharisees, he did not enter the synagogue of the Jews, but he found shepherds keeping watch over their flocks, and he says to them: "Today a Savior is born to you, who is Christ the Lord." Do you suppose that nothing
more divine is meant by the word of scripture, but that it says only this, that an angel came to shepherds and spoke to them? Hear, shepherds of the churches, shepherds of God, that his angel always descends from heaven and announces to you that "today a Savior is born to you, who is Christ the Lord." For indeed the shepherds of the churches, unless that shepherd comes, cannot by themselves properly keep the flock
safe: their guarding is weak, unless Christ himself feeds and keeps it together with them. We have read before in the Apostle: "we are God's fellow workers" — a good shepherd is a fellow worker of God and of Christ; and for that reason he is a good shepherd who has with him as his companion the best shepherd. "For God set in the church apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, teachers, all for the perfecting
of the saints." Let these things, then, be said in the simpler sense. But if we must ascend to a more hidden understanding, I will say that there were certain angels who were shepherds, who governed human affairs, and, since each of them kept his own watch and, keeping vigil day and night, could no longer bear the labor, and yet diligently carried out this task of governing the nations that had been entrusted to him, that when the Lord was born an angel came
and announced to the shepherds that the true shepherd had arisen. For example, to give an instance, there was a certain shepherd of Macedonia; he had need of the Lord's help; and for that reason a Macedonian man appeared in a dream to Paul, saying: "come over into Macedonia and help us." But why should I speak of Paul, when it was not Paul who spoke these words, but Jesus who was in Paul? They stand in need,
then, the shepherds, of the presence of Christ. For this reason an angel descended from heaven and said: "do not be afraid, for behold, I announce to you great joy." It was truly joy for those to whom the care of men and of provinces had been entrusted, that Christ had come into the world. The angel who administered the affairs of Egypt received much benefit after the Lord descended from heaven, so that the Egyptians might become Christians. It was profitable for all who governed
the various provinces, for instance the governor of Macedonia, the governor of Achaia, and of the remaining regions. For it is not right to believe that evil angels are set over individual provinces while good ones are not permitted to have charge of the same provinces and regions. But what he says about individual provinces, I think must also be believed generally of all human beings. To each one two angels are present, one of righteousness, the other of iniquity. If good thoughts
are in our heart and righteousness springs up in our soul, there is no doubt that the angel of the Lord is speaking to us. But if evil thoughts have been at work in our heart, the angel of the devil speaks to us. Just as, then, there are two angels for each individual person, so I think there are also, in each of the provinces, angels differing among themselves, so that there are both good ones and bad ones. For example, in Ephesus
because of those who were sinners in that city, the worst angels presided over it. Again, because many in it were believers, there was also an angel of the church of the Ephesians who was certainly good. Now what we have said about Ephesus should be understood as applying to all the provinces. Before the coming of the Lord and Savior, these angels were able to bring little benefit to those entrusted to them, and their efforts did not attain effect. What, then
is the sign that they could bring little benefit to those subject to them? Listen to what we are saying: when the angel of the Egyptians was helping the Egyptians, scarcely one proselyte believed in God; and this happened while the angel was administering the Egyptians. Finally, because many of the Egyptians and Idumeans were receiving the faith of God as proselytes, scripture therefore says: you shall not abhor the Egyptian, because you were sojourners in the land of Egypt, nor the Idumean,
because he is your brother. If children are born to them, in the third generation they shall enter the church of God. And so it came about that from all the nations some became proselytes, and this too through the effort of the angels who had the nations placed under them. But now peoples of believers are coming to faith in Jesus, and the angels to whom the churches had been entrusted, strengthened by the presence of the Savior, are bringing in many
proselytes, so that assemblies of Christians might be gathered throughout the whole world. Therefore let us rise up and praise the Lord, and become, instead of the carnal Israel, the spiritual Israel. Let us bless almighty God in deed, in thought, and in word, in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 13 ========

Our Lord and Savior is born in Bethlehem, and the multitude of the heavenly host praises God and says: "Glory be to God among the highest, and upon earth, peace to men of good will." But the "multitude of the heavenly host" says this because it had already ceased to be able to offer help to human beings, and it saw that it could not accomplish the task entrusted to it without him
who could truly save, and also help the very rulers, so that people might be saved. How then it is written in the Gospel, that certain men rowing and cutting through the sea against contrary winds were already worn out, and though laboring for twenty-five or thirty stadia they could not reach the harbor, and afterward the Lord came upon them and made the surging waves grow calm, and delivered the ship, whose sides were being flooded from both directions,
from the imminent danger, so understand it this way: the angels indeed wished to offer help to human beings and to grant them healing from their sicknesses, since they are all attendant spirits, sent into service for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation, and, to the extent of their own powers, they were helping human beings; but they saw that their own remedy was far inferior to what the disease demanded. Further,
so that you may be able to understand what we are saying from an example, picture for me a city in which very many are sick and the hands of physicians are frequently called upon; let there be diverse wounds, and every day a creeping decay penetrates into the dying flesh, and yet the physicians who have been called in to treat them cannot find any further remedies, and by the knowledge of their art cannot overcome the magnitude of the evil: when things are in such a state,
let some chief physician arrive, who has the highest knowledge in the art, and let those who previously could not heal, seeing the decay of the wounds cease at the master's hand, not envy him, not be tormented with jealousy, but break out into praises of the chief physician and proclaim the God who granted such knowledge both to him and to the sick. It is in the likeness of this, then, that the multitude of the host of angels was heard, saying: "Glory
among the highest to God, and upon earth, peace to men of good will." For after the Lord came to earth, he made peace through the blood of his cross, both for the things that were on earth and for the things that were in heaven. Since the angels, wishing that human beings should remember their creator, when they had done everything that was in their power so that people might be healed, and those people had been unwilling
to receive healing, they see the one who was able to heal, and glorifying him they say: "Glory be to God among the highest, and upon earth, peace." Let the diligent reader of Scripture inquire how the Savior can say: "I have not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword," and yet now, at his birth, the angels sing: "upon earth, peace." Since also in another place, in his own words, it is said:
"My peace I give to you, my peace I leave with you: not as the world gives peace do I give it to you." Let him see, then, whether he can resolve the question we are raising. If it had been written "on earth" and the sentence ended there, the question would rightly arise. But as it stands, what is added — that is, what is said after "peace" —
...to men of good will. And the peace that the Lord does not give ‘upon the earth’ is not the peace of good will. For he did not say simply: ‘I have not come to send peace,’ with the addition: ‘upon the earth’; nor conversely did he say: ‘I have not come to send peace upon the earth of good will.’ These things the angels spoke to the shepherds, who not only
were speaking at that time, but even to this day — unless they have spoken to shepherds and joined their own works to them — it is said to them: ‘Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain; unless the Lord guards the city, he who guards it keeps watch in vain.’ It is fitting to speak of the meaning of the Scriptures that follows: in each individual church there are two bishops, one visible, the other
invisible — the one exposed to the sight of the flesh, the other to perception. And just as a man, if he has carried out well the stewardship entrusted to him, is praised by the Lord, but if badly, is liable to blame and fault, so too is the angel. For it is written in the Apocalypse of John: ‘but you have there a few names who have not defiled’ even that; and again: ‘you have there those who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans’; and then: ‘you have’
these or those, ‘committing sins,’ and the angels to whom the churches have been entrusted are accused. But if there is anxiety even for angels as to how the churches are governed, what need is there to speak of men — how much fear they ought to have, so that, laboring together with the laboring angels, they may attain salvation along with them? I think it can be found that both angel and man are together good bishops of the church, and are in a certain way partakers
of one and the same work. Since this is so, let us ask almighty God that the angels and the men who are bishops of the churches may be a help to us, and let us know that both will be judged by the Lord on our account. But if they are judged, and fault and sin are found not in their negligence but in our carelessness, we shall be accused and punished. For while they do everything and strive for
our salvation, we nonetheless remain caught up in sins. Moreover it often happens that, while we labor, they do not fulfill their office and are themselves at fault. ‘And it came to pass,’ he says, ‘when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and see this word that has come to pass, which the Lord has shown us. And they came
in haste, and there they found Joseph and Mary and the child.’ Because they had come in haste, and not step by step, nor with a weary gait, they therefore found Joseph, the steward of the Lord’s birth, and Mary, who brought Jesus forth in childbirth, and the Savior himself lying in a manger. That was the manger of which the prophet spoke in prophecy, saying: ‘the ox knew its owner, and the donkey the manger’
‘of its lord.’ The ox is a clean animal, the donkey an unclean animal. ‘The donkey knew the manger of its lord.’ It was not the people of Israel who knew the manger of its lord, but an unclean animal from among the nations: ‘but Israel,’ he says, ‘has not known me, and my people have not understood me.’ Understanding this manger, let us strive to know the Lord and become worthy
...his knowledge, to embrace not only the birth and resurrection of his flesh, but also the glorious coming of his second majesty: to whom is glory and power for the ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 14 ========

That he died <died to sin>, not because he himself had sinned — for he committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth — but it is so that we, who are dead, by his dying to sins, are no longer dead to sin and its vices. Hence it is written: ‘If we have died together with him, [we too shall live]’; just as, then, ‘we have died with him’
then, when he was dying and we rose with him as he rose, so we were circumcised together with him and, after circumcision, cleansed by the solemn purification. Hence we no longer have any need of fleshly circumcision. And that you may know that he was circumcised on our account, hear Paul proclaiming this most plainly: ‘in whom dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily, and you are filled in him, who is the head of all rule and power;’
‘in whom also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the stripping off of the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, buried together with him in baptism, in whom also you rose together through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.’ Therefore both his resurrection and his circumcision were done on our behalf. ‘When the days were fulfilled for circumcising the child, his name was called Jesus, which had been named by the angel,
before he was conceived.’ The name of Jesus is glorious, most worthy of every adoration and reverence, ‘a name that is above every name,’ one that could not be spoken by men nor brought into the world by them, but rather by some more excellent and greater nature. Hence the evangelist pointedly added, saying: ‘and his name was called Jesus, which had been named by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.’ Then follows: ‘when the
the days appointed for their purification, following the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem.’ On account of the purification, he says, ‘of them.’ Of whom, ‘them’? If it had been written: on account of his purification — that is, of Mary, who had given birth — no question would arise, and we would boldly say that Mary, being human, had need of purification after childbirth. But now, in what it says, ‘the days appointed for their purification,’ it does not appear to signify one person,
but another, or several others. Did Jesus, then, have need of purification, and was he unclean or polluted by some filth? Perhaps I seem to speak rashly in saying this, but I am moved by the authority of the scriptures. See what is written in Job: ‘no one is free of filth, not even one whose life has lasted a single day.’ He did not say, ‘no one is clean of sin,’ but, ‘no one is clean of filth.’ For filth and sins do not signify the same thing;
and that you may know that filth means one thing and sin means another, Isaiah teaches most plainly, saying: ‘the Lord will cleanse away the filth of the sons and daughters of Zion, and will wash the blood from their midst, the filth by a spirit of judgment and the blood by a spirit of burning.’ Every soul that has been clothed with a human body has its own ‘filth.’ But that you may know that Jesus too was made filthy by his own will, because for
our salvation he had taken on a human body, listen to the prophet Zechariah saying: ‘Jesus was clothed in filthy garments.’ This indeed tells against those who deny that our Lord had a human body, claiming instead that it was woven together out of heavenly and spiritual things. For if his body was made of heavenly things, and, as they falsely assert, of the stars and some other loftier and more spiritual nature, let them answer why
...a spiritual body could be filthy, or how they interpret what we set down: “Jesus was clothed in filthy garments.” But if they are compelled by necessity to accept that the filthy garment is to be understood as a spiritual body, they must then, consequently, say that what is set forth in the promises has been fulfilled, that is: “a natural body is sown, a spiritual body rises,” and that we rise polluted and filthy — which it is even sinful to think,
especially when one knows it is written: “sown amid corruption, it is raised free of corruption; sown amid dishonor, it is raised in glory; sown amid weakness, it is raised in strength; what is sown is an animal body, what is raised is a spiritual body.” It was fitting, therefore, that for our Lord and Savior, who had been “clothed in filthy garments” and had taken on an earthly body, there should be offered those things which, according to the law, were accustomed to purge away filth from
the law. Prompted by the occasion of this passage, I take up again a question frequently raised among the brothers. Little children are baptized “for the remission of sins.” Of what sins? Or at what time did they sin? Or how can that reasoning of the washing hold true in the case of little children, except according to that sense of which we spoke a little before: “no one is clean of filth, not even if his life upon the earth has been but a single day”?
And because through the sacrament of baptism the “filth” of birth is put away, for this reason little children too are baptized: for “unless someone is born again of water and spirit, he will not be able to enter the kingdom of heaven.” “When,” it says, “the days of their purification were fulfilled.” The “days” are fulfilled mystically as well. For the soul is not purified the moment it is born, nor can it attain perfect purity at its very origin; but
just as it is written in the law: “If she has borne a male child, the mother shall sit seven days in unclean blood, and then thirty-three days in pure blood, and at the end the mother and the infant shall sit in blood most pure,” so, because this law belongs to the spirit and carries within it a foreshadowing of the good things yet to arrive, we can understand that a true purification comes to us only after time has passed. I think that even after
the resurrection from the dead we shall need a sacrament that washes and purges us — for no one will be able to rise without filth — nor can any soul be found that is at once free of every vice. Hence in the regeneration of baptism the sacrament is taken up, so that, just as Jesus, according to the dispensation of the flesh, was purified by an offering, so we too might be purified by spiritual regeneration. “They brought him according to the law of Moses to Jerusalem,
to present him before the sight of the Lord.” Where are those who deny the God of the law, who say that it was not this one but another than the Christ who was proclaimed in the Gospel: “God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”? Are we then to suppose that the good God made his own Son subject to the law of the Creator, and under the authority of an enemy, a law he himself had not given? Rather, on the contrary, he was made
subject to the law, “that he might redeem those who were under the law,” and might subject them to that other law, of which it was read a while ago: “Attend, my people, to my law,” and so forth. “They brought” him, then, “that they might present him before the sight of the Lord.” Fulfilling the precepts of what scripture? Surely of this: “as it is written,” it says, “in the law of Moses, that every male that opens the womb shall be called holy”
...shall be called to the Lord," and: "three times a year every male shall appear before the Lord God." Males who, because they opened their mother's womb, were holy, were offered before the altar of the Lord: "every," it says, "male that opens the womb," sounds like something consecrated. For whatever male you name as having come forth from the womb does not open his mother's womb the way the Lord Jesus does, since of all women
it is not the infant's delivery but the man's intercourse that opens the womb. But the Lord's mother's womb was opened at the very moment the birth took place, since before Christ's birth no male at all had touched that holy womb, worthy of all reverence. I dare say something further: for even in what is written, "The Spirit of God will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you," the beginning
of the seed and of the conception occurred, and the new offspring grew in the womb without any opening of the womb. Hence the Savior himself says: "But I am a worm and not a man, the scorn of men and the contempt of the people." He saw in his mother's womb the uncleanness of bodies; hemmed in on every side by her inward parts, he endured the confines of earthly refuse. That is why he likens himself to a worm and says:
"I am a worm and not a man." For a man is usually born from a male and a female, but I was not born from male and female, according to the custom and nature of men, but was born after the pattern of a "worm," whose origin is not from seed, but arises in and from the very bodies in which it takes shape. For this reason, because "every male
that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord," he was brought "into Jerusalem," that he might appear before God, and on account of what follows: that a gift might be given for him, according to what the Lord's law sets down: "a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons." We see a pair of turtledoves and two young pigeons offered for the Savior. I count even those birds
blessed, which were offered for the Lord's birth; and just as I marvel at Balaam's donkey and heap praise on its good fortune, because it was worthy not only to see the angel of God but even to have its mouth opened and burst into human speech, so much more do I proclaim and extol these birds, because they were offered before the altar for our Lord and Savior. That they might offer for
him a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons. Perhaps I may seem to be introducing something new, but it is scarcely equal to the majesty of the matter. Just as the Savior's begetting was new, not from a man and a woman but from a virgin alone, so too that pair of turtledoves and those two young pigeons were not what we look upon with the eyes of the flesh, but were of the kind the Holy Spirit is, who
descended in the form of a dove and came upon the Savior when he was baptized in the Jordan. Such too was the pair of turtledoves: those birds were not like the ones that fly through the air, but something divine and more majestic than human contemplation appeared under the form of dove and turtledove, so that he who, for the whole
was born into the world and had to suffer, so that he might be purified before the Lord — but, just as his whole arrangement was new, so too he might have new sacrifices, according to the will of almighty God in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 15 ========

One must inquire, by God's gift, into a matter worthy of him: how Simeon, a holy man who, as it is written in the Gospel, was awaiting the consolation of Israel, received the answer from the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he saw the Christ. What good did it do him to see the Christ? Did he have this only as a promise, that he would see him and gain nothing of use from that sight,
or does some gift lie hidden there, worthy of God, which the blessed Simeon both merited and received? The woman touched the fringe of Jesus's garment and was healed. If she gained so much benefit merely from the outer edge of his garment, what must we think of Simeon, who took the infant into his own arms and, holding him, rejoiced and was glad, seeing the little one carried by himself,
he who had come to loose the bound, and to be freed himself from the knots of the body, knowing that no one could release anyone from the prison of the body with hope of the life to come, except the one whom he held in his arms? Hence he also says to him: "Now, Lord, your servant... in peace"; for as long as I did not hold the Christ, as long as I did not clasp him in my arms, I was shut in
and could not come out of my bonds. But this must be understood not only of Simeon, but of the whole human race. If anyone departs from the world, if anyone is released from prison and the house of the bound so as to go and reign, let him take Jesus into his hands and wrap him in his arms, let him hold him wholly in his bosom, and then he will be able to go rejoicing
wherever he desires. Consider how great a dispensation preceded this, that Simeon might merit to hold the Son of God. First he had received the answer from the Holy Spirit that he would not see death until he had first seen the Christ. Then he did not enter the temple by chance or simply, but he came into the temple "in the Spirit of God"; since it is those guided by God's own Spirit who are counted his sons
Therefore the Holy Spirit led him into the temple. You too, if you wish to hold Jesus and embrace him with your hands and become worthy to come out of prison, strive with all your effort to have the Spirit as your guide and to come to the temple of God. Behold, now you stand in the temple of the Lord Jesus, that is, in his church: this is the temple built "of living stones."
But you stand in the Lord's temple when your life and conduct are most worthy of the name "church." If you come in the Spirit to the temple, you will find the infant Jesus, you will lift him up in your arms and say: "Now you dismiss your servant, Lord, in peace, according to your word." And notice at the same time that "peace" belongs to release and dismissal. For he does not say, "I wish to be dismissed,"
but with the addition, "in peace" to be dismissed. For to blessed Abraham this same thing was promised: "but you will go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age." Who is it that dies "in peace," except the one who has the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding and guards his heart? Who is it that...
departs from this world in peace, except the one who understands that in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, and has nothing hostile or adverse to God, but has taken up in himself every peace and concord through good works, and so is sent forth in peace to go on to the fathers, to whom Abraham also went. Why should I speak of the fathers?
One must go also to the very prince and lord of the patriarchs himself, Jesus, of whom it is said: "it is better to be released and to be with..." He has Jesus who dares to say: "I live, yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me." So then, standing in the temple ourselves and holding the Son of God and embracing him, may we too be worthy of release and departure to better
things — let us pray to almighty God, let us also pray to the little child Jesus himself, whom we long to address and to hold in our arms: to whom is glory and dominion for the ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 16 ========

And his father and mother were marveling at the things that were said about him — the things that were spoken and written concerning that birth of Jesus — and then we will be able to know that each particular thing is worthy of wonder. For this reason his father marveled too — for he too was called that, namely Joseph, because he was the one who reared him — and his mother marveled too, at all the things that were said about him.
What, then, were the things that report had spread abroad about the infant Jesus? There were shepherds in that region, keeping watch and observing the watches of the night over their flock. An angel came at the very hour of Jesus' birth and said to them: I announce to you great joy: go and you will find an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger. The angel had not yet finished his words, and
behold, a multitude of the heavenly army began to praise and bless God. When the shepherds had seen this in fear and the angel had withdrawn from them, they said to one another: Let us go to Bethlehem and see the thing that has happened, which the Lord has shown us. They came and found the infant. Both they and the parents marveled at the things that had happened. And of Simeon it is written
that he increased the report and was a great part of the wonder, so to speak. For he took the child in his arms and said: Now, Lord, you release your servant in peace, according to your word, for my eyes have seen your salvation. The high point, and, so to say, the summit of all that was being spread abroad about Jesus, at which both his father and mother marveled, was the speech of Simeon.
For it was not enough for him to hold the infant and to speak aloud the things that were written about himself, but he also blessed his father and his mother, and, speaking of the infant himself, said: Behold, this one is appointed for the falling and the rising up of many within Israel, and to be a sign spoken against on every side. And a sword will pierce through your own soul also, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
What does this mean, this saying: behold, this one is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel? I have found something similar to this written in the Gospel according to John: I have come into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind. How then did he come for judgment, so that those not
seeing — that is, those of the nations — might see, and those who previously saw — that is, those of Israel — might become blind? In this way he came for the fall and rising of many. For at the coming of the Lord and Savior, those who had previously stood fell, and those who had fallen rose. This is one interpretation of what is said: behold, this one is set for the fall and rising of many
in Israel. But there is also something deeper to be understood, especially against those who bark against the Creator, and who, gathering testimonies from the Old Testament on this side and that, testimonies which they do not understand, deceive the hearts of the simple. For they say: behold, see what sort of God this lawgiver and prophets' deity is. I, he says, will kill, and I will make alive; I will strike, and I will heal; and
there is no one who can snatch them from his hands. They hear, "I will kill," and do not hear, "I will bring to life"; they hear, "I will strike," and scorn to hear, "I will heal." By occasions of this sort they slander the Creator. Therefore, before I interpret what sense it bears—"I will kill and bring to life, I will strike and heal"—I will set against them the testimony of the gospel, and I will speak against the heretics—for there are countless heresies which accept the gospel
according to Luke— : If the Maker is bloody and a mere judge and cruel for this reason, because he says, "I will kill and bring to life, I will strike and heal," then it is perfectly clear that Jesus too is his son; for the very same things are written of him: "behold, this one is set for the fall and the rising of many in Israel"—not for "rising" only, but also for
"the fall." If it is evil to kill, let it also be evil to come for a fall. What will they answer? Will they withdraw from his worship, or will they seek some interpretation and take refuge in figurative readings, so that what has come "for a fall" may sound more like kindness than severity? And how will it be just, when something of this sort is found in the gospel, to take refuge in allegories and new understandings, while when
it is found in the old instrument, they immediately bring an accusation and accept no explanation, however plausible it may be? But even this passage that follows—"I came into this world for judgment, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind"—though they seek to expound it, they will not be able to explain it. But I, who wish to be a churchman, and to be named and to bear my name not from some heresiarch, but from the name of Christ,
and to hold the name that is blessed upon the earth, and who desire, both in deed and in understanding, to be and to be called a Christian, seek a consistent reasoning in the old law and in the new alike. God says, "I will kill"; I gladly accept that God should kill. For when the old man is in me and I still live as it were a mere man, I desire that God slay in me
the old man, and bring me to life from the dead. For "the first man," he says, "is from the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven, heavenly. Just as we bore the likeness of the earthly one, so let us also bear the likeness of the heavenly." In this sense that saying too is understood: "I came into this world for judgment, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind." We all have within us,
as human beings, both sight and blindness. Adam both saw and did not see. Eve too, before her eyes were opened, is described as having seen: "the woman saw," it says, "that the tree was fit for eating and pleasing to look upon; and taking from the fruit of the tree she ate, and gave it to her husband, and they ate." So they were not blind, but could see. Then it follows: "and their eyes were opened,"
their eyes, that is. So those whose eyes were afterward opened had been blind and could not see; but those who had seen well before, after they transgressed the Lord's command, began to see wrongly, and afterward lost the sight of obedience as sin crept in upon them. I understand in this same way that saying of God: "Who made the mute and the deaf, the seeing and the blind? Is it not I, the Lord God?"
There is an eye of the body, by which we see these earthly things, and there is an eye that follows the sense of the flesh, of which scripture says: walking in vain, puffed up by the sense of his flesh, in contrast to a better and divine wisdom. Because this eye was blind in us, Jesus came to make it see, so that those who did not see might see, and those who did see might become blind. According to this sense, then, we should also understand this which we now hold
in our hands: behold, this one is set for the fall and the rising of many in Israel. I have something in me that stands badly, and the pride of sin raises itself up: let this fall, let this be overthrown, for if it falls, that which had before collapsed will rise up and stand. My inner man once lay cast down, while the outer man stood upright. Before I believed in
Jesus, what was good in me lay prostrate, and what was evil stood upright. After he came, then what was evil in me collapsed, and that word was fulfilled: always carrying about the mortification of Jesus in the body — put to death your members that are upon the earth: luxury, idolatry, sorceries — a useful ruin came about. And wherever the corpse is, there the eagles will gather; it took its name from falling. Good is this ruin, to which
Jesus comes first, for he cannot bring about a resurrection unless a ruin has gone before it. Let him come first to destroy what was evil in me, so that once that has been destroyed and put to death, what is good in me may rise up and be brought to life, so that it may attain in him the kingdom of heaven: to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 17 ========

Luke, who wrote: ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also what will be born holy will be called the Son of God’ — who plainly handed down to us that Jesus was the son of a virgin and was not conceived from human seed, this same man testified concerning his father Joseph, saying: ‘And his father and mother were marveling over
the things that were said about him.’ What reason, then, was there for him to record as father one who was not his father? He who is content with a simple exposition will say: the Holy Spirit honored him with the title of father, because he had raised the Savior. But he who inquires into something deeper can say: because the order of the genealogy is traced down from David to Joseph, lest it should seem pointless for
Joseph to be named, who had not been the Savior’s father — so that the order of the genealogy might have its place, he was called ‘father.’ ‘His father and mother,’ then, ‘were marveling over the things that were said about him,’ both by the angel and by the multitude of the heavenly host, and also by the shepherds. For hearing all these things, they marveled most intensely. Then the scripture says: ‘Simeon blessed them and
said to Mary his mother: Behold, this one is appointed for the falling and the rising up of many within Israel, and to be a sign that is spoken against. And a sword will pass through your own soul as well, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.’ How the Savior came to bring about the fall and rising up of many is to be considered. He who explains it simply can say it is for the
fall of unbelievers and the rising of believers. But he who is an interpreter says that in no way does one fall who had not previously stood. Show me, then, who that one was who stood, and for whose ‘fall’ the Savior came, and also the one who rises again. For surely he rises again who had previously fallen. We must therefore see whether perhaps the Savior
came for the fall of some and the rising of others, but for the same people, both for their fall and for their rising. ‘For judgment,’ he says, ‘I have come, so that those who did not see may see, and those who saw may become blind.’ For there is in us one thing that saw before and afterward ceased to see, and another thing that did not see
and afterward began to see. For example, I wish to see with those eyes with which I did not see before, and which were afterward opened to me — since, after the disobedience of Adam and Eve, ‘their eyes were opened,’ concerning which we treated in the previous discourse. Now, however, we must interpret what this means, that he says: Behold, this one is set for the fall
and the rising of many in Israel.’ I must first fall and, once I have fallen, afterward rise well, lest the Savior be for me the cause of an evil fall. But he made me fall for this very reason, that I might rise again, and my fall will have been far more useful to me than that time in which I seemed to stand. For I was standing in sin at the time when I was living in sin; and because I was standing in sin, the first
it was to my advantage that I should fall and die to sin. Indeed, the holy prophets too, when they beheld something more sublime, fell upon their faces; and they fell for this reason, that their sins might be more fully purged through that fall. This very thing the Savior grants you first, that you should fall down. You were a pagan; let the pagan fall in you. You loved harlots; let the fornicator in you die first. You were a sinner; let
the sinner in you fall, so that you may then rise again and say: "if we have died together with him, we shall also live together with him," and: "if we have been made conformed to his death, we shall also be conformed to his resurrection." This one, then, has been set for the fall and rising of many in Israel—that is, of those who are able to perceive with full clarity of sight and reason—and for a sign that
will be spoken against. Everything that the history relates about the Savior is spoken against. The mother is a virgin—this is a sign that is spoken against: the Marcionites contradict this sign and say that he was not born of a woman at all; the Ebionites contradict the sign, saying that he was born of a man and a woman just as we too are born. He had a human body, and this too is a sign that
is spoken against: for some say that he came down from heaven, others that he had a body such as ours, so that through the likeness of the body he might also redeem our bodies from sins and give us hope of resurrection. He rose from the dead, and this too is a sign that is spoken against: how he rose, whether he himself and in the same condition in which he died, or indeed into a body of a better substance
he rose; and there is endless dispute, some saying that he showed Thomas the mark of the nails in his hands, others arguing on the contrary: if he had the same body, how did he enter with the doors shut and stand there? You see, then, how the question of his resurrection too is stirred up by various arguments, and how it is a sign that is spoken against. I think that this too, which
was foretold by mouth, is a sign that is spoken against; for there are many heretics who assert that he was not foretold by the prophets at all. And why do I need to pursue many examples? Everything that the history relates about him is a sign that is spoken against—not that those who believe in him speak against it, for we indeed know that everything that is written
is true—but because among unbelievers everything that is written about him is a sign that is spoken against. Then Simeon says: "and your own..." What is this sword, which passed through not only the hearts of others, but also the heart of Mary? It is plainly written that at the time of the passion all the apostles were scandalized, the Lord himself saying: "You will all be scandalized
this night." So all were scandalized to such an extent that Peter too, the chief of the apostles, denied him three times. What are we to think—that while the apostles were scandalized, the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she did not suffer scandal at the Lord's passion, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and lack the glory of God, and have been justified
...his grace, and the redeemed. Indeed Mary too was scandalized at that time. And this is what Simeon now prophesies, saying: “and your own,” you who know that you bore, as a virgin, without a man, who heard from Gabriel: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you”—the sword of unbelief
and you will be pierced by the blade of doubt, and your thoughts will tear you apart in different directions, when you see him, whom you had heard was the Son of God and knew to have been begotten without the seed of a man ... also with the Lord saying: all ... begotten, be crucified and die and be subjected to human tortures, and at last, weeping,
lamenting and saying: “Father, if it can be done, let this cup be taken away from me.” And thus a sword will pierce through your own soul, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. There were evil thoughts in men, and they were revealed for this reason: that, once brought out into the open, they might be destroyed, and, put to death, might cease to be alive, and that he might slay them,
who died for us. For as long as thoughts remained hidden and were not brought out into the open, it was impossible for them to be entirely destroyed. Hence we too, if we have sinned, ought to say: “I have made my sin known to you, and I have not hidden my iniquity. I said: I will declare my injustice against myself to the Lord.” For if we do this, and reveal our sins
not only to God but also to those who can heal our wounds and our sins, our sins will be blotted out by him who says: “Behold, I will blot out your iniquities like a cloud, and your sins like a mist.” After Simeon's prophecy, since it was necessary that women too should be saved, a woman prophet came forward, of whom it is written: “And there was Anna, a prophetess,
Phanuel's daughter, from the tribe of Asher.” How beautiful the order! The woman did not come before the man; rather, Simeon came first, who took hold of the infant and held him in his arms, and then the woman—whose words, indeed, are not set out in full, but it is said only in general that she gave thanks to the Lord and spoke of him to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem
. And rightly did the holy woman deserve to receive the spirit of prophecy, because through long chastity and long fasting she had risen to this height. See, women, the testimony of Anna, and imitate it! If it should ever happen to you that you lose your husbands, consider what is written of her: “she lived seven years with a husband, from the time of her virginity,” and so on; and for this reason she was a prophetess
—for the Holy Spirit did not dwell in her at random or by chance. It is a good thing, and the foremost thing, if a woman is able to possess the grace of virginity; but if she cannot achieve this, and it happens to her that she loses her husband, let her remain a widow. And indeed she ought to keep this in mind not only after her husband's death, but even while he is alive, so that
even if her own wish and purpose is not fulfilled, let her be crowned by the Lord and say: this I vow and promise, that if something human, which I do not wish, should befall me, I will do nothing other than persevere unstained and widowed. But as it is, there are second and third and fourth marriages... concerning "Now" — [editorial note, special material]: "And when they had finished everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned"
into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. Here Luke passed over what he knew had been sufficiently set forth by Matthew — namely, that the Lord afterward, so that he would not be found by Herod and killed, was carried by his parents to Egypt, and that after Herod's death he then at last returned to Galilee and began to dwell in his own city, Nazareth. For the evangelists individually are accustomed to omit in this way certain things which they saw had been recorded by others,
or which they foresaw in the Spirit would be recorded by others, so that by the continuous sequence of their own narrative they might seem to have omitted nothing — things which, nevertheless, the diligent reader will find, upon considering the writing of the other evangelist, at what point they were passed over. "Now the child grew and grew strong, filled with wisdom, and God's grace rested upon him." The distinction in the wording is to be noted, because the Lord Jesus Christ, in that respect in which
he was a child — that is, in that he had put on the condition of human frailty — he was subject to growing and being strengthened; but in that other respect (to pass over many other points), such persons are found within the church, and we are not unaware that such a marriage casts us out of the kingdom of God. For just as not only fornication but also second marriages bar one from ecclesiastical offices — for neither a bishop nor a presbyter nor a deacon nor a widow
can be twice-married — so perhaps also from the assembly "of the firstborn and the unblemished," the church "which has no spot or wrinkle," the twice-married man will be cast out; not that he is sent into eternal fire, but that he has no part in the kingdom of God. I recall, when I was expounding that passage written to the Corinthians: "to the church of God which is at Corinth,"
"together with all who call upon" — I said that there is a difference between [the church of God] and those "who call upon" the name of the Lord. For the once-married man, and the virgin, and the one who perseveres in chastity, belong to the church of God; but the one who is twice-married, though he may have led a good life and be strong in the other virtues, nevertheless does not belong to [the church] and to
that number which "has no wrinkle or spot or anything of the kind," but belongs to the second rank, to those who "invoke" the Lord's name, and who are saved in the name of Jesus Christ, yet are by no means crowned by him — to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen. ...was the Word of God, and was the eternal God,
he did not need to be strengthened, nor did he need to grow. Hence he is most rightly declared "full," both [in wisdom and in grace]. In wisdom, indeed, "because in him dwells all the fullness of divinity" (Col. 2:9); and in grace, because to that same "mediator of God and men, Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5) great grace was granted, so that from the moment he began to be man, he was perfect
...was God as well. Similar to this is what John writes, that he was full of grace and truth (John 1:14) — commending that same excellence of divinity, that of truth, which Luke commends under the name of wisdom.

======== Homily on Luke 18 ========

My Lord Jesus was born, and his parents went up to Jerusalem to fulfill what had been commanded in the law, and to offer for him “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” Simeon held him in his arms, as was read a while ago, and prophesied about him, as the narrative recounts. And after everything had been completed according to custom, the parents returned. In what
year was Jesus then living? Indeed he was still quite small, and yet he “grew and was strengthened and was filled” also with grace; he had not yet completed the forty days of purification, had not yet come to Nazareth, and already he was receiving all wisdom. Scripture could have said: “he grew and was strengthened, and received the Spirit”; but because he had “emptied himself,” taking the “form of a servant,”
as soon as the sacrifice was offered for his purification, he fulfilled again what he had emptied himself of — not that his body had immediately become larger, but that it might be shown to be all the more sacred — scripture reporting: “but the child grew and was strengthened and was filled…”. Let us ask whether it is written anywhere else of a child,
“he grew and was strengthened,” so that by comparing many instances we may be able to understand what more is said of our Lord. We read of John: “but the child grew and…”, and yet it is not added: “and was filled,” but rather: “was strengthened in spirit.” But here of the Lord it says: “he grew,” and “was strengthened”
“and was filled with wisdom, God's grace resting upon him.” All this is said of the child before he had yet completed twelve years. But when he was twelve years old, he remained behind in Jerusalem. His parents, not knowing this, sought him anxiously and did not find him. They sought “among,” they sought “in,” they sought “among their acquaintances,” and
in all these they do not find him. Jesus, then, is sought by his parents — by the father who had been his nurturer and companion when he went down into Egypt — and yet he is not found as soon as he is sought. For Jesus is not found among relatives and kin according to the flesh, not among those who are bodily joined to him. In the company of the many, my Jesus cannot be found. Learn where
those who seek find him, so that you too, seeking with Joseph and Mary, may find him. And “seeking,” it says, “they found him in…”. Not just anywhere in some other place, but “in the temple.” Not simply “in the temple,” but “in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and questioning them.” You too, then, seek Jesus “in the temple”
of God; seek him in the church, seek him among the teachers who are in the temple and not apart from it; for if you seek in this way, you will find him. Furthermore, if someone calls himself a teacher and does not have Jesus, that person is a teacher in name only, and therefore Jesus, the word and wisdom of God, cannot be found with him. “He was found,” it says,
'in the midst.' Just as it is written elsewhere concerning the prophets, so now understand 'in the midst of the teachers.' 'If,' he says, 'it has been revealed to another.' They find him 'in the midst of the teachers,' and he not only 'sits' but also 'questions and listens.' And even now
Jesus is present, questioning us and hearing us as we speak. And, he says. At what were they 'amazed'? Not at his questions, although these too were amazing, but 'at his answers.' For to ask is one thing, to answer another. He was questioning the teachers, and since at times they could not answer, he himself answered them concerning the very matters about which he had asked.
But let the divine law teach you that the answer implies not an exchange of conversation but teaching contained in the sacred scriptures. 'Moses was speaking, and God answered him.' That answer of theirs concerned the matters about which the Lord was instructing Moses, who did not know them. At times Jesus asks, at times he answers, and as we said above, although his questioning is amazing, his answering is far more amazing. So that
we too may hear him, and let him put before us questions which he himself will resolve; let us beseech him, and let us seek him with great labor and sorrow, and then we shall be able to find the one we seek. For it is not written in vain: 'Your father and I were seeking you in sorrow.' Whoever seeks Jesus must seek him not carelessly, not idly, not in passing, as some
seek him, and therefore cannot find him. But let us say: 'we are seeking in sorrow.' And when we have said this, he will answer our laboring soul, seeking with sorrow, and will say: 'did you not know that I must be about my father's business?' Where now are the heretics, where are the impious and the mad, who assert that the law and the prophets do not belong to the father of Jesus Christ?
Surely Jesus was 'in the temple' that had been built by Solomon, confessing that temple to belong to his father, whom he revealed to us, whose son he said he was. Let them answer how it is that one is good and another is the just God. Since, then, the Savior is the son of the Creator, let us praise together the Father and the Son, to whom belong the law and also the temple,
to whom is glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 19 ========

Because some who appear to believe the holy scripture deny the divinity of the Savior, as if in defense of the glory of almighty God, it seems right to me that they be taught, by the authority of the scriptures themselves, that something divine came into a human body — and not only into a human body, but also into a human soul. Although, if we attend carefully to the sense of the scriptures, that soul possessed something more than the rest of the souls of men.
For every human soul, before it arrives at virtue, is stained with vices. But the soul of Jesus was never defiled by the stain of sin. Indeed, before he reached the twelfth year of his age, the Holy Spirit writes of him in Luke's gospel: “And the child grew and was strengthened and was filled with wisdom.” Human nature does not admit this, that wisdom should be
completed before the age of twelve. It is one thing to possess a part of wisdom, another to be complete in wisdom. Let us not doubt, then, that something divine appeared in the flesh of Jesus, and not only above man, but above every rational creature as well. And “he grew,” it says. For, having “taken the form of a servant,” he grows by the same power by which he “emptied himself.” He had appeared weak, because he had assumed a weak
body, and for that reason he is strengthened again. The Son of God had “emptied himself,” and for this reason he is once more filled with wisdom, and “the favor of God rested upon him.” Not when he came to adolescence, not when he was teaching openly, but while he was still a little child, he had the grace of God; and just as all things about him had been marvelous, so too his childhood was marvelous,
so that the wisdom of God might be fulfilled. “And his parents went every year to Jerusalem for the solemn day of the Passover. And when he had become twelve years old...” Observe carefully that, before he was twelve years old, the wisdom of God, and the other things that were written about him, were being fulfilled. When therefore, as we said, he was twelve years old, and, according to custom, the days of the feast had been
completed and his parents were returning, “the boy remained behind in Jerusalem, and his parents did not know it.” And here understand something more sublime than what human nature undergoes. For it is not simply said that... and his parents were ignorant of where he was, but, just as it is written in John's gospel, when the Jews were plotting against him and he slipped out from their midst and was not seen,
so too, I think, the boy now remained in Jerusalem, and his parents did not know where he remained. Let us not wonder that they are called “parents,” of whom the one earned the title through childbirth, the other through the dutiful service of a father toward the mother. There follows: “sorrowing, we have been seeking you.” I do not think they grieved on the supposition that the boy had gone astray or perished; nor could it happen that Mary, who
knew that she had conceived by the Holy Spirit, who had heard both the angel speaking and the shepherds running and Simeon prophesying, should fear that she had lost the child through his wandering off. Remove this notion especially from Joseph, to whom it had been commanded by an angel that he should take the child and go to Egypt, who had heard: “do not be afraid to take Mary your wife; for that which has been born in her, is of—”
...by the Holy Spirit. < It could never happen that he would fear the child to be lost, whom he had known to be divine. The grief and questioning of the parents sound like something else, than the simple reader understands. Just as, whenever you read the scriptures, you seek in them a meaning with a certain grief and torment, not because you think that the scriptures have erred or contain something amiss, but because they inwardly possess
the word and reason of truth, and you are unable to find what is true: so too were they seeking Jesus, lest perhaps he had withdrawn from them, lest, leaving them, he had migrated to other places, and, what I think more likely, lest he had returned to the heavens, since it had pleased him, about to descend again. > Grieving < therefore they sought the Son of God. And when they sought him, they did not find him > among his relatives
< For human kinship could not contain the Son of God. They did not find him > among his acquaintances >, because the divine power was greater than mortal acquaintance and knowledge. Where then did they find him? < In the temple <; for there the Son of God is found. If ever you too seek the Son of God, seek first the temple, hasten there; there you will find Christ, the Word and Wisdom,
that is, < the Son of God, you will find him. But since he was a small child, he is found > in the midst of the teachers <, sanctifying and instructing them. Because he was a small child, he is found > not teaching them, but < questioning them >, and this in keeping with the duty of his age, so that he might teach us what befits children, however wise and learned they may be, that they should rather listen to their teachers than
desire to teach, and not boast of themselves with empty ostentation. He was questioning, I say, the teachers, not in order to learn something, but so that by questioning he might instruct them. For from one and the same fount of teaching flow both questioning and answering wisely; and it belongs to the same knowledge to know what you ask and what you answer. It was fitting that the Savior should first become a master of learned questioning, so that afterward he might answer questions according to the reason and word of God,
and speech: to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 20 ========

Mary was seeking and came; they sought him. They found him "in the temple" among the teachers, and being in the midst of the teachers, he was seated there as a teacher to such a degree. Jesus was of benefit to the teachers, teaching as he spoke in their midst, and in a certain way he stirred them up to seek what they did not know, and to investigate what, up to that point, they had not been able to know, whether they knew it or were ignorant of it.
Jesus, then, is found "among the teachers," and having been found, he says to those who sought him: "Why is it that you were seeking me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" First, let us take this in its simple sense and arm ourselves against the impious heretics who claim that the Creator is not the Father of Christ Jesus, nor the God of Law and Prophets. Behold, the Father of Christ is here declared to be the God of both the Law and the Prophets. Let the Valentinians be put to shame
when they hear Jesus saying, "I must be in my Father's house." Let all the heretics be put to shame who accept the Gospel according to Luke and yet despise what is written in it. Let these things, as I have said, be understood in the simpler sense. But since it is then added, "and they themselves did not understand the saying," let us sift the sense of the scripture more diligently. They were so foolish and senseless that they did not know what he meant,
when he said, "I must be in my Father's house" — whether he meant "in the temple," or whether he meant something else, something higher, and something that would build up his hearers more. Each one of us, if he is good and perfect, is a possession of God the Father. The Savior, then, taught this generally about everyone: that no one ought to be anywhere except among those who belong to the Father.
If any one of you belongs to God the Father, he has Jesus in his midst. Let us believe him indeed when he says, "I must be in my Father's house." And I suspect that this is the more reasonable, living, and true temple of God, rather than that one which was built in a typical way by an earthly work. Hence, just as he was in that temple in a typical sense, so too he withdrew from it in a typical sense.
For "he went out" of the earthly "temple," saying, "Behold, your house will be left to you desolate," and leaving that house he came to the possession of God the Father — the churches scattered throughout the whole world — and he says, "I must be in my Father's house." At that time, then, "they did not understand the word that he spoke to them."
At the same time, note this too: that as long as he was in the possession of his Father, he was above. And because Joseph and Mary did not yet have full faith, for that reason they were not able to remain above with him, but it is said that he came down with them. Often Jesus comes down with his disciples; he does not always dwell on the mountain, nor does he hold to the heights without end. On the mountain he is with
Peter, with James, with John, and again in another place with the rest of the disciples. Furthermore, because those who were laboring under various infirmities were not able to climb the mountain, for that reason "he came down and came" to those who were below. Now too it is written: "he descended with them, arrived at Nazareth, and submitted himself to them." Let us learn, children, to be subject
our parents: the lesser is subject to the greater, and because he saw that Joseph was greater in age, he therefore honored him with a parent's honor, giving to all sons an example, that they should be subject to their fathers, and, if they have no fathers, that they should be subject to those who have the age of fathers. Why do I speak of parents and sons? If Jesus the Son of God is subject to Joseph and Mary, shall I not be subject to the bishop who
has been established over me as father by God? Shall I not be subject to the presbyter, who has been set over me by the Lord's condescension? I think that Joseph understood that Jesus, who was subject to him, was greater than himself, and knowing that one greater than himself was subject to him, he exercised his authority with trembling. Let each person consider, then, that one who is lesser is often set over those who are better, and it sometimes happens that the one who is subject
is better than the one who seems to be set over him. When the one who is higher in rank understands this, he will not be puffed up with pride because he is greater, but will know that a better man is subject to him in the same way that Jesus too was subject to Joseph. Then it follows: "But Mary kept all these words in her heart." She suspected something more than a mere man; whence also
"she kept all his words in her heart" - not as of a boy twelve years old, but of one who had been conceived of the Holy Spirit, whom she saw "advancing in wisdom and grace before God and men." Jesus "advanced in wisdom" and seemed wiser as each age passed. Was he not wise, that he should become wiser?
Or was it rather that, because he had "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," he was resuming what he had lost, and being filled again with the powers which, a little before, on taking a body, he had seemed to relinquish? He "advanced," then, not only "in wisdom," but also "in age." There is a progress of age as well. Two ages are spoken of in the scriptures, the one of the body, which is not
in our power, but in the law of nature; the other of the soul, which properly belongs to us, according to which, if we wish, we grow day by day and come to its full measure, "that we may no longer be as children, swayed and driven about by every wind of teaching," but that, ceasing to be "children," we may begin to be "men," and may say: "
when I became a man, I did away with the things that belonged to a child." Of this age, as I have said, which is the growth of the soul, the increase is in our own power. But if this testimony is not enough, let us take another example, from Paul: "until," he says, "we all come to full manhood, to the stature of the fullness of the body of Christ." In
us, then, it lies to "attain to the measure of the age of the body of Christ," and, if it is in us, let us strive with all effort to put off the child and to destroy him and to arrive at the remaining ages, so that we too may be able to hear: "But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age" - a spiritual old age, of course, which is truly old age
good, growing gray-haired and reaching all the way to the end in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 21 ========

When the prophetic word was being sent to the Jews alone, Jewish kings were set in the title. For example: "The vision that Isaiah son of Amos saw against Judea and against Jerusalem, in the reign of Uzziah and Jotham and Ahaz and Hezekiah"; and I find no one else, apart from the kings of Judea, designated at the time of Isaiah. In some prophets we also read of kings of Israel, as there:
"and in the days of Jeroboam son of Joash, king of Israel." But when the mystery of the gospel was to be preached and the gospel was to be disseminated throughout the whole world, whose herald John was in the desert, and the rule of Tiberius governed the whole world, then it is written that "in the fifteenth year" of his reign "the word of the Lord came to John." And if salvation was to be announced only to those
who were going to believe from among the nations, and Israel was to be entirely excluded, it would have sufficed to say: "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea." But because many were also going to believe both from Judea and from Galilee, for that reason these kingdoms too are set in the title, and it says: "with Herod tetrarch of Galilee, and Philip his brother tetrarch of Ituraea and
the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of the Lord came to John, son of Zechariah, in the desert." Formerly "the word of God came to Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah, who was of the priests," "in the time of" that king of Judah; now "the word" of God comes to John, son of Zechariah,
who never came to the prophets "in the desert," because "more children" were going to believe "of the desolate one than of her who has a husband," for that reason "the word of God came to John, son of Zechariah," [in the desert]. And consider at the same time that it makes better sense if the desert is understood mystically and not according to the simple letter. For whoever
preaches [in a desert place inhabited by no one] does so pointlessly, crying out where no one who hears him is present. The forerunner of Christ, therefore, and "the voice of one crying in the desert," preaches "in the desert" of a soul that has no peace. Not only then, but even now, first "the lamp burning and shining" [comes], and "preaches a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of
sins"; then "the true light" follows, when that very "lamp" says: "he must increase, but I must decrease." The word of God comes "in the desert" and "comes into all the region around the Jordan." What other places ought the Baptist to have gone about, except those near the Jordan, so that whoever wished to do penance might be ready for
the washing of water? Moreover, "Jordan" is interpreted as "one who descends." And the "descending" river, running with a great rush, is the Savior our Lord, God, in whom we are baptized with true water, saving water. Baptism "for the forgiveness" also "of sins" is preached: Come, catechumens, do penance, so that you may obtain baptism "for the forgiveness" of sins.
For the remission of sins: he receives baptism who ceases from sinning. For if anyone who is sinning comes to the washing, no remission of sins is granted to him. Therefore I beg you, do not come to baptism without caution and careful circumspection, but first show "fruits worthy of repentance"! Spend some time in good conduct; keep yourselves clean from
all filth and vices, and then remission of sins will come to you, when you yourselves begin to despise your own sins. Forgive your trespasses, and they will be forgiven you. But this very thing, which is now set down from the old testament, we read written in the prophet Isaiah. For there it is said: "A voice of one shouting in the wilderness: make ready the Lord's road, and level out his pathways." The Lord wishes
to find paths in you, so that, in order that he may enter into your souls and make his journey, you may prepare for him the path of which it is said: "Make his paths straight." "A voice crying in the desert." The voice cries out, "Prepare, prepare the way"; for first the voice reaches the ears, then after the voice—indeed together with
the voice—the word penetrates the hearing. It is in this sense that Christ was announced by John. Let us see, then, what he announces concerning the Word. "Prepare," he says, "the way of the Lord." What way shall we prepare for the Lord? A bodily one? Or can the word of God travel by such a road? Rather, the way must be prepared for the Lord within, and straight and level paths
must be laid out in our heart. This is the way by which the word of God entered, which takes its place within the capacity of the human heart. The heart of man is great and spacious and capacious, provided only it be clean. Do you wish to know its greatness and breadth? See how great a magnitude of divine perceptions it can hold. He himself says: "He has given me true knowledge of the things that are, to know
the structure of the world and the working of the elements, the beginning and the end and the midpoint of the ages, the varieties of times and the changes of months, the cycles of years and the positions of the stars, the natures of living creatures and the ragings of beasts, the violence of spirits and the thoughts of men, the differences of trees and the power of roots." You see that the heart of man is not small, since it can hold such things. And its greatness is to be understood not in bodily size, but in the strength of
its perception, which can hold so great a knowledge of truth. But so that I may lead even simple people to believe, from everyday examples, that the heart of man is great, let us look at what follows. Whatever cities we have passed through, we hold them in the mind, and the character and layout of streets and walls and buildings are turned over in our heart. The road that we have traveled we retain in the picture and description of memory; the sea
that we have sailed we embrace in silent thought. The heart of man, as I have said, is not small, since it can hold such things. But if it is not small, holding such things, then accordingly in it the way of the Lord is prepared and the path made straight, so that the word of God and wisdom may walk in it. Prepare the way for the Lord through good conduct, and smooth the path with excellent works, so that without
...may the word of God walk about in you without any stumbling, and grant you knowledge of its mysteries and its coming: to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 22 ========

Let us see what is foretold at Christ's coming; among these, the first thing written is about John: ‘A voice of one shouting in the wilderness: make ready the Lord's road, and level out his pathways.’ And what follows belongs properly to the Lord and Savior. For it was not by John that every valley was filled, but by the Lord and Savior. Let each person consider himself—who he was
before he believed—and then he will notice that he was a low valley, a valley that was headlong and sunk into the depths. But when the Lord Jesus came and sent his vicar, the Holy Spirit, ‘every valley was filled.’ And it was filled with good works and the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Charity does not allow a valley to remain in you, because if you have peace and
patience and goodness, you will not only cease to be a ‘valley,’ but will even begin to be a ‘mountain’ of God. We see this happening and being fulfilled daily among the nations: ‘every valley will be filled,’ just as concerning the people of Israel, who has been brought down from the heights: ‘every mountain and hill will be made low.’ That people was once a ‘mountain’ and
a ‘hill,’ which has been brought down and destroyed. ‘By their transgression, salvation was given to the nations, to provoke them to jealousy.’ And if you should say that the hostile powers that were raised up against mortals are the mountains and hills that have been brought down, you will not be wrong. For in order that valleys of this kind be filled, the hostile powers, mountains and hills, must be brought low. But let us also consider this, which
was prophesied at Christ's coming—whether it has been fulfilled. For what follows is: ‘and all the crooked places shall be made straight.’ Each of us was crooked, if indeed he was so and does not persist in it to this day; and through the coming of Christ, which has taken place for our soul, whatever was ‘crooked’ is made straight. For what good does it do you that Christ once came
in the flesh, unless he has also come to your soul? Let us pray that his coming may happen to us daily, and that we may be able to say: ‘Yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me.’ For if Christ lives in Paul and does not live in me, what good will it do me? But when he has come to me too, and I have enjoyed him
as Paul enjoyed him, then I too shall speak as Paul spoke: ‘I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me.’ Let us consider, then, the other things that are foretold at Christ's coming. Nothing was rougher than you: look at your former impulses, look at your anger and other vices—if indeed they have ceased to be what they were—and you will understand that nothing was rougher than you, and,
to put it more precisely, nothing was more uneven. Your way of life was uneven, and your speech, and your deeds were uneven. So my Lord Jesus came and smoothed out your rough places, and turned every disordered thing ‘into level paths,’ so that in you there might be a way without stumbling, smooth and utterly pure, and God the Father might walk in you, and Christ the Lord might make his dwelling with you
...he would do and say: 'I and my Father will come and make our dwelling with him.' There follows: 'and all flesh will see the salvation of God.' You were once 'flesh,' and you who were once 'flesh' — or rather, to say something more remarkable, while you are still in the flesh, you see the 'salvation of God.' But what does it mean,
that it says 'all flesh,' in that no one is excepted who does not see the 'salvation of God' — this I leave to be understood by those who know how to search out the mysteries and veins of the scriptures. But this too must be noted: that John speaks to 'the crowds going out' to baptism. If anyone wishes to be baptized, let him go out; for one who remains in his former condition, not
abandoning his ways and his habits, by no means comes rightly to baptism. But so that you may understand what it is to 'go out' to baptism, take this testimony and listen to the words with which God speaks to Abraham: 'Go out from your land,' and so on. So John speaks the words that follow to the crowds who are going out to the washing — not to those who have already gone out, but only to those striving to go out. For if they had already gone out, he would never
have said to them: 'brood of vipers.' Whatever, then, he says to them, he also says to you, catechumens, men and women, who are preparing to come to baptism. Take care lest it might perhaps be said to you too: 'brood of vipers.' For if you too bear some resemblance to sensible vipers and unseen serpents, it will be said to you as well: 'brood of vipers.' But also
what follows: unless you have driven the wickedness and the venom of serpents out of your heart, it will be said to you: 'Who has shown you how to flee from the wrath to come?' A great wrath hangs over this age; the whole world is destined to suffer the wrath of God. The wrath of God will overturn so vast an expanse of heaven and breadth of earth, the choirs of the stars, the splendor of the sun and the nightly comfort of the moon;
for all these things will pass away on account of the sins of men. And once, indeed, the wrath of God came upon only one land, 'because all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth'; but now the wrath of God is about to come upon both heaven and earth: 'the heavens will pass away, but you will remain,' it is said to God, 'and all things like
a garment will grow old.' See what sort and how great a wrath it is that is going to consume the whole world and will punish those who deserve punishment, and will find material on which to exercise itself. Each one of us, by what he has done, has prepared material for wrath: 'for according to your hardness and unrepentant heart you are storing up for yourself wrath on the day of wrath and of the revelation of the righteous judgment
of God,' it is said to the Romans. Then follows: 'Who has shown you how to flee from the wrath to come? Produce, then, fruits worthy of repentance.' And to you too, who come to baptism, it is said: 'Produce fruits worthy of repentance.' Do you want to know what the fruits worthy of repentance are? 'Love is the fruit of the Spirit, joy is the fruit of the Spirit, peace, patience,
kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, self-control, and the rest of that kind. If we have all these, we have produced "fruits worthy of repentance." Again it is said to those who were coming to John's baptism: "And do not begin to say among yourselves, We have Abraham as our father; for this I say to you: God has the power to raise up children for Abraham even from these stones." John, the last of the prophets, foretells
the expulsion of the former people and the calling of the nations. For to those who boasted of Abraham he says: "And do not begin to say among yourselves, We have Abraham as our father." And again he speaks of the nations: "For this I say to you: God has the power to raise up children for Abraham even from these stones." From what stones? Certainly not irrational, physical stones
was he pointing to, but men without feeling and once hardened, who, because they used to worship stones or pieces of wood... that was fulfilled which was sung in the psalm about such people: "Let those who make them become like them." Truly, those who make idols and put their trust in them become like their gods: without sense, turned by no reasoning into stones and wood. For when
they see only such great order in created things, such beauty, such function, such great beauty of the world, they are unwilling to understand the Creator from his creatures, nor do they consider that there is any providence in so great a dispensation, that there is some one who governs it; but, blind, they see the world only with those eyes with which irrational beasts of burden and wild animals see. For they do not perceive that any reason is present in the things they see governed by reason. This is said because John had said:
"God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones." Let us, then, also beseech God that, even if we were once stones, we may be turned into "children of Abraham" in place of those children who were cast out and lost the promise and the adoption through their own fault. I will still set down one further testimony about stones, since indeed it is written in the Song of Exodus: "let them be turned to stone, until"
"your people pass through, O Lord, until this people of yours passes through, whom you have made your own." God is therefore asked that, for a little while, the nations be turned into stones (for the Greek wording sounds more expressive here) until the people of the Jews have passed through. There is no doubt that, after those have passed through, the stony nations will cease to be stone, and will receive, in place of a hard heart, a human and
rational nature in Christ, to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 23 ========

John was already saying at that time: "behold, the axe is laid at the root of the trees." And if indeed the consummation were already imminent and the end of the ages were at hand, no question would arise for me. For I would say that this, what he says: "behold, the axe is laid at the root of the trees," and that: "every tree therefore that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and
cast into the fire," was prophesied for the reason that at that time it was being fulfilled. But since so many ages have flowed by since then, and so many countless years have passed from that time to the present day, we must ask how the Holy Spirit says through the prophet: "behold, the axe is laid at the root of the trees." I think this is prophesied of the people of Israel, that their cutting-off is near.
For to "these" who "were going out" to him "to be baptized," he was saying, among other things: "produce fruits worthy of repentance," and as it were saying to the Jews: "do not begin to say among yourselves: we have Abraham as father. For this I say to you: God has the power to raise up sons of Abraham even from these stones." This, then, what he says: "behold,
the axe is laid at the root of the trees," he speaks to the Jews. With this sense that apostolic statement also agrees, that the branches were broken and cut away by this axe of unbelief, so that it might cut away from the tree not the root, but those things which had sprouted from the root, so that into the root of the original tree branches of wild olive might be grafted. "Every tree therefore that does not produce good fruit will be cut down
and cast into the fire." For this is the end it has, that it be consumed by burning. Then three ranks of people are introduced, questioning John about their salvation: one the scripture calls "the crowds going out to baptism," another it names "tax collectors," a third is designated by the name "soldiers." "The crowds were asking him, saying: What shall we do?" He,
answering, said to them: "Whoever has two tunics, let him give to him who does not have, and whoever has food, let him do likewise," which indeed I do not know whether it is fitting to be commanded to the crowds. For it suits the apostles more than the common people, that whoever has two tunics should give one to him who does not have. And that you may know that this suits the apostles more than the peoples, hear
what is said by the Savior to them: "do not take two tunics for the journey." So the double garment with which each person is clothed, and the command that one give the other to "him who does not have," conveys a different meaning. For the Savior wants us, just as we ought not to "serve two masters," so likewise neither to have two tunics nor to be wrapped in a double garment, lest
there be one garment of the old man and another of the new. On the contrary, he desires that "we strip off the old man and put on the new." Up to this point the exposition is easy. Further it is asked how, according to this interpretation, we are commanded to give a garment to "him who does not have." Who indeed is that one who does not even have one garment upon his flesh, who
is he naked who is covered by no garment at all? But I do not say this in order to deny that generosity is enjoined, and mercy toward the poor, and an extravagant clemency, so that we should cover even the naked with a second tunic. But I say this, that this passage also admits of a deeper understanding, and that we ought to give a tunic to him who has none at all. Who, then, is this person who has no tunic
He who has none? Surely the one who utterly lacks God. We must therefore strip ourselves and give to him who is naked. One has God, another has none at all — an opposite strength, clearly. And just as it is written that we should cast our sins into the depth of the sea, so our vices and sins ought to be thrown off by us and cast upon him,
who became the cause of them for us. And he who has food, he says, let him do likewise. Let him who has food give to him who has none, so that he may bestow on him not only clothing, but also something to eat. Now tax collectors also came to be baptized by him. This, even according to the simple understanding, teaches tax collectors to demand nothing more
than what is prescribed in the law; for those who exact more transgress not John's command, but that of the Holy Spirit, who spoke in John. But I do not know whether the saying also signifies something else more excellent, and whether we ought to disclose such mystical matters before an audience of this kind, especially among those who do not look into the marrow of the scriptures but delight only in the surface. It is indeed dangerous
but nevertheless it must be touched on briefly and concisely. When we have departed from this world and this life of ours has been changed, there will be certain beings sitting at the boundaries of the world, scrutinizing most carefully, as if by the office of tax collectors, lest they find anything of their own in us. It seems to me that the ruler of this age is, as it were, a tax collector, whence it is written of him: the ruler of this world is coming,
and has nothing in me. That passage too, which we read in the Apostle: render to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due, toll to whom toll, honor to whom honor; owe no one anything, except to love one another — is to be understood in a sacred sense. Wherefore let us consider how many dangers we lie exposed to, lest perhaps, when we have nothing with which we can pay the toll, we ourselves be dragged off on account of the debt, as tends to happen among
the affairs of the world as well, when someone, on account of a debt, is himself shut up to serve the state. Very many of us are to be seized by tax collectors of this sort, whom that holy man Jacob did not greatly fear or dread, so that anything belonging to the tax collectors' tolls might be found in him. Whence he spoke boldly to that tax collector Laban: recognize, if anything of yours is with me
On this the scripture bears witness, saying: and Laban found nothing at all with Jacob. Our Savior, then, and the Holy Spirit, who spoke in the prophets, teach not only men but also angels and invisible powers. But why do I speak of the Savior? The prophets themselves too, and the apostles, in all that they proclaim, speak not only to men, but also to angels
...they preach. And that you may know this is true, [scripture] says, 'heaven, and I will speak,' and: 'in the sight of the angels I will sing to you,' and: 'praise the Lord, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens—may they praise the name of the Lord,' and: 'may the angels praise him,' and: 'in every place of his dominion, O my soul, bless the Lord.'
You will find in many places, and especially in the Psalms, that speech is addressed to the angels as well, power being given to man—yet to that man who has the Holy Spirit—to speak to the angels also. Of these I will set forth one example, so that we may know that angels too are instructed by human voices. It is written in the Revelation of John: 'Write to the angel of the church of the Ephesians: I have something against you.' And again:
'Write to the angel of the church of Pergamum: I have something against you.' It is a man who writes to angels and instructs them in something. I do not doubt that angels are present also in our assembly, not only in every church generally, but also individually—concerning whom the Savior says: 'their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.' Here there is present a twofold
church, one of men, the other of angels. If we say anything in accordance with reason and in accordance with the will of the scriptures, the angels rejoice and pray with us. And because angels are present in the church—at least in that church which is worthy of it and belongs to Christ—for this reason women who pray are instructed to have 'a covering on their head because of the angels.' Which angels? Surely those who attend upon the saints
and rejoice in the church—whom indeed we do not see, because our eyes are dimmed by the filth of sins, but the apostles of Jesus see them, to whom he says: 'Amen, amen, I say to you, heaven will be seen opened by you, with God's angels going up and coming down upon the Son of Man.' But if I had this grace, that I might see as the apostles saw, and, as Paul beheld,
might behold, I would now discern the multitude of angels whom Elisha saw, and which Gehazi, who had stood with him, did not see. Gehazi was afraid of being seized by enemies, seeing only Elisha. But Elisha, as a prophet of the Lord, entreats and says: 'Lord, open the eyes of this servant, that he may see, for there are far more with us than with them.' And immediately at
the prayers of the holy man he beheld the angels whom Gehazi had not seen before. We have said this in order to show that tax collectors were taught by John—not only those who serve the state's public revenues, but also those who came to repentance and were tax collectors in a different way from the literal ones, just as there were also other soldiers who went out to the baptism of repentance. For it was not only John, and
the prophets alone, but the Savior himself as well, who came to preach saving repentance to men and to angels and to the rest of the powers, so that 'every knee should bend at the name of Jesus—those in heaven, those on earth, and those beneath the earth—and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ dwells in the glory of God the Father'—to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 24 ========

The people received John, who was lesser than Christ, weighing and considering whether perhaps he himself might be the Christ; but him who came “greater” than John, they did not receive. Do you want to know the reason? Learn this: John's baptism was visible, Christ's baptism was invisible. “For I,” he says, “baptize you in water; but he who comes after me,”
“is greater than I, he himself will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and” fire. When does Jesus baptize with the Holy Spirit, and again, when does he baptize with fire? Does he baptize with both the Spirit and fire at one and the same time, or at different and separate times? “But you,” he says, “will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many”
days from now. The apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit after his ascension into the heavens; but that they were baptized with fire, Scripture does not record. But just as John, beside the river Jordan, waited for those coming to baptism, and drove others away, saying “brood of vipers” and the rest, while he received those who confessed their vices and sins, so will
the Lord Jesus Christ stand in the river of fire, beside the “flaming sword,” so that whoever, after departing this life, desires to pass over into paradise and is in need of purification, he may baptize him in this river and send him across to what he desires; but him who does not bear the mark of the earlier baptisms, he will not baptize with the washing of fire. For a person must first be baptized with “water and the Spirit,” so that,
when he comes to the river of fire, he may show that he has kept the washings of both water and the Spirit, and then he may deserve to receive also the baptism of fire in Christ Jesus: to whom is glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 25 ========

Love too carries danger, if it oversteps its measure. For one who loves another ought to consider the nature and the reasons for loving, and not love him more than he deserves. For if someone exceeds the measure and limit of love, both the one who loves and the one who is loved will be in sin. To make this clearer, let us set forth an example. The people marveled at John and loved him, and indeed he was worthy
of admiration, so that more deference was paid to him than to other men, since he had lived differently from all mortals. We are not all content with simple food, but delight in a variety of dishes; a single wine does not suffice us for drinking, but we purchase wines of various tastes. John, however, always ate 'locusts,' always ate 'wild honey,' and was content with simple and meager
food, lest his body grow fat on heavier dishes and be weighed down by exquisite banquets. For our bodies are of such a nature that they are burdened by superfluous foods, and when the body has been burdened, the soul too is weighed down, since, being diffused throughout the whole body, it is subject to its passions. For this reason it is rightly commanded to those who are able to observe it: 'It is good not to eat meat nor to drink wine, nor to do anything by
which your brother is caused to stumble.' John's life, then, was remarkable and very different from the way other men lived. He had no purse, no servant, not even a humble hut. He dwelt in the desert, not only until 'the day of his manifestation to Israel,' but even at the time when he was preaching repentance to the people, he was in the solitude of Judea and was sustained by plain water,
so that in drink too he differed from the rest. We who live in cities, who are in the midst of crowds, seek finer clothes, foods, and dwellings; but he who dwelt in the wilderness -- see what clothing he wore: he had made himself a tunic 'of camel's hair' and was girded with 'a leather belt.' Everything in him, then,
was new, and because of the dissimilarity of his life, all who saw him marveled at him, and in their wonder they venerated him most zealously, above all because he baptized those who repented 'for the forgiveness of sins.' For these reasons they loved him, indeed, most rightly, but they did not keep the measure in their love: for they wondered 'whether perhaps he himself might be the Christ.' Guarding against this excessive and disordered love, the apostle Paul
spoke of himself: 'But I fear lest anyone think of me above what he sees or hears from me, and lest the greatness of the revelations exalt me,' and so on. Fearing that he too might fall into this, he was unwilling to disclose everything about himself that he knew, lest anyone should suppose him to be more than he appeared, and, exceeding the measure of honor due him, should say
what had been said about John, namely that he himself was the Christ. Indeed, some said this even of Dositheus, the heresiarch of the Samaritans, while others said it also of Judas the Galilean. In the end, some burst into such boldness of love that they fabricated new and unheard-of monstrosities about Paul. For some say that what is written -- 'to sit at the right hand and at the left of the Savior' --
is said of Paul and Marcion, that Paul sits “on the right,” and Marcion sits “on the left.” Further, others, reading “I will send you an advocate, the Spirit of truth,” refuse to understand by this a third person, distinct from the Father and the Son and of divine and sublime nature, but instead the apostle Paul. Do not all these people seem to you to have loved more than
is fitting, and, while admiring each one’s virtue, to have lost the measure of love? This indeed we too suffer in the church; for many, while loving us more than we deserve, boast of it and speak, praising our sermons and our teaching in ways our conscience does not accept. Others, however, slandering our treatises, accuse us of holding views which we know we have never held. But neither
those who love too much, nor those who hate, hold to the rule of truth, and some lie through love, others through hatred. Hence it is necessary to put a rein on love as well, and to allow it only so much freedom to range as will keep it from plunging over a precipice. It is written in Ecclesiastes: “Do not be righteous overmuch, nor think yourself wiser than you are, lest perhaps you be struck dumb.” Following this example
I can say something similar: do not love a man “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength,” do not love an angel “with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength,” but keep this precept, according to the word of the Savior, for God alone. For he says, “You shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” Let someone answer me and say: the Savior commanded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” I want to love Christ too: teach me, then,
how I am to love him. For if I love him “with all my heart and with all my soul and with all my strength,” I act against the precept, by loving another besides the one God. But if I love him less than the almighty Father, I fear I may be found impious and profane toward the “firstborn of all creation.” Teach me
and show me the reasoning by which, walking a middle course between the two, I ought to love Christ. Do you want to know with what love Christ is to be loved? Listen briefly! Love the Lord your God in Christ, and do not think you can have a different love for the Father and for the Son. Love God and Christ together; love the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father, “with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your strength.” But if someone asks and says: prove what you assert from the Scriptures, let him hear the apostle Paul, who had a reasoned love, saying: “For I am persuaded that death cannot, nor can life, nor can angels or powers, nor can what is present or what is to come, nor can any force, nor anything high, nor anything deep, nor any other created thing”
will have power to sunder us from God's love, found in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior: to whom be glory and power for ages upon ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 26 ========

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Our God also is a consuming fire. God is therefore called by two names: spirit and fire — spirit to the just, fire to sinners. But angels too are called spirits and fire: for, it says, “he who makes his angels spirits and his ministers”
“…a burning fire”; to the saints angels are spirits, but to those who deserve punishments they administer fire and burning. In keeping with this sense our Lord and Savior too, since he is “spirit,” “came to send fire upon the earth”; he is “spirit” according to what is written: “but when you turn to the Lord, the veil will be taken away,”
and: “the Lord is spirit.” But he “came to send” “fire,” not upon heaven, but “upon the earth,” as he himself shows, saying: “I came to send fire upon the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled.” For if you “turn to the Lord,” who is “spirit,” Christ will be “spirit” to you,
and not [came] to send fire upon [heaven]. But if you do not turn to him, but hold on to earth and its fruits, he “came to send fire” upon your “earth.” Something similar to this is also written of God: “a fire is kindled from my fury,” not up to heaven, but “down even to the depths of hell,”
and “it will devour,” not heaven, but “the earth and its produce.” Why have I recalled these things? Because the baptism with which Jesus baptizes is “in the Holy Spirit” and “in fire.” Of the things I have just spoken, the earlier explanation has not escaped my notice, but I want to bring forward something new as well. If you are holy, you will be baptized with the Holy
Spirit; if you are a sinner, you will be plunged into fire; and one and the same baptism will be turned into condemnation and fire for the unworthy and for sinners, while for those who are holy and turn to the Lord with their whole faith, the grace and salvation of the Holy Spirit are to be granted. He, then, who is said to baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire,” has “a winnowing fan in his hand, and”
“he will clean his threshing floor, and will gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” I want to find the reason why our Lord has “a winnowing fan,” and by the blowing of what wind the light chaff is carried this way and that, while the heavy wheat is brought together into one place; for wheat and chaff cannot be separated without wind. I judge
that trials are to be understood as the wind, which show, out of the mingled heap of believers, that some are chaff and others wheat. For when your soul has been overcome by some trial, it is not the trial that turns you into chaff, but since you were already chaff — that is, light and unbelieving — the trial reveals what you were hiding. On the other hand, when you bear trials bravely, the trial does not make you faithful,
...trial and the patient man, but it brings into the open the virtue of patience and fortitude that was in you, though hidden. For do you suppose, says the Lord, that I spoke to you for any other reason than that you might appear righteous? And elsewhere: I afflicted you and brought you into want, so that what was in your heart might be made manifest. In this same way also
...storm does not let a building stand on sand, but, if you wish to build, build on the rock — for when the storm has arisen, it will not overturn what is founded upon the rock, whereas what is unsteady, built upon sand, at once proves that it was not well founded. Therefore, before the storm arises, before the blasts of the winds rise up, before the rivers swell, while still
everything is quiet, let us turn all our effort toward the foundations of our building; let us build our house with the varied, firm stones of God's precepts, so that, when persecution rages fiercely and a savage whirlwind rises up against Christians, we may show that we have our building founded upon the rock, Christ Jesus. But if anyone — far be it from us — should deny him, let that person know that it was not at the moment when
he appeared to have denied that he denied Christ, but that he had already long possessed the seeds and roots of denial, and it was only then recognized what he had, and it was brought out into the open. Let us pray, then, to the Lord that we may be a firm building which no storm can overturn, founded upon the rock, our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 27 ========

Whoever teaches the word of the gospel does not announce one thing, but many things. For this is what scripture indicates when it says: "and exhorting, he announced many other things as well." And so John also preached to the people "other things" that are not written; but consider how great were the things that are written. He announced Christ, pointed him out, preached the baptism of the Holy Spirit; he taught tax collectors salvation, soldiers discipline, the threshing floor
to be cleansed, trees to be cut down, and the rest that the gospel's history relates. Besides these things, then, which are written, he is shown to have announced other things as well that are not written, in what is said: "and exhorting, he announced many other things to the people." And just as it is reported in the gospel according to John concerning Christ, that he spoke many other things as well, "which are not written in
this book," "which, if they were written, I do not think the world itself could hold the books that would have to be written": so understand also in the present passage, that perhaps Luke, because certain greater things were being announced by John than ought to be entrusted to writing, was unwilling to state them by name, but only indicated that they were said, and therefore said: "and exhorting, he announced many other
things to the people." Let us marvel at John, indeed from these things that follow as well, especially that "among those born of women no one was greater than John the Baptist," and that he rose, deservedly, to so great a reputation for virtue that by many he "was thought to be the Christ." But this is far more marvelous: Herod the tetrarch held royal power and was able to kill him, had he wished, whenever he wished;
and although he had committed an unjust act, contrary to the law of Moses, in taking his brother's wife, who had a daughter by her former husband, he did not fear him, did not show partiality, did not consider — as I said — his royal power, did not dread destruction — for he knew, even if he were not a prophet, that if provoked the man could kill him — knowing all these things, then, with prophetic
freedom he rebuked Herod and denounced the incestuous marriage, and for this he was shut up "in prison," not anxious about death, not about the uncertain judgment of the judge, but in his chains he thought about Christ, whom he had announced. And because he himself could not go to him, he sends his disciples to inquire: "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?"
Notice that he taught "even in prison." For how else did he have disciples there, and for what reason did they remain there continually, except that even in prison he performed the office of a teacher and instructed them with divine words? Among these things, when a question arose about Jesus, he sends one of his disciples and asks: "Are you the one who
is to come, or are we to wait for another?" The disciples return and report to their teacher what the Savior had ordered to be reported: armed with these words, John confidently goes to his death in battle and gladly has his head cut off, strengthened by the voice of the Lord himself that he whom he believed was truly the Son of God. This concerning John and his freedom, and concerning Herod's madness, who to his many crimes added this as well, that
would first shut John up in prison and afterward behead him. But since the Lord was baptized and the heavens were opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon him, and a voice thundered out of heaven, declaring, “Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased,” it must be said that at the baptism of Jesus heaven was unlocked, and for the dispensation of the forgiveness of sins — not his own,
who had committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth — but that the heavens were opened for the sake of the whole world, and the Holy Spirit descended, so that, after the Lord had ascended on high leading captivity captive, he might bestow on us the Spirit who had come to him, and whom indeed he also gave at the time of his resurrection, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit;
whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained.” Now the Holy Spirit descended upon the Savior in the form of a dove, a gentle bird, innocent and simple. Hence we too are commanded to imitate the innocence of doves. Such is the Holy Spirit: pure, winged, and rising to the heights. For this reason, praying, we say, “Who will give me wings like a dove, that I may fly away
and be at rest?” — that is, who will give me the wings of the Holy Spirit? And in another place the prophetic word promises, “If you sleep in the midst of the lots, the wings of the dove are covered with silver, and her back is in the greenness of gold.” For if we rest in the midst of the lots of the old and new testament, there will be given to us the silvered wings of the dove,
that is, the words of God, and her hindparts in the brightness of gold and the greenness of grace, so that our understanding may be filled with the perceptions of the Holy Spirit — that is, so that our word and mind may be filled by his coming, and we may speak nothing and understand nothing except what he suggests, and all sanctification, whether in the heart, or in words and in deed,
may come from the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 28 ========

Our Lord and Savior, who was far better than Melchizedek—whose genealogy scripture did not record—is now described as born according to the order of the fathers; and although his divinity is not subject to a human beginning, for your sake, since you were born in the flesh, he willed to be born. Yet the order of his birth is not narrated in the same way by the evangelists, a matter that has troubled a good many people. For Matthew, beginning to weave
the sequence of his genealogy from Abraham, arrives at the point of saying: ‘Now the birth of Christ was thus,’ and he describes not the one who was baptized, but the one who came into the world; but Luke, in setting out his birth, does not lead from the higher down to the lower, but having first said that he was baptized, proceeds all the way up to God himself. Nor are the same
persons present in his genealogy when he is said to descend and when to ascend. For the one who makes him descend from the heavens also introduces women—not just any women, but sinners, women whom scripture had censured; but the one who narrates him as baptized makes mention of no woman at all. In Matthew, then, as we have said, Tamar is named, who by deceit lay with her father-in-law, and Ruth the Moabite, who was not even of
the race of Israel, and Rahab, of whose origin I am unable to say, and the wife of Uriah, who violated her husband’s marriage bed. For since our Lord and Savior had come for this purpose, to take upon himself the sins of men, and God ‘made him who had done no sin to be sin for us,’ therefore, in descending into the world, he assumed the person of sinful and corrupt men, and willed to be born
from the line of Solomon, whose sins are recorded in writing, and of Rehoboam, whose offenses are related, and of the rest, many of whom ‘did evil in the sight of the Lord.’ But when he ascends from the washing and is described as born a second time, he is born not through Solomon but through Nathan, who rebuked his father over the death of Uriah and the birth of Solomon. But in Matthew the word ‘begot’ is always added;
here, however, it is passed over entirely in silence. For it is written there: ‘Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah and his brothers, Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar,’ and ‘begot’ is added right through to the end. But in Luke, where Jesus ascends from the washing, he is called ‘son,’ ‘as was supposed, of Joseph’;
and throughout so long a series of names, never—except where it says ‘he was reckoned a son of Joseph’—is the word ‘begetting’ written. In Matthew it is not written ‘was beginning’; but here, because he was about to ascend from baptism, we read ‘was beginning,’ the scripture stating: ‘and Jesus himself was beginning.’ For when he was baptized and took up the mystery of the second
birth, so that you too might set aside your former birth and be born in a second regeneration, then he is said ‘to have begun.’ And just as the people of the Jews, while they were in Egypt, had no beginning of months, but when they went out of Egypt, then it was said to them, ‘this month shall be for you the beginning of months, the first of the months of the year’—so too, one who has not yet
...he was baptized, and it is not narrated that he “began.” For let us not think it added for nothing, in what is said, “he himself was Jesus,” what follows: “beginning.” But this too should be considered, what it says: “about thirty years old.” “Joseph was thirty years old” when he was released from his chains and had interpreted the dream of Pharaoh of Egypt
he was made ruler, and in the time of abundance gathered wheat, so that in time of famine he might have something to distribute. I think that Joseph's thirty years, as a type, preceded the thirty years of the Savior. For this Joseph did not gather wheat such as that Joseph gathered in Egypt, but true and heavenly wheat, so that with wheat gathered in the time of abundance he might have something to distribute when famine was sent into
Egypt — “not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the word of God.” He therefore gathers from the prophets, from the law, from the apostles, words of abundance, so that when books are no longer being written, and no new testament is being composed, and apostles are no longer being sent, those things which had been carried by Jesus into the granaries of the apostles — that is, into their souls and the souls of all the saints — then
he may distribute and nourish Egypt, imperiled by famine, and especially his own brothers. Of these it is written: “I will declare your name to my brothers, in the midst of the church I will sing.” Other men, too, have words of patience and words of justice and words of the rest of the virtues; this is the wheat that Joseph distributed to the Egyptians. But it is a different grain that he gives to his brothers, that is, to his disciples, from
the land of Goshen, the land that faces toward the east: evangelical wheat, apostolic wheat. From this wheat we ought to make loaves, yet in such a way that they are not mixed with the “old,” and that we may have new bread ground from the wheat and flour of the Scriptures, in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 29 ========

When you read in the Gospel: "But Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned," and likewise in the book that recounts the deeds of the apostles, which says of them that they "were filled" with "the Spirit," beware of thinking that the apostles are equal to the Savior. Rather, know that Jesus and the apostles and any other of the saints are full of the Holy Spirit, each according to the measure of his own vessel; and just as, for
example's sake, if you wished to say: these vessels are full of wine or oil, you do not thereby indicate that they are full in equal measure -- since one vessel can hold a pint, another a jar, another an amphora -- in the same way both Jesus and Paul were full of the Holy Spirit; but Paul's vessel was far smaller than Jesus' vessel, and yet each was, according to
its own measure, filled completely. Thus, having received baptism, the Savior was "full" of the Holy Spirit, who came upon him "in the form of a dove" and "led him" by the Spirit. For since "as many as" these "are sons of God," while he, beyond all of them, is properly the Son of God, he too had to be led by the Holy Spirit. For it is written: "And he was led into the desert by the Spirit for forty
days, and was tempted by the devil." For forty days he is tempted, and what the temptations were we do not know; perhaps they were omitted for this reason, that they were too great to be entrusted to writing. And if it is right to put it this way: just as "the world could not contain the books," if everything that Jesus taught and did had been written down, so too the world
could not have borne the temptations of those days, by which the Lord was tempted by the devil, had Scripture told of them. It is enough for us to know only this much, that "for forty days he was in the desert and was tempted by the devil, and ate nothing in those days"; for he was mortifying the perception of the flesh by continuous, unbroken fasting. "And when the days were completed, he was hungry. And the devil said to him: If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread."
"Tell" -- "this stone." Which stone? Surely the one the devil was pointing to, the one he wants turned into bread. What sort of temptation is this -- that when the Son asks the Father for bread and the Father does not give a stone, this adversary, shifty and deceitful, should offer a stone in place of bread? This is the whole of what the devil wanted: that the stone should become bread, and not
that people should eat bread, but that they should feed on the stone which the devil had pointed out in place of bread. I think that to this very day the devil points out a stone and urges each person to say: "tell this stone to become bread." With every temptation by which human beings were to be tempted, the Lord, according to his assumption of flesh, was tempted first. And he is tempted for this reason: that we too, through his victory, might conquer. What I am saying
will perhaps be obscure, unless it is made clearer by an example. If you see heretics eating the falsehood of their own doctrines in place of bread, know that their stone is the discourse which the devil points out to them. And do not suppose that he has only one stone; he has many stones, concerning which he is introduced in Matthew saying: "tell these stones to become loaves." Marcion said it, and the devil's stone became
is bread. Valentinus said this, and another stone was turned into bread for him; Basilides too had this kind of bread, and so did the other heretics. Hence we must take careful precaution, lest perhaps, by eating the devil's stone, we think we are feeding on the bread of God. Otherwise, what would have been the temptation in the stone becoming bread and being eaten by the Savior? For let us imagine that, at the devil's proposal, the Lord had turned the stone into bread
and had eaten what he himself had made by his own power, and had satisfied his hunger: what sort of temptation would this be, what victory for the devil, if these things were written? These things, as we have said, once their reasoning is closely examined, show both that it would have been a temptation, had it happened, and that the victory lay in its being scorned. At the same time it is shown that this bread, which would be made from a stone, is not the word of God that nourishes man,
about which it is written: ‘Not on bread alone is man to live, but on every utterance that comes forth from the mouth of God shall he live.’ I answer you, O shape-shifter and wicked one, who do not fear to tempt me: there is another bread, the word of God, which gives life to man. And let us also observe that these words are spoken not by the Son of God, but by the man whom
the Son of God deigned to take on. For he answers as though speaking as a man, and says: 'It is written, man shall not live by bread alone,' by which it is clear that it was not God but man who was tempted. Carefully winnowing the sense of Scripture, I think I have found the reason why John did not describe the Lord's temptation, but only Matthew, Luke, and Mark did so. For John, because
he had made his beginning from God, saying, ‘In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with God, and the Word was God,’ could not have set forth only the order of the divine generation—that he was from God and with God—and after he had expressed it, added: ‘And the Word was made flesh.’ Further, since God cannot be tempted, and it was of God that he was speaking, he therefore does not introduce him as tempted by the devil
he does not introduce him as tempted. But because 'the book of the generation of Jesus Christ' tells in the Gospel of him as a man who had been born of Mary, and in Luke his genealogy is described, and in Mark it is the man who is tempted—for that reason a like reply is reported of him: 'man shall not live by bread.' If, then, the Son of God was made man for your sake and
is tempted, you, who are by nature a man, ought not to be indignant if perhaps you are tempted. But if, when tempted, you imitate that man who was tempted for your sake, and overcome every temptation, you will have hope together with him who was then a man, but has now ceased to be man. For he who was once a man, after he had been tempted and 'the devil departed from
him until' the time of death, 'and having risen from the dead, dies no more.' Every man is subject to death; this one, therefore, who no longer dies at all, is no longer man, but is God. But if he who was once man is God, and you must become like him, since 'we shall be like him and shall see him as he is,' you
...it will also be necessary that God come to be in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 30 ========

Both the Son of God and the Antichrist share a zeal for reigning. But the Antichrist desires to reign in order to kill those he has subjected to himself; Christ reigns for this purpose, that he may save. And each one of us, if he is faithful, is ruled by Christ through word, wisdom, justice, and truth. But if we prize pleasure above God rather than holding God dearer than pleasure, we are ruled by sin, of which the Apostle speaks: ‘Let not sin, then, reign in
your mortal body.’ Two kings, then, hasten to reign: the king of sin over sinners is the devil, the king of righteousness over the righteous is Christ. And the devil, knowing that Christ had come for this purpose—to take away his kingdom, so that those who were under him should begin to be under Christ—‘showed him the kingdoms of the world’ and of the men of this age: how some are ruled by fornication, others by avarice, others by popular
acclaim be swept away, others be captured by the allurements of beauty. Nor indeed should it be thought that, in showing him the kingdoms of the world, he displayed, for example, the kingdom of the Persians and of the Indians; rather ‘he showed him all the kingdoms,’ that is, his own kingdom, and how he reigned in the world, so that, by urging him to do what he wanted, he might come to have Christ too as his subject. ‘Do you wish,’ he says, ‘to reign over all these?’
He showed him the innumerable multitudes of men who were held under his dominion. And indeed, if we wish simply to confess our misery and unhappiness, the devil is king of almost the whole world; hence he is also called by the Savior ‘the prince of this age.’ He says, then, this: Do you see these men, who are under my kingdom?—and ‘he showed him in a moment of time,’ that
is, in passing—which, compared to eternity, holds the place of a mere instant. For the Savior had no need to have the affairs of this age displayed to him at greater length: as soon as he turned the keenness of his eyes to contemplate them, he beheld both the sins that reign and those who are ruled by vices, and the very ‘prince of this age’ himself, swelling with pride and rejoicing to his own ruin, because he held so many under
his dominion. The devil, then, says to the Lord: Have you come for this, to fight against me and take away from my dominion those whom I now hold subject? I do not want you to contend, I do not want you to strive, lest you have any trouble in the contest. There is but one thing I ask: ‘fall down and worship me,’ and the whole kingdom that I hold is yours. But our Lord and Savior does indeed wish
to reign and to have all the nations subject to himself, that they may serve righteousness, truth, and the other virtues; but he wishes to reign as righteousness itself, that he may reign without sin, that he may do nothing unseemly, and he does not wish, without labor, to be crowned by submitting to the devil, nor to reign over others in such a way that he himself is ruled by the devil. Hence he says to him: ‘It is written: You shall worship the Lord your God, and
him only shall you serve.’ All these, he says, I wish for this reason to be subject to me, that they may ‘worship the Lord and serve him alone’; this is the desire of my kingdom. But you wish me to begin sin from myself—sin which I came here to dissolve, and which I desire to take away from others as well. Know, know, and understand that I remain firm in what I have said: that the Lord should be worshiped
I alone am God, and I will bring all these under my power and subject them to my kingdom. We rejoice that we too are subject to him, and let us pray to God that he may put to death the “reigning sin” in our body, and that Christ Jesus alone may reign in us: to whom is glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 31 ========

Search the scriptures, so that even in those things which seem to be simple you may find no small mysteries. Let us examine the beginning of the gospel reading that we heard today, and let what was hidden come out into the open. "The devil," it says, "led Jesus into..." This is hard to believe, that the devil would lead the Son of God and that he would follow. He followed, clearly, as an athlete setting out willingly to the contest. He did not
fear the tempter, nor did he dread the snares of the most cunning enemy, but spoke in a sense: lead where you wish, tempt as you please, I give myself willingly to be tempted, I withstand whatever you propose, I offer myself for whatever you tempt me with: you will find me stronger than you in everything. "He led him, then, and stationed him on the temple's pinnacle, saying to him: if you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here." "He led him onto
the height, to the top of the temple, and urges him to hurl himself down from there. When he was deceitfully proposing this and striving after something else under a show of glory, the Savior said: "It is written: you shall not tempt the Lord your God." And at the same time consider how the devil tempts. He does not dare to tempt from anywhere else except from the divine books, and taking his testimony from the Psalms he says: "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down."
For it is written: "that he has commanded his angels concerning you, and they will bear you up in their hands, lest perhaps you strike your foot against a stone." Where did you get this, devil, that these things are written? Have you by chance read the prophets or come to know the divine sayings? Even though you are silent, I will answer on your behalf. You have read them, not so that you yourself might become better from the reading of the holy books, but
so that from the mere letter you might kill those who are friends of the letter. You know that if you wished to speak from other volumes, you would not deceive anyone, nor could your assertions carry any authority. Thus Marcion read the scriptures like the devil, thus Basilides, thus Valentinus, so that together with the devil they might say to the Savior: "It is written, that he has commanded his angels concerning you, and they will bear you up in their hands, lest perhaps
you strike your foot against a stone." If ever you hear testimonies from the scriptures, do not immediately agree with the one speaking, but consider whose life it is, whose opinion, whose will it belongs to, lest by chance he pretend to be holy when he is not, and, infected with the poison of heresy, a wolf lurk beneath a sheep's skin, lest by chance the devil be speaking in him from the scriptures. But how
the devil speaks from the scriptures for the occasion of deceiving, so, on the contrary, Paul, for the benefit of those who hear him, takes his testimony not only from the scriptures but also from secular books, and says: "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy bellies," and again of another: "for we too are his offspring," and also from a comic poet: "evil conversations corrupt good morals."
But neither, if the devil has spoken from the scriptures, will he be able to deceive me by this occasion, nor, if Paul has taken some example from pagan literature, will he deter me from his eloquence. For Paul takes up words even from things that are outside, for this reason: that he might sanctify them. Let us see, then, what the devil says from the scriptures to the Lord: "For it is written, that
He commanded his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, lest perhaps you strike your foot against a stone." See how in these very testimonies he is a shape-shifter. For he wants to diminish the glory of the Savior, as though he needed the help of angels to keep from striking his foot, unless he were held up by their hands. He takes a testimony and interprets it as being about Christ, when it was written not about Christ, but about the saints in general.
I therefore freely and with full confidence contradict the devil: this cannot be understood of the person of Christ. For he does not need the help of angels, he who has obtained an inheritance and a name greater and better than theirs. To none of the angels did God ever say: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"; he spoke to none of them as to a son, he "who makes his angels
spirits, and his ministers a burning fire," but to his own Son, of whom he speaks countless things in the prophets. The Son of God, I say, does not need the help of angels. Rather learn this, devil: unless Jesus helps the angels, they strike their foot. And if any of the angels has been seen to stumble - those of whom it was read long ago, "for we shall judge angels" - it is for this reason: because he did not
stretch out his hand toward Jesus, so that, taken hold of by him, he might not stumble. For whenever someone, trusting in his own strength, does not invoke the aid of Jesus, he stumbles and falls. And you, devil, for this reason fell "like lightning from heaven," because you were unwilling to believe in Christ the Son of God. But so that you may know that you have interpreted wrongly, and that what follows is to be understood not of Christ but of
the saints, listen. "From ruin and the demon" God does not free Jesus Christ, but the saints. Read the ninetieth psalm, whose beginning is: "He who dwells in the help of the Most High will abide under the protection of the God of heaven," and you will find that it fits a righteous man better than the Son of God: "a thousand shall fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand,
but it shall not come near you; only with your eyes shall you behold, and you shall see the recompense of sinners" and the rest, interpreting it of the person of the righteous man. But even so, the devil, wrongly taking up these testimonies, in order to assert that what was said of the righteous should be understood of the Savior, falls silent and passes over the verses that were written against himself. For when he had said: "He has commanded his angels concerning
you, and they will lift you up in their hands, lest perhaps you strike your foot against a stone," he passes over what follows: "you shall walk upon the asp and the basilisk, and you shall trample the lion and the dragon." Why, devil, are you silent about this, if not because you are the "basilisk," you the king of all serpents, having more harmful venoms than the rest, who kill anyone the moment you are seen? You know
that there is also another power hostile to your ally, which is the "asp," and which has been subjected to the righteous man, and therefore you pass over all of it in silence. You are the "dragon," you are the "lion," of whom it is written: "upon the asp and ... and you shall trample the lion and the dragon." But although you are silent, we who read the scriptures more correctly know that we have been given the power to trample you and
...this dominion to us. For I mean not only in the Old Testament, as is now sung in the psalm, but also in the New, when the Savior says: ‘Behold, I give you power over serpents and scorpions, and over every strength the enemy possesses, and nothing will harm you.’ Let us take up arms, strengthened by so great a power, and let us do the reverse, so that through our way of life we may trample down the lion and the dragon. Moreover,
so that you may know how the dragon is ‘trampled down’ and ‘crushed,’ read the epistle of Paul, in which the Son of God [is trampled] by the sinner. So then, just as the one who is a sinner tramples the Son of God, so on the contrary, the one who is righteous ‘tramples the lion, the dragon,’ tramples ‘all the power of the enemy’ of Christ: to whom is glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 32 ========

First, "Jesus returned from the Jordan full of the Holy Spirit and was led by the Spirit in the desert for forty days," when he was being tempted by the devil, and since he was still to contend against him, "spirit" is set down once and then a second time, without any addition. But when he had overcome by fighting the three temptations that scripture records, see how pointedly and carefully it now speaks of the Spirit.
"Jesus," it says, "returned in the power of the Spirit." It is "power" because he had trampled the dragon and had defeated the tempter hand to hand. "So in the Spirit's power Jesus went back into Galilee, and word of him spread through the whole surrounding country. And he himself was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone glorified him." When you read, "he was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone gave him glory,"
was glorified by all," beware of judging only those people blessed and supposing yourself deprived of the teaching. If what is written is true, the Lord speaks not only then, in the assemblies of the Jews, but also today in this assembly; and not only in this one, but also in every other gathering and throughout the whole world Jesus teaches, seeking instruments through which
he may teach. Pray that he may find me too tuned and fit for singing! For just as almighty God seeks out prophets at the time when mortals need prophecy, and finds them—Isaiah, for instance, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel—so Jesus seeks instruments through which he may teach his word, or instruct the peoples in the synagogues, "and be glorified by all." Now he is glorified by all even more
than at the time when he was known in only one province. Then, "he arrived at Nazareth, the place of his upbringing, and, as was his custom, went into the synagogue on the sabbath and rose to read; and the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him; and unrolling the book, he found the place where it was written: 'Upon me rests the Spirit of the Lord, because of which he has anointed me.'" It was not by chance that he unrolled the book and found the passage about himself
in the reading, but this too was by God's providence. For as it is written, "not a sparrow falls into a snare without the will of the Father," and "all the hairs of the head" of the apostles are numbered—perhaps this too was providence: that the book of Isaiah in particular was the one found, and no other reading but this one, which spoke of the mystery of Christ: "Upon me rests the Spirit of the Lord; for this reason
he has anointed me." For it is Christ who calls these things to mind—one must not suppose that this happened randomly and by chance, but by the providence and arrangement of God. Let us then consider what it was that was spoken in the prophet and that he afterward proclaimed of himself in the synagogue. "To evangelize," "he has sent me to the poor." It signifies the nations; for these were "the poor," having nothing at all,
neither God, nor the law, nor the prophets, nor righteousness nor the remaining virtues. For this reason God sent him, to announce to the poor: "to preach release to captives." We were the ones whom Satan had bound for so many years, holding us captive and subject to himself. Jesus came "to preach to captives," and to the blind, "that they might see"; for by his word and teaching the blind do see. Let "preaching," then, be understood not
...not only over captives, but also over the blind. "To send forth the broken in freedom." In what way was that man broken and crushed, who was released and healed by Jesus? "To proclaim the acceptable [year] of the Lord." According to the simple understanding, they say that the Savior preached the gospel in Judea for a year, and that this is what is meant by the words: "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day" — unless perhaps something
of a mystery is signified by the divine word in the proclamation of the year of the Lord. For there will be other days, not such as we now see in this world, and other months, and a different order of the calendar. Just as those other things will be different, then, so too the year of the Lord to come will be pleasing. But all these things were foretold, so that after sight from blindness, after freedom from chains, after healing from
various wounds, we might come to "the acceptable year of the Lord." When Jesus had read these things, rolling up "the book, he handed it to the attendant, sat down, and every eye in the synagogue was fixed upon him." And if you wish, in this synagogue and assembly too your eyes can be fixed upon the Savior. For when you have directed the chief gaze of your heart toward wisdom and truth and toward contemplating the Only-Begotten of God, your eyes behold
Jesus. Blessed is the congregation of which scripture testifies that "the eyes of all were fixed upon him." I would wish this assembly to have a like testimony, that the eyes of all — of catechumens and of the faithful, of women and of men and of little children, not the eyes of the body, but of the soul — might behold Jesus! For when you have looked toward him, your faces will grow brighter from his light and gaze, and
you will be able to say: "The light of your face, Lord, has been sealed upon us" — to whom is glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 33 ========

As far as Luke's narrative is concerned, Jesus had not yet stayed in Capernaum, nor is he described as having done any sign there, since he had not yet been there. But before he came to Capernaum, he is recorded to have been in his own homeland, that is, in Nazareth, and to have said to his fellow citizens: "Surely you will say to me this parable: Physician, heal yourself. Whatever we have heard done in Capernaum,
do here also in your own homeland." From this I think that something of a mystery lies hidden in the present passage, and that Nazareth stands as a type of the Jews, Capernaum as a type of the Gentiles who came first. Knowing, then, that he would not have honor in his own homeland, neither he himself nor the prophets nor the apostles, Jesus was unwilling to preach there, but preached among the Gentiles, so that it might not be said to him by the people of his homeland: "Surely you will say to me this
parable: Physician, heal yourself." For there will be a time when the people of the Jews will say: "Whatever we have heard done in Capernaum" among the Gentiles — signs and wonders — "do also among us in your own homeland"; the things you have shown to the whole world, show also to us; preach your word to your own people Israel, so that at least, "when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, then all Israel
may be saved." For this reason it seems to me that the Savior, in answering the people of Nazareth as they questioned him, spoke consistently and in due order: "No prophet is accepted in his own homeland." And I think that what is said is true more according to the mystical sense than according to the letter. For Jeremiah too was not accepted in Anathoth, his own homeland, and Isaiah, whatever his homeland was, and the rest of the prophets likewise; but it seems to me rather that it should be
understood in this way: that we should say the homeland of all the prophets was the people of the circumcision, and that this people did not receive the prophets and their prophecies; while the nations, which had been far from the prophets and had no knowledge of them, received the prophecy of Jesus Christ. "No one is" therefore "accepted in his own homeland" — that is, among the people of the Jews. But we, who were strangers to the covenant and foreigners
to the promises, have received the prophets with our whole heart, and we possess "Moses and the prophets" concerning Christ more truly than those do who, because they did not receive Jesus, did not receive those either who announced him. For this reason, in addition to what he had said — "no prophet is accepted in his own homeland" — he said also this: "For in truth I say to you, that there were many widows in the days of Elijah in
Israel, when heaven was shut for three years and six months." What he says is this: Elijah was a prophet, and he was among the people of the Jews; but when he was about to do something marvelous, though there were many widows in Israel, he left them and went "to a woman in Zarephath of Sidon," to a Gentile woman, thereby unfolding a figure of the matter — because, while the people Israel were gripped "not by hunger
nor thirst for water, but by hunger for hearing the word of God" — he came to the widow, of whom the prophet also testifies, saying, "the children are many, more than hers who has a husband," and when he had come, he multiplied her food. You were the widow in Zarephath of Sidon, from whose territory "the Canaanite woman goes out" and desires that her daughter be healed, and by reason of her faith she deserved that
...was asking. 'Now there were many widows among the people of Israel, and Elijah was sent to none of them, except to a widow woman in Zarephath.' But he also says something else bearing on the same point: 'There were many lepers in Israel in the days of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, except Naaman the Syrian,' who of course was not from... Consider, up to
the present day, many lepers in the flesh of 'Israel'; see, by contrast, those defiled with the squalor of leprosy being cleansed by Elisha, our Lord and Savior, through the sacrament of baptism, and being told: 'Arise and go to the Jordan and wash, and your flesh will be restored to you.' Naaman arose and went, and once washed he fulfilled baptism, 'and his flesh became
like the flesh of a child.' A child? He who was born 'in the washing of regeneration' is Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 34 ========

Although there are many precepts in the law, the Savior set down in the gospel only these, which by a certain compendium would lead the obedient to eternal life. For this looks to what the teacher of the law had asked him, saying: ‘Teacher, what must I do to possess eternal life?’ — this reading according to Luke has been read to you today. He answered: ‘What is written in the law? How do you read
it? You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole strength, and with your whole mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ And then: ‘You have answered rightly,’ he said, ‘do this, and you shall live.’ There is no doubt that it is eternal life concerning which both the teacher of the law had asked and
the Savior’s word had been. At the same time we are clearly taught that it is commanded in the law that we love God. In Deuteronomy: ‘Hear, the Lord your God is one,’ and: ‘You shall love your God with your whole mind’ and the rest, and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ And the Savior bore witness to these things, saying: ‘On these two commandments hang the whole law and the prophets.’
Since the teacher of the law wished to justify himself and to show that no one was his neighbor, and said, ‘Who is my neighbor?’, the Lord brought forward the parable whose beginning is: ‘A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho,’ and so on. He teaches that no one was the neighbor of the man going down, except the one who was willing to keep the precepts and to prepare himself to be a neighbor to every man who needs help. This
indeed is what is set at the end, after the parable: ‘Which of the three seems to you to have been the neighbor of the one who fell among robbers?’ For neither the priest nor the Levite were his neighbors, but, as the teacher of the law himself also answered, ‘the one who showed mercy’ was his neighbor. Hence also it is said by the Savior: ‘Go, and do likewise.’ A certain one of the elders used to say, wishing to interpret the parable,
that the man who went down is Adam, Jerusalem paradise, Jericho the world, the robbers the hostile powers, the priest the law, the Levite the prophets, the Samaritan Christ, the wounds disobedience, the animal the body of the Lord, the inn — that is, the stable — which receives all who wish to enter it, the church... [text corrupt] ...interpreted in this way. Further, that the two denarii are understood as the Father and the Son, the innkeeper as the president of the church, to whom the stewardship has been entrusted. Concerning
the fact that the Samaritan promises that he will return, this prefigured the second coming of the Savior. Although these things are said reasonably and beautifully, it must nevertheless not be supposed that they pertain to every man. For not every man ‘goes down from Jerusalem to Jericho,’ nor do they for that reason dwell in the present age — although he who ‘was sent for the sheep that were lost’ belonging to the house of Israel... The man who ‘from
Jerusalem went down to Jericho’ did so because he himself wished it, and for that reason fell ‘among robbers.’ But the robbers are none other than those of whom the Savior says: ‘All who came before me were thieves and robbers.’ He did not fall among thieves, but among robbers far worse than thieves, who set upon him as he went down from Jerusalem. When he had fallen among them, they stripped him and laid upon him
What are the blows, what are the wounds, by which the man was wounded? Vices and sins. Then, because the robbers who had stripped him and wounded him do not sit beside him naked, but having inflicted blows again they abandon him, it is therefore written: "stripping him and inflicting wounds they went away and left him" — not dead, but half-dead. Now it happened that on that same road first
a "priest" and a "Levite" went down, who perhaps had done good to other men, but not to this one, who had gone down "from Jerusalem to Jericho." For him the "priest" saw — the law, I suppose — the "Levite" saw him — the prophetic word — and when they had seen him, they passed by and left him. For providence was keeping the half-dead man for one who was stronger than the law and the prophets, namely the Samaritan, who is interpreted "guardian
". This is he who "neither slumbers nor sleeps." This Samaritan set out on account of the half-dead man, not "from Jerusalem to Jericho" as the priest and the Levite were going down; rather he went down, and for this reason he went down: to save and guard the one about to die — the one to whom the Jews said: "You are a Samaritan and have a demon," and who, though he had denied having a demon, refused
to deny [being a Samaritan]; for he knew that he was the "guardian." "the guardian." And so, coming to the half-dead man, and having seen him wallowing in his own blood, he approached him in pity, so as to become his neighbor; "he bound up his wounds," pouring in oil mixed with wine, and did not say what is read in the prophet: "there is no poultice to apply, neither oil nor..." This is the "Samaritan," by whose care and help
all who are afflicted are in need — and of his help the Samaritans above all had need, the man who, "going down from Jerusalem," had "fallen among robbers" and, wounded by them, had been left half-dead. But that you may know that it was according to the providence of God that this Samaritan went down, in order to heal the one who had "fallen among robbers," you will be plainly taught from this: that he had with him bandages, with him oil, with him wine — which indeed
I think he was carrying with him not on account of this one half-dead man alone, but on account of others too, who for various causes had been wounded and were in need of bandages and oil and wine — these the Samaritan carried with him. He had "oil," of which it is written: "that he might make the face cheerful with oil" — no doubt the oil of the one who had been healed. "Oil," that the swellings of the wounds might be soothed; but "wine" too cleanses wounds,
mixing in something of its sharpness, and the one who had been wounded he "placed upon his own" — that is, upon his own body, in keeping with the fact that he deigned to take on the nature of man. This Samaritan "bears our sins" and grieves for us; he carries the half-dead man, and brings him into the "inn," that is, into the church, which receives all and denies its help to none, to which Jesus calls everyone, saying: "Come to
me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest." And after he had brought him in, he does not depart at once, but for one day he remains in the stable with the half-dead man and tends his wounds not only by day but also by night, devoting the rest of his care and diligence. And when he wished to set out in the morning, from his tested silver, from his tested money
"he takes two denarii" and honors the innkeeper — no doubt the angel of the church — instructing him to care for the man diligently and bring him through to health, the man whom he himself had also cared for, because of the shortness of the time. The "two denarii" seem to me to be the knowledge concerning the Father and concerning the Son, and the knowledge of the mystery of how the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, which is given to the angel as a kind of reward,
so that he may care more diligently for the man entrusted to him, and it is promised him that whatever he spends of his own for the healing of the half-dead man will be repaid at once. Truly, according to the Law and the Prophets, this "guardian" of souls, "who showed mercy to the man who had fallen among robbers," made his appearance not so much in word as in deed. Since, then, it is possible, according to what is said, "Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ,"
for us to imitate Christ and to have mercy on those who "had fallen among robbers," to come to them, to bind up their wounds, to pour on oil and wine, to set them upon our own animal and to carry their burdens, the Son of God, exhorting us to such things, speaks not so much to the teacher of the Law as to all of us as well: "Go, and do likewise." If we do likewise,
eternal life in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 35 ========

If it were not implanted in us by nature to judge what is just, the Savior would never have said: "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is just?" But so that we do not wander too far afield in proving this point, especially since matters much more difficult are attached to this chapter, let it suffice to have indicated this much, and let us rather spread the sails of our souls toward God and pray for the coming of the word,
so that he may interpret the parable about which it is written: "When you go with your adversary before the ruler on the way, make an effort to be freed from him, lest he hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not come out from there until you have paid the last penny." I see four persons set forth: the adversary, the ruler, the judge, the officer; and
since the evangelist Matthew seems to have said something similar where he says: "Be well disposed toward your adversary while you are on the way with him," I ask whether the sense is the same or whether there is some kinship between them, since in Matthew one person is omitted and another is changed. The [ruler] is omitted, and in place of "officer" is inserted "adversary," and "judge" is likewise set down by
both. So we go "with our" [adversary] "to the ruler," and it is necessary for us, while we still have time, to labor vigorously, that we may be freed from him. From whom? For the wording is indeed ambiguous and can be referred either to the ruler or to the adversary: "lest" either the ruler "hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer," and: "you will not"
until you have paid the last penny" — for which Matthew has "until you pay the last quadrans." Each kept it, but they appear to differ in that this one set down "quadrans" and the other "penny." For my part, more hidden matters must be touched upon, that we may understand the adversary to be one thing, and the other three persons — that is, the ruler, the judge, the officer — to be another. We read — if indeed it pleases anyone to accept a writing of this kind —
of angels of justice and of iniquity disputing over the salvation and the destruction of Abraham, while each of the two companies wishes to claim him for its own assembly. But if this displeases anyone, let him turn to the volume entitled "The Shepherd," and he will find that two angels are present to every man: an evil one, who exhorts to perverse things, and a good one, who persuades to all that is best. It is also written elsewhere that there attend upon a man, whether
for good or for evil, two angels. Of the good ones the Savior also makes mention, saying: "Their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." At the same time inquire whether it is only the little ones in the church who "always see the face of the Father," and whether others do not have the freedom to gaze upon the countenance of the Father. For it is not to be hoped that the angels of all always behold the "face of the Father, who dwells in"
heaven." If I belong to the church, however small a member I may be, my angel too is emboldened always to behold my "Father's face, who dwells in heaven." But if I stand outside, not belonging to that church "which has neither spot nor wrinkle nor any such blemish," and by that very fact am estranged from such a gathering, then my angel lacks the boldness to gaze upon my "Father's countenance, who"
...is in heaven." How solicitous the angels are for the good, knowing that if they have governed us well and brought us through to salvation, they too will have confidence to see the face of the Father. For just as, if through their care and diligence salvation is secured for human beings, they always gaze upon the face of the Father, so too, if through their negligence a person should fall, they know that it is also a matter of
their own peril. And just as a good bishop and the best steward of the church knows that it redounds to his own merit and virtue if the sheep of the flock entrusted to him have been kept safe, understand the same of angels. It is a disgrace to an angel if the person entrusted to him should sin, just as, on the contrary, it is glory to an angel if the one entrusted to him, even the least in the church, should
make progress. For not merely on occasion but continually will they behold my Father's countenance, who dwells in heaven, even while others fail to see it. For according to the merit of those souls whose angels they are, the angels will gaze upon God's countenance either constantly or not at all, or in lesser or greater measure. God alone has clear knowledge of this matter, and knows whether anyone, however seldom, has been found whom Christ has taught. Let us see,
then, first, who the "adversary" is, with whom our journey is always shared. Unhappy are we: as often as we sin, our adversary exults, knowing that he has, before the prince of this age who sent him, the opportunity to exult and boast, on the grounds that the adversary of this or that person, for example, has made him subject to the prince of this age through so many and such sins,
through this offense or that. But it sometimes happens that, if someone has been prepared with the armor of God and has covered himself on every side, the adversary indeed tries to inflict a wound but has no opportunity to strike. The adversary always walks with us, never abandons us, seeks an opportunity for ambush, hoping somehow to overthrow us and cast an evil thought into the ruling part of our heart. "When
you go to..." Who then is this prince? "When he apportioned the nations, when he dispersed Adam's offspring, he set the boundaries of the peoples to match the count of God's angels, and the Lord's own share became his people Jacob, Israel the measured line of his inheritance." So then, the earth was from the beginning split up among princes, that is, among angels. Daniel indeed testifies more openly that those beings whom Moses had called "angels" are
"the prince of the kingdom of the Persians," "of the Greeks," and "Michael your prince," of the nations. And each one of us has an adversary clinging to him, whose task is to lead us to the prince and say: O prince — of the kingdom of the Persians, for example — this one, who was under you, I have kept for you just as he was; none of the other princes was able to draw him over to himself, lest
that one, who boasted that he had come for this very purpose — to snatch people away from all the inheritances of the Persians or the Greeks and of all the nations, and to make them subject to the inheritance of God. Christ our Lord conquered all the princes, and crossing their boundaries, brought the captive peoples over to himself for salvation. And you belonged to the portion of some prince: Jesus came and snatched you from
...with perverse power, and offered it to God the Father. Our >adversary<, then, walks leading us >to his own<. Hence, since I believe that every word of the scriptures has a reason, I do not think it is without purpose that among the Greeks >judge< is written with the article, which is a marker of singularity, while >ruler< is written simply, without the article. >When<, he says, >you go with your adversary...< He says pointedly: >your<. Nor
are they many adversaries, but each of us has his own single one, who everywhere follows him and is his companion. >When you go with your [adversary] to the ruler.< He did not put the article with >ruler<, so as to seem to point to a particular one, but wrote it without the article, so as to show that he is one out of many, which is understood better among the Greeks. For not each of us has his own particular ruler; but if someone is Egyptian,
he has the ruler of Egypt; whoever is Syrian is under the ruler of the Syrians, and each is under the ruler of his own nation — if indeed it is enough for me to have proceeded this far, and not to pass from this discussion to another, greater one, so as to mention the other nations as well. Hence it is said: >behold Israel according to the flesh<. ...it has been said; although even this itself may be a rash thing to say concerning
such a matter, to have begun a discourse before the people. He who wishes, he says, to lead you to his own ruler and to transfer you away from another ruler — >when you are with your adversary on the way to the ruler, make an effort to be freed from him<. Unless with all diligence you strive to >be freed<, while you are still on the way, before you enter before the ruler, before the ruler hands you over, prepared by the adversary, to the judge — afterward
you will strive in vain. >Make an effort<, then, to be freed, whether from your adversary or from the ruler to whom the adversary drags you. >Make an effort< to possess justice, fortitude, and temperance, and then this will be fulfilled: >behold the man, and his works before his own face<. Unless you >make the effort<, you will not be able to break the pact whose >friendship is enmity toward God<. ...you go with
your adversary to the ruler on the way, make an effort.< Something lies concealed in this passage, I know not what, and it is a mystery: >on the way, make the effort<. The Savior declares: >I myself am the way, the truth, and the life<. If you >make the effort< to be freed from the adversary, be on the way; and when you have taken your stand on him who declares: >I myself am the way
<, to have taken one's stand is not enough, but >make an effort to be freed< from the adversary. For unless you >make the effort< to >be freed< from the adversary, listen to what follows. The adversary, or the ruler, >drags you to the judge<, once he has received you from... >drags you to...< How fitting is the word >drags<, showing in a way that those being dragged to condemnation hold back and are unwilling
and are compelled to go! For what murderer hurries with quickened step to the judge? Who hastens rejoicing toward his own condemnation, and is not instead dragged unwilling and resisting? For he knows that he is going to this end, that he may receive the sentence of death. >Lest perhaps he drag you to the judge<. Who, do you suppose, is this >judge<? I know no other judge except
our Jesus Christ, of whom it is also said elsewhere: "He will set the sheep on the right, but the goats on the left," and again: "Whoever confesses me, I too will confess him before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I will deny him before my Father who is in heaven." "Let him drag you to the judge, and let the judge
hand you over to the collector." Each of us bears loss for his individual sins, and the magnitude of the loss is reckoned according to the quality and reasoning of the offense. I ought to bring forward some testimony from the scriptures concerning debt and a great sum of money. One person bears a debt of five hundred denarii and owes them; another is condemned to fifty denarii; that sum is forgiven to both by the creditor. Again another, as scripture says: "There was brought to him a certain man
who owed ten thousand talents," is condemned to a debt of a thousand talents. And why is it necessary for me to pursue further examples? Each person receives a different sentence of penalty according to the quality and quantity of his sin. If your sin is small, you will be struck with the loss of a "farthing," as Luke writes, or as Matthew has it, a "quadrans." Yet it is still necessary to pay off this very thing for which you became a debtor,
for you will not come out of prison unless you have paid even the smallest amounts. But whoever is faithful is struck by no loss, but is enriched daily; for the whole world is his wealth; whereas the unfaithful man does not have even an obol. One is condemned to a denarius, another to a mina, another to a talent. There is an examiner of this business, who knows the measures of everyone's sins and says: This offense
is condemned to a talent, that sin deserves a penalty of this kind. For it is written: "But when he had begun to settle accounts." There is a "reckoning" for all of us. There is no other time for making it but the time of judgment, when it will be clearly known what has been entrusted to us and what profit or what loss we have made, which of us has received a mina, which one talent, which two, which five. Why
is it necessary to repeat more examples, since it suffices to have said this in general: that we will render an account, and, if we are found to be debtors, we will be dragged to the judge and handed over by the judge to the collector? We each have our own collectors, but the whole multitude is handed over to several, according to what is written in Isaiah: "My people, your collectors despoil you, and those who are powerful lord it over
you" — the collectors lord it over us, if we owe anything. But if we have confidence and say with a free brow: I have kept the precept of him who commands: "Render to all their dues: to whom tribute, to whom fear, to whom tax, to whom honor" — if I have rendered everything in full to everyone, I come to the collector with an undaunted mind and answer him: I owe you nothing. The collector comes to demand payment — I resist him; for I know that,
if I owe nothing, he has no power over me. But if I am a debtor, my "collector" will "send" me "into that order which has been foretold." For the "adversary" will hand me over to the ruler, the ruler to the judge, the judge will hand me over to the collector, the collector "will send me into prison." What is the law of that prison? I do not leave it, nor does the collector allow me to go out,
unless I pay the whole debt. The collector does not have the power to grant me even a quarter, or a portion of it; there is only one who can grant remission to debtors who have nothing with which to pay. ‘There came to him,’ it says, ‘one who owed five hundred denarii, and another fifty; and since they had nothing with which to repay, he forgave them both.’ He was the lord; but this one—
who is the collector, is not the lord, but has been appointed by the lord to exact the debts. You were not worthy to have the five hundred or the fifty denarii forgiven you, nor did you deserve to hear, ‘your sins have been forgiven you’; you are sent to prison, and there you are made to pay through labor and toil, or through punishments and torments, and you will not come out from there until you have repaid the last quarter
—or ‘the last,’ which in Greek can be called ‘slight.’ Our sins are either—for it is written, ‘the heart of the people has grown thick’—or, by comparison with greater ones, slight and subtle. Blessed, then, is the one, first, who does not sin at all; and second, the one who, by comparison, has at least a slight sin. And even among these slight and subtle sins there is a further diversity. For unless
there were, among slight and subtle sin, something yet more subtle, it would never be said, ‘not from there, until you repay the last quarter.’ It is as though it said ‘the last mite’—the mite being a coin, whether an obol or a stater; but what if we owed a great sum, as the one is written to have owed who owed ten thousand talents? For how long a time we shall be shut up in prison until we repay the debt,
I cannot declare plainly. For if one who owes little does not come out unless he pays off the tiny quarter, then surely one who is liable for so much more will have countless ages numbered to him for repaying the debt. Wherefore let us take pains to be freed from it while we are on the way, and to be joined to the Lord Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 36 ========

He says, ‘Whoever loses his soul in trying to save it will save it.’ The martyrs seek ‘to save their own’ and for that reason lose it, in order to save it. But those who ‘save their soul’ and do not ‘lose’ it, these ‘also lose it’ likewise ‘into gehenna.’ For this reason, ‘do not fear those who can kill the body, but fear rather him who is able to destroy the soul and the body
in gehenna.’ We have said this briefly, according to the powers of our understanding; but ‘the natural man does not receive the things that are of the Spirit,’ and therefore he cannot. ‘The natural body is sown, the body rises.’ Further, ‘he who clings to the Lord is one spirit’; therefore ‘he who is joined to the Lord,’ though he was natural, is through this transformed and ‘is one spirit,’
our soul as well, so that, clinging to the Lord, we may be transformed into one spirit. But also, when the Savior was asked by the Pharisees about the kingdom of God, ‘when it would come,’ he answered: ‘The kingdom does not arrive in a way that people can say: look, here it is, or look, there it is. For indeed, God's kingdom exists within you.’ The Savior does not tell everyone: ‘God's kingdom is present,’ since among sinners it is instead the kingdom of sin
and, without any ambiguity, either the kingdom of God rules in our heart, or that of sin. Hence, whether in what we do, or what we say, or what we think, let us consider more carefully, and then we shall see whether the rule of God reigns in us, or the rule of transgressions. Knowing this distinction to exist, the Apostle admonishes some, saying: ‘let not sin reign in your mortal body.’ If any of us
has the kingdom of God, he is ruled by it; if anyone is tormented by the burning of avarice, he is ruled by avarice. Further, he who is just has justice as his queen; he who is puffed up by the ambition of vainglory is ruled by popular favor. He who grieves, who dreads something, who loves, who desires — each of these things rules him, according as he is possessed by various disturbances. Knowing all this, and how many kinds of kingdoms there are, let us rise up
and let us pray to God that he may take from us the kingdom of the enemy, and that we may be able to be under the kingdom of God almighty, that is, under the kingdom of wisdom, peace, justice, and truth, all of which are understood in the only-begotten Son of God: to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 37 ========

It is read in the Gospel according to Luke how, when the Savior had come to Bethphage and Bethany near the mountain, he sent two of his disciples to untie the colt of a donkey, on which no man had ever sat. This indeed seems to me to belong more to a deeper understanding than to the simple history. The donkey was tied. Where? "Opposite Bethphage and..."
in which Bethany is interpreted as "house of obedience," but Bethphage as "house of jaws," a certain place; for the jaws were given to the priests, as is prescribed in the law. There then, where, having been made subject to "obedience," he sends his disciples to untie the colt of a donkey, on which no man had ever sat. Now what else can sit upon a donkey, apart from a man? I want to take an example for a moment, so that what I am about to say
may be understood. It is written in Isaiah: "The vision of the four-footed beasts in ... and distress," and the rest, down to the place where it says, "the riches of the asps will not profit them." How great were the riches of the asps that each had carried before, how great the wealth of the beasts, and how a rational man never sat upon our donkey — this is not the word of Moses, not of Isaiah, not of Jeremiah, nor of all the rest of the prophets,
and then he will see that the word and reason of God sat upon us, when the Lord Jesus came and instructed his disciples that, going, they should untie the colt that had before been tied, so that it might go forth free. And so the colt of the donkey, once untied, is led to him, for whose untying, sending his disciples, he had said: "If anyone asks you why you untie the colt, say to him: because the Lord has need of him."
There were many masters of this colt before the Savior had need of him; but after he began to be its "master," the many ceased to be so; for "no one can serve God and mammon." As long as we served wickedness, we were subject to many passions and vices. The colt, then, is untied, "because the Lord has need of him." And now the Lord "has need" of him. You are the donkey. What is it of yours
that the Son of God "has need of"? What does he seek from you? He "has need" of your salvation; he desires you to be loosed from your sins. Then the disciples put "their garments upon" him and make the Savior sit. They take up the Word of God and place him upon the souls of those who hear. They strip off their garments; they "spread" them "in the way." Upon us are the garments of the apostles; their good works are our adornments
— the apostles want their garments to be trodden by us. And in truth the donkey, untied by the disciples and carrying Jesus, walks upon the garments of the apostles, when it imitates their teaching and their life. Who of us is so blessed that Jesus should sit upon him — he who, as long as he was on the mountain, stayed with the apostles alone, but when he began to draw near the descent, then there met
him a crowd of people? If he had not come to the descent, the multitude could not have met him. He descended and sat upon the colt of the donkey, and all the people with one voice praised God. Seeing this, the Pharisees said to the Lord, "Rebuke them"; to whom he replied, "If these are silent, the stones will cry out." When we speak, the stones are silent; when we are silent, the stones cry out;
"for the Lord is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones." At what time shall we be silent? When "the love of many" grows cold, when that which was foretold by the Savior is fulfilled: "do you suppose the Son of man, when he comes, will find faith on earth?" Therefore let us beg for mercy, lest, while we are silent, the stones cry out, but let us speak and praise God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together,
to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 38 ========

When our Lord and Savior had drawn near to Jerusalem, seeing it he wept and said: “If you too had known, in this your day, the things that make for your peace; but now it is hidden from your eyes—for days will come upon you, and your enemies will surround you with a rampart.” These things that are spoken are mysteries, and we hope that what lies hidden can be opened by God. First
then, we must consider his weeping. All the beatitudes that Jesus spoke in the Gospel he confirms by his own example, and what he taught he proves by his own testimony. “Blessed,” he says, “are the meek.” Similar to this is what he says of himself: “Learn from me… for I am meek.” “Blessed are the peacemakers.” And who else is so, as my Lord Jesus, who “is our peace,” who “destroyed… in
his flesh”? “Blessed are those who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness.” No one has suffered persecution for righteousness as the Lord Jesus did, who was crucified for our sins. The Lord, therefore, shows all the beatitudes in himself; and to this same pattern belongs also what he had said: “Blessed are those who weep”—he himself wept, so that he might lay the foundations of this beatitude as well,
its foundations. He wept over Jerusalem, saying: “If you too had known, in this your day, the things that make for your peace; but now it is hidden from your eyes,” and the rest, down to the place where he says: “because you did not know the time of your visitation.” Someone might say that these words are plain and have already been fulfilled in fact concerning Jerusalem: for the Roman army surrounded it and laid it waste
utterly, and a time will come when not one stone will be left upon another in it. I do not deny that that Jerusalem was indeed destroyed on account of the crimes of its inhabitants; but I ask whether this weeping may perhaps also pertain to this Jerusalem of ours. For we are the Jerusalem that is wept over, we who seem to ourselves to have greater insight. But if, after the mysteries of truth, after the word
of the gospel, after the church's teaching, and after the vision of the mysteries of God, one of us should sin, he will be lamented and wept over. For no pagan is wept over, but only he who belonged to Jerusalem and has ceased to be so. And this Jerusalem of ours is wept over because, after sins, hostile powers—namely, evil spirits—“surround” it, and send in around it a “rampart,” and besiege it, and
“leave not one stone upon another” in it—if, after much self-restraint, after some years of chastity, someone should be overcome and, enticed by the flattery of the flesh, should lose the endurance of purity. If you have committed fornication, “they will not leave in you stone upon stone.” He says in another place: “…none of his former righteous deeds; in the sin in which he is caught, in that very thing I will judge him.” Such, then,
is the Jerusalem that is wept over. After this it is said: “he entered the temple,” and, having entered, “he cast out those who were selling doves.” Not those who were buying; for whoever buys possesses what he has bought. Jesus cast out of his Father's temple those who sell and cast away what they had, in the likeness of that prodigal son, who received his substance from his father and squandered all of it excessively
...by drinking. If, then, someone sells, he is cast out, especially if he was selling doves. Why did he mention no other birds but doves? This creature is simple and comely. I fear that a fault of this kind may be found in us as well. For if I should sell for a price the things that have been revealed and entrusted to me by the Holy Spirit, so that I might carry them out to the common people, and should fail to teach them without payment
...what else am I doing but selling doves, that is, selling the Holy Spirit? And when I have sold him, I am cast out of the temple of God. Therefore let us ask the Lord that we may all rather buy than sell. For if we do not sell, we shall know and understand our salvation; otherwise enemies will surround our city. But if a hostile army should once encircle us, we shall not deserve the Lord's tears. Let us rise up
...then at dawn and beseech God that we may at least be able to eat the crumbs that fall from his table. Scripture marvels that the queen of Sheba journeyed from earth's farthest reaches to hear Solomon; and when she had seen the banquet and the furnishings and services of his house, she was astonished and was entirely caught up in wonder. If we do not
...gladly embrace such great riches of our Lord, such a wealth of speech and abundance of teachings, if we do not eat the bread of life, if we do not feed on the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood, if we despise the banquet of our Savior, we ought to know that God has both kindness and severity; we ought rather to pray for his kindness toward us, in Christ Jesus our Lord: to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Luke 39 ========

There is a heresy among the Jews called that of the Sadducees: it denies the resurrection of the dead, and holds that the soul perishes with the body, so that no sense-perception remains after death. These, then, proposing a question to the Lord, composed a fable about a woman with seven husbands, who, after her first husband, in order to raise up seed for the first, married a second, on whose death a third as well, and again a fourth, and in this manner
she came all the way to the seventh. The question, then, is this: in the resurrection, which of the seven brothers will claim her as his wife? Now those laying this trap with words proposed this problem to the Savior at the time when they saw him teaching the disciples about the resurrection. Answering them the Savior said: "You are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection of the dead, they take no wives and are not given as wives, but will be like angels
in heaven." They will be like angels — that is, they will indeed be angels. And at the same time we must learn from this that angels have no marriages. Here, indeed, where there is death, marriage and children are necessary; but where there is immortality, there is no need of marriage nor of children. Let me put to myself a very troublesome question, one not easily resolved, in the person of those who are most devoted to the scriptures and meditate day
and night on the law of the Lord. They say: where is it written that "they take no wives and are not given as wives"? Surveying both the old and the new testament in memory and mind, I do not recall any such thing being said anywhere. But if perhaps I am mistaken, let one who knows more instruct me; I gladly learn what I do not know. But as far as I can judge, he will find nothing of the sort either in the old or in the new instrument. All their error, then, has crept in from
a prophetic reading which they do not understand — among which is that passage in Isaiah: "my chosen shall not bear children for a curse," and in Deuteronomy among the blessings: "blessed are the children of your womb"; they suppose these things will come to pass in the resurrection, not understanding that spiritual blessings are being foretold. For Paul, that chosen vessel, interpreting all these blessings that are set down in the law spiritually, and knowing that they are not carnal,
says to the Ephesians: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing." All these blessings will come to pass spiritually, when, rising from the dead, we attain everlasting blessedness. But in the Psalms too, finding something similar, they fall into the same error: "Your wife is like a fruitful vine on the sides of your house, your children like olive shoots around
your table," down to the place where it says: "May the Lord bless you out of Zion, and may you see the good things of Jerusalem." Therefore, when Jerusalem has been built up and restored to its ancient state, then the saint will see the good things that scripture mentions. Those who understand spiritually, and know that it is said of Jerusalem: "which is heavenly, which is above, which is ours," will see
her good things, of which we have often spoken, and what we have just set down from the psalm: "your wife is like a fruitful vine on the sides of your house, your children like olive shoots around your table." To the Sadducees, who understood all this — being that portion of the Jews — the Savior says: "You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God." Let this suffice, briefly said, concerning the question that the Sadducees proposed to the Lord. Furthermore, because
...was added concerning the image of Caesar, we ought also to touch briefly on this point. Some think the Savior said simply: "Render" the things that are Caesar's, that is: pay the tribute you owe. For which of us objects to paying tribute to Caesar? So the passage holds something mystical and hidden. There are two images in man: one, which he received from God, made in
the beginning, as it is written in Genesis, "in the image and after the likeness of God," and the other afterward, which, cast out of paradise on account of disobedience and sin, he took on: that of "the prince of this age," having been persuaded. For just as a coin or denarius bears the image of the rulers of the world, so whoever does the works of "the ruler of darkness" bears his image, whose works he has — and this is the image Jesus here commands to be given back and cast off
from our countenance, and that we should take on that image according to which we were fashioned from the beginning in the likeness of God. And so it comes about that the things that are Caesar's are given to Caesar, and the things that are God's, to God. "Show me," he says, "a coin" — for which "denarius" is written. And when he had received it, he said, "Whose image does it bear?" And they answered, "Caesar's." To them he said, "Render," he says, "the things that are Caesar's to Caesar, and"
the things that are God's, to God." Of these very things Paul also spoke, saying, "Just as we bore the image of the man made of dust, so let us also bear the image of the heavenly one." When, therefore, he says, "the things that are Caesar's, to Caesar," he means this: put off the person of the man of dust, cast away the earthly image, so that, putting on for yourselves the heavenly image, you may be able to render "the things that are God's" to God. God demands us back. And what does he demand? Read Moses: "And now what does the Lord your God"
"demand of you," and the rest that follows. God, then, asks of us and entreats us, not because he needs anything for us to give him, but so that, once we have given it to him, he may give that very thing back to us for our salvation. That this may become clearer, let me set out the parable of the minas. He who had received one mina and had made ten of it, and offered it to the Lord from whom the mina had been entrusted to him,
received also another, which he did not have before. For as to the mina of the one who had not multiplied what he received, the Lord commands that it be taken away and given to him who has the others: "Take away," he says, "the mina, and give it to him who has ten minas." And in this way, the things we have given to God he will restore to us, together with those things which we did not have before. God requires and asks of us,
so that he may have occasion to give, so that he himself, who paid it out, may bestow it. For by his grace the mina was doubled, and to each of the worthy more was given than they had hoped. Therefore, rising, let us pray to God that we may be worthy to offer him gifts, which he may restore to us, and that in exchange for earthly things he may bestow heavenly ones, in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and dominion for ages of ages. Amen. Here end
the thirty-nine homilies of Origen Adamantius on the Gospel of Luke, translated from Greek into Latin by the blessed presbyter Jerome.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 1 ========

God is ready at hand for doing good, but slow to punish those who deserve punishment. Although he is able to bring punishment on those he condemns in silence, without giving warning beforehand, he never does this; rather, even when he condemns, he speaks, since it is his practice to speak beforehand, so that the one who is to be condemned may turn back from condemnation. Of these things one can take many examples from the scriptures,
and a few will suffice from those that come to hand, so that we may arrive also at the aim of the readings set before us. The Ninevites had become sinners and had been condemned by God: "yet three days and Nineveh" was to be overthrown. God was not willing to condemn her in silence, but, giving them a place for repentance and turning back, he sent a prophet, so that when he had said,
"yet three days and Nineveh will be overthrown," those who had been condemned might not be condemned, but by repenting might obtain God's mercy. Those in Sodom and Gomorrah had been condemned, as is clear from God's words to Abraham; nevertheless the angels did their part, wishing to save those who did not wish to be saved, saying to Lot: "Do you have here any
sons-in-law, or sons, or daughters?" not being ignorant that these would not follow Lot, but doing what belonged to their own kindness and philanthropy, together with that of the one who sent them. You will find the same thing also in what concerns Jeremiah. The time of his prophecy has been recorded, when he began and until when he prophesied. Then the reader, if he does not attend to the reading
nor examine the intent of the readings that have been written, will say that this is history, and that it has been recorded when Jeremiah began to prophesy and up to what time, prophesying, he came to the end of his prophesying. What then is this history to me? I have read, I have learned that he began to prophesy "in the days of Josiah son of Amos, king of Judah, until the thirteenth year of his reign"; then, "it came to pass in the
days of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah," he prophesying "until the completion of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah, king of Judah." And I have learned that his prophecy extended through three kings "until the captivity of Jerusalem, in the fifth month." What then are we taught by these things, if we attend to the reading? God condemned Jerusalem for her sins, and
they had been judged to be abandoned to captivity. Nevertheless, when the time was at hand, the God who loves mankind sends this prophet too, beyond the third reign before the captivity, so that those who wished, upon giving heed, might repent because of the prophetic words. He sent forth a prophet to prophesy both in the reign of the second king after the first, and in that of the third, up to the very time of the captivity itself. For
the long-suffering God was granting forbearance even, one might say, up to the very day before the captivity, urging those who heard to repent, so that the grim events of the captivity might cease. Hence it is written that "Jeremiah prophesied until the captivity of Jerusalem, until the fifth month." He began, and he was still prophesying, as if saying: You have become captives, yet even so repent; for if you repent, the
of the captivity, but the mercy of God will be set over you. So we have something useful from the record which contains the times of the prophecy: that God, out of his own love for humanity, urges those who hear not to suffer the fate of captivity. Such things also hold for us: if we sin, we too are going to become captives. For “handing such a person over to Satan” is no
different from handing over those from Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar. For just as they were handed over to him because of their sins, so we are handed over to Satan because of our sins, he being our Nebuchadnezzar. And “whom I have handed over to Satan, that they may be taught not to blaspheme,” says the apostle concerning other sinners. See, then, how great an evil sinning is, that one should be handed over to Satan, who takes captive the souls of those abandoned
by God — and it is not without cause nor without judgment that God abandons those whom he abandons. For when he sends rain upon the vineyard, and the vineyard bears thorns instead of grapes, what will God do but command the clouds not to rain upon the vineyard? Because of our sins, captivity lies in wait for us too, and we are about to be handed over, unless we
repent, to Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, so that the spiritual Babylonians may tear us apart. While these things lie in wait, the words of the prophets, the words of the law, the words of the apostles, the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ speak to us about repentance and call us to conversion. If we listen, let us believe the one who said, “I too will repent concerning all the evils that
I spoke of doing to them.” These things belong to the introduction. After the introduction it is written that “the word of the Lord came to him” — clearly, to Jeremiah. And what does the word of the Lord say to him? Something exceptional, beyond what was said to the rest of the prophets. For we have found this said of none of the prophets. Abraham was designated a prophet in the saying “he is
a prophet, and he will pray for you,” but God did not say to him, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you.” Rather, Abraham was sanctified later, when he went out from his land, away from his relatives, and away from his father's household, from
a promise he was born; and we have not found this saying said even to him. And what need do I have to list what follows? Jeremiah obtained an exceptional gift, that of “before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you.” We are not unaware that some apply these words, as being greater than Jeremiah, to
our Savior and Lord. And one must know that most of them harmonize with him and can be applied to the Savior — which I shall set forth — but a few of the things said to Jeremiah strain the sense, being unable, as regards the majority, to be fitted to the Savior. What, then, are the things that fit the Savior? “To all to whom I send you, you shall go, and”
you shall speak all that I command you. Do not be afraid before them, for I am with you to deliver you, says the Lord.’ These would not yet seem to be referred to the Savior, but what follows: ‘And the Lord stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me: Behold, I have given my words
into your mouth. Behold, I have set you today over nations and kingdoms, to root out and to tear down’ — this passage presses hard on the interpretation concerning Jeremiah. What nations did he root out, what kingdoms did he destroy? For it is written: ‘Behold, I have set you today over nations and kingdoms, to root out and to tear down.’ But what authority did Jeremiah have for ‘to destroy,’ which is said with reference to Jeremiah in
the phrase ‘and to destroy’? And how many did Jeremiah build, that it should be said ‘and to build’? Jeremiah says: ‘I have profited no one, nor has anyone profited me.’ How then is ‘to build and to plant’ given to him? How will ‘to plant’ apply to Jeremiah? When these things are referred to the Savior, they do not trouble the interpreter, because Jeremiah in these matters is a symbol of the Savior. But the things
about to be set out trouble greatly even the shrewdest person who wants to show how these too can be fitted to the Savior: ‘And I said: O Master, Lord, behold, I do not know how to speak.’ He who is wisdom, he who is power, who brought us the fullness of the deity, which dwelt in him bodily — how then can ‘I do not know’ fit the Savior? But also the phrase
‘I am too young’ rules out the Savior, as though he were speaking improperly. For if the Lord says to him, Do not say this, it is clear that he forbids it as something not well said. These things, then, do not fit the Savior. But those other things do not seem to trouble us when applied to the Savior. Yet to say that these apply to Jeremiah, and those to
the Savior, is not difficult. Yet the truly fair-minded person will be greatly troubled at this point, seeing that to cut apart, within a connected sequence of words, statements spoken either to Jeremiah or to the Savior, and to say of these — since they are lesser — that they do not fit Christ but rather fit Jeremiah, and of those — since they are greater than Jeremiah — that they fit not Jeremiah but Christ, is the mark of thoughtless people.
Should the whole passage, then, be referred to Jeremiah? And let even these things that seem to be greater than Jeremiah be interpreted so. Everyone who has received words from God and has the grace of heavenly words has received them for ‘rooting out and tearing down nations and kingdoms.’ But if it is said that everyone who has received words from God ‘roots out’ ‘nations and kingdoms,’ do not understand
the nations and kingdoms in a bodily sense; rather, consider human souls ruled as kings by sin, according to what is said by the apostle: ‘Let not sin, then, reign in our mortal body,’ and, looking also at the many kinds of sins, interpret figuratively both the nations and the kingdoms as the base things existing in human souls, which
It is uprooted and torn down by the words given, whether to Jeremiah or to whomever, of God. And it is possible to apply the first things, which press hard as regards the Savior, to Jeremiah, and the second things, to one who knows how to interpret figuratively, also to apply to Jeremiah. Someone among the hearers will say to me: exercise the other line of argument too, and try to show that all the things written fit the Savior.
Do not be troubled about the second set; for it appears that the Savior uprooted the kingdoms of the devil and tore down the nations, having abolished the pagan way of life. Here, in what seems ill-omened as regards the Savior, exercise the argument somehow: how can the Savior say, "I do not know how to speak, for I am too young"? And... do you see that the argument runs into difficulty?
We know the Savior to be Lord. We seek, in a manner worthy of the subject and in accordance with the truth, to refer these things to the Savior. We must take the scriptures as witnesses; for our own attempts are unattested, and our interpretations are unreliable. And "on the testimony of two or three witnesses shall every word stand firm" fits the interpretations better than it fits the persons, so as to establish
one interpretation by taking two witnesses from the New and Old Testament, taking three witnesses from Gospel, from Prophet, from Apostle — for thus "every word shall be established." How then can we refer these things to the Savior? Bring forward as witness the Old Testament: "for before the child knows good or evil, he refuses what is evil so as to choose the good." And
these very things are said plainly of the Savior in Isaiah: "See, the virgin will conceive in her womb and give birth to a son, and they will name him Emmanuel." And there it adds: "before the child comes to know..." But if an example must also be taken from the Gospel: Jesus, not yet having become a man but still being a child, since "he emptied himself," was advancing — for no one
advances who has already been made perfect; rather, one who needs advancement advances. Therefore he was advancing in age, advancing in wisdom, descending here in grace before God and men, and having emptied himself he was receiving back what he had emptied himself of, having emptied himself willingly. What is strange in his having also advanced "in wisdom and age and grace before God and men," and in its being true of him that before he knows good or
evil he chooses the good and refuses what is evil — and the things I have cited from Isaiah? But someone will say: even if you can refer to the Savior this "he does not know," taking it as applying to him, does it not trouble you to say these things about the Only-begotten, about the firstborn of all creation, about the one announced as good news before his conception, according to: "the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
the power of the Most High will overshadow you" — and yet you say: he does not know how to speak? See whether you can perceive something worthwhile and great about the Savior in this passage: that in not knowing certain things, he is greater in not knowing them than he would be in knowing them. And I use his own voice as a witness that he does not know certain things. At any rate he says to those who say to him: "Did we not eat in your name, and"
we drank in your name, and in your name we cast out demons, and did many mighty works? Depart from me, I never knew you.' Does then this phrase, 'I never knew you,' spoken there by the Savior, show a lesser power in him, or a greater and more marvelous one, because he did not know those who are worse and those who are perishing? For he knew the things that excel and are better, and 'the Lord knew
those who are his,' and 'if anyone is ignorant, he is not known.' So then the sinner is not known by God. One of my hearers will say to me: you have shown that he does not know the sinners, you have shown that he does not know those who work lawlessness, for they are not worthy of his knowledge. How then will you show it to be something great and glorious, this saying 'I do not know how to speak,' spoken by the
Savior? To speak is a human thing; to speak is to make use of a language, so as to use, let us say, the tongue of the Hebrews or of the Greeks <or of some others>. If you rise up to the Savior and know him as the Word 'in the beginning with God,' you will see that he does not know how to speak, since speaking belongs to what is human, but <he does not know it> because what he knows is greater than speaking.
But if you also compare the tongues of angels with the tongues of men, and know that he is greater even than the angels, as the apostle testified in the letter to the Hebrews, you will say that he was greater also than the tongue of angels, when as God he was the Word with the Father. He learns, then, and as it were takes up knowledge not of great things, but of lesser and smaller ones. And just as I learn,
forcing myself to babble, when I converse with little children (for not knowing how to speak, so to say, in the language of children, I force myself, though grown, to converse with children), in the same way the Savior too, being 'in the Father' and existing in the majesty of the glory of God, does not speak human things, does not know how to utter the things below. But when he comes into a human body, he says,
at the beginning: 'I do not know how to speak, for I am younger' -- younger on account of his bodily birth, but older according to 'firstborn of all creation'; younger, because at the consummation of the ages he later came to dwell in this life. He says, then, 'I do not know how to speak,' meaning: I know something greater than speaking, I know something greater than this human sound. Do you want me
to speak to men? I have not yet taken up human language; I have the language of you, my God, I am the Word of you, of God; to you I know how to converse, but to men I do not know how to speak,' 'I am younger.' <'Do not say that I am younger,'> 'for to all to whom I shall send you, you shall go.' Thus he stretches out his hand, touches his mouth, gives him words, and gives him words for
the kingdoms, so that he might uproot; for he had need of words that uproot when he was 'in the Father,' he did not have need of words that overturn and tear down the worse things; for nothing there was worthy of demolition, nothing was worthy of uprooting. It is a great thing, like 'I do not know you, because you are workers of lawlessness,' spoken thus by the Savior on account of the surpassing greatness of his glory,
This is equivalent to "I do not know how to speak human things" — "I do not know how to speak." Whether it is said to Jeremiah or to the Savior, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you," if you read Genesis and observe what is said about the creation of the world, you will find that Scripture, with the greatest precision, did not say that before I made
you in the womb I knew you. For when "the image also" was being created, "God said, Let us fashion man in keeping with our image and likeness," he did not say, let us form. But when he took "dust from the earth," he did not make the man, but "formed the man," and placed in paradise the man whom he had formed, to work it and to keep it, <and of forming>
, that the Lord, whether to Jeremiah or to the Savior, did not say: "before I made you in the womb" — you, from the dust of the earth — this is created in the womb. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." If the Lord knew everyone [† in regard to "I do not know how to speak," since the Lord—of everyone must it be said
—] he would not have spoken it to Jeremiah as something exceptional: "and I knew you." Therefore God knows those who are distinguished; God knows those worthy of his knowledge, and "the Lord knew those who are his," but God does not know the unworthy, just as the Savior too said, "I never knew you." We, being human, to the extent that we make progress, judge some things
to be worthy of our knowing them; and some things we do not even wish to hear, so that we may neither come to know them nor be acquainted with them, while other things we wish to know. But what of the God of the universe? He wishes to know Pharaoh, he wishes to know the Egyptians, yet they are not worthy of the knowledge of God. Moses, however, is worthy, and so is each of the prophets, of such stature. You must accomplish much,
in order for God to begin to know you. For Jeremiah he knew before forming him in the womb; but another he begins to know at thirty years of age, <another> at forty years of age. There are sayings that are hidden — concerning the Savior they raise no question, but concerning Jeremiah they require attention from those who have ears. How does he say, "Before I formed you in the womb
I knew you, and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you"? God sanctifies certain people for himself. He did not wait for this one to come into being and then sanctify him, but before he came out of the womb he had already sanctified him. If you refer this to the Savior, it is not hard to say that before he came out of the womb he was sanctified. If you refer it to the Savior, he was sanctified not only before he came out,
but even still earlier he was sanctified. But this Jeremiah was sanctified before he came out of the womb. "I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." If you look into "I have appointed you a prophet to the nations" as applied to Jeremiah, observe in what follows that he is commanded to prophesy "against all the nations," and there is a superscription: "The things that Jeremiah prophesied against all the nations," against "Elam," against "Damascus,"
"To Moab." And we have it that "he prophesied against all the nations," corresponding to the saying "I have appointed you a prophet to the nations," which was addressed to him. But if we turn to the higher sense—if it applies to Jeremiah, we have already spoken of it; but if to the Savior, what need is there even to say it? He truly prophesied against all the nations; for just as he is countless other things, so also
he is a prophet. As he is high priest, as he is savior, as he is physician, so too he is prophet. Moses, indeed, prophesying about him, called him not merely a prophet but singled him out with special emphasis, saying: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen, and whoever does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from his people." This, then,
is the one who has been appointed a prophet "to the nations" and who received grace poured out from God upon his lips, so that not only when he was present in the body, but even now, when he is present in power and in spirit, he might prophesy "against all the nations," so that from all the nations he might carry out his prophecy and draw people to salvation. "And I said,
O Lord, Master, behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am too young. And the Lord said to me: Do not say, I am too young; for to all to whom I shall send you—we have often said that according to the inner man it is possible to be a child, even if one is of an elderly bodily age; and it is possible at times, according to the outer man, to be a
child, but according to the inner man, a man. Such was Jeremiah, already possessing grace from God while still at a childlike age in body. Hence the Lord says to him, "Do not say, I am too young." And a sign that he was not too young, but a "perfect man," is this: "to all to whom I shall send you, you shall go,
and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid before them." The word of God knows that those who bear the word are in danger among those who hear it; for when they are reproved, they hate them, and when they are rebuked, they persecute them. The prophets suffer whatever comes their way: "a prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house"—which
we mentioned a little while ago as well. God, then, in sending the prophet, knows how many dangers he will undergo, and says to him: "Do not be afraid before them, for I am with you to deliver you, says the Lord." What Jeremiah suffered has been recorded: he was cast into a pit of mud, and remained there "eating one loaf of bread a day" and drinking only water, and countless other things which his own prophecy has
made plain. "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?" is said to the Jews. And it is necessary that "those who wish to live godly lives in Christ Jesus" should, without exception, "be persecuted" by the hostile powers, through whatever instruments they find. Therefore let those who are persecuted, without being taken aback, do everything, praying only that they be persecuted unjustly and not justly, not on account of wrongdoing, not
for sin, not for greed. But if someone is ever persecuted for the sake of righteousness, let him also hear the words, "Blessed are you when they revile you and persecute you and say every kind of evil against you falsely on my account. Be glad and exult, since great is your reward within the heavens; for thus were the prophets before you persecuted." "For I am with you
to rescue you, says the Lord. And the Lord stretched out his hand to me, and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me." Note the differences between Jeremiah and Isaiah. Isaiah says: "Having unclean lips, and dwelling in the midst of a people that has unclean lips, I dwell there, and I have seen the King, the Lord Sabaoth, with my eyes." And since he confessed that he did not
have unclean deeds, but only trifling words (for he was a sinner only to that extent), the Lord did not "stretch out his hand," but one of the Seraphim touched his lips with his hand, and said: "Behold, I have taken away your iniquities." But since this man was sanctified "from the womb," no tongs are sent to him, nor a coal "from the altar" (for he had nothing deserving
of the fire), but the very hand of the Lord touched him. Hence it says: "The Lord stretched out his hand to me and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me: Behold, I have put my words in your mouth. Behold, I have set you today over nations and kingdoms, to uproot." Who is so blessed as one who, amid many kingdoms
that exist—kingdoms which the devil displays, kingdoms of opposing powers, kingdoms arranged according to sins—can uproot them by the words given by God? For it is written: "Behold, I have put my words in your mouth. Behold, I have set you today over nations and kingdoms, to uproot." And just as there are kingdoms, so too there are nations, for a thing cannot be called a kingdom unless it has
nations under it. For instance, there is a kingdom of fornication, and the nations of that kingdom are each instance of fornication. There is one kingdom which is itself the generic sin of greed and defrauding, and there are many kingdoms among those who have many kinds of sins. Then, for each of the sinners, understand for me the nations that belong to the kingdom, so to speak, in that so-and-so has
many nations of the kingdom of fornication, and so-and-so has many nations of the kingdom of defrauding, or of slander, or of anger. It is the work of the words of God, sent out over "nations and kingdoms," "to uproot and to tear down." To uproot what? The Savior taught, saying: "Every plant that my heavenly Father did not
plant will be uprooted." There are certain things within souls which "the heavenly Father did not plant"; for all evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies, are plantings planted not by the heavenly Father. And if you wish to see whose plantings such thoughts are, hear that "an enemy has done this," the one who has sown
"Tares in the midst of the wheat." God, then, stands ready holding the seeds, and so does the devil. If we give "place to the devil," "the enemy" sows in addition a planting "which the Father did not plant" — the devil's own — one certain to be uprooted. If we do not give "place to the devil," but give place to God, God rejoices and sows his seeds upon our governing faculty. Do not
think, then, that Jeremiah has received some grim gift from God, because he is appointed "over nations and over kingdoms, to root out." God is good even in the words by which he roots out base things — the kingdoms hostile to the kingdom of heaven, the warlike nations opposed to the nation of God. "To root out and to tear down." There is a certain building of the devil, there is a certain building
of God. The building "upon the sand" belongs to the devil, for it is founded on nothing stable and firm and unified; but the building "upon the rock" belongs to God. See what is said to those who belong to God: "You are God's farmland, God's building." The words of God, then, are "against nations and kingdoms," "to root out and to tear down and to destroy."
If a thing is uprooted, but what is uprooted does not perish, <the uprooted thing still exists>. If a thing is torn down, but the stones of the demolition do not perish, the demolished thing still exists. It is, then, the work of God's goodness that, after uprooting, what has been uprooted should perish, and after tearing down, what has been torn down should be destroyed. Read carefully, in the case of things destroyed and uprooted, how such things perish.
"But the chaff burn with unquenchable fire," and "bind the tares in bundles and hand them over to the fire" — thus after being uprooted it perishes. If you wish to see, also after demolition, the things destroyed belonging to the building of base matter: that house becomes dust which has been torn down on account of leprosy, and is cast out, having become dust, "outside the city," so that not even a stone remains
standing — like "I will grind them fine as the clay of the streets": for what is worse must in no way hold together. Something was torn down — let its stones not be useful for another building, the one the evil one is able to build; something was uprooted — let him not find, from the things uprooted, seeds for a city, so that he might sow the tares again; for surely, having the seeds of the tares, he would sow them. For this reason, bind
the tares and burn them with fire, so that after being uprooted it may perish, and after being torn down the devil's building may perish. But the words of God do not stop there, at "rooting out and tearing down and destroying." For suppose the base things have been uprooted from me, the worse things torn down — what benefit is it to me, unless in place of the things uprooted the better things
are planted? What benefit is it to me, unless in place of these the superior things are built up? For this reason the words of God necessarily do first the work of "rooting out and tearing down and destroying," after which comes "building and planting." And we have always observed in Scripture that the things which appear grim, if I may call them so, are named first, and then the things that seem to be cheerful are named second. "I will put to death"
"...and I will make alive." <It did not say, "I will make alive," and after this, "I will kill."> For it is impossible that what God has made alive should be killed, whether by him or by someone else. But rather, "I will kill, and I will make alive." Whom will I kill? Paul the betrayer, Paul the persecutor. "And I will make alive," so that "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ," might come to be. If the wretched people who
come from the heresies had understood these things, they would not constantly bring them forward to us, saying: "Do you see how the God of the law is savage and inhuman, and says, 'I will kill, and I will make alive'? Do you not see in the scriptures the promise of the resurrection of the dead? Or do you not see the resurrection of the dead already being prefigured in each instance? 'We were buried' with Christ 'through baptism' and rose with
him. He therefore begins with words that are grimmer, yet necessary, such as "I will kill"; then, having killed, "and I will make alive; I will strike, and I will heal." "For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and scourges every son whom he receives." First he strikes, and afterward he heals; "for he himself causes pain, and again restores." And so it is here too: "I have set you today over nations and kingdoms, to uproot
and to tear down and destroy, to build and to plant.” Yet first those base things must be taken away from us. God cannot build on the site of a base structure. “For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? What fellowship has light with darkness?” Wickedness must be uprooted from its foundations; the structure of wickedness must be consumed away from our soul,
so that after this the words of God may build and plant. For I cannot understand what is written in any other way: "Behold, I have put my words in your mouth." What do the words do? "Uproot and tear down and destroy." Words uproot "nations," words tear down "kingdoms" — but not these, the worldly ones. Worthy of words that tear down, worthy
of words that uproot, understand the things uprooted by words, the things torn down by words. Is there not, then, in the things now being spoken, a power — if God grants it (according to "the Lord will give a word to those who proclaim good news, with great power") — a power that uproots, whatever unbelief there is, whatever hypocrisy, whatever wickedness, whatever licentiousness? Is there not a power that tears down, wherever some idol-shrine has been built in the heart,
so that, once that has been torn down, the temple of God may be built, and the glory of God may be found in the temple thus rebuilt, and it may become not a sacred grove, but a planting — the paradise of God, where the temple of God is in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs the glory and the might, for the ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 2 ========

"God did not make death, nor does he delight in the destruction of the living; for he created all things to exist, and the generative processes of the world are health-giving, and there is no destructive drug in them, nor is the kingdom of Hades on the earth." Then, going a little beyond the text, I will say from where death entered: "by the envy of the devil death entered into the world." If then
whatever is best about us, God has made it, but we have created for ourselves wickedness and sins. For this reason too, here the beginning of the reading in the prophet spoke, as it were questioningly, to those who had in their soul a bitterness opposed to the sweetness which God had prepared for it: "How have you turned to bitterness, O alien vine?" As if
he were saying: God did not make lameness, but made everyone sound of foot; what, then, has been the cause of those who are lamed? And God made all the members originally healthy, but what has become the cause of someone's suffering? In the same way the soul came to be "according to the image" not only of the first man, but of every man. For "let us make man according to the image and
according to our likeness" extends to all human beings. And that "according to the image" is prior, just as in Adam that which most people understand as the "according to the image" of what was added to him, when because of sin he put on "the image of the man of dust"—so in all people the "according to the image of God" is prior to the inferior image. "We have worn," being sinners, "the image of the man of dust; let us put on," as repentant people,
"the image of the heavenly man." Yet the creation came into being in the image of the heavenly man. Here, then, the word raises a difficulty against sinners, speaking accusingly: "How have you turned to bitterness, O alien vine? For I," it says, "planted you as a fruit-bearing vine, wholly true." This has been said in what precedes, and by taking it up again briefly I will persuade you that God planted a good vine, the
soul of man, but each one, having turned away, has become opposed to the will of the one who created it. "But I planted you as a fruit-bearing vine, wholly" true—not true in part, nor true in one part and false in another, but "I planted you as a fruit-bearing vine, wholly true; how have you turned"—though I planted you as a wholly true vine, how have you turned to bitterness and become an alien vine?
After this let us look at "if you wash yourself with soda and multiply for yourself soapwort, you are stained by your iniquities before me, says the Lord." Did some sinning soul suppose that by taking perceptible soda and washing itself with soda, it ceases from the stain and ceases from sin? And did someone suppose that by taking this plant that springs up from the earth and washing and scouring itself, the
soul is cleansed—because the word here says to the one who has turned to bitterness and become an alien vine: "if you wash yourself with soda and multiply for yourself soapwort, you are stained by your iniquities before me, says the Lord"? But one must know that the word has every power; and just as it has the power of every scripture, so the word has the power of every remedy, and
There is a power in everything that cleanses, and it is most thoroughly scouring. "For living is the word of God, and active, keener than every two-edged blade." And whatever you say is needed, this is present in the power of the word. There is, then, a certain word that is niter, and there is a certain word that is soapwort, which, when spoken, cleanses such filth. But since from the
such word which is niter, and from such word which is soapwort, not every sin is healed. But there are sins that need neither niter nor soapwort; it is said to her who thinks she has sins that can be washed away with niter and soapwort: "Even if you wash yourself with niter and multiply soapwort for yourself, you are stained before me in your iniquities,
says the Lord." And just as some wounds are healed by a poultice, and others are healed by oil, and others need a bandage and so are healed, but there are other wounds concerning which it is said: "There is no poultice to apply, nor oil, nor bandages, but your land is desolate, your cities burned with fire" — so there are certain sins which defile the soul, and
for these sins a person needs the word of niter, the word of soapwort; but there are certain sins which are not healed in this way, for they are not even comparable to filth. For this reason the Lord in Isaiah, knowing the differences among sins, see how he says: "The Lord shall wash away the filth of the sons and daughters of Zion, and shall cleanse the blood from their midst
by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of burning." Filth and blood: filth by a spirit of judgment, blood by a spirit of burning. If, though not "unto death," you have nonetheless sinned, you are defiled. "The Lord shall wash away," then, "the filth of the sons and daughters of Zion, and shall cleanse the blood from their midst." Then the correspondence is: to "the filth," "a spirit of judgment"; to "the blood," "a spirit of burning." And
we, the many, if we sin worse, need not niter, nor the multiplying of soapwort, but the spirit of burning. For this reason Jesus baptizes — perhaps I now find the meaning — "with the Holy Spirit and fire." Not that he baptizes the same person "with the Holy Spirit and fire," but the holy one "with the Holy Spirit," while the one who, after believing, after
being deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit, has sinned again, he washes in "fire" — so that it is not the same person being baptized by Jesus "with the Holy Spirit and fire." Blessed, then, is the one baptized with the Holy Spirit and not needing the baptism that comes from fire. But thrice-wretched is that one who has need to be baptized with fire. Yet Jesus has both. For "a rod shall come forth from the root
of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from the root." "The rod" refers to those being punished, "the flower" to the righteous. Thus "God is a consuming fire," and "God is light": a consuming fire to sinners, light to the righteous and holy. And blessed is he who has a part in the first resurrection, who has kept the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Who is the one
being saved in another resurrection? The one who needs the baptism that comes from fire, when he comes to that fire, and the fire puts him to the test, and that fire finds wood, hay, and — so as to burn them up. Therefore, since these things are said, let us, with all the strength we have, gather together the words of the scriptures and lay them up in our heart, and let us try to live according to them,
if indeed we are able to become pure before our departure, and having prepared our works for that departure, go forth in the midst of them and be taken up among good things themselves, and be saved in Christ Jesus, to whom is the glory and the power for the ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 3 ========

The Lord says, at the beginning of the passage read concerning Israel, that a "wilderness" did not become to him, nor "a land made desolate." Who then, coming to this place and examining it, would not seek the intention of what is written? Granted, God did not become a wilderness to Israel, there was no land made desolate for Israel; is the Lord then a wilderness
to Israel today, or is it now a land made desolate for him? What then? When he was not a wilderness to Israel, nor a land made desolate, was he a wilderness and a land made desolate to the nations? For if he is never a wilderness to anyone, and never a land made desolate to anyone, what need was there for it to be said specifically and exceptionally to Israel: "Have I become a wilderness to the
house of Israel, or a land made desolate?" But one may proceed to the general benefactions of God, and then, after his general benefactions, to the particular ones. God is a wilderness to no one, making his sun rise on the wicked and the good; he is a land made desolate to no one, sending rain on the just and the unjust. How is he a wilderness, who makes day and night rise for rest? How is he a wilderness, making the
earth bear fruit? How is he a wilderness, ordering each person according to the soul, so that each may be rational, so that each may take up understanding, so that his intelligence may be exercised, so that in respect to the body he may have his "senses" sound? He is, then, a wilderness to no one, as regards the universal principle. But as regards the particular, I come to the affairs of Israel and say: he was neither a wilderness
nor a land made desolate when he was working the signs and wonders for the people in Egypt. But if there was ever a time when they were abandoned, he became, as it were, a wilderness to them, though he himself was not a wilderness. Yet when he was not a wilderness to Israel, nor a land made desolate, he was, by the particular reckoning, a wilderness and a land made desolate to the nations. But when he turned away from
Israel, and became to that Israel a wilderness and a land made desolate, then grace was poured out upon the nations, and now for us Christ Jesus has become not a wilderness but full, and not a land made desolate but fruitful; for "the children of the desolate woman are many, far more than those of her who possesses a husband." And he threatens those to whom he has not become a wilderness nor a land made desolate,
saying: I have not become to you a "wilderness" nor "a land made desolate," but you have said: "We shall not be ruled, we shall no longer come to you." Have the sons of Israel spoken so recklessly, according to the letter: "We shall not be ruled" . . . [lacuna in the source text]

======== Homily on Jeremiah 4 ========

The very wording of the passage just read contains something unclear, which must first be understood; and after that, if God grants it, we shall know its hidden intention. He wants us to know, then, that, as it is written in Kingdoms, the people was divided in the days of Rehoboam into the kingdom of the ten tribes under Jeroboam and into the
two tribes under Rehoboam; and those under Jeroboam were called Israel, and those under Rehoboam, Judah. And this division of the people remained, so far as the historical record goes, until now; for we know of no history that brought Israel and Judah together as one. Israel, then, the people under Jeroboam and
his successors, sinned first, and sinned more than Judah, so much so that they were condemned by providence to become captives among the Assyrians, as scripture says, until this day. After this the sons of Judah also sinned and were condemned to captivity in Babylon, not until this day as Israel was, but for seventy years, concerning which Jeremiah prophesied,
and which Daniel also mentioned. If we understand these things as referring only to that people at that time, look at the words of the prophet, to see whether they do not indicate something else as well. For the argument, so to speak, accuses Israel of its sins, and says that although so many sins had been committed by Israel, the assembly of Judah, having heard of their failings and of how I had made them become captive,
was not thereby instructed but added to its own sins, so that, because of this addition of sins, when compared with the sins of Israel, righteousness was found to belong to Israel rather than to Judah. Then, on account of this, the prophet is commanded to prophesy, on the ground that Judah is worse than Israel, so that after its sins it might turn back. After the prophecy, then, to Israel commanding it to turn back,
the prophet prophesies concerning him that Israel and Judah are going to come to be together, and that there will one day be a single kingdom of both. Let whoever cares about the readings take up the words of today's whole reading, and then he will see the meanings made plain. "And the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king: Have you seen what the dwelling of Israel did to me?" — not
Judah, but Israel first? "She went up onto every high mountain and under every leafy tree, and played the harlot there; and after she had done all these things I said: Return to me — and she did not return. And the faithless Judah saw her unfaithfulness," that of the assembly of Israel. "And" those of Judah "saw that concerning all the things in which"
the dwelling of Israel committed adultery, I sent her away and gave her a bill of divorce." Judah ought to have been instructed by this — for I sent Israel away, the assembly of Israel, I cast them out among the Assyrians "and gave her a bill of divorce into her hands" — "yet the faithless Judah was not afraid." But after all these things which I did to Israel, having sent it away,
having given a bill of divorce, since the assembly of Judah needed to be instructed by what those people had suffered — yet they were not only not instructed, but added to their sins, so that the sins of the assembly of Israel, compared with the sins of the assembly of Judah, seem to be righteousness. "And I gave her a bill of divorce into her hands; and the faithless one, Judah, her sister, was not afraid,"
and she too went and played the harlot, and her fornication came to nothing for her, and she committed adultery with wood and stone. And in all these things the faithless one, Judah, did not turn back to me with her whole heart, but turned back to me in falsehood. She was not ashamed before me for what I had done for Israel, so that she would turn back completely, but
since she needed to turn back in truth, she instead turned back in falsehood. "And in all these things the faithless one, Judah, did not turn back to me with her whole heart, but in falsehood. And the Lord said to me: Israel has justified her soul in comparison with the faithless one, Judah." The sins of Israel, compared with the offenses of Judah, became a justification of the soul
of the assembly of Israel. "Go, therefore, and read these words toward the north." If the saying has been understood, let us see what it means to make clear by these things. The calling of the nations had its beginning from the transgression of Israel, and the apostles, having preached to the assemblies of the Jews, say that "the word of salvation was sent to you; but since you judge yourselves unworthy,"
behold, we turn to the nations. And the apostle, knowing what he knows about these matters, says: "By their transgression, salvation came to the nations, so as to provoke them to jealousy." Therefore the many sins of that people caused it to be abandoned, and us to come to the hope of the covenants, the heirs of the covenants, we who were strangers to the promises. For how could I,
who have become in whatever way a stranger to the so-called holy land, now speak about the promises of God, and believe in the God of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and by the grace of God receive Jesus Christ, proclaimed by the prophets? If you understand these two peoples, the one from Israel and the one from the nations, consider for me the
deportation of Israel, and understand it with reference to that people, Israel, and think of it as written about that people: "I have sent her away and given her a bill of divorce" — for God sent that people away and gave it a bill of divorce. This is what happens among married people: if a wife becomes displeasing to her husband, the law of Moses says, a "bill of divorce" from
her husband was drawn up and the wife was sent away, and it was permitted to the one who had sent away the first wife, since she was thought to have acted shamefully, to marry another wife. In this way, by this word, understand those people as receiving a bill of divorce. And because they received the bill of divorce, they were for this reason utterly abandoned. For where are the prophets still among them? Where are signs still among them? Where is the manifestation of God? Where
the worship, the temple, the sacrifices; they were cast out from their own place. So he gave to Israel “a bill of divorce.” Then we of Judah (called “Judah” because of the savior who rose from Judah; for it had been foretold, “our Lord has risen from Judah”) turned back to the Lord, and our final state — which, may it not be so! — seems to be becoming like their
final state, unless indeed even worse. For that our own affairs too will be such at the consummation of this age is clear from what was said by the Savior in the Gospel, where he says: “because lawlessness will be multiplied, the love of the many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end, this one will be saved.” And: “he will perform signs and wonders, the
so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” — such will our own affairs be, so that the Savior speaks concerning his own coming as though scarcely a faithful person could quickly be found among so many churches: “yet when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” And truly, if we judge matters by truth and not by crowds, and judge matters
by conviction and not by seeing many gathered together, we will now see that we are not faithful. But they were faithful then, when the noble martyrdoms were taking place, when, having escorted the martyrs from the burial grounds, we would come to the assemblies, and the whole church, unafflicted, would be present, and the catechumens were catechized by the martyrdoms and by the deaths of those confessing the
truth “unto death,” “not frightened” nor troubled “before the living God.” Then, we know, we had also seen extraordinary and marvelous signs. Then the faithful were few, but truly faithful, journeying the narrow and afflicted road that leads “to life.” But now, since we have become many — since it is not possible for many to be elect, for he who said this does not lie,
Jesus: “many are called, but few are elect” — out of the multitude of those who remain in the practice of piety, very few indeed are those who arrive at God’s election and blessedness. If then he says, “as I first sent Israel away because of their sins, and sent him away into exile,” and Judah, hearing what had happened to Israel, did not turn back, he speaks concerning
our own sins. Because the things that happened to Israel are read, and the failures concerning that people, we ought to fear — and “if he did not spare the natural branches, how much more will he not spare” us — if that God, who is at once kind and loving to mankind, did not spare those who boasted of being a “good olive tree,” rooted in “the root” of the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, but cut them off, how much more
will he not spare us, being God’s own.” For he is not kind without also being severe, nor severe without also being kind. For if he were kind only, and not severe, we would despise “his kindness” all the more. If he were severe only, and not kind, we would perhaps also despair over our sins.
But now, as God — for we humans need repentance in the face of his kindness, while if we persist in our sins we meet his severity — God is both kind and severe, and he speaks to us through the prophets and says: "Have you seen what the dwelling-place of Israel did to me?" Understand by "Israel" that people of mine: "She went up on every high mountain and under..."
"...every leafy tree." If you see the Pharisee going up into the temple in a boastful manner, not beating his breast nor troubled over his own evils, but saying: "I thank you that I am not like the rest of humankind — greedy, unjust, adulterers — or even like this tax collector; I fast twice a week, I tithe everything I possess," you will see that he has gone up
"onto every high mountain" — blameworthily, having loved grandiosity, and in keeping with his arrogance and his pride he has turned every hill into a high one, and has become "under every tree" — not a fruit-bearing one, but a "grove tree." For a grove tree is one thing, and a tree planted in a sacred grove is another: when people plant trees in groves, they do not plant the fruit-bearing kinds, not fig nor vine, but only fruitless trees, for the sake of pleasure.
Such you will find the arguments of the heterodox, and the attractiveness of their plausible claims does not turn their hearers back. So then, whenever someone gives himself over to such arguments, he has gone "under every tree of the grove." Scripture did not say "every tree" and stop there, nor again add "every fruit-bearing tree," but said "under every tree of the grove." From this you will understand why the lawgiver
says: "You shall not plant any tree beside the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall not make yourself a sacred grove" — for you see that even the name "grove" is forbidden. "And she played the harlot there. And I said, after she had done all these things, Return to me; and she did not return, and the faithless one, Judah, saw her treachery." We too have been reproached — I mean we who sin
and do not keep the covenants of God, and fail to see that those others — noble as they were, though of Abraham's line, though they had received the promise — have lost the covenant. We ought then to reckon that they have fallen away from the blessings and the promises, and that being descended from the fathers profited them nothing; how much more shall we, if we sin, be abandoned. "If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of
Abraham," the Savior says to them. And John again: "Do not begin to say among yourselves, We have Abraham as our father; for I tell you God has the power, out of these very stones, to raise up children for Abraham" — hinting at stones, meaning us, who have a heart of stone and have been hardened against the truth. And truly God has raised up
children for Abraham from the stones, if we remain in that begetting of children and keep the spirit of ... So then, "her treachery" — the treachery of the dwelling-place of Israel — "the faithless one, Judah" saw, she who did not keep the covenants toward God, and she saw that concerning all the things for which that woman had been forsaken (for we see all these things, we who are Judah, if we read the
...scripture) — that "concerning those on whose account the dwelling of Israel was abandoned, in which she committed adultery, God sent her away and gave her a bill of divorce" — for us to be instructed by what he did to them, having judged them according to their sins, abandoning them and handing them over to captivity and handing them over to slaughter and handing them over to their enemies; and it is necessary that we turn back from these things, and that each of us reason that, if
God did not spare the natural branches, how much more will he not spare us, since it was after becoming sinners that the fathers were thus cast out — what shall we suffer, we who have been called from the nations? We have reckoned none of these things, though we were called so that that people might be provoked to jealousy, seeing the slave honored, seeing the base-born one drawn near. But if they suffered so much, how much more, if we sin,
shall we be abandoned? "In which the dwelling of Israel committed adultery, I sent her away and gave a bill of divorce into her hands; and the faithless Judah was not afraid" — what I did to the dwelling of Israel, namely that "I sent her away and gave her a bill of divorce." "She was not afraid" from what had happened to them. Someone enters the house of a householder; he is newly bought; he inquires which
of the former servants he honored and why, and which of the servants he dishonored and why. Having taken note, if he wishes to remain in the household of the householder, he guards against falling into what the former slaves did who sinned and were cast out and handed over to punishment. Then, learning what the former slaves who found favor did, and by what sort of conduct they attained freedom, he emulates them. And
as for us — we were not slaves of God but of idols and demons, pagans; only yesterday and the day before did we come to God. Let us read the scripture; let us see who was justified, who was condemned; let us imitate those who were justified; let us guard against falling into those things into which the captives fell, those cast out from God. "And the faithless Judah was not afraid, and she too went and played the harlot." Israel having played the harlot first,
Judah too played the harlot afterward. "And her harlotry came to nothing, and she committed adultery with the wood and the stone." Whenever we sin, we do nothing else than this: becoming stony-hearted, we commit adultery with "the stone." Whenever we sin and play the harlot "beneath every leafy tree," we too commit adultery with the wood. "And the faithless Judah did not return to me with all
her heart, but in falsehood." If we have turned to God, but only partially, we stand accused of not having turned "with all the heart." Hence "the faithless Judah did not return to me with all her heart" — it does not say: and the faithless Judah returned, and stood firm, but rather: "and the faithless Judah did not return to me with all her heart,
but in falsehood" was how she returned. The true turning, then, is this: to read the old things, to know those who were justified, to imitate them; to read those same things and to see those who were blamed, and to guard against falling into those same blameworthy acts; to read the books of the new covenant, the words of the apostles, and after reading, to write all these things upon the heart, and to live according to them, so that it may not be given to us as well
a certificate of divorce, but rather that we may be able to come to the holy inheritance, and, once the fullness of the nations is saved, that Israel may then be able to enter. For if the fullness of the nations enters in, then all Israel will be saved, "and they will become one flock, one shepherd," teaching us to glorify the almighty God in Christ Jesus himself, whose is the glory and the dominion forever
and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 5 ========

It is clearly written in the Acts of the Apostles that the apostles first entered the synagogue of the Jews, proclaiming to them, as kinsmen through Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the things that had been written concerning the coming of Jesus Christ. But when those people would not accept what was said, and it was necessary that there be other hearers of what was spoken, then the apostles, having made their defense to them, left them behind.
For it is written: "You were the ones to whom God's word had to be announced first; but since you judge yourselves unworthy, look, we are turning to the nations instead." Now this, which is said plainly in the Acts of the Apostles, has in effect been said in many places by the prophets as well; for the Holy Spirit speaks primarily, through the prophets, to those of that people, but
whenever, after speaking much, it was not heeded, it prophesies the word that would be proclaimed to the nations. This is exactly what happened at the beginning of today's reading, since before this very passage it is said to those of Israel: "Even if you call me father, you will not turn away from me. But as a wife who is faithless to the one who lives with her, so
has the house of Israel been faithless to me, says the Lord." And when these things concerning Israel had first been said, and the sons of Israel had heard "that they dealt unjustly in their ways and forgot the Lord their God," next the Holy Spirit turns the word to us who are from the nations, and says: "Turn back, sons who turn back, and I will heal
your wounds." For we are the ones filled with wounds — each of us could say this, even if now cleansed and healed of our wounds. "For we too were once foolish, foolish, going astray, enslaved to desires and to many and varied pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. But when the kindness and love for mankind of God our Savior appeared,
he poured out his mercy upon us through the washing of regeneration" — though having once mentioned this apostolic saying, I will try to set it forth more clearly. For it was not said: "we were once foolish, disobedient" simply by anyone — but Paul, the apostle, the one from Israel, the one who "became blameless according to the righteousness that is in the law," says: "for we too were once (we who are from Israel) disobedient, foolish" — but
not only were those from the nations foolish, nor were those from Israel alone disobedient, nor were they alone sinners — we too, who had been taught the law, were of the same kind before the coming of Christ. So it is said, after the words spoken to Israel, to us who are from the nations: "Turn back, sons who turn back, and I will heal your wounds." But
someone will say: these things were said to Israel, and you draw them over to those from the nations. We wish to show that it is not after many things but immediately, wherever it wishes to speak to Israel about turning back, that it adds the name of Israel. Accordingly, it is next said: "If Israel turns back, says the Lord, to me, it shall be restored; and if it removes its abominations
of his, from his mouth, and be in awe before my face, and swear, ‘The Lord lives,’ in truth and in judgment and in righteousness, and nations will bless themselves in him.’ The first things, then, are said to those from the nations, since if the fullness of the nations comes in, then all Israel will be saved, according to what has been said by the apostle
in the letter to the Romans. Observe in what way God urges us, as we turn, to turn completely, promising that if, ‘turning,’ we turn to him, he will heal, through Jesus Christ, our ‘wounds’; while we, answering—we who are not going to delay or be slow about our salvation as that Israel was—say, ‘Here we are, we will be yours.’ God said,
‘Turn back, sons who are turning, and I will heal your wounds’; and those from the nations say, ‘We will be slaves’—we who were not ‘yours’ before, but belonged to demons, and were in the grip of opposing powers. For ‘when’ the Most High ‘divided the nations, we became not your portion, nor, with the people of Jacob, a measured cord of inheritance,’ but we became the portions of others; yet we who
once became portions, when you said to us, ‘Turn back, sons who are turning, and I will heal your wounds,’ answer: ‘Here we are.’ For this is what we were waiting for—the call—not that, just as those were called and declined, so we too, being called, should decline. For we have it in the parables of the gospel that, when some had been called first, one said, ‘I have taken a wife, consider me excused,’ and another
said, ‘Five yoke of oxen is what I have purchased, and I am on my way to test them; count me among the excused.’ We, then, who are from the nations, are not like that—we were called, and we do not decline. Why? What field is there for us to attend to? What wise wife? What else should occupy us? God, then, has said to us, ‘Turn back, sons who are turning, and I will heal your wounds’; and seeing our own
wounds, and the promise concerning their healing, we immediately answer and say, ‘Here we are, we will be yours, for you are the Lord our God.’ Having heard, then, and having said ‘we will be yours,’ let us remember that we have made a promise to God, saying to him, ‘we will be yours’; and having said to him ‘we will be yours,’ let us belong to nothing else—not to a spirit of anger, not to a spirit of grief, not to a spirit of desire, not
let us belong to the devil, nor to his angels; but, having been called and having said, ‘Here we are, we will be yours,’ let us show by our deeds that we have devoted ourselves to becoming his, and no one else’s. And we say, ‘for you are the Lord our God’; for we confess no other god—not the belly, as the gluttons do, ‘whose god is the belly’; not
silver, as the money-lovers do, nor covetousness, which is idolatry, nor do we deify and make a god of anything else, as many do make gods; but for us the God over all, the God who is over all, through all, and in all, is God, and since we have been bound in attachment to God—for love binds us to God—we say: ‘Here we are, we will be yours,’
'...that you are the LORD our God.' Then, having condemned our former evils (when we regarded the idols as great and lofty, and worshiped them, thinking marvelous the things we served; but now we have condemned them, since all those things were false and amounted to nothing), we say, turning back: 'Truly the hills were a lie' — we too having condemned the former lofty things and the former marvels.
And perhaps, if we work carefully at it, we will find the difference between the hills and mountains among the nations, which those who said, 'Behold, here we are, we will be yours, for you are the LORD our God,' having abandoned, accuse as false — both the hills and the mountains. What, then, is the difference between the mountains and hills among the nations, which, having condemned, we say: 'Truly
the hills were a lie, and the power of the mountains'? This is what we say, we who have condemned the former things. Among the things worshiped by the nations, some are worshiped as gods, others as heroes. For they themselves also acknowledge, concerning some, that they were formerly human and were deified. They worship Heracles not as a god born a god, but as one changed from a human being into a god;
they worship Asclepius as one changed from a human being into a god through virtue. But when they worship the fathers of these, who are called gods among them, they worship them not as ones changed from human beings into gods, but, as those people suppose, as gods existing from the beginning. So, then, those regarded by the nations as gods from the beginning will be 'the mountains' and 'the power of the mountains,' while those regarded
by them as being gods now, but as having formerly been human, these are 'the hills.' Knowing, then, both orders of things worshiped, we say: 'Truly the hills were a lie, and the power of the mountains.' For those who serve them do not suppose that these things are false. That is why they think the oracles and the cures are true cures, not seeing the difference belonging to every
power and sign and wonder of falsehood in every deceit of unrighteousness for those who are perishing — the fullness of the nations should come in, and after this all Israel will be saved — Christ Jesus: these were signs of truth; and even before him, the things Moses did were a power of truth. But the things the Egyptians did were signs and wonders indeed, but of falsehood. And so too were the things
Simon the magician did after Jesus, so as to lead the nation of Samaria astray and to have himself regarded as the power of God — these too were signs and wonders of falsehood. When, then, we condemn those things, we who have condemned them say: 'Truly the hills were a lie, and the power of the mountains.' Then, since we, who are from the nations, know that by the
trespass of Israel we received the way of salvation, and that they are cast out, until our fullness comes in — and we know too that if the fullness of the nations comes in, after this all Israel will be saved — for this reason we say, first, 'Truly the hills were a lie, and the power of the mountains,' and second, concerning Israel after the fullness of the nations.
"But salvation for Israel is through the Lord our God." Since we have once mentioned the apostolic saying, that by the trespass by which Israel fell, salvation came to the nations, and that when "the fullness of the nations comes in" — Israel remaining outside — after the fullness of the nations that is coming in, "then all Israel will be saved," come, let us unfold the matters relating to these places.
Israel was being saved. The greater part of Israel fell away, but "a remnant has come to be according to the election of grace," concerning which remnant it is said mystically "in the passage on Elijah": "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bent the knee to Baal." And in explaining this remnant the apostle says: "So then, in the present time also a remnant has come to be according to the election of grace." Therefore
there is Israel, even if only a remnant is being saved, once Israel has been left behind. These two orders, if you are able, transfer for me also to those from the nations. For he did not say: when all the nations are saved, then all Israel will be saved; but: "when the fullness of the nations comes in," then it is not that just any Israel will be saved along with all the nations, but rather after "the fullness of the
nations." If anyone is able, let him go further and, just as he found Israel being saved after the fullness of the nations, pass over in reasoning and consider when all will serve God under a single yoke, and bring sacrifices from the ends of Ethiopia — as it is said in the sixty-seventh Psalm: "Ethiopia will stretch out her hand to God," and to the kingdoms
"of the earth" the word commands, saying: "Sing to the Lord, sing praise to the God of Jacob." So then, we who are from the nations say, concerning ourselves, repenting of the falsehoods which we thought were true: "Truly the hills were a delusion, and the power of the mountains"; but concerning the Israel who will be saved after us: "But salvation for the house of Israel is through the
Lord our God." And when we confess our sins, in which our fathers too were involved, and we ourselves were idolaters, we say: "Shame has consumed the labors of our fathers from their youth, their sheep and their oxen, their sons and their daughters." "Shame has consumed the labors of our fathers" —
and the words said here. Therefore, if the toilsome labor and the false work of the fathers is to be consumed, shame must come about; for before shame comes, the labor of the fathers is not consumed — and what follows. For this reason let us consider the differences among those who sin. There are those who sin and are neither ashamed nor abashed at their sins, nor do they blush. Such are those who
have grown callous and have given themselves over to all licentiousness and all uncleanness. For as to those from the nations — in what manner, as though recounting feats of valor, they sometimes list their fornications and their adulteries, not even ashamed to confess that they have done such things, and do not call them sins. Insofar as they are not ashamed, their labors are not consumed. Their sins are not consumed. The beginning of good things is
being ashamed of things one was not ashamed of before. For this reason I do not think it is a curse that is spoken among the prophets in “let all who hate Zion be ashamed and confounded.” For he is praying that those insensible to shameful deeds may come to an awareness, so that, having been put to shame, they may be able to consume their toils and their sins. And the irrational movements of the fathers he called “sheep” and
“calves.” For not all irrational things are praiseworthy; rather, some are blameworthy, like the sheep of the fathers who had sinned; but there are also some irrational things that are praiseworthy, such as: “my sheep hear my voice.” These too were sheep, to which we bear an analogous relation, since we have the good shepherd in our souls. For whenever the Savior says:
“I am the good shepherd,” I do not hear this only as everyone hears it, that he is the shepherd of those who believe (for this too is sound and true), but I also ought to have Christ within my own soul, the good shepherd within me, shepherding the irrational movements within me, so that they may no longer go out to pasture at random,
but, being led by the shepherd, these things, which once happened to be foreign to him, may become his own. For this reason, now, if the shepherd is in me, he rules over my senses; they are no longer under a foreign mind, or under Pharaoh, or under Nebuchadnezzar, but under the good shepherd. “Shame,” then, “has consumed the toils of our fathers from their youth,
their sheep and their oxen.” There is something in us that farms us, whether farming badly — I mean “badly” said of the one farming — or farming well. If, then, it farms badly, it is a toil of the fathers that is being consumed by their shame; but if it farms well, it is not a toil of the fathers, but rather a toil from which
the firstborn are offered up upon the altar of God. “Their sons and their daughters,” they say. Whose “them”? The sons of “the fathers” are consumed by their shame, and their daughters as well. We have often said that these are the offspring of the soul — that thoughts are sons, while the works and the deeds performed through the body are daughters. Since, then,
there are some wicked thoughts, of the kind that those from the nations conceived, and there are also wicked deeds, for this reason sons and daughters are consumed by those who produced them, if shame arises in them concerning their sins. But may it not befall us to make sons and daughters subject to that consumption which comes from shame. After this, these who are confessing say, “We lay down in our shame,
“our shame”; and after this they say: “and our dishonor,” it says, “has covered us.” Concerning the veil that lies upon the face of those who do not turn to the Lord, we have often spoken. Because of this veil, whenever Moses is read, the sinner does not understand him; for “a veil lies upon his heart.” Because of the veil, if the old covenant is read, he will not understand it,
...listening. That is why the gospel too is veiled to those who are perishing. Let us speak then about the veil, that shame is the veil. For as much as we have “the works of shame,” it is clear that we have the veil, according to what is said somewhere in the forty-third Psalm: “and the shame of my face has covered me.” I cited this because he who does not
have works of shame does not have a veil; such was Paul, saying: “but we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord.” Paul therefore has his face unveiled, for he does not have works of shame. He who is not like Paul has his face veiled. As therefore there it is said “the shame of my face has covered me” in the forty-third
Psalm, in the same way it is said here: “our dishonor,” it says, “has covered us.” As much as we work the works of dishonor, we have a veil lying upon our heart. If we wish to lay aside the veil that comes from dishonor, let us arrive at the works of honor and understand that saying spoken by the Savior: “that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father,”
let us also understand what is said by the apostle: “through transgression of the law you dishonor God. The righteous man, as he honors the Father, honors the Son.” Dishonor, whenever I dishonor the Son — the very dishonor by which I dishonor the Father or the Son — becomes a covering upon my face, and I say: “and dishonor has covered us.” For this reason, having understood the
veil that lies upon us from the works of shame, from the deeds, let us remove — let us remove the veil. It is in our power for the veil to be removed; it belongs to no one else. For “whenever Moses turned to the Lord, the veil was removed.” Do you see how Moses is at times taken also for the people? As much as he did not turn to the Lord, being a symbol of the people who do not turn
to the Lord, he had a veil lying upon his face; but when he turned to the Lord, becoming a symbol of those who turn to the Lord, then “the veil was removed.” And it was not as though God commanded him, saying: put on the veil (for the Lord did not say to Moses: put on the veil), but Moses, seeing that the people could not look upon his glory,
then would put “the veil upon his face,” and did not wait for God to say: remove the veil, whenever he might turn to the Lord. This then is written, so that you too, in putting the veil upon your face through the works of dishonor and of shame, may yourself also work at having the veil removed. If you turn to the Lord, then you remove the
veil, and you will no longer say “our dishonor has covered us.” For instance, when anger lies upon our soul against someone, a veil of ours lies upon our face. Therefore, if we wish, while praying, to say: “the light of your face has been marked upon us, O Lord,” let us remove the veil and do that apostolic saying: “I want the men to pray in every
in that place lifting up holy hands without anger and disputations.» If we remove the anger, we have removed the veil, if all the passions too. And to the extent that these things are in our mind, in our reasoning, the veil and the dishonor lie upon the inner face, upon our ruling faculty, so that we do not see the glory of God shining. It is not
God who hides his glory from us, but we who place the veil upon the ruling faculty out of wickedness. »Because we have sinned before our God, we and our fathers.« Would that we too might say this, as they do, in accordance with the prophet's impersonation: we have sinned. »We have sinned« is not the same as we sin; for the one still in sin
should not say, we have sinned, but the one who sinned before, and has repented precisely, should say, we have sinned, as it is also written in Daniel: a confession by those no longer sinning, who say, »we have sinned, we have broken the law,« and in the Psalms: »do not remember the iniquities of our former days,« says the prophet. Let us too, then, confess our sins – would that not for yesterday's, would that not for those of three days ago, but would that in confessing we might confess concerning sins committed fifteen years
ago, so as to have had no sin after that for fifteen years. But if we sinned yesterday, we are not yet trustworthy in confessing about our sins; nor is there room for these sins of ours to be blotted out. »Because we have sinned, we and our fathers, from our youth until this day.« Let that first point be said for instruction concerning the manner of the best confession;
but this is an accusation of sinning for a long time. »From youth,« it says, »until this day, and we have not heeded the voice of the Lord our God«: we have sinned, and we have not heeded, up to the present. Then, having turned and having made a beginning of turning, they say, »we have sinned, and we have not heeded.« For it is not the case that the moment we wish to obey we already obey at once; for there is still need of
time, just as with wounds in coming to healing, so too with turning, in coming to turn completely and purely to God. On this point God says concerning Israel: »if Israel turns back to me, says the Lord, it shall indeed be turned back«; that is, if it turns back completely, it will also be turned back with a true turning, not if it merely begins, as it were, to turn back. Then he says: »And
if he removes his abominations from his mouth, and reveres my presence, and swears, 'the Lord lives,' in truth and in judgment and in righteousness, then the nations shall bless themselves in him.« If they do these things, »the nations shall bless themselves in him.« And what must they do, that the nations may bless themselves in him? »If he removes his abominations from his mouth
«. And what is it to remove the abominations from the mouth? Whatever we say wickedly is abominations in our mouth. Let us, then, remove the abominations from our mouth, taking away slanders, vain words, idle words that are bound to bring us under accusation »on the day of judgment; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.« If, then,
We want to meet the words "and nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him they shall praise God in Jerusalem." Let us do what was said from the beginning. But what comes first? To remove "the abominations from" our "mouth." Next comes "you shall be reverent before my face." Let us do this second thing, not simply so that we may be reverent - for perhaps there is a reverence that comes about not from the
face of God. At any rate, those who fear without understanding, but merely set out to be afraid, are not reverent before the face of God; but those who are reverent with understanding, by always looking upon and picturing to themselves "the face of God turned against those who do evil, so as to destroy their memorial from the earth" - these are the ones who are reverent before the face of God. "If
he removes his abominations from his mouth, and is reverent before my face, and swears, 'The Lord lives,' in truth and in judgment and in righteousness." Let us examine ourselves, we who swear, in what way we do not swear in judgment but without judgment, so that our oaths come about more from habit than from judgment. We are carried away, at any rate, and the word, rebuking this, says: "And
if he swears, 'The Lord lives,' in truth and in judgment and in righteousness." We know it was said by the Lord in the gospel to the disciples: "But I say to you, do not swear at all." Let us examine this saying too; and if God grants it, both will be considered together. For perhaps one must first swear "in truth and in judgment and
in righteousness," so that after this, having made progress, one may become worthy of not swearing at all, but of having a "yes" that needs no witnesses to establish that it is so, and of having a "no" that needs no witnesses to establish that it is truly "no." "And let him swear, then, 'The Lord lives' in truth." In the one who swears I look first for the absence of falsehood, but for truth, so that with truth
he may swear; but we wretches even commit perjury. But even granting that it is "with truth," even so an oath does not thereby become good, unless it is also "in judgment." For let it be granted that I swear out of habit; I do not swear "in judgment." If, in taking on such an oath, one must bring in God who is over all, and his Christ, for some matter, how weighty must the matter be, that I should bend the knee
and swear? Out of concern for some disbelief that has arisen in certain people about my word, I might do this at some point; but if I should swear carelessly, as it happened, I would be sinning. "If," then, "he swears, 'The Lord lives,' with truth and in judgment" - not without judgment - "and in righteousness" - not unjustly - "then nations shall bless themselves in him." He has united both, those from the nations and
Israel. He spoke concerning the nations, he spoke also concerning Israel. He adds: "and nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him they shall praise God in Jerusalem. For thus says the Lord to the men of Judah and to those who dwell in Jerusalem." He has spoken to those from the nations, he has spoken also to those from Israel, he speaks to those from Judah. I recall what was said before,
Concerning the tropological readings about Judah and those dwelling in Jerusalem. For we dwell, if God grants it, in Jerusalem, since "where the treasure is, there also is the heart." If we store up treasure in heaven, we also have our heart in the Jerusalem above, about which the apostle says: "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother, as
it is written," and so on. "Thus," then, "says the LORD to the men of Judah and to those dwelling in Jerusalem: break up new ground for yourselves, and do not sow among thorns." This word is spoken above all to teachers, so that they may not entrust what is said to their hearers before breaking up new ground in their souls. For when, having put their hand to the plow, they break up
new ground in souls that are listening in the manner of "good and noble soil," then they sow, and not among thorns. But if, before the plow and before breaking up new ground in the ruling faculty of the hearers, someone takes the holy seeds — the word concerning the Father, the word concerning the Son, the word concerning the Holy Spirit, the word concerning
the resurrection, the word concerning punishment, the word concerning rest, the word concerning the law, the word concerning the prophets, and simply the word concerning each of the things written — and sows, he transgresses the commandment that says, first, "break up new ground for yourselves," and second, "do not sow among thorns." But one of the hearers will say: I do not teach, I am not bound by this commandment. You too, become a farmer
of yourself, and do not sow among thorns, but break up new ground for me in the field that the God of all has entrusted to you. Take note of the field, see where the thorns are, where the cares of life are, and the deceit of wealth, and love of pleasure. And having taken note of the thorns in your soul, seek the rational plow, concerning which Jesus says, "No one who has put
his hand to the plow and turns back is fit for the kingdom of God." Having sought it and found it, and having gathered from the scriptures the pure oxen that do the work, plow and break up the ground, and so that it may no longer be old, make it new, casting off the old self together with its deeds and kindling the new self, which is being renewed
unto knowledge — you will make new ground for yourself, and when you have made the new ground, take seeds from the teachers; take seeds from the law; take from the prophets, from the gospel writings, from the apostolic words; and having taken these seeds, sow the soul through memory and study. These will seem to spring up of their own accord; but in truth it is not they themselves
that spring up after their remembrance, but God who makes them grow: "Planting was my part, Apollos watered, yet it was God who caused the growth." And if anyone has been able to understand the scriptures, this person has broken up new ground, and having broken up new ground has sown, not among thorns. These seeds are so ordered by God as not to become an ear of grain suddenly, but, as in the Gospel according to Mark, "first
grass, then an ear, then it comes to be, so that when it is ready for harvest, those sent out to the harvest will come; when it is ready for harvest, they will come to those to whom the word says: "Lift up your eyes and look at the fields, that they are already white for harvest." He says to us, then: "Plow yourselves new ground, and do not sow among thorns." But if
before you have cleansed your soul, while still having thorns you approach one who teaches, whether he is able to or is only reputed to be, or you ask for teachings and spiritual seeds, you transgress the commandment that says: "Do not sow among thorns." And next to this it is said: "Circumcise yourselves to your God, circumcise the foreskin of your heart." "Circumcise yourselves to your God" — the phrase "to your God" is necessarily added.
You will grasp this from the example drawn from the senses: circumcised — I speak of the sensible level — are not only those of the circumcision according to the law of Moses, but also many others. The priests of the Egyptian idols are circumcised, but that circumcision is a circumcision to idols and is not a circumcision performed to God; whereas that of the Jews, perhaps — but certainly at that time — was performed to God.
If, then, the word says, "Circumcise yourselves to your God," once you have understood the literal statement, pass over also to the tropological reading, so that you may find how, among those tropologically circumcised (so that some of them might perhaps say, "We are the circumcision"), some are circumcised to God, while others are circumcised indeed, but not to God. For there are also other doctrines besides the doctrine
of truth, besides the doctrine of the church. The philosophers, so to speak, circumcise their characters and their heart and bring them to self-mastery; those of the heresies bring them to self-mastery, and circumcision comes about for them. But it is circumcision indeed, yet not to God, for among them circumcision comes about by a false doctrine. But when, according to the rule of the church, according to the purpose of
sound teaching, you hold communion, you have not merely been circumcised, but you have been circumcised "to God." "Circumcise yourselves," then, to your God, and circumcise the foreskin of your heart. Who would pass over these words as though they were plain? There is, then, a certain foreskin of the heart, and this must be circumcised. Whoever examines the text precisely will, in inquiring into such things, look into this point: the foreskin is inborn, the circumcision is acquired,
and what has come from birth, this the circumcision removes. If, then, the word commands that "the foreskin of the heart" be removed, there must be something inborn together with the heart, which it calls foreskin, which must be removed, so that one may have circumcised "the foreskin of the heart." If one grasps the meaning of "we were by nature children of wrath, as also the rest were," if one grasps the meaning of "the
body of humiliation" in which we have been born, if one grasps the meaning of "no one is clean from filth, not even if his life were but a single day; his months are numbered," he will see in what manner we have been born with the uncleanness and the foreskin of our heart. But so that it may be stated by a simpler example capable of bringing you to see "the foreskin of the heart," I will set forth that
In the first stage of life, false opinions certainly arise in the soul, for it is not possible for a person to receive true doctrines from the very beginning. The divine word took forethought for history and for the literal scripture, so that it might nourish the one born according to the flesh to Abraham first with words that concern the flesh, and that he might become the first from the...
...in order that after him the one born of the free woman, the one born through the promise, might be able to be born. As for why this was included, one can understand it as the foreskin of the heart that precedes circumcision. We therefore need to receive the word that purifies our doctrines and strips away everything in us that has arisen through false opinion. This, then, is what it means to put off the foreskin of our heart, for...
...if the heart is, as we understand it, that which possesses the governing faculty, where our thoughts reside, from which reasonings go out, then the one who strips away evil reasonings strips away "the foreskin of the heart," and the one who puts off false opinion has circumcised "the foreskin of his heart" and becomes a man of Judah and an inhabitant of Jerusalem, being circumcised. But if someone does not put off "the foreskin of his heart,"
let us see what the word threatens him with: "Lest," it says, "my wrath go forth like fire and be kindled, and there be no one to quench it." The wrath of the Lord, then, goes forth like fire upon those not circumcised to God, upon those who have not put off "the foreskin" of their heart, "and there shall be no one to quench it, because of the wickedness of their practices,"
of theirs. That fire has as its fuel the wickedness of our practices. Where there is no wickedness of practices, the fire has nowhere to feed. And that the fuel of that fire is the wickedness of practices, hear the prophet saying: "and there shall be no one to quench it, because of the wickedness of your practices." "Announce it in Judah, and in Jerusalem"
let it be heard; say, announce, sound the trumpet in the land, and cry out loudly." These things that are announced, he says, speak them among... those of the tribe of Judah, concerning Christ; "for it is evident that our savior has risen from Judah." "Sound the trumpet in the land." This is the lofty word that rouses the hearer, that prepares him for the...
...struggle against the passions, for the struggle against the activities of the adversaries, and that prepares him for the heavenly feasts (for the trumpet is taken up with reference to both of these things). In Numbers such a word is a trumpet: as the word commands me, and anyone else to whom it has been given, whoever wishes it and seeks the meaning of the scriptures,
is commanded to make "trumpets of beaten silver." So the word says: "Sound the trumpet in the land, and cry out loudly; say: gather together and let us enter the walled cities." The word of God does not wish us to enter an unwalled city, but into... the church of the living God, walled about by... the word, for this is the wall.
It is also found in the seventeenth Psalm, that God is even a wall: "Take up your goods and flee to Zion" — as many of you as are outside Zion, "take up your goods and flee to Zion; hurry, do not stand still" — you who are making progress, hurry to the Watchtower, "for I am bringing evils from the north, and a great destruction." Of the evils being brought "from the north," the north is the adversary, as has often
been said, whoever is found not hurrying and not entering "into the walled cities," not being found in the churches of God, but standing outside, will himself be seized by the enemies and put to death. But who is the enemy? Let us see from what follows in what way it is spoken: "A lion has gone up from his den, one who destroys nations has set out." This is the enemy,
whom we must flee. A lion pursues us. Who is this? Peter — Peter teaches, saying: "Your adversary the devil prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour; stand against him, firm in the faith." And according to the ninth Psalm, "he lies in wait in a hidden place, he lies in wait like a lion in his den." And this lion lies in wait not by day, but when night comes;
for according to the hundred and third Psalm: "You appointed darkness, and it became night. In it all the beasts of the forest will pass through, young lions roaring to seize prey and to seek their food from God." "A lion," then, "has gone up from his den." Where? When? He lies below; he has come down into the lowest parts of the earth. "A lion has gone up from his den." You are a human being,
you are above the devil; for you are better than he is, whatever sort of person you are; he, because of his wickedness, is below. "A lion," then, "has gone up from his den, one who destroys nations has set out"; having gone up "from his den," the place proper to his own punishment, "one who destroys nations has set out; he has gone out from his place to make your land a desolation" — he wants your
land, the one we were speaking about a little earlier. He wants each of us to be grazed upon. He comes, then, "to make your land" such that the lion may trample the seeds, so that he may make your land desolate. "And your cities will be torn down, for lack of inhabitants. Because of these things, gird yourselves with sackcloth." Since, then, a lion has gone up and a lion threatens you and
wants to destroy your land, gird yourself with sackcloth, weep and mourn, entreat God through prayers, that he may destroy this lion away from you and that you may not fall into his mouth. For "just as, when the shepherd snatches from the lion's mouth two legs or a piece of an ear" — this lion seeks to seize you by the ears, so that through
your greediness, by throwing false words your way, he may drive you out of the truth; he wants to snatch your feet away from the truth and devour you. But you, gird yourself with sackcloth and beat your breast and weep and wail, seeing the enemy standing arrayed against you, so that the "fury of the Lord's anger" may be turned away from you, and, the fury having turned away, you may be able, once free from care, no longer of the lion
...creeping in upon you, since you have entered the fortified city, to glorify the God who rescues you in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs the glory and the power for the ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 6 ========

"Lord," it says, "your eyes are upon faith" just as "the Lord's eyes rest upon the righteous" - for he turns them away from the unrighteous, so too the eyes of the Lord are upon faith, for he turns them away from unbelief. Hence it has been well said by the one who understood what he was saying in the prayer, "Lord, your eyes are upon faith." Now what is written here is: "Lord, your eyes
are upon faith." And since "if a person of understanding hears a wise word, he will praise it and add to it," see how many things can be done starting from "Lord, your eyes are upon faith." Paul says: "But now these three remain, faith, hope, love; and the greatest of these is love." As the eyes of the Lord are upon faith, so the eyes of the Lord are upon hope, and the eyes of the Lord
are upon love. And since it is "a spirit of power and love and self-control," the eyes of the Lord are upon love, and likewise the eyes of the Lord are upon power, and likewise the eyes of the Lord are upon self-control.... the eyes of the Lord are upon righteousness. So in this way the eyes of the Lord are upon all the virtues. If, then, you too wish the rays of the intelligible eyes of God to reach you,
take up the virtues. And it will be just as with "Lord, your eyes are upon faith," so also "Lord, your eyes" will be upon each of the good things you may acquire. And if you become such that the eyes of the Lord shine upon you, you will say: "The light of your face, Lord, has been marked upon us." Next, concerning sinners, let us look at what is said: "You scourged them and they did not
feel pain." These perceptible scourges, when applied to living bodies, cause pain to those being scourged whether they wish it or not; but the scourges of God are of such a kind that some of those scourged feel pain, while others of those scourged do not feel pain. Let us see whether we can explain what it means to feel pain from the scourges of God and what it means not to feel pain, and
that those who do not feel pain from the scourges of God are wretched, while those who do feel pain from the scourges of God are blessed. For Wisdom says: "Who will set scourges upon my mind, and a seal of the crafty upon my lips, so that they will not spare me for my sins of ignorance, and my sins will not destroy me?" Notice the phrase "Who will set upon my mind
scourges?" There are, then, scourges that scourge the mind. The scourges of God scourge the mind; for a word that takes hold of the soul and brings it to an awareness of its sins scourges it. And it scourges the blessed person who feels pain under the scourges, for the words spoken reach him, and he does not treat with contempt the one who corrects him by means of it. But whenever someone is found who is, so to speak,
unfeeling, it will be said of him: "You scourged them and they did not feel pain" - the same statement being spoken reproachfully, let us say, when it takes hold of the mind of one whose conscience is stained by some sin, so that if the statement is made, one of those hearing it grieves, so that it is said of him, "You have seen how so-and-so was pierced to the heart," while another of those hearing it does not grieve, but remains unfeeling to the
...are being reproved — clearly it will be said of one who does not even perceive it: "you scourged them, and they did not feel pain." This is one explanation of "they did not feel pain" or "they did feel pain"; but let us see whether we have another as well. In bodies there arise, in certain parts, deadenings and dryings, and often the deadened limbs undergo such things differently from the living ones, so that when things capable of causing pain are applied
to the living limb, the person to whom the pain-causing thing is applied feels pain, but when the pain-causing things are applied to the insensible limb, that person does not perceive it, since there is deadness in it. If you have observed these things in the case of the body, transfer them to the soul, and see that there is also a soul with deadened limbs, such that it does not perceive the effect of the
scourges, even if painful things are brought against it. Terrible things are brought against it, but such-and-such a soul will not perceive them, while another soul will perceive them. And perhaps the one who does not perceive, when pains are brought against him, grieves more over his not perceiving than he would over perceiving, praying rather to feel pain if painful things should be brought against him — since this is a sign that he is alive — and is displeased at not
perceiving in the case of painful things. Just as this happens with bodies, so too, I think, in the phrase "would that they had been burned by fire" something of this sort is being shown: as when fire is applied to someone and he does not perceive the burning, those persons — grasping the comparison between those who do not perceive amid their pains and those who do perceive — would wish rather to perceive by the fire than not to perceive. And one might pray,
when that condemned fire too is brought against sinners, to perceive it rather than not perceive it. This is said because of "you scourged them, and they did not feel pain." "You brought them to completion, and they were not willing to receive instruction." When the God who watches over all things performs the acts of purification for the salvation of the soul, he has completed what lies on his part. You will understand "you brought them to completion, and they were not willing to receive instruction" from an example
drawn from the case of one who hands over knowledge and one who is unwilling to receive the knowledge from the one handing it over. For let the teacher do everything that is his to do, and complete everything toward the handing over of knowledge, while that other person does not accept what is said; I would say of such a one to the teacher: "you brought him to completion, and he was not willing to receive instruction." So then, let all the things from providence
come to be for us, so that we might be brought to completion and made perfect — but if we do not accept the workings of providence that draw us toward perfection, this might be said by one who understands, to God: "Lord, you brought them to completion, and they were not willing to receive instruction." "They made their faces harder than rock." This too you will understand from more bodily matters. Of those who sin, some, on hearing words that reprove
their sin, blush and shrink back and fall down when the reproving word touches them; but there are others of such a kind that they are unblushing, not ashamed at the things for which they are reproved, at the things in which they have sinned. Of these who feel no shame, then, you might say: "they made their faces harder than rock." If you have understood this in bodily terms, pass with me in thought to
understanding the soul as a face, concerning which it is said, "then face to face." And observe a hardened soul — such as Pharaoh's heart was, hardened so that it stood opposed to what was announced, and, as it were, casting off the words spoken, not being shaped according to what was proclaimed. For there you will find that it fits: "they hardened their faces above rock and were not willing
to turn back. And I said, Perhaps they are poor, because they were unwilling to know the way of the Lord and the judgment of God. I will go to the great ones and speak to them." Having understood these words concerning those who are unwilling to be instructed, who do not understand under God's scourges, he speaks, having grasped the cause of this: their soul is poor. "And I said, Perhaps they are poor, since they were unable," because
"they did not know the way of the Lord and the judgment of God." "I will go to the great ones and speak to them." The "great ones" are spoken of, with regard to souls, as praise. For among the Greeks too, the term "great" is constantly applied to the greatness of the rational soul. For whenever someone sets his hand to great matters and holds purposes worth mentioning and always looks to what is needful, as to how he might live according to right
reason, wanting nothing lowly or small, nor even looking at it, such a person has the greatness and the largeness in his soul. These, then — since they were poor, the former people whom the word rebuked — did not listen, says the prophet. For this reason they did not listen, since they are poor. "I will go to the great ones and speak to them." And if it is a blessed thing
to be able to say, "into the ears of those who hear," it is a blessed thing indeed if one happens upon a great and worthy hearer. For this reason, since these things are said in this way, knowing that the loss falls not so much upon those who speak as upon those who hear, in not accepting what is proclaimed — and this convicts the poverty of their mind and understanding — let us entreat that we may receive from God, as the word grows in us,
largeness and greatness in Christ Jesus, so that we may be able to hear the sacred and holy words, his the glory and the might unto the ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 7 ========

God, judging by measure, gives room to those who are to be punished, and does not, punishing immediately upon the sin, bring the full completion of the punishment upon the one who has sinned. For this reason, ‘judging by little and little,’ he punishes. And an example of this is in Leviticus; for among the curses against those who transgress the law it is written, after the earlier punishments: ‘And it shall be, if after’
these things you do not turn back, says the Lord, I will add seven more plagues upon you.’ And again he relates another punishment: ‘And it shall be, if after these things you do not turn back, but walk contrary to me, I also will walk with you in wrathful contrariness.’ And you will find God measuring out punishments with sparing, since he wishes to bring the one who has sinned to conversion, and does not render all the punishments at once. Such things, then,
had happened concerning the people, so far as the letter goes, and the word, threatening them with what they would suffer after those things, says: ‘And it shall be in those days, says the Lord your God, that I will not strike you to complete destruction.’ But if these things reach their fullest extent even in the punishments still to come — unless, indeed, the one who is able should pass over from the things that happened in
life concerning the people to those punishments as well; for I, persuaded, would say that just as ‘a pattern and shadow of heavenly things is what they serve,’ so by a pattern and shadow of the true punishments that people was punished for their own sins, so that every punishment set out concerning the people according to the law and the prophets contains a shadow of true punishments.
If, then, for those people no completion came upon their sins, but only at some end — nor will there ever be, even after their departure, a punishment upon those who have sinned — there is a completion upon Jerusalem, at the time of the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar. And yet someone will say that not even then was there completion, nor indeed at the time of the Maccabees. Rather, completion for the people came at the coming of my Lord
Jesus Christ. For as long as the Savior did not say to them, ‘Behold, your house is left to you,’ it was not left to them. But when he wept over Jerusalem, saying, ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and
you were not willing? Behold, your house is left to you desolate’ — the house is left, Jerusalem is surrounded by armies, as though the house had been left, and ‘her desolation has drawn near.’ Then, after their transgression, salvation came to us. So then those people were being punished, and completion did not overtake them until the coming of my Lord Jesus. But I am considering whether
such things hold also concerning us, and certain punishments occur, such that some have no experience of second punishments but are content with the first, while others come even to the second, but not indeed to the third, and others will come even to the fourth. For ‘I will add seven plagues’ signifies some mystery, one occurring after another, and a second, and
third, up to the seven blows mentioned, upon certain people. But not all are struck with seven blows; rather, I think some will be struck with six blows, others five, others four, others three <or> two, and I think those who are most inferior of all in their punishments will be struck with one blow. So God knows these things concerning the blows as well. That is why it is written here, at the beginning of the
reading: “And it shall be in those days”—the days concerning what has been said—“I will not bring about your complete destruction.” But it is not in those days that there is complete destruction; for there are certain days on which he will bring about complete destruction for those upon whom he will bring it. “And it shall be, when you say, Why has the Lord our God done all these evils to us? then you shall say to them: Because you abandoned
me and served other gods in your own land, so shall you serve in a land that is not your own.” Let the saying be understood, and for the present it is enough to set out the reminder for those able to hear it from the saying itself. The sons of Israel, then, had the holy land, the temple, the house of prayer. They ought to have served God. But transgressing the
divine commandments, they practiced idolatry and took over the idols of Damascus, as it is written in Kingdoms, and they took up other idols as well, in addition to those of the holy land. Because of the idols of the nations that they took over, they made themselves deserving of being cast down into the land of the idols, to come to dwell there, where they used to worship the idols. So the word says to them, according to the saying: “Because
you abandoned me and served other gods in your own land, so shall you serve other gods in a land that is not your own.” Everyone who makes something a god serves other gods. Do you deify foods and drinks? Your god is “the belly.” Do you honor silver as a great good, and wealth here below? Your god is mammon, and lord.
For Jesus called him lord of the lovers of silver when he said, “You cannot serve God and mammon; no one can serve two lords.” So then, whoever honors silver and admires wealth and thinks it a good thing, and welcomes the rich as gods while despising the poor as though they had no god of their own—this person deifies silver. If anyone
happens to be within the church of God and worships other gods by deifying things not worthy of being deified, he will be cast out into a foreign land, and let him worship the gods he worshiped once he was inside. Let the lover of money be outside, cast out of the church; let the glutton be outside the church, having become such. These things according to a single tropology, so that I not now busy myself with matters beyond me
and concerning the land about which the Savior said, “Who will give you what is ours?” and how, when worship has taken place in someone’s land, God has so arranged things that certain people are cast out from their own land and come upon the land about which it is written, “Hear, Israel. Why are you in the land of your enemies? You have been reckoned among those going down to Hades.”
You have forsaken the fountain of life, the Lord. If you had walked in the way of God, you would have dwelt in peace for the length of an age. Now then we are in a foreign land, and we pray to do the opposite of what the sons of Israel did in the holy land. For they worshiped foreign things—foreign gods—in the holy land; but we, in
a foreign land, worship the God who is foreign to the land, foreign to the affairs upon the earth. For the ruler of this age rules here, and God is foreign to his sons. But when I say “foreign,” I do not mean this—not that he did not create the world, but that he is foreign to the dominion of wickedness, foreign to the sins now present. And yet, even wishing to
worship the God who is foreign to the affairs of sin, in this land of affliction—let us see what we are doing. We do not say, “How shall we sing the Lord’s song upon a foreign land?” But rather, how shall we sing the Lord’s song, not upon a foreign land? We seek this place for singing the Lord’s song, a place for worshiping the Lord our God upon a foreign land.
What then is this place? I have found it: he came to this place bearing the body that saves, taking up “the body of sin” “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” so that in this place, because of Christ Jesus who came to dwell among us and abolished the ruler of this age and abolished sin, I might be able to worship God here, and after this I will worship in
the holy land. For if someone who worshiped the idols in the holy land went away to the foreign land, then someone who worships God in the foreign land will go away to the holy land, in Christ Jesus, his the glory and the might forever. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 8 ========

Having taken up, as it were, three virtues of God, his strength and his wisdom and his understanding, the prophet assigns to each of them a task proper to it: to strength, the earth; to wisdom, the inhabited world; to understanding, heaven. For listen to the text that says: "The Lord, who made the earth by his strength, who
set the inhabited world upright by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heaven." And we too, with respect to our own earth (for it was said to Adam, "earth you are"), have need of the strength of God, and without the power of God we are not able to accomplish those things which are not according to the mindset of the flesh. But once the members that are upon the
earth have been put to death, what accords with the will of the spirit will come to be, since by the spirit the deeds of the flesh, according to the apostle, are put to death. "The Lord," then, "who made the earth by his strength." And if you come also to this earth, if you are able to see what is written in Job — as we found it in the more accurate copies —
that he set it "upon nothing," you will see that by the strength of God it lies exactly in the middle. I come now also to the inhabited world. I know a soul that is inhabited, I know a soul that is a wasteland. For if it does not have God, if it does not have the Christ who said, "I, together with my Father, will come to that person and make with him our dwelling," if it does not have the
Holy Spirit, that soul is a wasteland. But it is an inhabited world when it has been filled with God, when it has Christ, when the Holy Spirit is in it. These things are said in various and differing ways in the scriptures — that the soul of man is the dwelling place of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. David, at any rate, in the psalm of confession,
asks the Father concerning these spirits, saying: "Establish me with a governing spirit," "renew a right spirit within my inward parts," "and do not take your Holy Spirit from me." What are these three spirits? The governing one is the Father, the right one is Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit — these serve to present the
inhabited world as remaining inhabited in no other way than in the wisdom of God. For "wisdom will help the wise man more than ten who hold power in the city." "But whoever despises wisdom and instruction is wretched, and his hope is empty, and his labors are unprofitable, and his works are useless," says Wisdom, the book inscribed with the name of Solomon. Therefore, however great
the power, since the inhabited world is set upright by the wisdom of God, let us also wish for our own world to be set upright, since it has perhaps fallen; for this world of ours fell when we came into the place of affliction, this world fell when "we sinned, we acted impiously, we did wrong," and it needs to be set upright. God, then, is the one who set the inhabited world upright. But if you do not take it in this way,
"...having set upright the inhabited world" -- but understanding "the inhabited world" more generally, ask from what state it was he set the inhabited world upright; ask about the fall of the inhabited world, so that once you have found its fall you may see its uprighting. If then someone exists in this inhabited world, and you understand the inhabited world in this way, <it is empty before the uprighting. But if it has fallen>, it is clear that it needs the uprighting, and no one who has not fallen
needs the uprighting. But if it has been set upright, let us see who -- clearly each one of those in the inhabited world has fallen from sin. And "the Lord is he who sets upright those who are broken down," and "he supports all who are falling," "in Adam all die," and thus the inhabited world has fallen and needs the uprighting, so that "in Christ all" may be made alive. So I have given a twofold account of the matters concerning the
inhabited world: in one way showing with reference to each single person how each soul is either an inhabited world or a wilderness, and in the other way resting the discussion on the inhabited world itself. "And in his understanding he stretched out the heaven." He did not take up the word "understanding" with reference to heaven by chance; for you will find it said in Proverbs, "God founded the earth in wisdom,
and prepared the heavens in understanding." There is, then, a certain understanding of God, which you should not seek except in Christ Jesus. For all the things that belong to God are of this kind: Christ is them. He himself is the wisdom of God, he himself is the power of God, he himself is the righteousness of God, he himself is the sanctification, he himself is the redemption; thus he himself is the understanding of God. But the underlying reality is one, while by the
different concepts the many names apply to different things. And you do not think the same thing concerning Christ when you think of him as wisdom and when you think of him as righteousness. For when you think of him as wisdom, you grasp the knowledge of divine and human things; but when as righteousness, the power that apportions to each according to worth in the whole; and when as sanctification, the power that produces holiness in
those who believe and are devoted to God. So then, in this way you will also understand him as understanding, when he is the knowledge of good things and evil things and things that are neither. Since then it is set apart for those who dwell in heaven, or for those who wear the heavenly man, † having separated the evil things from the good things, so that that heaven may no longer be defiled, because through the
understanding of God the heaven has been stretched out -- nor is the righteous man not heaven (for the righteous man too is heaven, as has been said): "and he stretched out the heaven by his understanding." How then is the heaven stretched out? By wisdom's stretching it out. It is shown how wisdom stretches out in the verse, "since I stretched out words and you did not pay attention," where it speaks of a certain stretching-out of words; in this way
the heaven is stretched out. And in the hundred and third psalm it is said, "stretching out the heaven like a curtain." And our soul too is stretched out, having previously been contracted, so that it may be able to contain the wisdom of God. But let us return to the matter before us. We were speaking of the heaven having come to be by understanding. And we say that those who wear the heavenly man are themselves also
heaven. For if it is said to the one who sins, “You are earth, and to earth you shall depart,” would it not be said to the righteous one, “whose is the kingdom of the heavens”: You are heaven, and to heaven you shall depart? Or will it be said, because of the earthly man who bears “the image of the earthly one,” “You are earth, and to earth you shall depart,” but because of the heavenly man, when
you have worn “the image of the heavenly one,” it will no longer be fitting to say, You are heaven, and to heaven you shall depart? Each of us, then, has works both heavenly and earthly. Earthly works are those which draw down, to the earth akin to them, the one who stores them up on the earth and does not store them up in [heaven]. Again, the works of virtue draw up to the places akin to them, which are in heaven,
the one who stores them up in [heaven]—the one who has worn “the image of the heavenly one”—namely the things done according to virtue. “And he brought up clouds from the end of the earth.” This saying came up recently also in the psalm, and we were saying how God “brought up clouds, clouds from the end of the earth.” These things it is necessary to take up again, for those who know them, for clarification and reminder of what has been said,
and for those who have forgotten or were not present, for the clarification of this, whether it is being disclosed and made evident, or however it is being understood. We say that the saints are clouds. For “your truth reaches to the clouds” cannot be referred to the lifeless clouds; rather, the truth of God extends as far as the clouds, who hear the commandment of God and know where they should send rain
and from what places they should withhold it. For as though there were clouds to whom God gives command not to rain or to rain, it is written: “I will command the clouds not to rain rain upon it.” Now in the case of these clouds, when there is no rain, God does not command the clouds not to rain rain upon the vineyard or the land; rather, no cloud appears at all,
as is written in the third book of Kingdoms, where, at the time of the drought, no cloud appeared, but when, according to the word of Elijah’s prophecy, the rain was about to come, a trace of a cloud appeared “like the trace of a man,” and a cloud came to be, producing the rain. But since, when the clouds do exist, they are commanded not to rain, whenever the soul happens to be unworthy
of the rain, it is said, “I will command the clouds not to rain rain upon it.” Each of the saints, then, is a cloud. Moses was a cloud, and as a cloud he said: “Attend, O heaven, and I will speak; and let the earth hear the words of my mouth. Let my utterance be awaited like rain. <Had he not been a cloud, he would never have said, ‘Like rain is my utterance,’
and let my words come down like dew.” As a cloud he says: “Like a shower upon the grass, and like snow-rain upon the herb; for I have proclaimed the name of the Lord.” So too, as a cloud, Isaiah says: “Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord has spoken.” And since he too was a cloud, a cloud, he called the fellow prophets with him clouds, saying as he prophesied: “I will command the clouds…”
“so as not to rain rain upon it.” But if we have grasped who the clouds are, let us see how God “brings up clouds from the end of the earth.” How “from the end of the earth”? The Savior says: “Whoever wants to be first among you shall be last of all.” Paul kept this commandment, and he was last in this world. Therefore
he says: “For I think God has displayed us the apostles as last, as sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men.” If, then, someone keeps the Savior's commandment and becomes last with respect to this life, this person becomes a cloud. And God brings up clouds not from the foremost of the earth, not from
consuls does he bring up clouds, not from rulers does he bring up clouds, not from the rich; for “blessed are the poor, because the kingdom of God is yours.” Do you see how God brings up clouds from the last, and gives body to the clouds? For this reason, if we want to become clouds, clouds that the truth of God reaches, let us become last of all and let us say, by deeds and by disposition,
the words: “For I think God has displayed us the apostles as last”—even if I am not an apostle, it is possible for me to become last, so that God, who brings up clouds from “the end of the earth,” might bring me up too. “And he made lightnings for rain.” Those skilled in such matters say that the generation of lightnings comes from the clouds rubbing against one another. For what happens with
fire-striking stones on the earth—when two stones strike against each other and fire is produced—this, they say, happens also with the clouds. When the clouds strike against each other during storms, lightning occurs. That is why lightning generally occurs together with thunder, the thunder displaying the sound of the clouds' collision, and the lightning generating the light. If you have grasped
the illustration, consider with me the intelligible cloud as well. Moses was a cloud, Joshua son of Nun was a cloud. These, then, converse with one another, and from their words lightning occurs. Jeremiah was a cloud, Baruch was a cloud. They converse with one another; lightning came from the words of Jeremiah and the words of Baruch. In this way, if you can, gather from the
scriptures in what manner lightning comes. And in the New Testament, Paul and Silvanus were two clouds. They came together, and the lightning of the letter occurred. “Lightnings,” then, God “made for rain, and he brought forth winds from his storehouses.” Are these winds, then, in storehouses? Or is it not the case that their nature is seen as they blow upon the earth,
and how it subsists? But there are certain storehouses of winds, storehouses of spirits: “a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and might,” “a spirit of knowledge and piety,” “a spirit of the fear of God,” “a spirit of power and love and self-control.” And you yourself can gather these winds from the scriptures. These spirits are in storehouses; and what are the storehouses? “In whom”
...are the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden'; these treasures are in Christ. From there, then, come these winds, these spirits, so that one person is wise, another faithful, another has knowledge, another has received whatever gift of God he has received; 'for to one is given through the Spirit a word of wisdom,'
and to another a message of knowledge given through that same Spirit, and to another faith by that very Spirit.' He 'brought up clouds from the end of the earth, and made lightning into rain, and brought winds out of his treasuries.' And we, for God's sake, hope to arrive at these treasuries. And since there are many treasuries, perhaps there will be, corresponding to those who rise,
resting-places in the treasuries of God. What I mean is this: the resurrection of the dead occurs in certain orders; for the apostle says, 'each in his own order.' And since the orders are not jumbled together at random, this order will be in one treasury of God, and that order in another treasury of God, and a third
different order will be in yet another treasury. All these treasuries, however, have one treasury in which they dwell. That is why it is said in Paul: 'in whom are hidden the treasures both of wisdom and of knowledge.' And just as I acquire the 'one pearl of great price' through the many pearls, so I come to the treasury of treasuries, the Lord
of lords, the King of kings, when I become worthy of the spirits that come from the treasuries of God; for 'he brought winds out of his treasuries.' 'Every man has become foolish from knowledge.' If every man has become foolish from knowledge, and Paul too is a man, then Paul has become foolish from knowledge -- knowing 'in part' and having become foolish from knowledge in part, 'seeing through a mirror' in a very small portion
and, if one may say so, seeing and grasping an infinitesimal fraction of things. But you will understand 'every man has become foolish from knowledge' from the opposite case as well. There are sins of Jerusalem, and sins of Sodom too, but in comparison with the worse sins of Jerusalem, the sins of Sodom are righteousness; for it says, 'Sodom has been justified by comparison with you.' Just as, then, the sins of Sodom are not righteousness, but
only appear as righteousness in comparison with the greater injustice, so too the knowledge -- Paul's knowledge -- in comparison with that knowledge which exists in the heavens, in comparison with perfect knowledge, is foolishness. For this reason 'every man has become foolish from knowledge.' It is something like this, I think, that Ecclesiastes grasped when he said: 'I said, I shall become wise. And it removed itself far from
me, farther than it was, and it is a deep abyss -- who shall find it?' The argument is about to venture something bold and say that the one who came to dwell in this life emptied himself, so that by his self-emptying the world might be filled. But if that one who came to dwell in this life emptied himself, then that self-emptying was wisdom. 'For the foolishness of God is wiser than men'
"...is." If I had said, "the foolishness of God," how would those fond of finding fault have accused me? How would they have blamed me? How, when the things regarded as fine even by them had been said, would I have been charged with this—since it seemed to them not finely said—because I said "the foolishness of God"? But as it is, Paul, as a wise man and one holding apostolic authority, dared to say that all the
wisdom on earth—both that in himself and that in Peter and the apostles—that all of it that had come to dwell in the world was "the foolishness of God." For in comparison with that wisdom which no place on earth contains, in comparison with that wisdom which is above the heavens, above the world, this wisdom that came to dwell here is the foolishness of God. But this "foolishness
of God is wiser than men." Wiser than what men? I do not mean the foolish, but it is wiser even than wise men. And even if you name the wise of this age, whether rulers or prophets, than the rulers of this age "the foolishness of God"—which I have been explaining—"is wiser than men." The discourse is about to say something paradoxical, that "the wisdom of
this world is foolishness with God," and "God made foolish the wisdom of the world." Did he then make foolish, in wisdom, the wisdom of the world? And can wisdom take hold of wisdom, so that the wisdom of the world is convicted of being foolish? For does the wisdom of God contend against the wisdom of the world, in order to be shown superior to it? No—a little thing is needed,
namely that small foolishness of God, so that by this brief foolishness of God the wisdom of the world may be made foolish and convicted. For the wisdom of this world could not bear the wisdom of God. As an illustration, so that you may understand that "the foolishness of God" "made foolish the wisdom of the world," let it be granted that I am contending—supposing myself to know many
and greater things—against someone senseless and uneducated who understands nothing and is not contending on behalf of any noble arguments whatsoever. Do I then have need of dialectic against him, or of deeper theorems, if his thoughts are foolish? Do I not need just one little word, a bit sharper than his own speech, so that I may be able to refute his foolishness? So too, in order that the
wisdom of this world may be made foolish, there is no need of the wisdom of God contending against it (for that wisdom is below), but the foolishness of God suffices, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. And my Savior and Lord has taken up all the opposites, so that by opposites he might dissolve
the opposites, and that we might be made strong from the weakness of Jesus and made wise from the foolishness of God, and, being led in by these, might be able to ascend to the wisdom, to the strength of God, Christ Jesus, to whom is the glory and the power forever. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 9 ========

According to the storied coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, his sojourn among us happened bodily, a certain universal one that shone upon the whole world, when "the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us." For "it was the true light that enlightens every man" — that light was coming into the world; in that world he already was, and it was through him that the world came into being, and
him, and the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own did not receive him." Yet we must know that he was present earlier too, even if not bodily, in each of the saints, and that after this visible coming of his he comes to us again. And if you wish to receive proof of this, attend to "the word
that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: 'Hear'" and so on. For who is "the word that came from the Lord," whether to Jeremiah or to Isaiah or to Ezekiel or to anyone whatever, other than the one who in the beginning was with God? I know no other word of the Lord than this one, concerning whom the evangelist has said, "In
the beginning was the Word, and with God was that Word, and God was the Word." And we must also know this, that for those most able to profit, there is a coming of the Word to each one. For what benefit is it to me if the Word has come to the world, but I do not have him? And on the other hand, even if
he has not yet come to the whole world, but grant that I have become like the prophets, I have the Word. And I would say that Christ came to Moses, to Jeremiah, to Isaiah, to each of the righteous, and that what was said by him to the disciples, "Behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age,"
was in fact being fulfilled in deed and coming to pass even before his coming; for he was with Moses and he was with Isaiah and with each of the saints. How could those men have spoken the word of God, if the word of God had not come to them? And it is especially necessary for us who belong to the church to know these things, we who wish that the same God should be author of both law and gospel,
the same Christ both then and now, unto all the ages. But there will be those who, so far as their own opinion goes, cut off the divinity that is older than the Savior's coming from the divinity proclaimed by Jesus Christ. But we know one God both then and now, one Christ both then and now. This is said because of
"the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying." What, then, shall we also hear? "Hear the words of this covenant, and speak to the men of Judah and to those dwelling in Jerusalem." We are men of Judah because of Christ; for it is plain that "our Lord has risen from Judah," and if I should set forth the name of Judah
...according to the Scripture, referred to Christ: "men of Judah" — those who disbelieve in Christ will not be Jews, but we who believe in Christ will be. "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hands shall be on the neck of your enemies" — "shall praise you." It was not that Judah, the son of Jacob, whom his brothers praised. But this Judah
...his brothers will praise, since this Judah says: "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the assembly I will hymn you." This is not said of that Judah. "Your hands shall be on the neck of your enemies" — where is it found that that Judah placed his hands on the neck of his enemies? The history records nothing of the kind about him. But if
...you understand the coming of the Lord Jesus, abolishing the devil, stripping off "the rulers and the authorities," making a public example of them and triumphing over them on the wood, you see how the prophecy that says this has been fulfilled with reference to this Judah: "Your hands shall be on the neck of your enemies." If this is so, and the word now says "to the men of Judah," to
...whom might it mean, except those who believe in Christ, who are in some sense called Judah too, on account of the tribe of Judah? The word is spoken "to the men of Judah and to those who dwell in Jerusalem." This is the church. For the city of God is the church, the Vision of Peace; in it is the peace that he brought us,
...if indeed we are children of peace, it is multiplied and is seen. "Hear," then, "the words of this covenant, and speak to the men of Judah and to those who dwell in Jerusalem. And you shall say to them: Thus says the Lord God <of Israel>: Cursed is the man who will not hear the words of the covenant which I commanded your fathers." Who above all hears "the words of the covenant which
...God commanded the fathers"? Is it those who believe on him, or those who are shown not even to believe Moses, from the fact that they have not believed on the Lord? For the Savior says to them: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"
So then, they have not believed in Moses, but we, believing in Christ, believe the covenant given through Moses, and it is said to us, so that we may not become cursed: "Cursed is the man who will not hear the words of the covenant which I commanded the fathers." They, then, have the fate of being cursed. For they did not hear "the covenant which God commanded
...to the fathers." "On the day," it says, "when I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, out of the iron furnace." And God brought us up out of the land of Egypt, out of the iron furnace, especially according to one who understands what is written in the Revelation of John, that the place "where their Lord was crucified is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt." If
for it is spiritually called Egypt. But this Egypt is not the Egypt that is spiritually called Egypt, for it is perceptible to the senses; it is clear that if you understand the Egypt that is spiritually called Egypt and go out from it, you are the one who went out “from the land of Egypt and from the iron furnace,” and it is said to you: “Hear my voice and do according to all”
these things. Then there is a promise of God to those who hear, if they do what he has commanded, saying: “and you shall be a people to me, and I will be a God to you.” Not everyone who says he is God’s people is that one; therefore the one who promised to be God’s people heard “you are not my people” in the words “because you are not my people,” and it was said
to that people, “not my people,” and again this people was called a people. For “they made me jealous with what is no god”—and he says concerning those others—“they angered me with their idols; and I will make them jealous with what is no nation, I will anger them with a senseless nation.” We, then, have become a people to God, and the righteousness of God belongs to the
people, the people from the nations. For this people is born all at once, and it is also said in the prophet: “if a nation was born at once.” And a nation was indeed born at once, when the Savior came to dwell among us, and in one day five thousand believed, and on another day three thousand more were added. And it is possible to see an entire people being born by the word of God and
the barren woman, who did not give birth before, bearing all at once—the one to whom it is said: “Rejoice, you barren woman who does not bear; break forth and cry out, you who are not in labor, for the children of the desolate woman are many, more than of her who has a husband.” The church is the desolate one—desolate of the law, she was desolate of God. But the one having the law as husband is called the synagogue. What, then, is
God promising to me? “You shall be a people to me, and I will be a God to you.” He is not the God of all, but only of those to whom he grants himself, just as he granted himself to that patriarch to whom he said, “I am your God,” and again to another, “I will be your God,” and concerning others, “I will be their God.” When, then, do we attain this—I mean each one individually—
so that God may be our God? If you wish to learn whose God he is and to whom he grants his own title, he says, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of …” — the third name stands in a gap in the Greek text. And explaining this, the Savior says: “He is God, not of the dead, but of the living.” Who is the dead? The sinner, the one who does not have him who said, “I”
am the life,” the one who has dead works, the one who has not yet repented from dead works, concerning whom the apostle says: “not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works.” If then he is “God — no God of the dead, but of those who live —” and we know who the living one is—that it is the one who conducts himself according to Christ and remains with him—if we wish, one
may be our God, let us renounce the works of deadness, so that he may fulfill his promise, the one that says: “And I will be to you a God, so that I may establish my oath which I swore to your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey.” For observe that he says: “I will establish my oath which I swore to your fathers, to give”
them “a land flowing with milk and honey,” as though he had not yet given them the “land flowing with milk and honey.” For this is not the land which God called “flowing with milk and honey,” but it is that other land, about which the Savior taught when he said: “Happy are those of gentle spirit, since it is they who will inherit the earth.” Then, in response to what had been said before by the Lord,
the prophet answers, in reply to “cursed is the man who will not listen to the words of this covenant,” and he says: “And I answered and said, So be it, Lord.” What does “so be it, Lord” mean? Cursed is the one who will not abide by the words of this covenant. “And the Lord said to me: Read these words in the cities of Judah and outside Jerusalem.” And
to those outside we read the words of God, calling them to salvation. “Hear the words of this covenant and do them.” And they did not do them. “And the Lord said to me: A conspiracy has been found among the men of Judah and among those who dwell in Jerusalem.” Are we about to repent of the sins spoken of concerning the men of Judah, knowing that we are the men of Judah,
of Judah — the Christ prophesied and spoken of as Judah? For is it not perhaps because there are among us some who are sinners and act contrary to right reason, that the prophet says for this reason: “a conspiracy has been found among the men of Judah and among those who dwell in Jerusalem”? For whenever there is found, among those reckoned as belonging to the church, a conspiracy of injustice and a conspiracy of sins, such that one might apply to them
what is said of the sinner: “each man is bound fast by the cords of his own sins,” God might say: “a conspiracy has been found among the men of Judah” — but may no conspiracy be found among us. Yet how is it that no conspiracy is found among us, if even to this day there is a conspiracy among some? “Loose every bond of injustice, undo the knots of violent contracts, tear up every unjust document. Break
your bread for the hungry.” “A conspiracy,” then, “has been found among the men of Judah and among those who dwell in Jerusalem. They have turned back to the injustices of their fathers, the former ones.” “They turned back to the injustices” — of whom? He does not simply say “of the fathers.” What is the addition? “They turned back to the injustices of their fathers, the former ones”? We were saying that these things are said concerning us and concerning those
who sin among us. How then have those who sin among us turned back not to the injustices “of the fathers,” but to those of “their fathers, the former ones”? Is it, then, that there are two kinds of fathers of ours, and that there is among us a worse kind of father? For before we believed, we were, so to speak, sons of the devil, as the gospel word shows when it says: “You
"You are of your father the devil." But when we believed, we became children of God. So whenever we sin, we turn back to the iniquities not simply of "the fathers," but of "the former fathers." To show that there are two kinds of fathers for us, I will use words from the forty-fourth Psalm, which run thus: "Hear, daughter, and see, and incline your ear,
and forget your people and your father's house." A father says: "forget the house of your father" — for it is as a father that he says, "Hear, daughter." So there are two fathers of ours. But "forget the house" — the former house — "of your father." If, having forgotten your former house, you turn back again to sins, you
have committed what are here called sins. "They turned back to the iniquities of their former fathers." I was saying that the devil too was formerly our father, before God became our father — if indeed the devil is not our father even now — which we will show also from the catholic epistle of John, where it is written: "everyone who commits sin has been begotten of
the devil." If "everyone who commits sin has been begotten of the devil," then, so to speak, we are begotten of the devil as many times as we sin. Wretched, then, is the one who is always being begotten of the devil, just as, in turn, blessed is the one who is always being begotten by God. For I will not say that the righteous man was begotten by God once, but that he is always being begotten, at each
good deed by which God begets the righteous man. If, then, I set you before the Savior — that the Father did not beget the Son and then release him from his begetting, but is always begetting him — I will demonstrate something comparable also in the case of the righteous man. Let us see who our Savior is. "The radiance of glory." The radiance of glory
was not begotten once and no longer being begotten; rather, for as long as the light is productive of the radiance, for that long the radiance of the glory of God is being begotten. Our Savior is the wisdom of God. And wisdom is "the radiance of everlasting light." If, then, the Savior is always being begotten, this is why it says, "before all the hills he begets me" — not
"before all the hills he has begotten me," but "before all the hills he begets me" — and the Savior is always being begotten by the Father. So too, if you have the spirit of adoption, God always begets you in him at each deed, at each thought, and being thus begotten you become one who is always being begotten a son of God in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs
the glory and the might unto the ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 10 ========

If the oracles of God are found in the Law and the Prophets, and in the Gospels and the Apostles, then the one who is being taught by God's oracles will need to designate God as teacher. For "he who teaches man knowledge" is God, as is also written in the Psalms. And the Savior too testifies that no one ought to be designated teacher on earth, saying: "And do not call anyone teacher on earth,
for one is your teacher, the Father who is in the heavens." Now "the Father who is" in heaven teaches, whether by himself, or through Christ, or in the Holy Spirit, or through Paul, let us say, or through Peter, or through one of the other saints; only let it be God's Spirit and God's Word that comes to dwell and teaches. These things have been said by me, toward
what, has it been said? Because the prophet says: "Make yourself known to me, Lord, and I shall know" — for I shall not know unless you make yourself known to me; but if, by your making yourself known, I come to know, "then" I shall see their practices" and understand what each one does and of what purpose he is. These things the prophet says. Then let us see what the Savior says in the prophet: "I, like a harmless lamb
led to be sacrificed, did not know it. They devised a plan against me, saying: Come, let us cast wood into his bread, and let us blot him out from the land of the living, and let his name no longer be remembered." As also the prophet Isaiah says, Christ "was brought like a sheep to be slaughtered, and as a lamb is silent before the one who shears it, so he does not open his
mouth." There Isaiah speaks concerning him, but here Christ speaks concerning himself: "I," he says, "like a harmless lamb led to be sacrificed did not know it." He did not say what he did not know. For he did not say: I did not know evil things; he did not say: I did not know good things; nor did he say: I did not know sin; but simply "I did not know." To you, then, he has left it
to inquire what he did not know. And learn what he did not know from the saying: "him who knew no sin he made sin for us." For to know sin is to sin, just as to know righteousness is to act righteously. So then, the one who proclaims the things concerning righteousness but does not act righteously has not known righteousness. "They devised a plan against me, saying: Come, let us cast wood into his bread." That
the Jews crucified him is plain, and we proclaim this openly. But how you will fit this to "they devised a plan against me, saying: come, let us cast wood into his bread" is a task to grasp. Jesus' bread is the word in which we are nourished. Since, then, while he was teaching among the people they wished to add the stumbling-block to his teaching
by crucifying him, they said: "let us cast wood into his bread." For whenever the crucifying of the teacher is attached to the word of Jesus' teaching, wood has been cast into his bread. Let those men, then, having plotted out of malice, say: "Come, let us cast wood into his bread." But I will say something more paradoxical: the wood cast into the
has made his bread better. I take an example from the law of Moses: the wood thrown into the bitter water made it sweet. So too the wood of the passion of Jesus Christ, coming into the word, has made his bread sweeter. Before, then, the wood came into his bread, when it was only bread and there was no wood,
in his teaching, “into all the earth” his sound did not “go out.” But since the bread received power through the wood cast into it, for this reason the word of his teaching has been distributed through the whole inhabited world. And then the wood, which was a symbol of the passion of Jesus, through which the bitter water becomes sweet—
for I say that the law, when not understood, is bitter water, but if the wood of Jesus comes and the teaching of my savior takes up residence, the law of Moses becomes sweet and most pleasant when it is read and known. They said, then: “Come, and let us cast wood into his bread.” And they also say: “let us blot him out from the land of the living, and let his
name no longer be remembered.” Thus they killed him, as though obliterating his name. But Jesus knows how he dies and for what reason. Hence he says: “unless the grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” So that the death of Jesus becomes an ear of wheat, producing many times over
what was sown, and abundantly. As if, hypothetically, he had not been crucified nor died, the grain of wheat would have remained alone, and many would not have come from it. Attend, then, to his wording, whether he did not mean to say this: “the grain of wheat, unless it falls into the ground and dies, remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.”
The death of Jesus bore fruit in all these; but if the death bore fruit in so many, how many will the resurrection bear fruit in? “Lord of hosts, who judges justly, who tests the kidneys and the hearts, may I see your vengeance upon them.” He prays these things prophetically, to see the vengeance from God upon them: “for Jerusalem has been surrounded by armies, and her desolation has drawn near,”
and it has been said to her: “behold, your house is left to you.” “May I see,” then, “your vengeance among them, because I have revealed my cause to you. Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the men of Anathoth who seek my life, who say: you shall not prophesy in the name of the Lord, or else you will die by our hands.”
“Behold, I will visit them: their young men will die by the sword, and their sons and their daughters will die by famine. And there will be no remnant of them, upon the inhabitants of Anathoth in the year of their visitation.” For the sake of pretext the name of Anathoth is taken here. But the whole mystery of Judaism is spoken of figuratively in it; for Anathoth is interpreted
Hearkening. Since, then, the hearkening of God was among that people, as also the kingdom of God was, and what happened to the kingdom happened when ‘the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits,’ in accordance with this it also came about that ‘the men of Anathoth,’ who were in the Hearkening, ‘sought the soul’ — not of Jeremiah
(for the history does not say that men of Anathoth sought the soul of Jeremiah; we have the Books of Kingdoms, and scripture there remembers Jeremiah, and nothing of this sort is said in them, nor in Chronicles — for we have the very book of the prophet, and the men of Anathoth said nothing of the kind) — but these things are said about Christ: ‘Those who sought my soul, who said,
“You shall not prophesy in the name of the Lord.”’ The Jews prevented Jesus from teaching. ‘But if not, he will die at our hands. Behold, I will visit it upon them; their young men will die by the sword, and their sons and their daughters will perish by famine.’ They did not die by the sword then, but after his coming a famine has now come upon them,
‘not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but a famine of the word of the Lord’ — for it is no longer said among them, ‘Thus says the Lord Almighty.’ This is the famine: that prophecy should exist among them no longer — and why do I say prophecy? Not even teaching. Even if wise men should hold office among them ten thousand times over, there is no longer a word of the Lord among them, since what has been fulfilled is: ‘The Lord will remove from Judea
and from Jerusalem the mighty man and the mighty woman, the giant and the strong man, and the man of war and the judge and the prophet and the diviner and the elder and the captain of fifty and the wondrous counselor and the wise architect and the understanding hearer.’ No longer is there among them anyone able to say, ‘As a wise architect I have laid a foundation’ — the architects moved on, they came to the church, they laid the foundation, Jesus Christ.
On this foundation those who came after them also build. ‘In famine,’ then, that people has been left behind; for ‘he will bring evils upon them,’ upon those who dwell in Anathoth, ‘in the year of their visitation.’ ‘You are righteous, O Lord, for I will plead my case before you; yet let me speak my judgments to you. Why does the way of the impious prosper? Do those who deal treacherously in treachery flourish?’ We still ask whether God is good
— he who gave the law and the prophets — seeing that ‘the way of the impious prospers’ and he does not punish the impious. ‘All who deal treacherously in treachery flourish.’ Those very ones who speak against the creator, who slander him, ‘have flourished, they were planted and took root, they bore children and produced fruit.’ How much fruit did Marcion produce in begetting children, how much did Basilides, how much did Valentinus? For this is what is prophesied and said about the impious
in the phrase, ‘they bore children and produced fruit.’ ‘You are near to their mouth, but far from their inmost parts’ — they name the name of Jesus, but they do not have Jesus, for they do not confess him as they ought. ‘And you, Lord, know me, you have seen me, you have tested my heart before you; consecrate them for the day of their slaughter.’ What
What shall I do to make these things clear? He calls the punishments a purification of those being punished; for "consecrate them," he says, "for the day of their slaughter." Through their being slaughtered, consecrate them: "for the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and scourges every son whom he receives." "How long will the land mourn, and the grass of the field wither, because of the wickedness of those who dwell in it?" As though the land were ensouled,
here too the prophet speaks, saying that the land mourns because of the wickedness of those who tread upon it. So with each of us, the land either mourns or rejoices: for it either mourns "because of the wickedness of those who dwell in it," or rejoices because of the virtue of those who dwell in it. So in the case of each of us, this very element either rejoices or mourns.
And if perhaps — and perhaps — the same holds also of the other elements. Likewise I will speak also of water and of the angel appointed over the water, so that I may explain the land as mourning or not mourning. For it is not this body, "the earth," that mourns "because of those who dwell in it," but rather — understand me — there is, appointed within the order of the universe, a certain one appointed over
the earth, and another appointed over the waters, and another over the air, and a fourth over the fire. So ascend with me in reasoning to the whole order that governs living creatures, and the order among the heavenly stars. A certain angel is appointed over the sun, and another over the moon, and another over the stars. These,
then, are the angels with whom we are, insofar as we belong to the earth: they either rejoice, if we act righteously, or mourn on our account when we sin. "The land mourns," it says, "because of those who dwell in it." He called the angel by the same name as the earth itself, "land." For just as "the thing made by hand is cursed, and the one who made it," not because the lifeless thing itself is cursed, but the phrase "made by hand" is used
of that which sits enthroned upon the lifeless statue and bears that very name — so too I will say that "land" is spoken of the angel appointed over the land, and "water" is spoken of the angel appointed over the water, according to what is said: "The waters saw you, O God, the waters saw you and were afraid; the depths were troubled at the abundance of the sound of waters; the clouds gave forth a voice; for indeed your arrows
pass through." "I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my inheritance, I have given my beloved soul into the hands of her enemies." Consider for me the one who "exists in the form of God," being in the heavens; consider his house, the house above the heavens. And if you wish to see something still loftier — that he is "in the Father" — consider that his house is God himself. He leaves "father and
mother," the "Jerusalem above," and comes to the earthly place, and says: "I have forsaken my house, I have abandoned my inheritance." For that was his inheritance — the regions shared with the angels, the rank shared with the holy powers. "I have given my beloved soul into the hands of her enemies." He handed over his soul into the
into the hands of the enemies of the soul, into the hands of the Jews who killed him, into the hands of the rulers gathered against him, into the hands of kings, when “the kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered as one against the Lord and his Christ.” “My inheritance became to me like a lion in the forest.” This is the inheritance on earth
of his which he had inherited: it turned savage against him, against him, and the inheritance became—Jews grown wild against him—“like a lion in the forest.” It is not surprising if his inheritance then became “like a lion in the forest”; even now there are lions in the forest wishing to curse Jesus and slandering him and plotting against those who believe in him. “My inheritance,” then, “became to me
like a lion in the forest. It raised its voice against me; therefore I hated it. Has my inheritance become to me a hyena’s den?” He prophesies concerning this inheritance: has the inheritance become a hyena’s den—the den of the most savage creature, the corpse-eater, the one that haunts the tombs, that eats dead bodies? “Has my inheritance become to me a hyena’s den?”
“Or a cave all around it? Go.” Since they have become such creatures, I command you, the angels, to go and gather the wild beasts and hand them over to the beasts. “Go and gather all the wild beasts of the field, and let them come to devour it.” The “wild beasts of the field” have come; they are devouring that people. See their hearts being devoured by the powers
of the adversaries. If Jesus did not spare those people but said, “Go, gather the wild beasts,” how much more will he not spare us, if we do not carry out the law of God, the word of the gospel? He will say again: go, gather the wild beasts and hand her over. But we have confidence to say in our prayers: “Do not hand over to the wild beasts a soul that confesses you.”
Let us confess our transgressions in repentance, and we will not be handed over to the wild beasts, but to holy angels who will be our nurses, carrying us on their bosoms, transferring us from this age to the age to come in Christ Jesus, to whom is the power and the glory forever. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 11 ========

Who is it that says, "because of me all the earth was utterly laid waste"? Christ says these things, since before his coming many sins had indeed been committed by the people, but not such as to have them utterly abandoned and handed over to a prolonged captivity. But when they had filled up "the measure of their fathers" and added to their having killed the prophets and persecuted the righteous
the killing of "the Christ of God," then it came to pass, "your house is left to you." And because they suffered these things, "all the earth was utterly laid waste." But if you wish to hear something loftier in "because of me all the earth was utterly laid waste," see in what way the earth within you was laid waste when Jesus came: for it was laid waste when the members that are upon the earth were put to death,
and the earth no longer works its own works, no longer do the works of the flesh occur in the righteous person, by which the flesh used to flourish — no longer fornication, no longer uncleanness, not licentiousness, not idolatry, not sorcery, and the rest. And the Savior says: "What do you think, that I came to cast peace upon the earth? I did not come
to cast peace but a sword." For truly, before he came, there was no sword upon the earth, nor did the flesh desire against the spirit, nor the spirit against the flesh; but when he came and we were taught what belongs to the flesh and what to the spirit, the teaching, having become like a sword upon the earth, divided the flesh and the
portion belonging to the spirit; and "the earth" was "laid waste" when we carry about the deadness of Jesus in the body, and we no longer live according to the flesh but the spirit lives, and we sow nothing unto the flesh but everything unto the spirit, so that we may not reap corruption from the flesh but eternal life from the spirit. Now it is said to those who have sinned: "sow
wheat and reap thorns" — for even if they engage with the sayings of God, those who do not engage with them rightly, nor live as they ought, nor believe, sow wheat and reap thorns. This can be understood especially in the case of the heterodox who take up the scriptures and reap thorns not from the scriptures but from their own inventions. "Their allotted portions
will not profit them." These things others have also related. And since we do not reject their account, we fairly bring it forward, not as having discovered it ourselves but as having learned a good lesson. This word will benefit both you and us, if we pay attention to what is written — we who seem to be, by virtue of some allotment, presiding over you, so that some wish to come to
this allotment. But know that the allotment does not save absolutely; for many presbyters too will perish, and many laypeople too will be shown blessed. Since, then, there are some in the clergy not living in such a way as to be benefited and to adorn the clergy, for this reason, say those who related it, it is written: "their allotted portions will not profit them" — for what profits is not the mere sitting
…is in the presbyterate, but living worthily of the position, as the word demands. The word demands that you also live well, and us too. But if it must be put this way, ‘the powerful will be tested powerfully,’ more is demanded of me than of the deacon, more of the deacon than of the layman, and the one entrusted with authority over all of us — the ecclesiastical rule itself — even more
is demanded. For this reason the apostle, who was entrusted with great things—listen, he says: ‘Let a man regard us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Here, then, seek among the stewards, that someone be found faithful.’ And indeed it is rare to find a faithful and good steward. Jesus, ‘who knew all things before they came to be,’ says: ‘Who then is the faithful
steward, the wise one, whom his lord will set over his household, to give the ration of grain to his servants in due season?’ Then he finds fault with certain stewards and says: ‘But if that wicked servant begins to say, My lord delays his coming, and begins to beat his fellow servants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk—the
lord of that servant will come on a day he does not expect, and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in two, and will place his portion with the unfaithful.’ This bears on the words, ‘their portions will not profit them.’ Let us also look next at a necessary rebuke, which it is good to take up for the moral sense, which says: ‘Be ashamed of your boasting, of
your reproach before the Lord.’ There are certain things in which we boast, through folly, that are not worthy of boasting. For instance, if someone boasts that he is rich and possesses much, one might say to him: ‘Be ashamed of your boasting.’ If someone boasts of this external nobility of birth, it will be said to him: ‘Be ashamed of your boasting.’ If someone boasts of the costliness of his garments, of
the building of a lavishly furnished house—this boasting is alien to the boasting of the saints; therefore it will be said to such a one: ‘Be ashamed of your boasting.’ Hear the word of the prophet Jeremiah, who commands us not to boast even of wisdom. ‘Let the wise man not glory,’ he says, ‘in his wisdom, nor let the strong man glory in his might, nor the rich man in his wealth,
but let the one who boasts boast in this: in understanding and knowing that I am the Lord.’ Do you wish to boast, and while boasting not to hear, ‘Be ashamed of your boasting’? Boast as the apostle did, and say: ‘But may I never boast save in the cross of Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.’ Do you wish to boast,
so that it not be said, ‘Be ashamed of your boasting,’ hear Paul boasting, and learn, when he says: ‘Most gladly, then, will I boast in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell upon me.’ Hear what boasts he boasts of: ‘in labors more abundantly’—which of us is able to say this?—‘in prisons beyond measure, in deaths often; five times I received forty lashes less one, three times I was beaten with rods, once
"I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked." We learn, then, that there are also differences among boastings: that some boastings are worthy of shame, concerning which that apostolic saying might be spoken, "and their glory is in their shame" — cases where they ought to be ashamed, but instead they suppose they are being glorified. After this let us look at the passage about the loincloth. For "thus says the Lord: Go and get yourself a linen loincloth,
and put it around your waist, and you shall not pass through water with it. And, following the Lord's own word, I acquired a loincloth and put it around my waist. Then a word from the Lord was addressed to me, saying: Take the loincloth that is around your waist, and rise and go to the Euphrates, and hide it there in the cleft of the
rock." After some days he comes there and finds this loincloth completely rotted through. And the Lord adds, giving the occasion for the interpretation of the loincloth, saying: "Just as the loincloth clings to a man's waist, so I have made the house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to myself, says the Lord, that they might become for me a people renowned, and a boast,
and a glory — but they did not listen to me." So then the prophet is taken in place of God, girding around his waist the linen loincloth, just as God girds the people: "for I have made," he says, "this people cling to myself," saying, as it were, that the people become a loincloth of God. But why does the loincloth become God's, around his waist?
Let whoever is able, reading Ezekiel and seeing God being given a body, so to speak, by the word — and observing in what manner the parts of him from the waist downward are fire, while the parts from the waist upward are amber — search out the reason why the lower part of God is fire. The things that pertain to the waist and to begetting, these are fire. For all
the things that are in begetting need the purification that comes from fire; all the things that are in begetting need chastisement. But the things above the waist, and that have transcended begetting, these are matter, as it were, in its purest and most precious form; for amber is said to be more precious than gold. Since, then, Scripture uses illustrations in order to teach that the upper body of God
is more precious, and the lower body is inferior, for this reason it introduced God as composed of fire and amber. [And it is the body of God, and he himself] each of us, in begetting, is fire; we are not the amber. But if we ascend and make progress (for it is possible to pass from being today among the lower things, so as
to become the upper body of God), we shall be, having crossed through the fire, amber concerning the more exalted body of God. 6. He girds, then, around his waist the linen loincloth. To what end? That it might be shown that the people are, as it were, a covering for God; for against those who wish to accuse God the people stand, and shield him, as it were,
his, and does not allow anything absurd to be said about God. But when we sin, just as the prophet takes off this loincloth and condemns it to the Euphrates river, so that it may be destroyed there, so the one who sins is cast off from the loins of God, and having been cast out, is thrown into the Euphrates river, the river of Mesopotamia, where the Assyrians
are, enemies of Israel, where the Babylonians are, and there it is destroyed. For although there are so many rivers, the prophet is sent from Judea to the Euphrates river to do business and to carry off a little linen loincloth. And why "linen"? Because it has its origin from the earth; for it is a plant that springs up from the earth, then after being cultivated it is combed and washed and cleaned and
put through much, much processing, so that it becomes such as to become a loincloth or whatever else. So we too all have our origin like the loincloth of God, and having our origin from the earth, we need much preparation, so that we may be bleached, so that we may be washed, so that we may cast off the color of the earth; for the color of linen at its origin is one thing, that which comes from the working is another.
For the color of linen at its origin is rather black, but from the working it becomes very bright. Something of this sort, then, also comes upon us who are in a state of coming-to-be. We are black at the beginning of believing, and that is why at the beginning of the Song of Songs it is said: "I am black and beautiful." And at the beginning we resemble Ethiopians in soul.
Then we are scoured, so that we may become brighter, according to "Who is this woman coming up made white?" And we become "linen, bright and clean"; then we are also woven into the loincloth of God, when we become worthy to cling to God. God does not cast us off. He cast off the first people, "all the house of Judah" and "the house of Israel." It came to be no longer used,
for he no longer girds himself with them. God girded himself with us in their place; for he did not, after casting off the loincloth, remain naked, but wove for himself another loincloth. This loincloth is the church from the nations. Let it know that "if God did not spare the former ones, how much more will he not spare it either" if it sins, unless it is worthy of the loins of
God: "but the one who clings to the Lord is one spirit" in Christ Jesus, to whom is the glory and the power forever. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 12 ========

What the prophet is commanded to say by God ought to be worthy of God; but it appears not to be worthy of God, if we stay on the letter, so that someone else hearing the letter would say: this text is foolishness. This is what the "natural" person will say; for "the natural person does not accept what belongs to God's Spirit—it is folly to him"
See then what the text says. "And you shall say to this people: thus says the Lord, the God of Israel" — <what "the Lord, the God of Israel" says> let it be worthy of the Lord of Israel — "every wineskin will be filled with wine. And it shall be, if they say to you: do we not surely know that every wineskin will be filled with wine?" And those who, standing on the mere wording, answer
and say this, claiming to have known that "every wineskin will be filled with wine," are lying. For not "every wineskin will be filled with wine." There are, at any rate, wineskins filled with oil or some other liquid substance; <so some are indeed lying, for it is not the case that "every wineskin will be filled with wine.") And the people answer, saying: "do we not surely know that every wineskin will be filled with wine?" These words, as far as we are able, will receive an explanation of the following kind.
If we know the differences among wines and what is said about them, we shall then, following from this, see about the wineskins as well, that it is true that "every wineskin will be filled with wine." For whether some wine is good — let us so name it — a wineskin among wineskins, it will be filled with wine according to its own goodness. Or if, as in a comparison of wineskins and
in the judgment made about them, one is bad, it too, according to its badness, will be filled with bad wine. How then can we grasp from Scripture something about the different wines? Concerning the worse ones, such things are written: "for their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and their tendril is of Gomorrah; their grape is a grape of gall, a cluster of bitterness to them; their wine is the fury of dragons,
and the incurable fury of asps." But concerning the better ones: "your cup that makes me drunk is like the strongest," and wisdom calls together to her own mixing-bowl, saying: "come, eat my bread, and drink the wine that I have mixed for you." There is, then, wine from Sodom, and there is wine that wisdom mixes. And again: "a vineyard came to be for the
beloved, on a horn, in a fertile place," planted by God, called the vine of Sorek, being a chosen and marvelous one. But there is also a vine of the Egyptians, which God strikes, according to what is written, that "God struck their vine with hail, and their mulberry trees with frost." Consider, then, that all human beings are figuratively speaking
now capable of holding wine. And I call them, in this respect, wineskins, and I say that the base person has been filled with "wine of the vine of Sodom," has been filled with Egyptian wine and with the wine of the enemies of Israel, while the holy and benefited person has been filled with wine from the vine of Sorek and with the wine about which it is written: "your cup that makes drunk like the strongest," and again the holy person has been filled with wine,
...from which wisdom mixed the wine. Let these things, then, be understood by me in terms of vice and virtue, so that the saying “every wineskin is filled with wine” may be rightly seen. But if we must also look at what pertains to vice and to virtue — the punishments that belong to vice, and the blessings and promises that belong to virtue — let us set forth from the sacred writings in what way
both punishments and promises are called wine: “Take this cup of unmixed wine, and you shall give it to drink to all the nations to whom I send you.” Jeremiah says this; to which he adds: “and they will drink and vomit and go mad and fall.” Therefore he has here named the punishments unmixed wine, which those worthy of unmixed wine — that is,
worthy of unmixed punishment — drink. But there are also others who drink a punishment that is not unmixed but mixed: for “there is a cup in the hand of the Lord, full of unmixed wine mixed with a mixture; he tilted it from this side to that; yet its dregs were not poured out — all the sinners of the earth shall drink it.” If you also wish to see the cup of blessing that the righteous drink, it would indeed have sufficed to cite that of
wisdom, concerning which it said, “Drink the wine that I have mixed for you”; but observe for me also the Savior, going up for the Passover into “a large upper room, furnished and prepared,” and celebrating the feast with his disciples, and giving them a cup, concerning which it is not written that he mixed it — for Jesus, in gladdening the disciples, gladdens them with unmixed wine, and says to them: “Take, drink, this is my
blood, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me,” and: “Truly I say to you, I will not drink of it from now on, until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of God.” You see that the promise is the cup “of the new covenant”; you see that the punishments are a cup
of unmixed wine, and that another kind of punishment is a mixed cup; so that for each person, what he drinks is mixed according to the worth of the good action mingled with the wicked action. Understand, then, that those who are wholly estranged from reverence for God and pay no attention to themselves at all, but live however it happens, drink the unmixed wine concerning which we cited the passage from Jeremiah, while those who have not wholly
fallen away, and are sinners, but are unworthy of the cup “of the new covenant,” doing at one time better actions, at another time contrary ones, drink wine “of unmixed mixture.” For God “tilted it from this to that” — from which “this”? I see two cups according to what is said: “he tilted it from this side to that, yet its dregs were not poured out.” Understand, then, the cup of
your good works as in one hand of God; but if you want me to speak more boldly, let the cup of your good works be in the hand of God, and then let your cup of sins be in God's left hand. Whenever, then, you are about to be punished for your sins, since you have also had better works,
The cup »is in the Lord’s hand, full of unmixed wine mixed with spices. And he tilted from this to that«, from the one in the left hand to the one in the right. For you cannot drink only the cup of good things, as though you had done only good works, nor can you drink only the cup of sins, for some good deeds have also been done by you. For this reason
»he tilted from this to that«. In proportion to your works, wrath and punishment are mixed for you, so that the punishment may be either more diluted for you, or sharper and more burdensome. For in proportion, as I said before, to the sins being weighed against the good deeds, the wrath from the cup of anger is somehow either blunted or not blunted † being given in some measure
to each of the sins. But if you are wholly good and virtuous, you say: »I will take the cup of salvation, and I will invoke the name of the Lord«. So »every wineskin«, whether good or bad, »shall be filled with wine«, and according to the fitness of the wineskin, wine will be put into that wineskin, in keeping with the sense of the wineskins named here. Oil, then, is not put into the wineskins, nor any other
liquid matter, but every wineskin must be filled with wine. Then he teaches, on behalf of those who sinned — so far as concerns the literal sense — in Jerusalem at that time and in Judea, with what kind of wine God is about to fill these wineskins, the sinners. For it is written: »If they say to you: Do we not know, without being told, that every wineskin will be filled with wine? And you shall say to
them: Thus says the Lord: Behold, I am filling all who dwell in this land, and the kings, the sons of David, sitting on his throne, and the priests«. He who is about to punish spares no one. It is not the case that, because someone has been styled a prophet, yet has sins, he will not be filled with the threats that have been spoken. It is not the case that, because someone has been styled a priest and seemed to hold a more honored
standing among the people, God spares him so that, having sinned, he is not punished. But the things written about those people, says the apostle, were recorded for our benefit, »onto whom the culmination of the ages has arrived«. If, then, anyone among these priests as well — by whom I mean us presbyters — or among these Levites who stand about the people — I mean
the deacons — sins, he will have this same punishment; just as, again, there are certain priestly blessings, about which, God granting it, we shall learn not long from now, but after the examination of this prophetic word, when Numbers is read; for something is going to be said there about priests. »And the priests«, then, »and the prophets and Judah and all who dwell in Jerusalem«, it says
God will fill »with drunkenness« and scatter »them, each man and his brother, and their fathers <and their sons>«. And let us understand this as well in the following way: God gathers the righteous, but scatters the sinners. This is why, when the people were not moving from the east, God did not scatter them; but when they moved »from
"...of the east," and "he said, each man to his neighbor: Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower, whose head will reach to heaven," God says concerning these people: "Come, let us go down and confuse their language there," and each one is confused and scattered to some place on the earth. And the people of Israel, while not sinning, was
in Judea; but having sinned, it is afterward scattered † from the inhabited world and dispersed everywhere. Understand something of this sort also concerning all of us. There is a certain <church of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, where Mount Zion is, and the city of God who lives, heavenly Jerusalem>. The blessed will be gathered there, so that they may be together. But even in this they are punished, in not being with
one another—the sinners. I know of some who, in this life, for the sake of punishment, wish to hand a person over to some island, and for the sake of torment scatter the household members of one who has offended the kingdom—here the wife, there one son, then elsewhere the other—so that not even in the calamity might the mother enjoy the son, or the brother the brother.
Understand something of this sort also in the case of the unjust. You, the sinner, being administered by God, must taste something rather bitter, so that through discipline you may be saved. Just as you do not punish the servant or son whom you chastise simply because you wish to torment him, but so that through his pains you may turn him back, so also God will discipline, through the
pains that come from sufferings, those who do not turn back by the word, who have not been healed. He imposes for discipline what he imposes, according to what has been said: "You will be disciplined continually with toil and scourge, Jerusalem." So that the disciplining toil might be increased, then, those who suffer are scattered from one another, so that this one and that one are not together at the same time. For the intensity of the toil would be relieved through the comfort each one receives from the other. But if
one must add to the account also another reason for the scattering, I will set this forth too. Evil people, being together with one another, contemplate and increase evils, just as good people, being together with the good, take counsel concerning good things. [And] so the evil plan is dissolved and broken up—a plan that would have had strength together with its likes—when the wicked are scattered from one another. For this reason God arranges that the base
should not be together with one another, perhaps even providing for them, so that their evil might not grow together, but might be diminished as it is dissolved. This is on account of: "I will scatter them, a man and his brother, and their fathers and their sons together, says the Lord." "I will not spare, nor pity, nor have compassion, on their destruction." Those from the
heresies fasten upon such sayings, saying: Do you see what sort of being the Demiurge is? The God of the prophets, who says, "I will not spare, nor have compassion, on their destruction"? How can this one be good? But if I take as an example a judge who, for the sake of the common good, does not pity, and a judge who rightly does not show mercy, I will be able, from the example, to be persuaded that, in sparing many, he does not spare one
God. And I will take an example also from a physician, showing that in sparing the whole body he does not spare a single limb. Suppose this case is set before a judge: to establish peace and to arrange what is beneficial for the nation under him. Suppose a murderer is brought forward who is handsome to look at and beautiful in appearance. Suppose a mother comes forward, offering pitiable words to the judge, so that pity might be shown for
her old age; let this man's wife, unworthy though he is, plead for pity to be shown him; let his children, standing around him, beg on his behalf. Given these things, what benefits the community? Is it that he should be shown pity, or not? If he is pitied, he will return to the same deeds; but if he is not pitied, he himself will die, while the community will be made better. So too God, if he spares the sinner and pities him and shows compassion
so as not to punish him, who will not be corrupted? Who among the base — even those who cease from their sins on account of fear of punishments — will not be corrupted, will not become worse? Such things can be seen happening also in the churches: someone sinned, and after the sin asked for readmission to communion. If he is too quickly shown mercy, the community is corrupted; the sin of others increases. But if by reasoning, not as
an unmerciful judge, nor as a cruel one, but as one taking thought even for the one, yet taking still more thought for the many as against the one, he considers the harm that will come to the community from admitting the one to communion and from condoning his sin, it is clear he will have the one expelled, in order to save the many. Consider for me also a physician, in what way, if
he is sparing about cutting what must be cut, if he is sparing about cauterizing what must be cauterized, on account of the pains that accompany such remedies, in what way the disease increases and grows worse. But if he approaches the incision and the cautery more boldly, he will heal by not showing pity, by seeming not to feel compassion for the one being cauterized and
the one being cut. So too God does not manage the affairs of one man only, but manages the whole world, administering everywhere the things in heaven and the things on earth. He considers, then, what benefits the whole world and all that exists; as far as possible he considers also what benefits the one, yet not so that the benefit of the one should come at the cost of the world.
For this reason eternal fire has been prepared, for this reason Gehenna has been made ready, for this reason there is also an outer darkness, which are needed not only for the sake of the one being punished, but especially for the sake of the community. And if you wish to take Scripture as witness that sinners are punished also for the instruction of others, even if these sinners are at some point given up as beyond cure, hear
Solomon saying in the Proverbs: "When a pestilent man is scourged, the fool becomes more shrewd." He did not say that the one scourged himself would become more shrewd and more sensible on account of the scourges, but he says that the fool changes from folly to sense on account of the scourges brought upon the pestilent man; for this is signified here by the term "shrewdness." And the fool changes by seeing others scourged.
It is therefore of benefit to us, if indeed we are to prove worthy of salvation through others' being broken, that others should be punished. And just as the transgression of Israel proved beneficial for the salvation of the gentiles, so the punishment of some will prove beneficial for the salvation of others. For this reason God, being good, says: "I will not spare, and I will not pity them, from their destruction." Now that the one chapter has been marked off, let us also look at
what the other teaches us: "Hear and give ear, and do not be lifted up, for the Lord has spoken. Give glory to the Lord our God before it grows dark, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains; and you will wait for light, and there will be the shadow of death, and they will be set in darkness. But if you do not hear it in secret, your soul will weep from
the face of arrogance, and your eyes will bring down tears, because the flock of the Lord has been shattered." He wants these same people both to hear and to give ear, not being satisfied with their merely hearing, nor merely giving ear. Therefore he says: "Hear and give ear." Then after this he commands them not to be lifted up, and teaches what must be done. What, then, is "to hear" and what is "to give ear" - let us consider from the very
wording. "To give ear" means: receive into the ears; and "hear," if it is spoken as a distinction from "give ear," perhaps means: receive into the understanding. And among the things spoken in the Scriptures, some are more secret and mystical, while others are of immediate use to those who understand. Concerning the more secret things, I think, "hear" is said, while concerning the things
that are of immediate use and able to benefit the hearer even without interpretation, "give ear" is said. If, then, we examine the whole of Scripture, we shall say, having become "skilled money-changers": this we should hear, and this we should give ear to. Then, once we have heard and given ear, he commands us: "and do not be lifted up." For "everyone who exalts himself will be humbled." And the Savior too, in saying: "Learn from me, that I am gentle
and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls," teaches us not to be lifted up. For among the other human evils this sin too is very much present in us: at times we are lifted up quite irrationally, even over something for which we ought not to be lifted up in the slightest degree; at other times with some plausibility, since there is reason for that over which we are lifted up,
yet even so it is not sound to be lifted up over it either. What I mean will become clear in this way: there are some who are lifted up because they are sons of rulers and because they are of a lineage descended from great worldly dignities. Such people, being lifted up over a matter that is not within their own choice and is indifferent, do not even have a plausible reasonableness to compare in support of their being lifted up. There are those who are lifted up because they have the power to put people to death,
and are lifted up because they have attained what is called among them "advancement" of such a kind as to cut off the heads of men. "The glory" of such people "is in their shame." Others are lifted up over wealth, not the true wealth but the lower kind; and others are lifted up, for instance, over having a fine house or many fields. None of these things is worth mentioning; one ought not to be lifted up over
to any of these. The plausible reasoning about being puffed up occurs when someone is puffed up because he is wise, and is puffed up in his own conscience because he has already gone ten years without touching sexual matters, or has never touched them even from childhood; and again another is puffed up because he wore chains for Christ's sake. There is a plausibility here that suggests one is reasonably puffed up, yet not even in these cases
is one reasonably puffed up when measured against the true account. So it is not reasonable to be puffed up even over these things. Paul had material for being puffed up on account of his visions, his revelations, his wonders and signs, the labors he endured for Christ, and the churches he founded with such zeal, establishing a church wherever Christ had not yet been named. All these things
were material that could have made him puffed up, if one may put it with the plausibility that attaches to being puffed up, since it might have seemed to some that he was right to be puffed up over them. But nevertheless, since even being puffed up over such things is not without danger, the good Father, just as he had granted him visions and revelations, so too gave him, as a kind of gift, an angel of Satan, to beat him, so that he would not be exalted beyond measure. And
concerning this he entreated the Lord three times, that the angel of Satan might depart from him — the angel that had been given him precisely so that he would not be puffed up. And the Lord answered him (for Paul was worthy of an answer from the Lord) and said to him: 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' One must therefore not be puffed up over anything; for
falling follows upon being puffed up, according to the saying: 'Before destruction a man's heart is exalted, and before glory it is humbled.' These things, then, pertain to: 'Hear and give ear, and do not be puffed up, for the Lord has spoken.' Let us see also what he commands us to do after this: 'Give,' he says, 'glory to the Lord our God before it grows dark, before your feet stumble on the dark mountains,
and you wait for light.' He who gives 'glory to God' wants to give 'glory to God' while he is light, since glory cannot be proclaimed of God once it has grown dark and darkness has come. When, then, does it grow dark, and when does the darkening not happen? 'Work while the light is in you.' 'The light is in' you, if you have within you the one who said,
'the light of the world.' As long as this rises for you, glorify God; but know that a certain darkening can occur, and this darkening must not be allowed to remain, but before it grows dark, glory must be given to God. Perhaps we will understand what is written by making use of a gospel saying spoken by the Savior, which runs thus: 'Work while it is day; night is coming, when no one
can work.' There he called this age 'day' (but I have necessarily added 'there,' for I know that in other places other things are meant by 'day') — he called this age 'day,' then, and called the consummation 'darkness' and 'night,' because of the punishments. For 'why,' it says, 'do you desire the day of the Lord? It is darkness and not light,' says the prophet Amos. If you see
the gloom after the consummation of the world, which follows upon nearly the whole human race being punished for its sins — you will see, you will see the surrounding air darkened at that time, and no one will any longer be able to glorify God, if indeed the word of God has commanded even the righteous, saying: "Go, my people, enter your storeroom, shut your door, hide yourself
for a little while, until the wrath of my anger passes by" — and along with this, if anyone is able, let him observe that he has said "a little while." But that "little while" is little for God; it is not little for a human being. For one must see that for each being there is something small and something great. And I will show by an example that for each there is something
small or great. For each animal, this much food is small in comparison with its own constitution, and this much food is again much in comparison with its own makeup. And thus what is small for a human being is great for another animal. What is small, so to speak, is much for a child compared to a man. In this way the time of human life is a small thing
altogether, even the time of a long-lived person, in comparison with the whole of the age now present. So too what is small for God is much in comparison with us, and what is small for God is an entire age. If, then, it is said: "Go, my people, enter your storerooms, shut your door, hide yourself for a little while," that "little while" must be understood
to be said not in relation to the condition of the one commanded to go and enter his storerooms, but in relation to the condition of the one giving these commands, for whom what is much for the other is little. For if it is necessary that some enter their storerooms "until the wrath of anger" of God "passes by," and there are those whose sins are not forgiven not only through
this whole age but also through the whole age to come, it is clear that the "little while" extends over the periods mentioned. "Give," then, "glory to the Lord our God." How do we give glory to the Lord our God? I do not seek the giving of glory to the Lord our God in voices and little words, but the one who gives glory to the Lord God gives him glory in deeds.
Glorify God in self-control, in righteousness, in doing good glorify God; give glory to God in courage and endurance, give glory to God in piety and holiness and the rest of the virtues. But if this is so, and one glorifies God in this way, then if I say the opposite, do not think I am blaspheming; for I will produce as witness
the scripture concerning these matters as well. The self-controlled person glorifies God; the one who lives licentiously dishonors God. For like Nebuchadnezzar he destroys the temple of God and "corrupts the temple of God," and "through transgression of the law dishonors God" (this too is an apostolic saying). Therefore the sinner clothes God with dishonor. And the matters concerning providence are inquired into, as some
...to doubt whether there is providence — providence being nothing other than a doubt caused by wickedness. Remove the wickedness, and you do not stumble against providence. But everywhere those who stumble against providence say this: "Why are there so many adulterers and so many degenerates? Why are there so many godless and impious people?" And it is those who sin who give birth to disgrace for providence, to stumbling blocks against God, to
blasphemy against the one who created the world. Some, then, give glory to God, while others give glory to God who do the opposite of God's glory through their sins. "Give glory to the Lord our God before it grows dark, before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains." There are certain dark mountains, and there are certain shining mountains,
but each of the two exists for a reason. The shining mountains are God's holy angels, the prophets, Moses the servant, the apostles of Jesus Christ. All these are shining mountains, and I think it is about these that it is said in the Psalms: "His foundations are on the holy mountains." But which are the dark mountains? Those who raise up heights against the knowledge of God. The devil
is a dark mountain; the rulers of this age who are being brought to nothing are dark mountains; and the demon, the lunacy, was a mountain, and it was a dark mountain, about which the Savior spoke: "You will say to this mountain..." For when the matter of the lunatic was under investigation and the disciples were saying, "Why were we not able to cast it out?", the Savior answers that "if
you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain" — the one you proposed, the one you asked about — "you will say to this one: 'Move from here to there,' and it will move." "From here" — from the man; "there" — to its own place. So those who stumble do not stumble upon shining mountains, but upon dark mountains, when they come to be with the devil and his
angels, the dark mountains. "And you will wait for light." It is possible, indeed, to connect "give the Lord our God glory" with "and you will wait for light." If "to the Lord our God… before it grows dark, before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains," it is clear that even if it grows dark, "you will wait for the light," and the light will receive you in its turn. But another
might say — I do not know whether he understands it soundly or not — that even those who stumble "upon the dark mountains" will wait, remaining beside the dark mountains, for the light of mercy; for this, it will seem, is what "and you will wait for light" means. But when someone comes upon the dark mountains, let us see what is there: "the shadow of death." Where the dark mountains are,
there is the shadow of death, born from those very dark mountains. 13. "And they will be put into darkness." "But if you do not listen in secret, your soul will weep because of arrogance." Of those who listen, some listen in secret, while others, even if they listen, do not listen in secret. What, then, is listening in secret, if not "but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the wisdom that has been hidden,
"which God foreordained before the ages for our glory"; and again elsewhere it is said, that "most of God's works are hidden." If I hear the law, I either hear it hiddenly or I do not hear it hiddenly. The Jew does not hear the law hiddenly; therefore he is circumcised openly, not knowing that it is not "he who is a Jew in the open,"
nor "the circumcision in the open, in the flesh," that counts. But the one who hears about circumcision hiddenly will be circumcised in secret; the one who hears the things legislated concerning the Passover hiddenly eats of the sheep, Christ (for "our Passover has been sacrificed: Christ"), and knowing what sort of thing the flesh of the Word is, and knowing that "it is true food," partakes of it; for he heard the Passover hiddenly.
But this common sort of Jew, precisely for this reason, killed the Lord Jesus, and is guilty even today of the murder of Jesus, because he heard neither the law nor the prophets hiddenly. If you read about the unleavened bread, it is possible to hear the commandment hiddenly, and it is possible to hear it openly. "As many of you" - for the Passover is near - "keep the unleavened bread,"
the bodily unleavened bread - you are not hearing the commandment that says: "if you do not hear hiddenly, your soul will weep." And concerning the sabbath, women who have not heard the prophet do not hear hiddenly, but hear openly. They do not wash on the day of the sabbath; they turn back "to the weak and beggarly elements," as though Christ had not come among us, he who perfects us and carries us across from the elements of the law
to evangelical perfection. For this reason let us take care, when reading the law and the prophets, lest we fall under the prophecy that says: "but if you do not hear hiddenly, your soul will weep before the face of insolence." As many as keep the Jewish fast without understanding the day of atonement, you keep it after the coming of Jesus Christ. You have not heard the atonement hiddenly,
but only openly; for to hear the atonement hiddenly is to hear how God [made] Jesus "an atonement concerning our sins," and that "he himself is the atonement concerning our sins - and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the whole world." And even if gospel parables are read and the hearer is one of those outside, he will not hear them hiddenly.
But if the hearer is an apostle, or one of those who enter "into the house" of Jesus, he comes to Jesus, inquires also about the obscurity of the parable, and Jesus interprets it for him, and that man becomes a hearer of the gospel who hears it hiddenly, so that his soul may not weep; for the soul of those who do not hear hiddenly weeps. Why did he not say, in a striking way,
"you will weep, if you do not hear hiddenly," but rather, "your soul will weep"? There is a certain weeping that belongs to the soul alone, weeping by itself, and perhaps the Savior is teaching us about that very weeping when he says: "there will be weeping there." And even when he says, "woe to those who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep," he is speaking of that weeping which the prophet also threatens here, saying: "but if"
"Do not listen in secret; your soul will weep because of the face of arrogance." For whenever you are treated with arrogance, then you will weep, and your eyes will bring down tears, "because the flock of the Lord has been shattered." If someone now looks at the affairs of the Jews and compares them to the ancient ones, he will see in what way "the flock of the Lord" was shattered. For this was once the flock of the Lord, and since they judged themselves unworthy, the word was turned
to the nations. If then that flock of the Lord was shattered, ought not we, the wild olive tree grafted contrary to our own nature into the cultivated olive tree of the fathers, fear all the more, lest this too, "the flock of the Lord," be shattered? For it is going to be shattered at some time, according to what was said by the Savior, when, "because lawlessness will be multiplied, the love of the many will grow cold,"
the love of the many. For concerning whom is this word spoken? Was it not said concerning those called Christians, that "the love of the many will grow cold"? Concerning whom is the word, "yet when the Son of Man comes, will he indeed find faith upon the earth?" Is it not concerning us? For this reason let us pay attention to ourselves, doing everything, so that day by day this flock of God
may be made better, may be made healthy, may be healed, and every fracture may depart from our souls, that we may be perfected in Christ Jesus, to whom is the glory and the power unto the ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 13 ========

We want to understand what is said to Jerusalem with much threat, which reads as follows: "Who will spare you, Jerusalem? Or who will be downcast over you? Or who will turn aside to ask about your peace? You have turned away from me, says the Lord. You will go backward, and I will stretch out my hand against you and destroy you, and I will no longer let you go. And I will scatter them in dispersion."
Then, "I was made childless." Perplexity gripped me. I take as an example someone shown to be an enemy of the one who reigns over the earth, because it is not even permitted to show such a person mercy, lest one seem to give offense to the king who condemned him. And it is not permitted to pity such a person either — some carry it further still, not even looking downcast over him, so that by their downcast look they might not seem to be displeased with the one judged by the king. If
you have grasped this, consider for me the one condemned by God on account of his many sins, and observe such a person. Though there are legions of angels appointed to help human nature, he is pitied by none of them. For each of the angels, seeing that the one who condemned him is God, that the one he turned away from is the Creator, that the nature of sins is such that
the good God is compelled — if I may put it this way — to bring the verdict against the one who has sinned, each of those who see it does not spare him, does not look downcast, does not pity, does not turn back to appeal for peace on his behalf. Let this Jerusalem, then — for so she will be called on account of the letter — let her have sinned against my Jesus, and let her have done such things, so that Jesus may say concerning her,
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a bird gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Behold, your house is left to you." Let this Jerusalem be abandoned, as she has been abandoned. Let the angels who always help Jerusalem, through whom also the
law of Moses — "ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator" — was arranged, let them abandon Jerusalem and say: her sins have grown great, they killed Jesus, they laid hands on the Christ. As long as her sins were still smaller, we could still make requests on their behalf and appeal, we could still spare Jerusalem. Who will spare her for this? "If a man sins against
another man, they will pray for him; but if he sins against the Lord, who will pray for him?" "Jerusalem has sinned a sin, therefore she has become a thing tossed about"; and it is said to her, first of all: "Who will spare you, Jerusalem? And who will be downcast over you?" We are not downcast over Jerusalem and her misfortunes and what happened to that whole people —
for by their trespass our salvation has come, so as to provoke them to jealousy. Since their trespass became so great a sin that it caused the Lord's voice to say, "Who then will spare you" — I say this to the one who killed my Jesus — I too say: "Who will spare you, Jerusalem? And who will be downcast over you?" I move on from the letter, though I have followed a path which
the word has given, to every soul already deemed worthy to see peace. For after the divine teachings you became Jerusalem, having previously been Jebus. (The history says that the name of that place was Jebus,) and it changed its name a second time, to Jerusalem. The sons of the Hebrews say that Jebus is interpreted “Trodden Down.” Jebus, then, is “the Trodden Down” by opposing powers,
a soul, has been changed and become Jerusalem, “Vision of Peace.” If, then, when you changed from Jebus into becoming Jerusalem, you sinned, and have trampled the Son of God, and have considered the blood of the new covenant common — as that one did, so have you too considered it — and are in grievous sins, then it will also be said of you: “Who will spare you, Jerusalem? And who will grieve over you,” if
you become such a one as to betray Jesus? Each of us, in sinning — and above all if the sins are greater — sins against Jesus. And if one is even an apostate, he does all the more to Jesus spiritually what Jerusalem did to him bodily. Therefore: “How much worse a punishment do you suppose he will be deemed worthy of, who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has considered common the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified,
and has outraged the Spirit of grace?” If you have trampled underfoot the Son of God and have outraged the Spirit of grace, “who will spare you? Who will grieve over you? Who will turn back to ask after your peace?” The sinful soul has betrayed the very Son of God who asked after its peace; who is able, turning back again, to entreat concerning
peace? Knowing, then, that “those who were once enlightened, and tasted the heavenly gift, and became partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away — for such it is impossible to be renewed again to repentance, since they crucify the Son of God afresh for themselves and hold him up to contempt,” let us do everything, lest it be said of us too, “Who will spare
you, Jerusalem? And who will grieve over you? Or who will turn back to ask after your peace?” And what follows will also fit both interpretations of Jerusalem: “You have turned away from me, says the Lord. You will go backward.” That you have turned away from the Son of God, and that because you have turned away from the Son of God you have turned away from God — what need is there even to say? And
since the Jerusalem in Judea turned away from Christ — by which all the Jews are to be understood — for this reason “you will go backward.” For there was a time when it was not going backward, but forward; but now it goes backward, “and they turned in their hearts toward Egypt,” clearly so that they might go backward. Now concerning what “you will go backward” means, or what it means to reach forward to the things
ahead, we shall set forth as follows. The righteous man reaches forward to the things ahead; clearly the one disposed contrary to the righteous man calls to mind the things behind and does not reach forward to the things ahead. And the one who calls to mind the things behind disobeys Jesus, who teaches and says: “Let him not turn back to take up his cloak,” he disobeys Jesus who says: “Remember Lot’s wife,” he disobeys Jesus
as he says: "No one who puts his hand to the plow and turns back is suited for the kingdom of God." And it is also written in the law that the angels said to Lot as he went out from Sodom: "Do not look back, nor stand anywhere in the surrounding country; escape to the mountain, lest you be swept away with them." And this too holds
a meaning worthy of an angelic spirit: "do not look back" — always stretch forward to what lies ahead. You have left Sodom; do not turn back to Sodom. You have left wickedness and sin; do not turn back to it, "nor stand anywhere in the surrounding country." Even if you keep the first commandment, the one that says, "do not look back," it is not enough for you to be saved, if
you do not also heed the second commandment, which says, "nor stand anywhere in the surrounding country." For one who has begun to progress must not stand still in the country around Sodom, even if he has already crossed beyond Sodom itself, but having crossed beyond it must not stand still in the surrounding country, but must be saved by escaping to the mountain, in accordance with "do not look back, nor stand anywhere in the surrounding country; to the
mountain escape, lest you be swept away with them." If you wish not to be swept away with the Sodomites, never turn back, nor stand in the country around Sodom, nor be anywhere except on the mountain — for it is only there that one can be saved. And the mountain is the Lord Jesus, to whom be the glory and the might for the ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 14 ========

Physicians of the body, coming to be beside those who are ill and always giving themselves over to the treatment of the sick according to the intent of the medical art, see terrible things and touch upon what is unpleasant; from others' misfortunes they reap griefs of their own, and their life is always spent in hardship. For they are never among the healthy, but always among the wounded,
among those with festering sores, among those filled with pus, fevers, and various diseases. And if someone wishes to take up medicine, he will not grow indignant nor neglect the intent of the art he has undertaken, once he is among such people as we have described. I have said this by way of preface because the prophets too are, so to speak, physicians of souls, and always spend their time where those
in need of treatment are. For "those who are healthy have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." And what physicians suffer at the hands of unruly patients, the prophets and teachers suffer as well at the hands of those unwilling to be treated. For this is why they are hated: because they give orders contrary to the desire and inclination of the sick, because they prevent from indulging in luxury and pleasure those who, even in
their sicknesses, wish not to receive what is fitting for their sicknesses. So the unruly among the sick flee their physicians, often reviling them and speaking ill of them and doing everything an enemy would do to an enemy. For they forget that these come to them as friends, looking only at the hardship of the regimen, at the hardship of the physicians' cutting with iron, and not at the
outcome that comes after the hardship, and they hate them as fathers of hardships alone, not as men who bring hardships that lead to health for those being treated. That people, then, was sick; various diseases were present in the people who had been named as God's own. God sent them physicians, the prophets. Jeremiah too was one of these physicians; he rebuked those who were sinning, wishing to turn back those who were doing wrong.
But they, when they ought to have listened to what was said, accused the prophet instead, bringing accusations before judges just like themselves. And the prophet was always on trial before those who, so far as concerned his prophecy, had been treated, but who, because of their own disobedience, had not in fact been treated. Concerning this he says at one point: "So I declared: never again will I speak, nor utter the name of the Lord. And it became
like a burning fire, blazing within my bones, and I am undone on every side and cannot bear it." And at another point he says, seeing himself constantly being brought to trial, reviled, accused, testified against falsely: "Woe is me, mother, why did you bear me?" — calling himself a man not judging but "being judged," and not deciding a case but "having his case decided against him by the whole earth." And since the sick would not listen to him when he counseled them well
and as a physician should, he says: "I have profited no one." And since, when he was lending them spiritual silver, those to whom he spoke did not wish to listen, so as to profit from what they heard, he says: "neither has anyone owed me anything, nor have I owed." But I have said these things beforehand, before explaining "I have not owed, nor has anyone owed me." For the text exists in two forms: in most manuscripts it reads "not
“I did not profit, nor did anyone profit me,” but in the most accurate copies, which agree with the Hebrew, “I did not owe, nor did anyone owe me.” So we must expound both the reading that is well-worn and current in the churches, and not leave unexplained what comes from the Hebrew scriptures. He was proclaiming the word, then, and no one welcomed what he said—just as a physician spends more on medicines when his patients are undisciplined
and the sick are fulfilling their own desires. It is as if he too were saying: “I did not profit, nor did anyone profit me.” Perhaps there is a reciprocal feeling, owed to the benefactor's love of humanity, that passes from the one benefited to the one who benefited him, so that even the speaker comes to be benefited—since “blessed is he who speaks into the ears of those who listen.” This, then, is the benefit a teacher would gain from hearers who are advancing and improving,
he would be benefited by having fruit in them. 〈Since Jeremiah did not have this from the Jews, he says:〉 “No one profited me.” For if the speaker must have fruit in the one he addresses, but the hearer misunderstands and falls outside of what is said, then it is said, “no one profited me”—since he did not gain this benefit, the benefit he would have gained from the hearer
who was benefited becoming a cause of advancement and blessedness for the one who benefited him. And in general, everyone who teaches—by the very act of teaching, the more intelligent the learner is—is benefited both in what he teaches and in what he learns. And those who speak become better with regard to the lessons they hand down, whenever their hearers, being intelligent, do not simply accept them, but cross-examine, question, and scrutinize the
intention of what is said. 〈…〉 therefore “I did not profit, nor did anyone profit me.” But since another exposition is also necessary, on account of the more accurate copies which read thus: “I did not owe, nor did anyone owe me,” we shall expound the saying as it stands this way too. He who renders to all what is owed—to fear, fear; to the end, the end; to tribute,
tribute; to honor, honor—and renders to all what is fitting, so as to owe no one anything fitting—honoring, so to speak, parents as parents, brothers as brothers, sons as sons, bishops as bishops, presbyters as presbyters, deacons as deacons, the faithful as faithful, catechumens as catechumens—if he renders all that is fitting, he has not owed. But if he owes
to do what is fitting and has not done it, he cannot say, “I did not owe”; for though he owes, he has not paid. How then shall I expound also “nor did anyone owe me”? I was lending and wished to give out spiritual money, but they turned away from what was said and did not present themselves as receptive, so as to owe; for this reason no one owed me. For who received
what was said, so that from receiving it he might become a debtor for what he heard, and be required, as a debtor, to pay interest on what was said? It is better, then, in this respect, for the hearer to take rational money from the speaker and owe it, than to neither receive nor take it and so owe nothing. For “no one owed me” is reckoned among the accusations too. But “Woe is me, mother,
“To what sort of man did you give birth, that I should be judged and contended with over all the earth” — I do not think this saying fits any of the other prophets so well as it fits Jeremiah. For most of the prophets began to prophesy after some time, after wickedness, after sins, having changed their ways; but Jeremiah prophesies from childhood. And it is possible to give an example from what is written. Isaiah did not
hear, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you; I have made you a prophet to the nations,” nor did he say, “I do not know how to speak, for I am too young,” but when he saw the vision recorded in his prophecy, he saw it and said, “Woe is me, wretch that I am, for having unclean lips, I
dwell in the midst of a people that has unclean lips, and I have seen with my own eyes the King, the Lord Sabaoth.” “And there was sent to me,” he says, “one of the Seraphim, and it touched my lips and said: Behold, I have taken away your lawless deeds, and this shall cleanse you of your sins.” So it was after the sins which he had committed earlier that he later became worthy of the Holy Spirit,
and Isaiah prophesied. And in another prophet too you might find something similar. But not so with Jeremiah; for while still in swaddling clothes, adorned with the prophetic spirit, he prophesied from childhood. Hence he said (for I am first explaining the plain sense): “Woe is me, mother, to what sort of man did you give birth, that I should be judged and contended with over all the earth?” Now someone before my time applied himself to this
passage, saying that he spoke these words not to his bodily mother, but to the mother who begets prophets. And who begets prophets but the Wisdom of God? So he was saying, “Woe is me, mother” — “to what sort of man did you bear me,” O Wisdom? And the children of Wisdom are also recorded in the Gospel: “And Wisdom sends forth her children.”
So it is said: “Woe is me, mother” — my Wisdom — “to what sort of man did you bear me, a man who is judged”: who am I, that I have been born to such a degree that I should be judged, that I should be contended with, on account of the refutations, on account of the rebukes, on account of the teaching directed at all who are upon the earth? If Jeremiah says these things, “to what sort of man did you bear me, a man judged and contended with over all the
earth,” I am unable to explain “over all the earth”; for Jeremiah was not contending over all the earth. Or shall we, forcing the sense, say that “over all the earth” stands for “over all Judea”? For his prophecy, at the time he was prophesying, did not reach to all the earth. But perhaps, as we have shown in countless other cases, Jeremiah is here said in place of our Lord Jesus Christ,
just as we shall say here too. At the beginning I noted the passage, “Behold, I have appointed you over nations and over kingdoms, to uproot and tear down, to destroy, and to build up and plant.” This Jeremiah did not do. But Jesus Christ uprooted the kingdoms of the sins of the earth, tore down the structures of wickedness, and in place of those kingdoms made our kingdom to reign, the
righteousness and truth in our souls. Just as, then, those things were more fitting to be referred to Christ than to Jeremiah, so too I think are many other things, including these. First we must speak about the "Woe is me," [whether] the Savior — who also calls others wretched — can say "Woe is me" on account of its ill-omened character. And we shall demonstrate from acknowledged passages which do not fit
anyone other than the Savior, in what way he also wept over Jerusalem — for "Woe is me" is the voice of one weeping. And it is recorded in the gospel that when he saw Jerusalem he wept over it and said: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I wanted to gather your children" and so on. And clearly also
these things were spoken by the Savior in the words, "Woe is me, for I have become like one gathering stubble at the harvest and like a gleaning at the vintage, there being no ear of grain to eat the firstfruits. Woe is me, my soul, for the devout has perished from the earth, and there is no one who does right among men. All are judged for bloodshed." For he came [as one gathering stubble] to the harvest in order to reap,
and finds many sinners and says: "Woe is me, for I have become like one gathering stubble at the harvest." He came to gather the fruit of life among men, he finds many sins in us, and for this reason he says: "and like a gleaning at the vintage, there being no ear of grain to eat the firstfruits." Elsewhere too he says something similar to these words, speaking to the Father: "What profit is there in
my blood, in my going down into corruption?" What great benefit have I done for mankind? What have they done that is worthy of the blood I poured out for them? "What profit is there in my blood, in my going down" from heaven? I have gone down, I came to earth, I gave myself over to corruption, I put on a human body — what worthy result have men achieved from these things? "What profit is there in
my blood, in my going down into corruption? Will the dust confess to you, or declare your truth?" Such, then, is also what is first said here by the Savior: "Woe is me, mother, for what sort of man you have borne me"? It is not as God that the Savior says "Woe is me, mother," but as man, as also in the prophet:
"Woe is me, my soul, for the devout has perished from the earth." Now the soul was human, and for this reason it was troubled, for this reason it was deeply grieved. But the Word, who in the beginning was with God, is not troubled — he could not say "Woe is me." For the Word does not admit death, but it is the human element that has admitted this, as we have often shown. "As
what sort of man you have borne me, one being judged and contended with in all the earth"? If you observe for me the martyrs everywhere being judged and standing before the judges in each church, you will see in what way Jesus Christ is judged in each of the martyrs; for he himself is the one who is judged in those who bear witness to the truth. And you will be persuaded to accept this when you see that he does not say that you are
...in prison when you are in prison, but himself, not you hungering when you hunger, but himself, not you thirsting, but himself. “I was in prison and you came to me. I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me <a drink>.” So if a Christian is ever put on trial, it is not for any other reason, not for his own sins, but because he
is a Christian, it is Christ who is being tried. So in all the earth Christ Jesus is put on trial; and as often as a Christian is tried, it is Christ who is being tried — not only in these courts, but also suppose a Christian is slandered [as one must] on some charge, then too Christ is being unjustly tried. “What sort of man did you bear me to be, contending and being judged in all the earth?” <And
you will also understand it this way, how “he is judged and contended with in all the earth.”> Who, then, does not put the Christian message on trial? Which of the nations does not, at the very least, examine it? Which of the Jews does not speak about the things concerning Christians? Which of the Greeks? Which of the philosophers? Which of the ordinary people? [And you will also understand it this way, how “he is judged and contended with in all
the earth.”] Everywhere Jesus is being judged and tried; and by some he is condemned, by others he is not condemned. If he is not condemned, he is welcomed in; you open your windows to him, he comes in to you; you believe in him, <he dines with you>. But if, on hearing about Christianity, you do not accept it, you have done nothing other than condemn Jesus <as> a liar, as one who deceived people,
as one who does not speak the truth, by not having believed the message that he teaches. “What sort of man did you bear me to be, contending and being judged in all the earth?” As many as disbelieve outright condemn him; but as many as do not disbelieve, yet are in two minds about him, contend with him. Jesus suffers two things among human beings: by unbelievers he is condemned, and by the double-minded
he is contended with. If you put on “the image of the heavenly man,” having put off “the image of the earthly man,” you are no longer earth condemning him, nor are you the earth in which he is condemned; you are no longer earth contending with him. “My strength has failed among those who curse me.” The apostle says of the Savior that “he was crucified out of weakness.” And the prophet says things much like this in the passage,
“Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? We announced him in his presence like a small child, like a root growing in parched soil; we saw him, and he had neither form nor beauty to him, but his form was without honor, falling short beside the sons of men. A man in affliction and in pain, and knowing how to bear sickness, because his
face was turned away in dishonor, he was dishonored and was not esteemed. This one bears our lawless deeds and suffers pain on our account, and we reckoned him to be in pain and affliction and ill-treatment. But he was wounded because of our lawless deeds, and made sick because of our sins; the discipline that brings us peace was upon him, by his bruise we were healed.” So then
He took up the weakness of our sins and carried us and came to those who curse him, and his strength failed on account of those cursing him as he descended from heaven. For at the same time he took up the form of a slave and emptied himself, as the apostle said, that “he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave.” “My strength,” then, he says, “failed among those who curse
me.” Let us see whether, granting that the word itself provides this, we can also say something clearer than what has been said—granting that the word provides this, we can also say something clearer than what has been said—concerning “my strength has failed among those who curse me.” “It was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into the world.” <“The true light” is the Son
of God, “who enlightens every man coming into the world.”> And whoever is rational partakes of the true light, and every man is rational. Of all men, then, who partake of reason, in some the strength of the word has grown, while in others it fails. If you see a soul subject to passion and sinful, you will see there the strength of the word
failing; but if you see a holy and righteous soul, you will see the strength of the word bearing fruit day by day, and you will apply what is said about Jesus to the righteous. For it is not only in himself that “Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature and grace before God and men,” but also in each of those who receive advancement in wisdom, stature, and grace
that “Jesus” advances “in wisdom and stature and grace before God and men.” The word, then, the Son of God, who is in the one who said, “Woe is me, my mother,” and what follows, says that “my strength has failed among those who curse me.” Whoever curses the word, this one immediately receives punishment for having cursed the word, for
having found fault with the teaching of Jesus; for the strength of Jesus fails in such a person, and there is no strength of the word in him. So again, on the contrary, if you bless Jesus and receive him, his strength undergoes the opposite of what it suffers in those who receive him; for just as there it failed among those who curse, so here it grows
among those who bless. “May it be, Lord, that they prosper—if I did not stand before you in the time of their evils.” What does “may it be, Lord” mean? Let the one who is able gather this for himself. [the “may it be”] “Master, Lord, that they prosper”—may the strength that fails among those who curse come to be, whenever, having repented after speaking evil of me, they turn to the straight way and travel it themselves. “May it be, Master, that they prosper—
if I did not stand before you.” Then he pleads his case concerning those who speak evil of him, saying: “If I did not stand before you in the time of their evils.” He stood before the Father, being a propitiation for our sins, and interceded for them at that very time of our evils. For he did not stand after the time of our evils, but while we were still sinners
our Christ died for us: ‘if I did not stand by you in the time of their evils, in the time of their afflictions, for good, against the enemy.’ And in the time of their affliction, it says, that which was against the enemy, I stood by you on their behalf. But who is the enemy but ‘our adversary the devil,’ who afflicted us? And clearly
in the time of that hostility of his against humankind, our savior stood by the Father and made entreaty concerning our captivity, that we might be redeemed and delivered from the enemy. Let the savior, or the prophet, have said these things; for the prophet too is able to have said and prayed such things concerning the people in the ‘time of their evils’
of theirs.’ To these things what does God answer to the people accused by the prophet, or by Christ, and he says these things to him: ‘Iron, and a covering of bronze, is your strength’ — hard, unyielding, not to be driven. ‘Iron, and a covering of bronze, is your strength’ — that is, your strength is something that cuts and divides, a strength that is not for good.
‘And your treasures I will give over to plunder, as a ransom for all your sins.’ What ‘treasures’ of those who sin does God give ‘over to plunder,’ and give them ‘as a ransom for all their sins’? Is it perhaps ever those treasures they store up for themselves on earth? For each of the human race stores up treasure: if he is worthless, on earth; but if he is of good character, in heaven, as we have been taught
from the gospel. Or does he say to that people that, because of your sins, I am about to give your treasures over to plunder? What sort of treasures of that people were given over to plunder? See, one of the treasures was Jeremiah, another treasure was Isaiah, and Moses too was a treasure. These treasures God took from that people, and through Christ, who said: ‘the kingdom of God will be taken
away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits,’ gave them to us. ‘I will give,’ then, ‘your treasures over to plunder because of your sins.’ And he gave the treasures of that people to us; for they were the first entrusted with the oracles of God, and then after them we were entrusted with them, the oracles of God having been taken away from them and
given to us. And we say that the statement ‘the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits’ was spoken by the savior and has been fulfilled — not that scripture was taken away from them, but that now they no longer possess the law and the prophets, in that they do not perceive the mind that is in them. For they have the books, but how was
the kingdom of God taken away from them? The mind of the scriptures was taken away from them. No interpretation is any longer preserved among them, legal or prophetic, of the coming of Christ — the saying: ‘I said to that people: hearing, you shall hear, yet you shall by no means understand; and looking, you shall look, yet you will in no way perceive; this people's heart has grown dull.’ And fulfilled too is what was said by the
...of Isaiah, that "the Lord will take away from Judea and from Jerusalem the strong man and the strong woman, the giant and the man of war, the judge and the prophet and the diviner and the wise architect and the intelligent hearer." All these things God took away from those people and gave, if indeed we accept them, to us who are from the nations. This is on account of "and I will give your treasures for
plunder." "A ransom for all your sins and in all your borders." As if he were saying: because of your sins that have reached every one of your borders — for there is no border of that people that has not been filled with sin. And how was every border of theirs not going to be filled with sin, seeing that, so far as lay in them, they killed righteousness,
if Christ is righteousness, killed wisdom, if Christ is wisdom, killed truth, if Christ is truth? For by having condemned the Son of God to death they cast away and lost all these things. And my Lord Jesus, having risen from the dead, no longer appeared to those who killed him — for we do not have it in the history that he appeared to those who killed him, but
he appeared, risen from the dead, only to those who believed. "And I will enslave you among all your enemies in a land which you did not know." That people has been enslaved among their enemies, and has come to be in a land which it did not know. "For a fire has been kindled from my wrath; it will burn upon you." After these things, and the words of the threats that have been
spoken to the people, he who prayed above completes the prayer and joins to what has already been said these words: "You know, Lord; remember me and visit me, and clear me of those who persecute me — not with patience." And let the prophet say this, being persecuted by those who are convicted, hated by those who cannot receive the truth; for he has become an enemy to those who hear him by speaking the truth
to them. And let our Savior say the same things, he who was also persecuted by the people, and says: "not with patience." What is "not with patience"? You were always patient with the people over their sins, but over what has been dared against me, do not be patient. And truly God was not patient. If you examine the times of the passion and
of the fall of Jerusalem and the razing of the city, and in what manner God abandoned that people once they had killed Christ, you will see that he no longer dealt with the people with patience. And if you wish, listen: from the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar to the razing of the temple, forty-two years have been completed. For a little time had to be allowed for
repentance, especially on account of those from the people who were going to believe because of the signs and wonders that were to be worked by the apostles. "Know how I have received reproach concerning you from those who set at nought your words." Let the prophet be one who speaks and is also treated with contempt for what he said, being set at nought by sinners; for he himself says: "I have continued being mocked." He was reproached, then, by those who set at nought
the words spoken by God through him, and he prays to be helped by God concerning his being reproached, saying: ‘Know that I have received reproach on your account from those who reject your words. Consume them.’ Let the prophet say this, but rather it is more fitting for ‘consume them’ to be spoken by the Savior; for a consummation came upon Jerusalem and upon the
people, on account of what happened from the plot of the people against our Savior. After this it is necessary, since the prophets suffered many things while reproving and heralding the word and receiving the commands given by God, to remind the hearers about their life and their promises and about our own resolve, so that, as far as is possible for us, if
we wish to have rest with the prophets, we should emulate the works of the prophets. What I mean is this: often in our prayers we say, Almighty God, give us our portion with the prophets, give us our portion with the apostles of your Christ, so that we may be found together with Christ himself as well. But when we say these things we do not perceive what we are praying for; for
in effect we are saying this: grant that we suffer what the prophets suffered, grant that we too be hated as the prophets were hated, grant us such words as will bring hatred upon us, grant that we fall into as many circumstances as the apostles did. For to say, ‘Give me a portion with the prophets,’ without having suffered what the prophets suffered nor wishing to suffer it, is unjust. To say, ‘Give me a portion’
with the apostles, without wishing, out of the disposition of Paul, to speak truly and say, ‘in labors more abundantly, in beatings more abundantly, in imprisonments more excessively, in deaths often,’ and so on, is of all things the most unjust. If then we wish to be numbered with the prophets, look at the lives of the prophets: that from reproving, from rebuking, from chastising they were brought to trial, condemned, judged. ‘They were stoned, they were sawn in two,’
‘they were tempted, they died by the slaughter of the sword, they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, destitute, afflicted, mistreated, wandering in deserts’—at a time when there were many synagogues of Jews; and these men were ‘wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and the holes of the earth.’ What then is strange, if someone wishing to emulate the prophetic life, in reproving, in rebuking the sinner, is spoken ill of, is hated, is plotted against? Just as
also in the present case it was necessary † for something of this kind to happen in the church of God. The one condemned was condemned; so-and-so, sitting †, was doing such things; it was necessary for there to be an ecclesiastical act of redress, and it happened; the one entrusted with the task has done what he needed to have done. That man goes about speaking ill of the one who vindicated the truth. But let us not do this; let us not lend our
ears to those who, because they have been expelled, speak ill of the one who expelled them or of the one who voted with him—men whose injustice, even now, is being exposed and has occurred †. The wonderful apostles, though insulted in countless ways for the sake of the truth, say: ‘I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults and hardships, in persecutions and difficulties, for the sake of Christ.’ May it only be granted me, being insulted, to know that I am insulted for no other reason than
For Christ's sake — when one is in hardships, may I know that the cause of the hardships is Christ. When I am reviled, may I know that the reason for the reviling is nothing other than this: that I am vindicating the truth and pleading on behalf of what is written, so that everything may happen according to the word of God — for this I am blasphemed. Let all of us, then, as far as we are able, hasten toward the life
of the prophets, toward the life of the apostles, not fleeing what is troublesome; for if an athlete flees the trouble of the contest, he will not receive the sweetness of the crown. ‘And your word shall become for me a joy.’ It is not so now, but ‘shall be’; for at present your word is to me for imprisonments, for lawsuits, for troubles, for slanders,
for hardships — but the end of these will be gladness. ‘And your word shall be to me for gladness and the joy of my heart, because your name has been called upon me, O Lord Almighty.’ Even if it is Christ who speaks, the name of the Father has been called upon him. ‘I did not sit in the council of those who make sport.’ If ever the prophet saw the council not of those who are earnest but of those who make sport,
he fled rather from gathering than hastened to a gathering of those who make sport. You must understand, then, the difference between a council of those who make sport and one of those who are earnest. This council is earnest, and does everything with earnestness and with things worthy of earnestness, and as the saying goes: earnest is the word, earnest is the life, and in every way the council is not of those who make sport, but of those who are earnest. But when a council abandons
the earnestness concerning what is necessary and gives itself over to the games of this age and the games that come from wickedness, it becomes a council of those who make sport. He says, then: ‘I did not sit in the council of those who make sport, but I stood in awe before your hand.’ Since two things lay before him — to sit in the council of those who make sport and to offend you, God, and not please you, or to rise up from the council
of those who make sport and to do the things that were pleasing to you — he chose rather to rise up from the council of those who make sport and to be your friend, than, by doing the opposite, to become an enemy to your blessedness. ‘I did not sit in the council of those who make sport, but I stood in awe before your hand.’ And our Savior did not sit ‘in the council of those who make sport,’ but withdrew from them.
And it is a sign that the Savior rose up from the council of those who make sport, that he said: ‘Your house is left to you desolate.’ For the word of God abandoned the council of the Jews and made for itself another council and church, the one from the nations. ‘I sat alone.’ Here too the words are building something. Whenever there is a multitude of sinners and they cannot bear the
righteous man living righteously, it is not at all strange, in fleeing the council of wickedness, to imitate the one who said, ‘I sat alone,’ and to imitate also Elijah, who said: ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek to take my life.’ But perhaps, if you examine ‘I sat alone’ more deeply, you will find some meaning worthy
depth of prophetic meaning. Whenever we imitate the life of the many, so that a person is not withdrawn and superior and exceptional beyond the many, I cannot say, “I sat alone,” but rather, “I sat with many.” But when my life becomes hard to imitate, so that I become so great that no one resembles me in character, in word, in deeds, in wisdom, then
I can say, on the grounds that I am alone in being such a person and no one imitates me, the words “I sat alone.” It is possible, then, even for you, though you are not a presbyter and not a bishop and honored with no ecclesiastical office, to say this — to aspire to “I sat alone” and to take up a life such that you could say, “I sat alone.” “Because I was filled with bitterness.” If “narrow and afflicted is the
way,” does your feast come to be accompanied by bitter herbs? For when you keep the feast, it says, “you shall eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs.” What the passage means by saying that the one keeping feast to God must eat “unleavened bread with bitter herbs” must be examined. The apostle expounded the matter of the unleavened bread — this interpretation is not my own — and what follows in the interpretation must necessarily correspond to the apostle’s exposition. The
apostle expounded the matters concerning the unleavened bread, saying: “let us keep festival, not with stale leaven, nor with leaven made of malice and wickedness, but rather with unleavened bread made of sincerity and truth.” It is fitting to render the account of the bitter herbs in keeping with the unleavened bread being of sincerity and truth. Have sincerity and truth, and you will have bitter herbs, and you will eat, along with bitter herbs, the unleavened bread
of sincerity and truth, as Paul did. Since he ate the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, he also ate bitter herbs. How did he eat bitter herbs? By saying, “I have become your enemy by telling you the truth.” How did he eat bitter herbs? “In toil and hardship, and often in sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, apart from the other things.” Now the law said: “you shall eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs”; and it did not
say, “you shall eat unleavened bread with bitter herbs until you are filled,” as is said in certain other cases: “you shall eat and be filled.” But the prophet goes further still, saying that he did not eat bitterness but “I was filled with bitterness” — he partook of as much power of bitter things as he could, so as to partake of the fullest possible measure of bitter herbs. “Why do those who hate me prevail?” He had many troubles; he suffered at the hands of those unwilling to hear the truth,
and they were more powerful than he, here in this age, since the kingdom of God is not of this age but from the better regions, as the Savior states: “If my kingdom belonged to this world, my attendants would have struggled, so that I might not be delivered up to the Jews.” Those, then, who grieved
the prophet prevailed over him in this world. That they prevail, look at the martyrs: the judge sits in judgment, reveling in the courtroom; the Christian, in whom Christ is being judged, has been filled with bitterness and is oppressed by the unjust one and is condemned. “My wound is severe; from where shall I be healed?” Those who prevail over me strike me, and my wound is
...solid. Whether it prophesies the cross of the Lord (for the cross is a solid blow, as far as those who crucify him are concerned), or is said of all the righteous, in whom it inflicts a solid blow, or you also hear this said of the prophet (for he too suffered the things written in the prophecy), it admits the same sense according to the text that says:
“My blow is solid.” “From where shall I be healed?” Even if the Savior is the one saying “From where shall I be healed,” he prophesies the resurrection from the dead after the solid blow; and even if it is understood of the righteous person, after the blows healing comes again. “It has become to me like deceitful water, having no faithfulness”; for the blow does not remain, but passes away. “Therefore thus says the Lord:
If you turn back, I will restore you.” This again is said to each person whom God will call upon to turn back to him. A mystery, it seems to me, is being hinted at here in “I will restore you.” No one is restored to a place where he has never at any time been; rather, restoration is to what is one’s own. For instance, if a limb of mine is dislocated, the physician tries to bring about the restoration of the
dislocated part. When someone is away from his homeland, whether justly or unjustly, and then regains the ability to be in his homeland again according to the laws, he has been restored to his own homeland. Understand the same thing also in the case of a soldier expelled from his own rank and then restored. He is saying here, then, to us who have turned away, that if we turn back, he will restore
us. For the end of the promise is indeed of this kind, just as we find recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, in the phrase “until the times of the restoration of all things, of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,” in Christ Jesus, to whom belong the glory and the power for the ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 15 ========

Those who call the prophets blessed, and who in calling them blessed pray to have their portion with the prophets, gather together from the prophetic words the distinctive marks of their prophecy. Seeking this, then, they might be persuaded — if they live according to these things (even though it will prove hard for them in this life to imitate the prophetic life) — that they will obtain rest and blessedness with
the prophets. Now it is possible to gather the distinctive marks of the prophets from many places: their freedom, their vigor, their watchfulness, their alertness — that when they found themselves in difficult circumstances they gave no thought to it, because of their freedom, only so that they might reprove, so that they might turn people back, as the prophets did, by speaking the word of God with boldness, rebuking sinners, even if those being reproved seemed to hold great power.
Still, even though it is possible to do this from every quarter, let us look also at what was read today. The prophet reproved many, and the prophet spoke against many; for he arose among people who had become sinners, as is clear from the fact that the captivity took place in his own time. Having reproved many, and having been judged by many, he speaks certain words of this kind. Let us first look at them from the prophetic word itself, and then also according to the higher sense, if
it is a prophecy of a prophet. "Woe is me, mother, for what a man you bore me, one to be judged and disputed with in all the earth!" O mother, why have you borne me a man who is judged against all who are on the earth, and disputed against all who are on the earth? For this task lay before this prophet, and before Isaiah too,
and the rest — the prophetic task: to teach, to reprove, and to turn back. It lay before this prophet too, then, to dispute, to reprove, being able both to judge and to be judged along with the sinners, to reprove the sins of the people. And as for all that the people did to them, what need is there even to say? One they stoned, another they sawed in two, another they killed "between the temple and the altar," this one
they threw into a pit of mud when he reproved them. And our Savior did all this, and indeed better than they did, since he is Lord of the prophets. For indeed, though he himself was scourged and crucified and handed over by the Jews, or by the teachers of the Jews and the leader of the people, he said: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites"; and he adds, for each
case, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites"; and he adds, for each, "Woe," and "because of this," this and that. So then let us too, if we are eager for the blessings pronounced on the prophets, do the same things, so that, on account of speaking and on account of being judged by many people, we may also say: "Woe is me, mother, for what a man you bore me, one to be judged and disputed with in
all the earth!" This can be more properly prophetic when referred to the Savior. Let it be granted that the prophet says this, but he will not say it truly — rather, perhaps, hyperbolically; for he was not disputed against by the whole earth. But if I come to my Savior and Lord, especially on account of "he will come to judgment" and "so that
'...that you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged' — I see that my Savior and Lord is about to stand before the Father, being judged together with all of us human beings. And he is judged with all human beings. I mean: he too is judged, he too is examined, and he stood as one vindicating the truth, not as an accuser. 'Woe is me, mother, as'
'—for what sort of man did you bear me, one who goes to law and is judged in all the earth?' A prophet cannot say 'in all the earth.' Rather it is our Lord — yet there are also those who love him who are nonetheless indignant, and say that it is not the Savior who speaks, that this utterance does not apply to the Son of God. But it must be shown that it is not foreign to the Son of God to say the
'Woe is me, mother'; 'My soul is deeply grieved, even to death,' and 'My soul is troubled' — and likewise what is said in the prophets applies here too: 'Woe is me, mother, for what sort of man did you bear me, one who goes to law and is judged in all the earth,' or as when the gleanings have perished so that no cluster of grapes can be found: 'Woe is me, my soul, for the devout man has perished from the earth, and
there is no one who does right among men.' Who is it there who says, 'Woe is me, for I have become like one gathering stubble at the harvest'? For does the prophet gather, and wish to gather? Does the prophet have a field? But it belongs to no one to gather in everything from the harvest and from what has been sown, except the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Since, then, there are many
falls among the nations, but also among us who have sins, he says: 'Woe is me, for I have become like one gathering stubble.' Let each of us examine himself: is he an ear of grain? Will the Son of God find in him something to gather in the vintage or to reap? We shall find that some of us are blighted by the wind; and if indeed we still have a little left in ourselves, two or three grains, our sins
are many against us. Seeing, then, the churches too, those bearing the name, filled with sinners, he says: 'Woe is me, for I have become like one gathering stubble at the harvest, and like gleanings at the vintage.' He came seeking fruit in the vineyard; for each of us is planted . . . and like a vine 'in a fertile place,' and 'he brought a vine out of Egypt,' 'but I planted you
as a fruit-bearing vine, wholly true.' He comes, seeking somehow to gather the vintage; he finds only some gleanings and scanty clusters, neither flourishing nor many. Which of us has clusters of virtue? Which of us has the offspring of God? 'O Lord our God, how wonderful is your name in all the earth.' Let this have been said by me as a digression on 'Woe is me, mother.' For it is not
foreign to the divinity of our Savior, who beholds the sins of men, that he now says 'Woe is me' — the Savior speaking not as God but as man, not as wisdom but as soul. For this reason I cited that prophetic text: 'Woe is me, my soul, for the devout man has perished from the earth, and there is no one who does right among men.' He came into the life
human, the blessed soul, took up a body on behalf of human beings. If it sees the sins, it says to the Father: “What benefit is there in my blood, in my going down into corruption? Will dust confess to you?” But let it not say “woe is me” about us, let the angels of the heavens not say it about us. Since our savior says “woe is me—”
they too will say “woe is me”; for they are not better than our savior, and they too see our failings. But blessed are those about whom the angels do not say “woe is me,” but are instead called blessed; for “joy comes to be in heaven over one sinner who repents more than over ninety-nine who have no need of repentance.” This much by way of consolation. “Woe is me, mother, as
whom did you bear me?” Whom does he call mother? Among women, can he not mean both the soul and Mary? But if someone accepts “just now my mother the Holy Spirit took me, and carried me up to the great mountain Tabor,” and what follows, he can see his mother in that. “Woe is me, mother, as whom did you
bear me, a man contended with and disputed against in all the earth?” He is contended with by all the earth and disputed against, and he is about to say to each one: I have done this and that, and my dispensation has accomplished this and that, and I endured for your salvation. When the savior says these things, what shall we do? For he is about to be disputed against in all the earth. I want to see what comes next.
It is possible, on one and the same account, to refer this both to the prophet and to the savior. Let us also look at what follows: “I owed nothing, nor did anyone owe me anything.” “The ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in me.” And truly he owed nothing. But each of us is a debtor for our sins, and is a debtor holding a handwritten bond. After his bond had been wiped out—
his bond — †how many bonds have they made? “He who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth,” made no bond. But what, then, of “not even one owed me”? How shall we explain “not even one owed me” in reference to the savior? Even though we have read it this way, we must also know that most of the copies of the edition
of the Seventy do not have it this way; but later, on examining the remaining editions as well, we recognized this to be a scribal error. And yet, “not even one owed me”? So that not even one owed him anything, he forgave all of them their debts. “A certain moneylender had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, the other fifty. Since they had nothing with which to repay him, he forgave both.” Do you want to see the two debtors,
the one owing five hundred and the one owing fifty? From two peoples they have come to believe in God: the people from the Jews, not believing in Christ, owes the fifty; perhaps we who are from the nations, having become more impious than all, owe the five hundred—the ones concerning whom that saying about the repentant prostitute is also spoken. And yet someone might say, how could the…
five hundred is applied to her, from the passage ‘and what sort of woman is this who touches him,’ in reference to which he said to Simon: ‘A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, the other fifty,’ and so on. This is on account of ‘I owed nothing, nor did anyone owe me anything,’ which it was necessary to set before you: ‘I owed nothing, nor did anyone owe me anything; my strength
failed among those who curse me.’ Even if he died ‘from weakness, yet he lives by the power of God.’ Then, since many words have already been gone through, it would be possible to speak also about each of the things said, but time does not allow it, since it is pressing upon us. Let us then speak about the passage read next, ‘Cursed is the man who has his hope set on man.’ From the † those
who think that the man was the Son of God, the Savior (for they dared, along with the many other human evils, to say this too: that the Only-Begotten, the Firstborn of all creation, is not God) — for ‘cursed is he who has his hope set on man.’ It is clear that those who set their hope on man are cursed. I would say that I do not
set my hope on man, but hope in Christ Jesus; I do not know a man. Not only do I not know a man, but I know wisdom, righteousness itself, a man through whom ‘all things were created, among the authorities.’ ‘Cursed is the man who has his hope set on man.’ And even if the Savior testifies that the one he bore was a man — well, even if he was a man,
yet now he is by no means a man. For ‘even if,’ says the apostle, ‘we have known Christ according to the flesh, we no longer know him’ in that way. Because of him I am no longer a man, if I follow his words; but he says, ‘I said, you are gods, and sons of the Most High, all of you.’ Therefore, just as he is ‘firstborn from the dead,’ so he has become firstborn of all men, having been changed into God. ‘Cursed,’
then, is ‘the man who has his hope set on man, and makes flesh his arm’ — whoever ratifies what is fleshly, whoever acquires bodily strength and does battle according to the flesh. But the holy man is not like this: ‘for he does not make flesh his arm,’ since ‘he always carries the deadening of Jesus in his body,’ and puts to death ‘the
members that are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness.’ Having put these to death, ‘he does not make flesh his arm.’ ‘Cursed is he who has his hope set on man.’ At the same time this is also directed against those who hope in high positions. ‘So-and-so is my friend, a centurion, he is a procurator; so-and-so is my friend, and he is rich, and he provides for me.’ To such a person too, then, this is said:
‘Cursed is the man who has his hope set on man.’ We hope in no man, even if they seem to be our friends; for it is not in them but in our Lord that we hope, who is Christ Jesus, to whom is the glory and the power for the ages of ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 16 ========

It is written in the Gospel according to Matthew that our savior came by the sea of Galilee and saw "Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen." Then the text says that the savior, seeing them, said, "Follow me, and men is what I shall make you catchers of. And leaving their nets behind, they followed
him." And Jesus made them, instead of fish, take up the catching of men. And "two other brothers he found besides, John and his brother James the son of Zebedee, mending nets in the boat together with their father; and these too he called" to the same craft, and made them too fishers of men. And if anyone has observed those who possess from
God the grace of a word woven like nets and composed out of the sacred scriptures like a casting-net, so that the souls of the hearers are wrapped in the mesh, and has also observed this being done skillfully according to the craft, that now our savior sends out fishers of men, having trained them, so that we may be able to come up out of the sea and escape its bitter waves. But those fish,
the soulless ones, once brought up in seines and casting-nets and nets or on hooks, die a death not succeeded by life. But the one caught by the fishermen of Jesus and brought up from the sea, he too indeed dies, but he dies to the world, he dies to sin, and after dying to the world and
to sin he is made alive by the word of God and takes up another life. As if you were able, by way of illustration, to conceive of the fish's soul changing after it leaves the fish's body and becoming something better than a fish (I have taken this as an example; let no one take it as an occasion for objection, as though he had not heard aright), something of this sort you will understand. You have come up out of the sea, having fallen under
the nets of the disciples of Jesus; on coming out you change your soul, you are no longer a fish spending your time in the salty waves of the sea, but at once your soul changes and is transformed and becomes something better and more divine than what it was before. And that it is transformed and changed, hear Paul saying: "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord
as in a mirror, are transformed into that same image, going from one degree of glory to the next, even as from the Lord, the Spirit." And this fish, having been transformed, the one caught by the fishermen of Jesus, leaving behind his life in the sea, makes his life among the mountains, so that he no longer needs the fishermen who bring him up from the sea, but certain others, who are called hunters, who hunt "from every mountain
and from every hill." You, then, having come up from the sea and been caught in the nets of the disciples of Jesus, change from the sea, forget it, come to the mountains, the prophets, and to the hills, the righteous, and make your dwelling there, so that afterward, when your time comes... the fishers. But who might these be, or
those appointed to receive the souls that are upon the hills, that do not lie down below? And see whether the prophet is not crying out mystically when he says these things, and setting forth this very sense in the words: “Behold, I send many fishers, says the Lord, and they will fish for them; and after these things I will send many hunters, and they will hunt them upon every mountain and”
“upon every hill.” If, then, you wish to be caught by the hunters, see that you do not make your dwelling in the valleys, nor linger anywhere below, but seek the mountains. Go up to the mountain where Jesus was transfigured; go up to the mountain upon which, having seen the crowds, Jesus went up, and the disciples followed him, where, “having opened his mouth,”
he instructed them with these words: “How blessed are the poor in spirit, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them,” and the beatitudes that follow these. And it is not possible for these hunters to make their catch from anywhere else than from the mountains and the hills and from the clefts of the rocks. For these three things are stated in the prophet: “For I will send many hunters, and”
“they will hunt them upon every mountain and upon every hill and from the clefts of the rocks.” Whence, then, shall I understand the rocks and the clefts that are in the rocks? I come to Exodus, I seek to find some trace of an account of the clefts of the rocks; I find Moses there wishing to know God, and God promising him and saying: “Behold, I will set you”
“in a hole of the rock, and you shall observe my back; but my face shall not be seen by you.” If you understand the rock there, and see there the hole that is in the rock — for one who has seen it sees God through the hole of the rock — you will also see the many rocks and their clefts. Who, then, is that rock, the one rock—
the rock itself? “Now the rock was Christ”; “for they were drinking from a spiritual rock that followed them,” and “he set my feet upon a rock” is said in the thirty-ninth Psalm. What is the hole that is in the rock? If you consider the coming of Jesus, understanding him as wholly a rock, you will see the hole that corresponds to his coming, through which hole are beheld
the things that come after God. For such is the meaning understood in “and you shall see my back.” But I have found one hole of one rock; I move by the argument from the hole to the cleft of the rock, and I seek the many rocks as well. If I come to the company either of the prophets or of the apostles, or even of the holy angels who have ascended, I say that all
the imitators of Christ, since he is a rock, themselves become rocks. And just as he has a hole through which the things that come after God are observed, in the same way each one, by giving a way for God to be understood through the things said by him, makes in himself a hole — or, if you prefer to name it otherwise, a cleft. From which hole or cleft you will see, on the one hand through Moses,
the law, and through Isaiah his prophecy, and through Jeremiah other words of God. But if it is also an angel who will speak, as he spoke according to what is said in ‘and the angel who spoke in me,’ there too I stand upon the angel, and there too I see a rock and a cleft of the rock, and I see God in an angelic way. But I need an example
so that I may set forth how it is possible, having come to an angel, to see God also through an angel. For it is written in Exodus: ‘The angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of fire out of a bush. And Moses sees that the bush is burning with fire, and the bush is not consumed.’ And Scripture did not say, just as it said at the beginning that ‘an angel appeared,’ so
it went on to say that it was the angel of the Lord, but rather, ‘I am Abraham’s God, Isaac’s God, and Jacob’s God.’ God, then, was there, being seen in the angel, just as he is known through the rock and the cleft that is in it. You do not know, then, when the hunters are sent. For this reason never come down from the mountains, nor leave the hills, nor go outside
the clefts of the rocks; for if you are found outside, it will be said to you, as to one who happens to be outside and says the things of those outside: ‘Fool, this night they demand your soul from you; but the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ This will be said to you; and this too will be said to you, if you say: ‘I will tear down my storehouses and build larger ones, and I will say to my
soul: Soul, you have good things laid up for many years; rest, eat, drink, be merry.’ You see the one below the mountains, below the hills, outside the clefts of the rocks, how he goes astray even in his judgment about good things, supposing these to be good things. Therefore he says: ‘And to my own soul I will declare: Soul, you have good things laid up for many years.’ The
grain and the abundance of earthly things he has reckoned to be good; for he did not see that the truly good things are not in the accursed earth, but the truly good things are in heaven. He was storing up treasure on earth, since he supposed the things on earth to be good. But if someone passes over from storing up treasure ‘on earth,’ obeying Jesus, to storing up treasure
‘in heaven,’ it will not be said to him, ‘Fool, this night they demand your soul from you,’ but the hunters, coming and seeking not the creatures below but those in the mountains, those in the hills, those sheltering in the clefts of the rocks, will capture these and lead them away from that hunt. To where? To the rest of the
holy and blessed ones in Christ Jesus. For ‘my eyes,’ he says, ‘are upon all their ways.’ Of such people, who make their dwelling on the mountains and in the hills and in the clefts of the rocks, upon all their ways God has his eyes. ‘And they were not hidden from my face’ — such people; for
the wicked hide from the face of God. Adam, after the transgression, heard the Lord God’s voice moving through the garden as evening drew on, and hid himself; but the holy man is not hidden, but has a heart with boldness in accordance with his holy conduct before God. For “if our conscience does not condemn us, it has boldness before God, and”
“whatever we ask, we receive from him.” Now Adam, even though he sinned, did not sin to an excessive degree; therefore he hid “from the face of God.” But Cain, more sinful than he and most impious, the fratricide, what did he do? “He went out from the face of God.” So that, by comparison of evils, it is the lesser thing to be hidden from the face of God; for indeed
this man hides not out of shamelessness but out of reverence for God. “They were not hidden,” then, “from my face” — these, who did these things, had once been in sins and had been fished up out of the sins that were in the sea. So that those who were fished up and afterward came to the mountains might not suppose that this had come about for them out of righteousness, the word reminds not only them but also
us of our former sins. That is why it is said, after the benefits: “and their wrongdoings were not hidden before my eyes.” What follows is about to produce a struggle for us. For whether we understand it as consistent with what precedes, we will give careful attention to the repayment of sins; or whether it seems not to be consistent with what was said before about those fished and hunted, and thus it throws us into a struggle
that is no ordinary one. For “I will repay,” he says, “first double their iniquities and their sins, by which they profaned my land with the corpses of their abominations, and with their lawless deeds with which they filled my inheritance.” As for the word “first” — whether some, failing to understand it, removed it from what was written, or the Seventy, managing the matter, removed it,
God alone would know. We, however, comparing it with the remaining editions, found it retained: “and I will repay first double their iniquities,” so that it might be made clear that even if they might be worthy of blessedness on account of their later deeds, since they are human beings and have been in sins, they must first receive back their sins. And see whether the statement is not true. Who does not
receive back sins, except the one who, after believing and receiving forgiveness of sins (so as to hear Jesus saying, “your sins are forgiven you”), no longer sins? But if, after the forgiveness of sins and the dispensation of the washing of regeneration, we should sin — as we, the many who have not been made perfect like the apostles — and after sinning also do something fitting alongside our sinning, what awaits us must be considered.
Is it then the case that if we depart from life having sins, but also having deeds of manly courage, we will be saved on account of the deeds of manly courage, but released as regards the things sinned knowingly? Or will we be punished on account of the sins, but nowhere receive a reward for the deeds of manly courage? But neither the one — I mean, to receive back the worse and not to receive —
...the better things, it is not just of God; nor is the other case—I mean receiving the better things without receiving the worse—just of God, since he wishes to cleanse and cut away evil. For suppose you have built, after the foundation Christ Jesus which you have been taught, not only >gold and silver and precious stone< — if indeed you have
gold, whether much gold or little; suppose you have silver, precious stone—and I speak not only of these, but suppose you also have >wood and hay and stubble< — what do you want to become of you after your departure? Do you wish ever to enter into the holy things with your wood and your hay and your stubble, so that you defile
the kingdom of God? But again, do you wish to remain because of the hay, because of the wood, because of the stubble, in the fire, and receive nothing in exchange for the gold and silver and precious stone? This too is not reasonable. What then? First it follows that, because of the wood, the fire is received that consumes [the fire] the wood and the hay and the stubble;
for our God is said, in his essence, by those able to understand, to be a consuming fire. And the prophet was silent as to what he consumes when he said, "our God is a consuming fire," but he has left it for us to understand. Since he said, "God is a fire that consumes," there is something that is consumed. What then is that which is consumed? For it is not what is according to the image and likeness
that he consumes, nor does he consume his own creature, but the hay built upon it, the wood built upon it, the stubble built upon it. The passage was extremely difficult to explain. There were promises, and after the promises he says: "and I will first repay their iniquities twofold." The word "first" is necessarily added; for first the things of iniquity, then the things of righteousness are repaid, for God does not repay in the reverse order.
If he repaid the good things first, so that we might receive the good things, but now repays the bad things, it would have been necessary for the good things to end, so that we might receive the bad things. <But we will receive the bad things first, and after these the good things,> so that, through the removal of the evils, the punishment of those who suffered might come to an end, so that after these he might repay the good things. For this reason you will find in the
sacred scriptures that God says first the things that seem more grim, and after these the better things. "I will kill and I will make alive; I will strike, and I will heal." "He himself causes pain and again restores; he struck, and his hands healed." On these matters one who understands and is <piously> disposed toward what is said can say: "Lord, who shall dwell as a stranger in your tent? Or
who shall dwell on your holy mountain? He who walks blameless and works righteousness, speaking truth in his heart; who has not deceived with his tongue, and has done no evil to his neighbor, and has not taken up reproach against those nearest to him." (But we reproach even those who repent and turn back, though scripture says: "Do not reproach a man who turns away from sin.")
"reproach he did not receive against those nearest him; the one who acts wickedly is held in contempt before him, but those who fear him — we will receive back our sins." But someone listening will say: explain also the "double"; let it be granted that I receive back my sins first, so that once I have received back my sins, afterward what was said by the apostle may be fulfilled: "if anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, but he himself
will be saved, yet so as through fire" — why then do I receive back my sins "double"? But it must be said that "the servant who knew his master’s will and did not act according to his will will be beaten" not with few but with "many" blows. It is fitting, then, that those who sin from among the nations receive back their sins single, but that we receive back
our offenses double. "For if we sin willingly after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fury of fire that is about to consume the adversaries." It was prophesied concerning those who would be fished for and hunted and who would first receive back their sins double. After these things the calling of the nations is prophesied more clearly — not of those being called, but of those
already called; and not of those who do not know what they should confess and for what they should give thanks, but of those who have already learned. For in the earlier passages we were learning that they were called, fished, hunted; what they will experience is told in the second passages. Let us see what he prophesies concerning us, who are already learning to pray, or rather have already learned. "Lord, my strength and my help and my refuge in the day of evils; to you nations will come
from the end of the earth and will say: our fathers acquired false idols, and there is no benefit in them." From the end of the earth the nations came to God, and the nations said: "our fathers acquired false idols, and there is no benefit in them"? How "from the end of the earth"? There are some who are first of the earth
and there are some who are last of the earth. Who are first? "The wise of the world" are first of the earth, not simply first: "the wise of the world, the well-born," the rich, the men of rank. Who are the last? "The foolish things of the world God chose for himself, the base things, the things held in contempt, the things that are not." So "nations" will come "from the end of the earth," as if he were saying: from
the last of the men on earth, from the foolish, from the base-born, from those held in contempt, "and they will say: our fathers acquired false idols, and there is no benefit in them." Not that there are some true idols, in contradistinction to which the false are spoken of, but idols, which by their very nature are false: "and there is no benefit in them." "If a man makes for himself
gods." Not only do men make gods for themselves out of statues, but you will also find that they make gods for themselves out of fabrications; for as many as are able to fabricate another god and another cosmogony besides the one recorded by the Spirit, an administration of the world beside the true world [concerning the administration of the world] — all these have made gods for themselves and worshiped the works of their own hands.
For example, consider — whether among the Greeks those who gave birth to doctrines, let us say, of this philosophy or that one, or among the sects those who first gave birth to doctrines — these made for themselves idols and fabrications of the soul, and turning, worshiped the works of their own hands, accepting their own fabrications as truth. All, then, who make for themselves gods, both in a perceptible and in an intelligible way,
refuting them, the word says: "If a man makes gods for himself, are these then not gods? Therefore I will show them my hand at this time, and I will make known to them also my power." At what time but this? Showing the time of the Lord's coming: "and they shall know," it says, "that my name is the Lord." Then there is another
prophecy — which, I do not know how, we did not find in the Seventy, but did find in the remaining editions, clearly because it stands in the Hebrew — and it is filled with the most necessary matters, able, if we pay attention, to turn our soul back. The words run thus: "The sin of Judah is written with an iron stylus, engraved with a diamond point upon the tablet of their heart." It is possible
to give oneself over to the easier course and say: this is written concerning the Jews, that their sin "is written." But if you observe, as we have often shown, that Judah is spoken of figuratively for Christ, perhaps the "sin of Judah" is ours, of us who believe in Christ, who is from the tribe of Judah. But if you can also hear it in another, more mystical way, perhaps it prophesies concerning Judas the betrayer,
so that the prophecy concerning him would read: "The sin of Judas is written with an iron stylus, engraved with a diamond point upon the tablet of the heart" — but again, in his case, the word "their" does not follow. Perhaps, then, it was speaking of us, that if we become sinners, these things that are prophesied come to reach us. We have sinned, and our sin is not written outside us, but in
our heart, and it is written "with an iron stylus, with a diamond point." And that the sins we commit are inscribed upon us through the very act of sinning, the matter itself will demonstrate. I was not conscious in myself of this deed or that sin; having done it, I now bear its imprint, and, as it were, the imprint is written of my sin that was committed in my soul. And
if my sin had been written in ink, I could have wiped it away; but as it is, it is written "with an iron stylus," it is written "with a diamond point," it is written "upon the tablet of" our "heart," so that I may come to the place of judgment and the prophecy that says may be fulfilled: "Nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, and nothing covered that will not be uncovered." My breast has been laid bare, and the
heart, bearing the letters of sin inscribed upon it with the stylus, upon my breast, and in my heart the imprints of my sins. "For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest," but "among one another the thoughts accuse or even excuse," and "judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will also bring to light the hidden things"
"of darkness, and he will manifest the counsels of hearts." To whom will he manifest them? Not to himself; for he himself knows "all things before their coming to be." But to whom, then, will he manifest them? To all who, because of their own purity, are going to see the sin of the one who has sinned, so that sinners "may rise to reproach and everlasting shame" — from which may the God of all rescue us, so that
we may rise into the glory that is in Christ, to whom belongs the glory and the might, for the ages. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 17 ========

We have come to the notorious question, to see what the partridge is, about which scripture now says: "The partridge called out, it gathered what it did not bear, making its wealth not with judgment; in the middle of its days they will abandon it, and at its end it will be a fool." We need to take up from the treatise on the nature of animals what is recorded about the partridge, so that knowing
the facts about this animal, we may know whether we ought now to assign what is said of the partridge to something better or to something worse. It is said, then, to be a most malicious animal, and deceitful and cunning, and one that wishes to deceive its hunters, and often it rolls about around the feet of the hunter, in order to lead him around, as though the animal were near, so that he does not come to its nest. And whenever
it reckons that it has led the hunter fully astray and that the chicks have escaped, then it too flies off. The animal is also quite unclean, so that the males fight each other single-handed over mating, and male mounts male. If, then, this animal is malicious, and unclean, and cunning, and deceitful, it clearly appears impious to assign it to something better
and to say that it can be referred to the Savior. We must therefore see, if we wish to interpret it of the Adversary, whether the whole interpretation follows consistently for us. Let us then begin from "The partridge called out, it gathered what it did not bear." So then, the devil does not gather his own creatures, he does not gather what he himself begot, but whenever he calls out, he gathers another's
creatures and makes them his own. The partridge called out through Valentinus, the partridge called out through Marcion, it called out through Basilides, through all the heterodox; for none of them was able to say the voice of Jesus: "My sheep will hear my voice." But the voice of Jesus is in Paul and in Peter; wherefore Paul said: "If you seek proof of the Christ
speaking in me?" But the voice of the partridge, which gathered what it did not bear, is among those who lead astray and deceive, on account of the innocence and the unpreparedness of the more simple among believers. "The partridge called out," then, "it gathered what it did not bear, making its wealth not with judgment." The partridge grew rich. See how many myriads it has; many have become the partridge's, belonging to the opposing power.
And it made its wealth, not taking thought for judgment nor possessing judgment, but acting without judgment. Wherefore it is said that the partridge is one "making its wealth not with judgment." But my Savior makes his wealth with judgment, and his wealth is judged and select. "In the middle" of "its days they will abandon it." We all, who once came to be under the partridge
that called out - for it called out not only through those already mentioned, but also through absolutely all who deceive and, as though calling to piety, summon people to godlessness, to doctrines contrary to the truth - but "in the middle of its days" we have abandoned it. For all its days are the days of this age; but since he rescued "us from the present
"of the present evil," Christ Jesus — for this reason it is written, "in the midst of his days we have abandoned him," and "at his end he will prove a fool." For when was he wise, that he should become a fool at his end? But we will say that he was indeed wise; for "the serpent was more clever than all the wild animals on the earth that the LORD God had made." He was clever, according to what is said in
Isaiah: "For I will bring against the great mind, the ruler of the Assyrians. For he said: I will act by strength, and by wisdom . . ."
[The Greek text is lacunose here; several lines are missing from the manuscript.]
[The Greek text is lacunose here; several lines are missing from the manuscript.]
[The Greek text is lacunose here; several lines are missing from the manuscript.]
[The Greek text is lacunose here; several lines are missing from the manuscript.]
[The Greek text is lacunose here; several lines are missing from the manuscript.]
[The Greek text is lacunose here; several lines are missing from the manuscript.]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
...is Christ: "for both the one who sanctifies and those who"
"are sanctified are all of one." "The endurance of Israel." Just as the Savior is righteousness itself, truth itself, sanctification itself, so too he is endurance itself. And it is not possible to be righteous apart from Christ, nor to be holy apart from him, nor to endure without having Christ. For he himself is the endurance of Israel. And even if you refer this to God, you will not be impious in doing so. "Lord, let all who abandon you be put to shame, those who have departed." Each of us,
whenever he sins <through the things by which he sins>, abandons Christ, and having abandoned Christ he abandons God. For committing injustice he abandons righteousness, and becoming profane he abandons sanctification, and making war he abandons peace, and coming under the enemy's power he abandons redemption, and being outside the wisdom of God he abandons wisdom. Against all, then, who abandon God the prophet pronounces a curse, teaching us
what is to happen to them, when he says, "Let all who abandon you be put to shame." To the degree that they have departed, let them be put to shame to that same degree. "Let them be written upon the earth." All people are enrolled: the holy in heaven, but... "rejoice, that your names" — this is said to the disciples by him — while sinners are enrolled upon the earth: "...your names are written in the heavens." One ought therefore to rejoice, if someone of that kind
comes to be, so that his name may be inscribed in the heavens. But just as the names of the saints are inscribed in the heavens, so also the names of those who conduct themselves in an earthly manner — who do not merely pass through the land of Edom but possess the fields and vineyards of the land of Edom — are written, as belonging to those who abandon God, upon the earth. For, he says, "let them be put to shame, those who have departed; let them be written upon
the earth." For indeed, "with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Each person is himself responsible for being so written. If you seek the things upon earth, you are not seeking the things in heaven. If your soul has inclined toward the affairs here below, you become responsible for yourself, since Jesus says: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and decay destroy, and where thieves break in
and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven." Are you storing up treasure in heaven? Then you are yourself responsible for your name being inscribed in the heavens. This follows from the statement "let them be written upon the earth." And he also states the reason: "because they abandoned the fountain of life, the Lord." And at the beginning the same prophet was saying, in the person of God: "they abandoned me, the fountain of the water of life," and now: "they abandoned
the fountain of life, the Lord." Let us too say, then, if indeed we do not wish to abandon the Lord, the fountain of life, the words that the genuine disciples of Jesus spoke to their teacher when he said to them, "Do you also wish to go away?" What then shall we say? "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." Here the second passage also came to an end. Then again there is a prayer, which reads as follows:
"Heal me, Lord, and I will be healed; save me, and I will be saved, for you are my boast. See, they say to me, 'Where is the word of the Lord? Let it come.' But I have not grown weary following after you, nor have I desired the day of man; you know this." This can be said only to him who has come for those who are ill, the physician who says, "Those who are strong have no need of a physician, but
those who are ill do." Anyone who wants to be healed of the sickness of his soul can say with confidence, "Heal me, Lord, and I will be healed." But if someone other than this one professes to be a physician of souls, you could not truthfully say to him, "Heal me, Lord, and I will be healed." For that woman with the flow of blood spent everything she had on physicians, and
"was not able to be healed by any of them." For it was not reasonable to say to any of them, "Heal me, Lord, and I will be healed," but only to the one whose garment's fringe it is enough to touch. I say, then, to this one: "Heal me, Lord, and I will be healed." For if you heal, the end will follow upon the healing that comes from you, namely the cure, so that I will be saved. But whoever else may save, I will not
be saved. For salvation is one thing alone, and true, if Christ saves — for then I will be saved. "A horse is a false hope for salvation," and everything else besides God is a false hope for salvation. For this reason I would say to him: "Save me, Lord, and I will be saved." And I say this if I am also able to say what follows, by having renounced every boast, so that I may say, "For you are my boast,"
when I fulfill the commandment that says: "Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, nor the strong man boast in his strength, nor the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, in understanding and knowing that I am the Lord." Blessed, then, is the one who has renounced every lowly boast, such as that in so-called nobility of birth, and
in beauty and in bodily matters, in wealth, in glory, and who is content with one boast alone, so as to say, "For you are my boast." "See, they say to me, 'Where is the word of the Lord? Let it come.' But I have not grown weary following after you." Jesus says to you: "Take up your cross and follow me," and "Leave everything and follow me," and "Whoever
will not leave father and mother, yet follows after me, is not worthy to be my disciple." If, then, you become such a one as always to follow Jesus, you will indeed follow, and to the extent that you follow you will not grow weary; for "there will be no toil in Jacob, nor will hardship be seen in Israel." There is no toil for the one who follows Jesus; the very act of following removes the
toil. For this reason he himself says, so that we may no longer grow weary, having grown weary before we began to follow him: "Come to me, all who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest." If, then, we come to him while weary and follow him, we shall say, "But I have not grown weary following after you." And following upon this it is fitting for us also to say, "Nor have I desired the day of man." It is
There is a day of man, and there is a day of God. Let each of us desire the day of the resurrection of the saints, not that day about which it is written: "Woe to those who desire the day of the Lord; for it is darkness and not light." Who is it that says, "And I have not desired the day of man"? The clarity of the statement will expose us, showing that we have desired the day of man. Often,
when we fall ill and come under the apprehension of death, at the point of departure we entreat the brothers who are visiting us and we say: "Ask on my behalf for a respite; ask that I may remain longer in life." In saying this we do not desire the holy day of God, but the day of man. Therefore, laying aside love of life and the desire for a human day, let us seek to see that day on which we shall attain to the blessedness that is in Christ Jesus,
to whom is the glory and the power forever. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 18 ========

There are two visions read in succession in Jeremiah, of which the first concerns the clay vessel in the potter's hand, which admits of correction after being broken (for it can be reshaped), while the other vision concerns the earthenware jar, which once shattered has no remedy. For when it was clay, if it was broken,
even if it had already been shaped, since it was clay, it could again become a second lump and be created a second time; but once, after being clay, it had already become earthenware and been hardened by fire, then it was no longer possible for it to receive a remedy after the earthenware was broken. So then, let us first consider in general what these things mean, and then, if it is granted, examine them word for word.
As long as we are in this life, we are being formed - to use such a term because of our clay vessel - after the manner of pottery, and we are formed either according to vice or according to virtue. Yet we are formed in such a way that our vice too admits of being broken, so that a better new creation may come to be, and our progress resolved, after its shaping, into something better, and our progress resolved after
its shaping, into a clay vessel. But when, after the present age, we come to be near the end of life, and are then set on fire, either by the fire of the evil one's fiery darts, becoming whatever we then become, or by the divine fire (since indeed "our God is a consuming fire"), if, I say, we become whatever we become by this or that fire,
if we are broken - whether we are broken and perish after having become good vessels, or after having become worthless ones - we are not remade, nor does our making admit of improvement. For this reason, as long as we are here, being as it were in the potter's hand, even if the vessel falls from his hands, it still admits of remedy and of being remade. Let this be said somewhat summarily, before
we examine in discourse what remains, concerning the two kinds of vessels: the clay one not yet turned to earthenware, and the second, already become earthenware. Let us see from the very text what is said about the clay vessel in the potter's hand, and how the word itself in the prophet - the Lord
who prophesies in him - gives occasion also for other, not slight, interpretations concerning the shaping done in the potter's hand. "The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: Arise and go down to the potter's house." Jeremiah is above; he has risen above the clay vessels. Below are the clay vessels, and the nature that administers
the clay vessels, descending along with them, is itself below among those being administered. For this reason the word said to have come to Jeremiah from the Lord says to him: "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there you will hear my words." To Moses it is said: 'Go up to the mountain and hear'; to Jeremiah it is said: 'Go down to the potter's house and hear.' For each of those who hear the word, either
...he is taught about the things above, or he learns about the things below. If I am being taught the lower things, I go down in my reasoning, so that I may see the lower things; but if I am learning the higher things, I go up in my reasoning to the higher things, so that I may behold what is there. And so that all of you may follow, as far as you are each able, what is being said, I will use examples drawn from scripture, and in addition to the
example I will also bring forward clarity to support the interpretation given. "At Jesus' name every knee shall bow — of beings heavenly, earthly, and those beneath the earth, and every tongue shall acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of the Father, God." Now there is a certain wisdom concerning each of these: wisdom concerning the heavenly things, how the heavenly things are ordered; wisdom concerning the things under the earth, since it is the wisdom of God
that concerns also the ordering of the things under the earth, and likewise concerning the things on earth. If I am going to grasp the wisdom concerning the heavenly things, I go up to the heavens, just as Moses went up to the top of the mountain, so that the voice from heaven might be heard by him, as it is written. For he was about to be taught about heavenly acts of worship; for it was a shadow and a copy of heavenly
mysteries, contained in the written laws of worship, as the apostle taught when he said: "who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things." Just as, then, when I am about to be taught about the heavenly things I go up, so too, if I have need to learn about the things under the earth, even if I should become a prophet, I go down. And perhaps for this reason Samuel, when he was taught the things under the earth, went down below and came to be in Hades, not
standing trial so as to be in Hades, but so as to become a spy and observer of the mysteries of the things under the earth. Such, too, can be what is said by the apostle concerning wisdom, when it is distinguished by the knowing of "what is the breadth and length and depth and height." When you are about to know the height, you go up in your reasoning to the height; when you are about to know the things between the height
and the depth, you come to know the breadth and the length. Everywhere the mind that is able to follow the Son of God arrives, led by the reasoning of the one who teaches about all things. And it follows him by renouncing the world and taking up the cross; for this one is able to follow Jesus, who is able to say: "The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." It was necessary to explain the words "Go down to
the house of the potter, and there you will hear my words." For it was necessary to compare this with "Go up, and you will hear my words." For of those who hear, some go up in order to be taught — though they do not go up in a bodily way at all — while others go down and yet keep their soul above, in order to see the reasoning that from the highest place concerns the lowest things. My own Lord Jesus
Christ himself has gone up and gone down; for "he who ascended is himself also he who descended," above all the heavens. If, then, you too are about to understand the reasoning that concerns the highest things as spoken by the one who ascended to the highest place, and to comprehend the one who teaches about the lowest things as the one who descended to the lowest places, "do not say: Who shall go up into heaven?" — meaning, so as to fetch Christ down; or:
Who will go down to the abyss? That is, to bring Christ back up. Or, who will descend into the abyss? That is, to raise Christ back up from the dead. But what does scripture say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart,” by which you ascend into heaven. And concerning the ascent, “the word is near you,” and concerning
the lowest things, “near you is the word.” For what else can the holy one have within himself but the word that is everywhere? For “the kingdom of heaven is within you.” The prophet, then, goes down to the potter’s house and relates what he saw, saying: “and behold, he was doing work with his hands, and
the vessel that he was making with his hands in the clay fell apart; and again he made it into another vessel, as it pleased him to make it.” But I do not know what the prophet saw when he came to be with the potter. For he saw the potter working; the vessel that had been made was of clay; the vessel fell apart. Why did it not say precisely: he let the vessel fall
from his hand, nor did it ascribe the blame to the potter? But since the discourse concerns living bodies, which fall apart of their own accord, for this reason it is said: “the vessel fell apart from his hands.” Take heed, then, you too, to yourself, lest, while you are in the potter’s hands and are still being formed, you fall apart from his hands through your own doing. “No one”
indeed snatches it “from his hands,” according to what is said in the Gospel according to John. Yet it is not written that, just as no one snatches, so no one falls apart from his hands; for the power of free choice is free. And I say: no one will snatch from the hand of the shepherd, no one can take us from the hand of God; but we
can, through negligence, fall apart from his hands. “And a word from the Lord came unto me, saying: shall I not be able to make you as this potter does, house of Israel? says the Lord.” Each person understands what is written according to his capacity: one more superficially, drawing his understanding from them as from a spring on the surface, another more deeply, as drawing from a well.
And both can be helped, since the same thing is a spring for the one and a well for the other. The Gospel bears witness to this, when it narrates the matters concerning the Samaritan woman; for there the same thing is called both “spring” and “well,” and in turn it is called at one point spring and at another well. Let whoever is able consider this, so as to know that the same thing, in its substance, is for the one who is on the surface a spring,
while for the one who is deeper it is a well. This is a preface for me to the exposition to come, concerning the clay vessel that fell apart from the potter’s hand and was formed anew. Some have looked at these things more simply and understood them thus. I will set before you their account and exposition; afterward, if we have anything deeper, we will expound that too. It is possible, they say, that here is signified
concerning the resurrection. For if the clay vessel fell from the hands of the potter, and from that same material of the clay he makes it into another vessel, just as it pleased him, then the potter who is God of our bodies, the maker of our formation, when this falls and is broken for whatever cause, is able to take it back
and renew it and make it more beautiful and better, "another vessel, just as it pleased him to make." Let this account too have its grace. But let us hear the Lord himself narrating and saying: "Shall I not be able to make you as this potter does, house of Israel? says the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hands, so are you in my hands.
At one time I will speak against a nation and a kingdom, to uproot it and destroy it; and that nation will turn from the evils about which I spoke to it, and I will repent of the evils that I planned to do to them. And at another time I will speak concerning a nation and a kingdom, to build it up and plant it; and they will do evil before me, so as not to hear
my voice, and I will repent of the good things I spoke of doing for them, says the Lord." We see that this word about the potter's house refers not to some one individual, but to two nations; for beginning, he says <that> he is about to speak concerning nations, so as to suggest something to those able to hear ineffable mysteries: "At one time I will speak against a nation." Look also
for the "at another time" and the earlier nation, <of which he speaks> the things of destruction on account of their sins; and having spoken the things of destruction on account of their sins, he nonetheless promises that if they repent, he will repent of the evils he spoke of doing to them. And again he speaks concerning another, second nation, "to be built up and to be planted," a whole nation; and
since this nation being built up and planted has a good promise, yet it is possible for it to sin, he says, after speaking these things, that if they depart from good works: "I will repent of the good things which I spoke of doing for them." What, then, are the two nations, the first one named, to which the word issues a threat, and the second, to which it makes a promise? It threatens, indeed, so that if
it should repent, he would not carry out the things of the threat. He promises, so that if the second nation should fall away and prove unworthy of the promises, it would not obtain them. It is above all concerning two nations that the entire economy of God toward the people in the world is set forth. The first nation to come into being was Israel; the second, from the coming of Christ, is this nation. To the former
God threatened what he threatened, and we see the things of that threat fulfilled against the former nation: it has gone into captivity, its city has been razed, its sanctuary destroyed, its altar thrown down, and nothing of its former dignities is any longer preserved among them. For God said to that nation: repent, and they did not repent. After these things had been spoken to them, God says to this second nation
...the things concerning its rebuilding. He sees that this nation too consists of people who are capable of falling away again. For this reason he also threatens this nation and says: even if I have foretold the things concerning the building and the things concerning the planting and the cultivation, yet if this nation too is going to sin, then to it also, once it has sinned, the same things will happen that have been said to that other nation because of
their sins, and they will suffer them if they do not repent. Search the whole of Scripture, and you will find that most of it speaks about these two nations. God chose the fathers, gave a promise to them, brought a people out of the family of the fathers from Egypt, was patient with them when they sinned, disciplined them as a father does, brought them in, gave them the land of promise, sent them
prophets at various times, disciplined them and turned them back from their sins. He was always patient, sending those who would heal them, until the chief physician should come — the prophet who surpasses the prophets, the physician who surpasses the physicians. When he had come, they betrayed and killed him, saying, "Away with him, away with such a man from the earth; crucify him, crucify him." At once a visitation came upon the nation, the place where my Jesus had been crucified was made desolate,
and God chose another nation. See how great the harvest is, even though the workers are few. And in another way too God so arranges things that the net is always being cast upon the sea of this life, and fish of every kind are gathered together. He sends "the many fishermen," he sends "the many hunters"; they hunt from "every mountain," they hunt
from "every hill." See how great is the providence concerning the salvation of the nations. "See, then, the kindness and the severity of God: upon" the former nation, the one that fell, "severity, but toward you," the second nation, "promises" and "kindness, if you continue in his kindness; since you too will be cut off." For it is not the case that the axe was laid only then against the root of the trees.
The axe is again ready to come. "The" axe "is laid against the root of the trees" — my Jesus was saying this then, prophesying concerning Israel, beside which the axe lay. He himself was the axe of the unfruitful tree, and he said, "Already the axe is laid against the root of the trees." All the trees that were there and did not bear fruit were cut down
and thrown into the fire and have been punished. But now another cultivated field has come to be, corresponding to the former one, concerning which it has been said: "bring them in and plant them on the mountain of your inheritance, in the place you have made ready for your dwelling." God brought his nation into the mountain of his inheritance. The mountain I seek is not, as the Jews suppose, among lifeless materials. The mountain is Christ.
In him we were planted, upon him we have been kept. See to it, then, that even if he is patient, it may not happen that the master of the house comes and says: "already for three years I have come to this fig tree and it has borne no fruit; cut it down; why does it even render the ground useless?" For it renders useless the good ground, Christ, the mystery of the church, when he who comes upon the congregation finds no fruit. "The end
"I will speak against a nation or even against a kingdom." It will seem that the "outcome" is simply what has been stated. But what has been said is of this sort: in the phrase "I will speak against a nation or a kingdom," the outcome is such as this: for the former nation it is called "I will tear down," for the second nation, "I will build you up." And again, "I will uproot" is said of the former, and "I will plant" of the latter. Is it then necessary, once the outcome has been declared, that the outcome
come to pass? God, though he does not change his mind, is said in Scripture to "repent." Let us pay close attention to the wording, so that, if we are able to give an account of how these things are said, we may accept the statement. "An outcome I will speak," it says, "against a nation or against a kingdom, to uproot them and destroy them; and if that nation turns from the evils which I spoke against it, then I too
will repent of the evils which I had planned to do to them. And an outcome I will speak against a nation or a kingdom, to build it up and to plant it; and they will do evil before me, so as not to hear my voice, and I will repent of the good things which I said I would do for them." Concerning God's "repentance" we are required to give an account, for it seems to be a fault
and unworthy — not only of God, but even of a wise man — to repent. For I cannot conceive of a wise man repenting; rather, one who repents, so far as the ordinary use of the word goes, repents because he did not counsel well. But God, being one who foreknows the future, cannot fail to counsel well, and therefore cannot repent. How then has Scripture
brought him in saying "I will repent" — not to mention that in the Books of Kingdoms it is said, in the phrase "I repent that I anointed Saul as king," and it is stated of him generally: "and repenting of the evils." But observe what we are taught about God in general terms. Where it says "God is not as a man, to be made uncertain, nor as a son of man, to be threatened," we learn through this wording
that God is not as a man; but through another passage which says that God is as a man: "for the Lord your God disciplined you, as a man would discipline his son," and again, "he bore his son as a man bears his son." Therefore, whenever the Scriptures speak theologically of God in himself, and do not intertwine his providential ordering with human affairs, they say that he is not as a man. For
"of his greatness there shall be no end," and "he is to be feared above all gods," and "praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his hosts; praise him, sun and moon; praise him, all stars and light." And you could gather countless other such statements from the sacred writings
to which you might apply "God is not as a man." But whenever the divine providential ordering is intertwined with human affairs, it takes on a human mind and manner and mode of speech. And just as, if we converse with a two-year-old child, we lisp on account of the child — for it is not possible, while keeping the dignity proper to a man of mature age, to speak to children without
coming down to their manner of speech to make the children understand — think of God in this same way, whenever he manages the affairs of the human race, and especially of those who are still infants. See how even we, when we are grown men, change our words for babies: we call bread by a special name for them, and we call drinking by another word, not using the speech
we use with grown people our own age, but some other, childish and infantile way of speaking. And if we name garments for children, we put other names on them, as though fashioning a childish name. Are we then imperfect at that moment? And if someone were to hear us talking with children, he would say that this old man has lost his sense, that this man has forgotten
his beard, the maturity of a grown man. Or is it granted, by way of accommodation, that one conversing with a child not speak with the speech of an elder, nor with a fully mature one, but with a childish one? And God indeed speaks to children: "Behold," says the Savior too, "I and the children whom God has given me." It could be said of the old man who speaks to the child in a childish way, or, to put it more emphatically, in an infantile way,
that you have borne your son's manner and have put on the manner of the infant and have taken up his condition. Understand, then, in this way also the scripture that says: "The Lord your God bore your manner, as a man would bear the manner of his son." And it appears that those who translated from Hebrew, not finding the word set down among the Greeks, have coined this word too, as they have done for many
others, and have made the phrase: "The Lord your God bore your manner (that is, he bore your manners), as a man would bear the manner (according to this example I have given) of his son." Since, then, we ourselves repent, whenever God converses with us as with people who are repenting, he says: "I repent," and when threatening us he does not pretend to be a foreknower, but threatens as one speaking to infants.
He does not pretend that he foreknew "all things before their coming to be," but as though — if I may put it this way — playing the part of the infant, he pretends not even to know the things that are to come. And indeed he threatens a nation on account of its sins and says: "If the nation repents, I too will repent." O God, when you were threatening, did you not know whether the nation would repent or would not repent? What then? When
you promised, did you not know whether the man would remain worthy of the promises, or the nation, to whom the word was addressed, or would not remain worthy? But he does not pretend to know. And you would find many such human traits in scripture, as also: "Speak to the sons of Israel; perhaps they will listen and repent." God has not said this "perhaps they will listen" as one in doubt; for God is not in doubt,
so as to say "perhaps they will listen and will repent," but so that he might display abundantly your free will, and that you might not say: "If he foreknew that I would perish, I must perish; if he foreknew that I would be saved, I must be saved along with everyone." He does not pretend, then, to know what is to come concerning you, so that he might preserve your free will by not having anticipated it or foreknown it beforehand, whether
"...you will repent or not." And he says to the prophet: "Speak, perhaps they will repent." For you will find countless other things of this kind said about God accommodating himself to man's condition. If you hear of God's wrath and his anger, do not think that anger and wrath are passions of God. These are dispensations in the use of words, meant to turn the infant back and make it better; since we too, with
children, put on a fearsome face not out of any disposition but as a matter of management. If we kept the kindliness of our soul toward the infant visible in our face, and displayed the affection we have for it, without distorting ourselves or, so to speak, changing our expression to bring about that child's turning back, we would ruin it and make it worse. So too, then, God is said both to grow angry and
to be enraged, so that you may turn back and become better. And in truth he neither grows angry nor is enraged; but you will experience the effects of wrath and of anger, coming to be amid hard-to-bear pains on account of wickedness, whenever he disciplines you with what is called the wrath of God. Next, after the discourse concerning the two nations, the former to which the threat is given, and the second to which
the promise is given, he says (he clearly said it to the former): "And now I have said to the men of Judah and to those dwelling in Jerusalem: thus says the Lord: behold, I am shaping evils against you." Because these things that I am shaping against you are in my hand, they can fall away. Make these things fall away from my hand, so that I may change the evils I am shaping against you
and do good things instead. You would not find: "Behold, I shape good things against you" and the corresponding words said in sequence after this, so that after this it might show that the good things he shapes he releases from his hands, so as to make them evils. Rather, he shapes evils according to the example stated, and in shaping evils he administers them (apart from the interpretation given for "it fell from my
hands"), so that if it falls, I do not know what sort of outcome the evils being shaped will come to. "Let each one turn back from his evil way, and make your practices better." Sometimes the more simple-minded say: blessed are the people of old, because they heard the Lord speaking through the prophet, saying: "and the Lord spoke to them." And now the Lord speaks
to us too, through the things written, the words "let each one turn back from his evil way"; the Lord himself converses with you, saying: "and make your practices better." But those to whom the exhortatory words about repentance were spoken made a reply, and let us see what they replied, so that we too may not give such a reply. What then do they say in reply? "We will act boldly, for after our own
turnings-away we will go, and each one of us will do the pleasing things of his evil heart." And even if you do not say it in these words, but your life is such that you sin, you too are in effect saying, through your evil deeds, after the exhortatory words, that "we will act boldly, for after our own turnings-away we will go, and each one of us will do the pleasing things of his
we will do evil." But what does "we will go after our own turnings-away" mean? Those who began to "put the hand to the plow" and were stretching forward to what lies ahead turned away from base things. So then, whenever someone who has put his hand to the plow turns back, he will go "after his turnings-away"; for he will go after those very things from which he had turned away, and he runs back again to those sins which he had left behind. And of those
who hear these things, then, whether catechumens who have left behind the pagan way of life, or believers who have already made progress in "stretching forward to what lies ahead," if their life has become base, they say nothing other than "we will go after our turnings-away, and each will do the things pleasing to his heart," not simply so, but "of his evil heart." For there is an evil heart and there is a good heart.
Let no one, then, go "after his own turnings-away," nor let him do "the things pleasing to his evil heart." "Because of this," to those who answer in this way, "the Lord says: ask now among the nations: who has heard such terrible things, which the virgin of Israel has done so exceedingly?" This too will seem to have been said simply. But if the church from the nations, indeed among the nations, hear what
she has done to God, it will be said: "ask now among the nations: hear what exceedingly terrible things the virgin of Israel has done." For let us compare the life of those who sinned with the life of those who turned back and believed, and we shall know that the former have done terrible things, having killed "the Lord of glory," while the latter, after the former had done terrible things, turned back to him, who was destroyed and
put to death for the sins of the world by those men. "Ask," then, "among the nations: who has heard such terrible things, which the virgin of Israel has done so exceedingly?" "Will the breasts fail from the rock, or the snow from Lebanon? Or will water carried forcibly by the wind turn aside? For my people have forgotten me, they have burned incense in vain, and they will grow weak on their ways, eternal paths, walking tracks that have no road for a way,
so as to appoint their land for destruction and everlasting hissing." Here he has spoken of differences among waters. First in "will the breasts fail from the rock?"; second in "or the snow from Lebanon?"; and third in "will water carried forcibly by the wind turn aside?" These three kinds of water are the springs of the waters which
the soul of the righteous, likened to the deer, longs for, so that each might say: "as the deer longs for the springs of water, so my soul longs for you, O God." Who, then, has become a deer at war with the race of serpents, suffering nothing from their venom, as is recorded concerning the deer? Who has thirsted for God so
that one might say: "my soul has thirsted for the living God"? Who has thirsted so for the breasts of the rock? "Now the rock was Christ." Who has thirsted so for the Holy Spirit that one might say: "as the deer longs for the springs of water, so my soul longs for you, O God"? Unless the
Should we thirst for three fountains of waters, we would not find even one fountain of waters. The Jews seemed to have thirsted for one fountain of waters, God; but since they did not thirst for Christ and the Holy Spirit, they are not able to drink even from God. Those from the heresies seemed to have thirsted for Christ Jesus; but since they did not thirst for the Father, who is God over both Law and Prophets,
for this reason they do not drink even from Jesus Christ either. But those who hold fast to one God, while setting the prophecies at nought, did not thirst for the Holy Spirit that is in the prophets; for this reason they will not drink even from the paternal fountain, nor from him who cried out in the temple and said, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and
drink." The breasts, then, do not fail "from the rock." But those people "abandoned the fountain of living water"; the fountain of living water did not abandon them. For God removes himself far from no one, but "those who remove themselves far from him will perish." Rather, God draws near to some and meets the one who comes to him. At any rate, when the son who had devoured his substance returned, the father met
him. And he makes a promise through the prophets, saying, "I will draw nearer to them than the tunic to their skin." For he says, "I am a God who draws near, and not a God far off, says the Lord." The breasts, then—the waters of Jesus—will "not fail from the rock," "nor the snow from Lebanon"—the paternal waters. For frankincense too is a sacred offering
according to the law of God, and "clear frankincense, in equal measure," is offered upon the altar. And the mountain shares its name with this frankincense, and there is snow coming down from Lebanon, in the way the water of the Holy Spirit does, concerning which it is said, "Will not water be turned aside when it is carried violently by the wind?" And indeed it is carried by the wind. It does not "turn aside," the water of the
Holy Spirit does not flee; but each of us, by sinning, himself becomes a fugitive from drinking of the Holy Spirit. "Because my people have forgotten me, they have burned incense in vain." Now everyone who sins has forgotten God, but the righteous man says, "All these things have come upon us, and we have not forgotten you, nor have we dealt unjustly"; and he burned incense in vain. But what is meant by "in vain
they burned incense" must be considered. If we take up what was said earlier in the hundred-and-fortieth Psalm, we will understand what "they burned incense in vain" means. For something of this sort was said in that Psalm: "Let my prayer be set forth as incense before you." My prayer, then, is composite . . . of a fine heart, and when our heart is not thickened, it becomes, as it is sent up, like incense
before God. If, then, the prayer of the righteous man is incense before God, the prayer of the unjust man is indeed incense too, but incense of such a kind that it can be said of it, and of the unjust man who prays it, "they burned incense in vain"; just as it is written concerning Judas, "Let his prayer become sin." That man, in the very act of praying, burned incense in vain. But who is the
burning incense in vain, let us understand this all the more from what follows. "Three times a year," it says, "every male of yours shall appear before the LORD your God," to which it immediately adds: "You shall not appear before me empty." So then, of those who come to appear ...

======== Homily on Jeremiah 19 ========

...of the mind of Scripture, which comes to an eye capable of taking in the clarity of the sacred writings. I have said these things in my preface, rousing and awakening both myself and those listening to pay attention to what has been read, so that we may ask Jesus to come and appear to us and to teach us now the things written here. "Jeremiah prophesied, and Pashhur son of Immer heard him,"
the priest, the words of the prophecy. And it is likely that, although so many had heard Jeremiah simply following the course of the prophecy, no other hearer besides Pashhur has been recorded so promptly. Scripture took care to say whose son he was—that he was son of Immer—and that he held the office of priest, and what rank he held among the people, namely that he had been appointed leader
of the house of the Lord at the time when Jeremiah was prophesying these words. And it is recorded that, upon hearing the words of this prophecy, Pashhur struck Jeremiah, and was not content with having struck him, but also threw him into a certain cataract. Scripture took care to say also where this cataract was—at the gate of Benjamin—and that the cataract
was in a place where there was an upper chamber, and this upper chamber belonged to none other than the house of the Lord. These things it recorded as having come by the Holy Spirit for the prophecy given to Jeremiah, and as having come from Pashhur. Then it says: "On the next day Pashhur brought Jeremiah out of the cataract." And Jeremiah, once brought out, said to Pashhur that "the Lord has not called you by this name,"
"by the name Pashhur; another name has been set for you: as for Jacob, Israel, as for Abram, Abraham, as for Sarai, Sarah, so for you a name has been set—Sojourner. And he has called you Sojourner for this reason, because the Lord says: Behold, I give you over into exile with all—with whom? Is it not with your wife and your sons and your daughters,
but with your friends. And when you are given over into exile, your friends will fall by the sword. Then, as though there were a difference among those who fall by the sword—whether they fall by the sword of enemies or by the sword of others—it says that the friends of the one who threw Jeremiah into the cataract will fall by the sword of their enemies. And your eyes," it says, "will see these things
being prophesied. But you and all Judah I will give into the hands of the king of Babylon, after your friends have suffered these things, and they will carry them off into exile in Babylon and cut them down; for the king of Judah and those of Judah they will cut down with the sword, and it no longer adds 'of their enemies,' as it was said of the earlier ones who were said to be friends of Pashhur. Then
it says: "And I will give all the strength of this city and all the treasures of the king of Judah and all the labors of this city into the hands of their enemies," so that the enemies may plunder the treasures and take the aforementioned things and lead Judah and its king away into Babylon. "But you, O Pashhur, and all who dwell
in your house, go into captivity to Babylon, and there you will die, and there you will be buried, you and all your friends to whom you prophesied falsely. It was necessary to cut off the whole passage and clarify it — not yet its deep meaning (if indeed we can grasp it), but just the wording and the very statement itself, which even an ordinary person, attending carefully
to the letters and not carelessly, can nonetheless understand. What then do these words mean? Here the task is to set forth the intent of this writing. And indeed I confess for my own part that I am not able to expound it, but need, as I said before, the manifestation of the power of Jesus, according to which he is wisdom, according to which he is word, according to which he is truth, so that his manifestation
may make light upon the face of my soul. (18,) ....................................................... ............................................................... ............................................................... The sorcerers of the Egyptians also had rods, which wished to discredit those of Moses and of Aaron, as though they were not from God. But the rods that are from God overturn those of the sophists and sorcerers: “the rod of Aaron swallowed them up”; for that alone was sufficient for this purpose, even without the
rod of Moses. “Pashhur” then “struck Jeremiah the prophet,” and characteristically: “and he struck Jeremiah the prophet.” The phrase “the prophet” is added as well. Here, then, the one who struck Jeremiah the prophet struck him. But it is written in the Acts that someone struck Paul at the command of Ananias the high priest. Therefore Paul said: “God is going to strike you,”
“you whitewashed wall.” And even to this day, the Ebionites, commanded by the word of a lawless high priest, strike the apostle of Jesus Christ with slanderous words. And Paul says to such a high priest of that sort of speech, “God is going to strike you.” And such a high priest is, on the surface, handsome, and a whitewashed wall — “I have given my back to the whips, and my cheeks” — Christ says:
“I have given my back to the whips, and my cheeks to blows, and I did not turn my face away from the shame of spittings.” The simple know this only in reference to that time, when Pilate scourged him, when the Jews plotted against him. But I see Jesus daily “giving his back to the whips.” Enter
into the synagogues of the Jews, and see Jesus being scourged by them with the tongue of blasphemy. See those gathered from the nations, plotting against the Christians, considering in what way they may seize Jesus, and he too “gives his own back to the whips.” Observe the Word of God being insulted, spoken evil of, hated by the unbelievers. See that “he gave his cheeks to blows,”
and having taught that if anyone strikes you on the cheek, turn the other as well, he himself does this. So many strike him and scourge him, and he is silent and does not speak. For it is written that he did not speak while being scourged. And “to this very day Jesus has not turned his face away from the shame of spittings.” Which of those who hold his teaching cheap does not, as it were, spit
...up to now, while Jesus endures it? (18,) It followed, from the fact that the prophet had been struck, that one should narrate those who had been struck — for example, the apostle, and if anyone else has been struck — and set forth also the things concerning Jesus himself. So 'Pashhur struck Jeremiah the prophet, and cast him into the stocks that were at the gate of Benjamin of the upper chamber.' Of Benjamin—
— the stocks belonged to the upper chamber. Jerusalem is the inheritance of Benjamin, in which is the temple of God, as anyone able to attend to the divine readings will find from the inheritance recorded in the book of the son of Nun. Since, then, the temple was in the inheritance of Benjamin, whose name is interpreted 'Son of the right hand' (for there is nothing left-handed about the temple of God),
for this reason he casts him 'into the stocks that were at the gate of Benjamin of the upper chamber of the house of the Lord.' There being an 'upper chamber in the house of the Lord,' he 'cast' the prophet 'into the stocks.' Let us too pray that, taking Jeremiah now, we may bring him up into the upper chamber 'in the house of the Lord.' And I will show from Scripture that the upper chamber signifies the lofty and elevated mind, when
it bears witness concerning the saints that they received the prophets into upper chambers. In the third book of Kingdoms it is recorded that a widow received the prophet Elijah in Zarephath of Sidon, and she entertained the prophet 'in her upper chamber.' And in the fourth book, the woman who received Elisha prepared a room for him in the upper chamber. But the sinner Ahaziah fell from the
upper chamber. And to you too Jesus gives the command not to come down from the roof. For he says, 'when' such and such things happen, 'then let the one on the roof not come down to take the things out of his house.' The one fleeing in the persecutions is not being told merely not to go up onto the roof; rather he is told: from the roof 'let him not come down to take the things out of his house.' It is good
then, to be in upper chambers; it is good to be on roofs and to be found somewhere above. The wondrous apostles too, as is recorded of them in the Acts, when, being together, they were devoting themselves to prayers and to the word of God, were in an upper chamber. And since they were in an upper chamber, they were not below. For this reason 'there appeared to them tongues distributed, as of
fire.' But Peter too, when he was sending up his prayer to God, 'went up onto the roof'; and had he not gone up onto the roof, he would not have seen 'a vessel descending from heaven like a sheet, let down from heaven by its four corners.' And Tabitha too, the woman who performed acts of charity, 'who, translated, is called Dorcas,' was not below, but 'in the upper chamber,' where
Peter went up and raised her from the dead. But Jesus too, when he was about to celebrate this feast whose symbol we now keep, the Passover, with his disciples — when they asked, 'Where do you wish us to prepare the Passover for you?' — said: 'As you go, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him. He will show you a large upper room, furnished, swept, ready; there prepare the Passover.' No one
So then, keeping the Passover as Jesus does with Jesus, he is above in a great upper room, in an upper room swept, in an upper room adorned and ready. And if you go up with him, so that you may celebrate the Passover, he gives you the cup of the new covenant, he gives you also the bread of blessing, he grants you his own body and his own blood. For this reason we exhort
you: ‘go up to the height, lift up your eyes to the height.’ And for me, if I am teaching the divine word, the word says: ‘go up onto a high mountain, you who bring good news to Zion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good news to Jerusalem; lift it up, do not be afraid.’ This on account of Pashhur, because when there stood nearby [26 strewn, swept: + adorned?] an ‘upper room in the house of the Lord
at the gate of Benjamin,’ he did not bring the prophet up into the upper room, but ‘cast him into the stocks’ below. (18) ‘And it came to pass on the next day that Pashhur brought Jeremiah out of the stocks.’ O Lord Jesus, come again, make this clear to me as well, and to those who have come for spiritual nourishment. How is it that ‘on the next day’ he himself brings ‘Jeremiah out of the
stocks’? For as long as the present day stands (and ‘today’ is this whole age), the sinner casts the prophet down into the stocks; but when the present day ceases and tomorrow comes, then, having repented, he brings him out of the stocks. Then Jeremiah tells him what Pashhur will suffer. What does he say to him? ‘Not
Pashhur is your name called, but rather Migrant. For thus says the Lord.’ This Pashhur is about to be exiled, according to the measure of his sins, to Babylon — not alone, but together with his friends. For he is handed over to Nebuchadnezzar and goes off into Confusion, and is punished for his sins, since ‘he cast the prophet into the stocks.’ Who then
are the friends of Pashhur, the one named for the blackness of his mouth? All who received his words, who were blackened together with his blackened mouth, who received doctrines of blackness. ‘And they shall fall by the sword of their enemies.’ Those appointed over punishments — these are the ones who hold the swords and make them fall by drinking; concerning whom the word prophesies and says:
‘and your eyes shall see.’ These things prophesied, he says, ‘your eyes shall see.’ ‘And you, and all Judah, I will give into the hands of the king of Babylon.’ Whoever of Judah is found so sinful as to be worthy of the king of Babylon, of Confusion, will be handed over to him. And the king of Babylon takes hold of sinners. Now the king of Babylon, according to the historical sense, is Nebuchadnezzar,
but according to the higher sense, the evil one. To him the sinner is handed over, since he is both enemy and avenger. That the sinner is handed over to him, let Paul teach you, where he speaks concerning Phygelus and Hermogenes: ‘whom I have handed over to’ ... ‘of the one who has committed fornication: when you are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus, I have judged to hand over such a one to the
...delivered to Satan so that his flesh would perish, in order that his spirit might be rescued on the day the mouth of Melania, into the hands of the king of Babylon, and they will remove him to Babylon. "And they will cut them down with the sword, and I will give all the strength of this city." It is easy to say that these things are prophesied concerning Jerusalem; for all her strength has been handed over, and the things
brought at that time to the king of the Babylonians. It is easy to say that these things are prophesied concerning "this city," since in the times of the Savior it was handed over to its enemies, and the sons of Jerusalem have gone off into captivity and the city was razed to the ground. But if you examine the matter and look at the city not as stones but as people, you will see that that Jerusalem too,
the people, were handed over "into the hands of the king of Babylon" because of impiety and sin against Christ. And you are Jerusalem now. If then the word now threatens Jerusalem, take care lest you, if you sin, be a sinful Jerusalem and be handed over, so that you are no longer Jerusalem but become Babylon and Confusion, with Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Babylonians taking you captive. "And all
the labors" he hands Jerusalem over. How does he hand over "all the labors"? If, after you have contended and struggled, you fall and sin, all your labors have come into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. How, all your labors? It will be said to you, if you fall after having toiled much for the truth: "you have suffered so much in vain." Those especially who are aware in themselves of having drawn up many labors on behalf of virtue ought
to fear, lest their labors—once a Jerusalem has come into being—be seized by Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon when some sin has occurred. But so that you may see more clearly how Nebuchadnezzar seizes the labors of a Jerusalem that has sinned, I will make use of what is written in Ezekiel in these words: "If the righteous man turns away from his righteous deeds and commits iniquity, I will not remember his righteous deeds that he did."
Why? Because Nebuchadnezzar seizes the righteous deeds that came about with labor, and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon destroys them. "And all the honor" of Jerusalem he seizes, when a man, having come to be in honor by God and "being in honor," "did not understand," and sinned. If then, being in honor and having been called to honor, you again insult yourself through sins,
the king of Babylon seizes the honor of Jerusalem. "And all the treasures of the king of Judah." Jerusalem is rich, but if she sins, the Babylonian takes her treasures. "And they will plunder them and take them and lead them away to Babylon. And you, Pashhur, and all who dwell in your house, shall go into captivity to Babylon, and there you shall die,
and there you shall be buried." The one who is overtaken in Confusion dies in Babylon; and the one disposed contrary to being buried together with Christ, this man is buried in Babylon. For it is possible also to be buried well with Christ through baptism, according to "we were buried together with Christ, and we rose together with him." As being buried together with Christ is a mystery, so likewise it is a mystery, occurring in accordance with lawlessness, for one who is sinful to
...to be buried in Babylon. “And all,” he says, “your friends there will go, to whom you prophesied falsehoods.” The one who expounds the sayings of God badly and casts the prophetic words into a cataract himself prophesies, but prophesies falsely; for whoever expounds the prophetic words, if he speaks truly, he too prophesies, and prophesies truly, but if he lies, he is a false prophet
...lying falsely against the prophetic words. (18) And now the first passage has been completed; let us already begin the second as well, for it has matters that are, right from the very first reading, no ordinary ones. And attending to the wording, let us again ask Jesus to come, and let us urge him to come still more manifestly and more brightly, so that when he has come he may teach us all whether the prophet was speaking truly
...as befits our thinking concerning a prophet in what follows, or was lying, which it is not permitted to say about a holy prophet. He says to God: “You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed; I have become a laughingstock, I have gone on being mocked the whole day; for I will laugh at my own bitter word, I will call upon faithlessness and misery; for the word of the Lord has become for me a reproach
...and a mockery every day. And I said: I will not name the name of the Lord, and I will no longer speak in his name. And it became in my heart like a burning fire, blazing in my bones, and I am undone on every side and cannot bear it, for I heard the reproach of many gathering around,” and, clearly, “saying: Rise up together, and let us rise up
...against him, men who are his friends: watch his intention, whether he will be deceived, and we shall prevail over him and take our revenge upon him.” But while they were saying these things, the prophet says: “And the Lord is with me like a strong warrior; therefore they pursued but could not understand; they were greatly ashamed, because they did not understand their own dishonor, which will not be forgotten forever.” This is the
...second passage of the reading. How then does the prophet say, “You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived”? Does God deceive? How am I to manage this word, I am at a loss. For if, on account of God and his word, I look to something in this concerning him, what is about to be said requires a noble management. Having ceased to be deceived, the prophet says, “You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived,” as though the elementary instruction and
...introduction given to him had occurred in deception, since he was not able to receive elementary instruction and to be introduced into reverence for God unless he were first deceived, so that afterward he might come to a perception of the deception. It suffices to give only one example useful for the matters before us. We speak to children, guiding them, and we do not speak to them as to grown men, but as to children in need of instruction we speak to them,
...and we deceive children by frightening them, so that they may cease from the lack of discipline found in children, and we frighten children by speaking words of deception, on account of what underlies their infancy, so that through the deception we may make them afraid and go to their teachers and report and do the things that befit the progress of children. We are all children before God, and we need the guidance given to children. For this reason
God, sparing us, deceives us (even if we do not perceive the deception before the time), so that, no longer being as those who have passed beyond infancy, we might be trained no longer through deception, but through the facts themselves. The child is led to fear in one way, and one who has advanced in age and passed beyond childhood, in another. For if I am able to guide it by deception †, so that the
deceiving God might say, ‘I will train them by the report of their affliction.’ I will set forth stories of how God deceives for salvation and says something, so that the sinner might stop doing what he would have done had he not heard certain of these words. He who said, ‘Yet three days, and Nineveh will be overthrown’—was he speaking truly, or was he not speaking truly, but deceiving with a deception that turns people back?
And if this turning-back had not happened, it would no longer have been a deception, but what was said would already have been the truth, and the overthrow would have followed for Nineveh. It rested with the hearers—either, having been deceived and having believed what was said as true, to be benefited and not overthrown; or, since what was said did not come true, and they had not been deceived but had grasped that what was said would not happen, to despise what was said
as a deception, <and> to suffer not the ‘Yet three days and Nineveh will be overthrown,’ but—I dare even to say—things far harsher than ‘Yet three days and Nineveh will be overthrown.’ For on the assumption that the Ninevites, having sinned, [if they had not repented,] had not repented, perhaps ‘Yet three days and Nineveh will be overthrown’ would have come to pass; but suppose that this did not come to pass—something worse than this came to pass: they were handed over to
eternal fire. For this reason another punishment is spoken of according to the law for those who are trained as children; but for those ‘upon whom the fullness of time [of which] has come,’ other punishments are recorded. Compare the punishments of sinners under the law with the punishments of sinners under the gospel, and you will see that those, as infants, heard a punishment fitted to infants, while we, as
those of mature age, hear harsher punishments. If someone had then become an adulterer or an adulteress, the threat was not Gehenna, not eternal fire, but: he shall be stoned with stones; ‘let the whole congregation stone him.’ The adulterer found guilty in these matters, the adulteress found guilty in these matters, will say upon departing: would that the word might be said of me too—‘the people cast stones at me,’ and I was not kept for the eternal fire.
For ‘liable’ ‘to the Gehenna of fire’ is not only the adulterer, but also the one who says to his brother, ‘Fool.’ But if the one who says to his brother, ‘Fool,’ ‘shall be liable to the Gehenna of fire,’ to what will the adulterer be liable? I am seeking some greater place of punishment than the Gehenna of fire. And perhaps I might say
that Gehenna belongs to those who are absent, to those who are capable of being purified. And just as, in the case of good things, of the righteous, ‘it has not entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those who love him,’ so too what he has prepared for sinners, for the fornicator, for the adulterer, ‘has not entered into the heart of man.’ For if it had entered into the heart <of him> to whom the one who said to his
to his brother, “Fool,” it is clear that what is prepared for those who have sinned worse things is greater than what merely rises up into the heart. I am not able to conceive of anything greater than Gehenna, but I only believe that there is something greater than Gehenna—that which is prepared for adulterers. So too I come to the remaining punishments set out in the law, and I take an apostolic phrase that harmonizes with these, and that kept silent about
my punishment, if I should sin, since I do not wish to accept “You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived,” having gladly accepted being deceived. But what does the apostle say? “Anyone who sets aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses; how much worse a punishment, do you suppose, will the one be deemed worthy of who has trampled the Son of God underfoot?” Name it, O Paul—the punishment; say it. But I do not say
it, he says; greater than what is said is the punishment of those who sin against the gospel, greater than what is heard, greater than what is conceived. For this reason the prophet was brought in as a child, having heard and been made afraid and been disciplined, and after this having been made perfect, saying: “You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived.” And you too, insofar as you are a child, fear the
threats, the eternal punishments, the unquenchable fire—or perhaps something even greater than this, that which is stored up for those who have lived for a long time contrary to right reason. May we experience none of these things, but being made perfect in Christ Jesus, may we be deemed worthy of the heavenly festivals and of the Passover that is there, unto the ascent in Christ Jesus, to whom belongs the glory and the
power, for ever and ever. Amen.

======== Homily on Jeremiah 20 ========

Everything written concerning God, even if it seems on its face to be unfitting, must be understood as worthy of a good God. For who will not say that it seems unfitting, when applied to God, that he has wrath, that he makes use of anger, that he repents, and indeed even that he sleeps? But each of these will be found, by one who knows how “to hear dark sayings,” to be worthy of God. The
his wrath, then, is not without fruit, but just as his word disciplines, so too his wrath disciplines; for those who are not disciplined by word he disciplines by wrath. And it is necessary for God to make use of what is called wrath, just as he makes use of what is named word; for his word is not of the same kind as the word of all things. For of no one
is the word “living being,” of no one is the word “God,” of no one was the word “in the beginning” with the one with whom the Word was, even if that one alone is from some beginning. So too the wrath of God is called wrath, not as the wrath of anyone whatsoever [is called wrath]. And just as the word of God has something strange beyond every
word of anyone whatsoever—and it has as something strange both being God and being Word while being a living being, subsisting on its own, serving the Father—so too, once his so-called wrath was named God’s, it has something strange and foreign to all the wrath that is otherwise so defined. So too his anger has something proper to it; for it belongs to the purpose of
the one who rebukes in anger, wishing the one rebuked to turn back through the rebuke. The word also rebukes, as the word disciplines; but the word does not rebuke in the way that anger rebukes. For those who are not helped by the rebuke that comes from the word will need the rebuke that comes from anger. We were saying that there is also a certain repentance of God that seems on its face unfitting, since it is written: “I repent that I anointed
Saul as king.” It is right that you inquire also into this repentance, and do not suppose that his repentance has any kinship with the repentance of those who repent. For just as his word had something exceptional, so too his wrath, and his anger something surpassing, and none of these had anything akin to the things sharing their name, in the same way also his repentance is homonymous with
our repentance; and things are homonymous when only the name is common, while the account corresponding to the name belongs to a different reality. Only the name, then, is common to God’s anger and the anger of anyone whatsoever, and only the name is common to the wrath of anyone whatsoever and the wrath of God. So too must one understand in the case of repentance. And whoever is able will inquire what God’s repentance accomplishes, what it did accomplish. It brought down Saul
who was reigning unlawfully, and raised up for the people as king the one after God’s own heart; for on account of that good repentance he said: “I have found a man after my own heart, David son of Jesse.” But all these things are, for me, preliminary remarks, on account of the fact that the beginning of the reading from Jeremiah is this: “You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived.” (19) For we inquire whether
As with everyone else, anger is a bad thing, but God's is corrective; and everyone's wrath is harsh, but the wrath called God's is disciplinary; and in all of us, regret indicts the weakness of what preceded the regret, but in God's case regret does not indict God, but rather the outside circumstances on account of which the regret is taken up.
In the same way one must also understand God's "deception" as belonging to a different category from our deception, the deception by which we deceive. What, then, is the deception that belongs to God — the deception which the prophet, once he understood it, having ceased to be deceived, spoke of, knowing the benefit that came from having been deceived, when he said, "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived"? And first I will make use of a Hebrew tradition that came to us through someone
who had fled on account of faith in Christ and on account of having advanced beyond the law, and who had come to the place where we spend our time. He used to tell something — whether it was an apparent myth or an account capable of leading hearers to the meaning of "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived." He used to say something of this sort: God does not play the tyrant, but reigns as king, and in reigning he does not use force, but persuades, and wishes those under him to offer
themselves voluntarily to his providential ordering, so that the good in someone might not come about by necessity, but according to what is voluntary in him. This is also what Paul, understanding it, said in his letter to Philemon concerning Onesimus: "so that your good deed might not be by compulsion but voluntary." The God of all things, then, was able to make what is reckoned as
good in us come about, so that we might give alms out of necessity and be self-controlled out of necessity, but he has not willed it so. Therefore he does not command us to do what we do out of grief or out of necessity, so that what comes about might be voluntary. He seeks, then, so to speak, a way by which one might do voluntarily what God wills. So the tradition went on to tell me something
of this kind as well: he wished to send Jeremiah to prophesy to all the nations, and before all the nations, to the people. But since the prophecies were rather grim (for they announced punishments, by which each would be punished according to what was fitting), and he knew the prophet's disposition, that he did not wish to prophesy worse things to the people of Israel, for this reason he arranged to say:
"Take this cup, and you shall give all the nations to drink, to whom I will send you." God, then, commanded Jeremiah to take the cup, urging him to take the cup of unmixed wine, saying, "and I will send you to all the nations, bearing this cup of unmixed wine." But Jeremiah, on hearing
that he was being sent to all the nations, that he was to minister to them a cup of wrath, a cup of punishments, not suspecting that Israel too was about to drink from the cup of punishment — deceived, he took the cup in order to give all the nations to drink; and having taken the cup he heard: "and you shall give to drink first..." Since, then, he expected one thing, but a different thing met him, thereupon...
To him indeed he says: "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived." He rendered something similar to this account also in Isaiah; for that man too, not knowing what he would be commanded to say to the people, hears God saying, according to what is written: "Who shall I dispatch, and who is it that will go before this people?" And he, it says, answered: "Here I am; send me." He hears: "Go
and say to this people: with hearing you will hear yet fail to grasp it, and looking on you will look yet fail to see. For the heart of this people has grown thick" and so on. Since, then, not knowing what he was about to prophesy, nor that he was about to threaten the people with such things, he had said, "Here I am; send me," for this reason, it says, in what follows, "the voice
of a lion: cry out" — yet he did not answer as one eager to do what was commanded, but said, "What shall I cry?" For he was wary lest he hear again, as at the earlier prophecy: "Go and say to this people: hearing you shall hear and shall not understand." "What then shall I cry?" "All flesh is grass, and all its glory as the flower of the grass" and so on. He heard nothing
in these words against Israel. These are the things that man was telling us in handing down the saying, "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived." (19) But I pray that what I receive from those who give it I may not merely keep, nor bury in the ground the talent of those who speak to me, nor tie up in a napkin the mina of those who teach something useful, but make an increase of the lessons
which I receive from the one handing them down and able to hand down useful things. I pray to make the mina — whether of gospel, or of apostle, or of prophet, or of law — many times over. Having heard these things, then, I was pondering within myself the matter of "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived." And in pondering it I pray to find something true on the point. Is it, then, perhaps just as a father wishes to deceive a son who is still an infant, for his benefit,
since the child cannot otherwise be helped unless he is deceived — as a physician contrives to deceive the one who is ill, since he cannot be healed unless he accepts words of deception — so too the God of all, since he has set before himself the aim of benefiting the human race. Let the physician say to the sick man: "You must be cut, you must be cauterized, you must suffer other harsher things" — he would not
submit himself to that. But sometimes the physician says something else, and hides under the sponge that cutting thing, the blade of iron that divides, and again hides — if I may put it this way — under honey the nature of the bitter and unpleasant drug, wishing not to harm but to heal the one being treated. The whole of divine scripture is full of such drugs. And some things are beneficial while hidden,
while others are bitter while hidden. If you see a father threatening as though he hated his son, and saying fearful things to the son, and not displaying his tender affection but hiding the love he has for his son, you will see that he wishes to deceive the infant; for it is not beneficial for the son to know the love of the father, his friendly disposition; for he would grow slack, and
he will not be disciplined. For this reason he hides the sweetness of his affection but shows the bitterness of his threat. God does something like this, in proportion, as both father and physician. There are certain bitter things which heal even the most righteous and the wisest person . . . for everyone who has sinned must be punished for his sins. "Do not be deceived, God
is not mocked." "Whether fornicator or adulterer or effeminate or one who lies with men or thief or drunkard or reviler or swindler, they will not inherit the kingdom of God." If this is understood and taken with precision by those who cannot see the surgeon's blade beneath the sponge, by those who cannot perceive the bitter medicine beneath the honey, one will lose heart. For which of us
is not conscious in himself of having drunk without restraint and become drunk? Which of us is free from theft and from failing to provide what is needed as one ought? But see what the text says: "Do not be deceived, that these will not inherit the kingdom of God." The mystery in this passage must be kept hidden, so that the majority not lose heart, so that, having learned the facts, one not expect the departure
not as a rest but as a punishment. Or who will be found a Paul, able to say: "For it is better to depart and be with Christ"? My wood must be burned in me. For I know that if I depart, my wood must be burned in me. And I have as wood my reviling words, I have as wood my bouts of drunkenness, as wood my thefts, and countless other pieces of wood I have built
into my building. Do you see that all these things escape the notice of most believers, and rightly so they escape notice? And each of us supposes, since he has not worshipped idols, since he has not fornicated (would that we were pure even in such matters), that once freed from this life he will be saved. Do we not see that "we must all be presented before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive back the things done through the
body, in accordance with what he has practiced, whether good or worthless"? Do we not see the one who said: "But you alone have I known out of all the tribes of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your practices," not some but not others? Since, then, the physician sometimes hides the surgeon's blade beneath the soft and delicate sponge, and
the father likewise hides his affection through the appearance of a threat, and deceptions of one kind remove fatty growths and varicose veins and whatever else harms the body's constitution, while another kind removes lack of discipline and slackness — something of this sort the prophet has perceived God to do, mystically, and he says, having seen how he has been deceived by God
for his good [and he says]: "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived." He led him to so great a favor as to pray and say to God: deceive me, if this is beneficial. For the deception that comes from God is one thing, the deception that comes from the serpent another. See what the woman says to God: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
And the deception that came from the serpent drove Adam and his wife out of the paradise of God; but the deception that happened to the prophet who said, “You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived,” led him to so great a grace of prophecy, to the increase in him of power, to his being made perfect and
being able to serve the will of the word of God without fear of man. Understanding these things, then, let us too pray, both for the present and for the future, to be deceived by God. Only let the serpent not deceive us. And elsewhere something akin to this is written, for it is said in Isaiah: “For the Lord mixed for them a spirit of error.” You will attend
there too to what the spirit of error, mixed by God, does. And it is well said that God did not give the spirit of error unmixed, but, as the prophet named it, he mixed it. (19.) I want to take a risk and give an example of people benefited by being deceived. There are some who for this reason practice chastity and purity, and others who for this reason practice
single marriage, since they expected that whoever had married sexually would perish, that whoever married a second time would perish. Let us compare within ourselves what is more profitable for the once-married woman: to have been deceived and to believe that the twice-married woman is punished and handed over to eternal punishment, so that she herself remains once-married and pure, or to know the truth and marry a second time? I think anyone who looks at what follows can say that it would have been more blessed to remain pure and not
marry a second time without having been deceived, and to see that the twice-married woman too shares in some measure of salvation, yet not in so great a blessedness as she would have had if, though free to marry a second time, she had remained pure. But if this is not possible, it is better to have been deceived, believing that the twice-married perish, and through that deception to remain pure, than to have known the truth and to have ended up in the lesser rank of the twice-married. You will find something similar also in the case of some
who practice chastity and complete purity. Many other things too could be found that are done by us under deception and yet benefit us. But how many who were thought wise, having discovered the truth about punishment and having, as they suppose, seen through the matters of deception, have ended up living a worse life? It would have profited them to think as they had thought before concerning “their worm shall not die” and
that “their fire shall not be quenched,” and that “all flesh will behold them as a spectacle,” and that “the chaff shall be burned up with unquenchable fire.” But if, having imagined something other than their first understanding, they are about to despise the riches of God's kindness and forbearance and patience, see whether it is not truly for this reason - because they no longer thought themselves deceived - that they have stored up
for themselves “wrath for the day of wrath and revelation and righteous judgment of God,” which they would not have stored up if they had been deceived. These things were said on account of the deception that comes from God, since the prophet said, “You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived.” Let us pass on and consider separately the phrase “I was deceived.” Why did he not say only “You deceived me, Lord,” but added also “I was deceived”? It is sometimes possible to conceive
[...] one person working the deception, and another guarding himself against being deceived, and so not being deceived. But when the one works the deceiving, and the other does not guard against being deceived but falls into the deception, he might say: “You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived.” But I, if I found myself in that position, would say something like this about whatever the serpent says to me, even if
he tells me the truth, and even if he wants to deceive me: I am suspicious of his words, persuaded that whether he deceives me or tells the truth, he harms me. For even his truth harms; nothing beneficial comes from the serpent, since “a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” But whatever God tells me, and I am persuaded that it is God who speaks, I am ready
to hand myself over. If he tells the truth, I accept it; if he wants to deceive me, I am willingly deceived — let God alone deceive me. And since I hand myself over, persuaded that the one speaking is God, both to be deceived and not to pry further, wanting to be deceived not by another but by God — for this reason I say that not only did you work the deceiving, but that I too suffered being
deceived by you, and accordingly I say, “You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived.” And what follows from God being the one who deceives and a man being the one deceived? “You overpowered me, and you prevailed.” And having overpowered, he is able. But if he does not overpower, then I have need of labors. “You overpowered me, and you prevailed.” Next after these things he says: “I became—” I used to hear this said about the passage, that Jeremiah lived in
the most sinful of times (indeed, the captivity took place in his own time). And they were so sinful that they would sneer and laugh and mock whenever the prophet spoke the prophetic preface, “Thus says the Lord.” Those who heard would laugh and sneer at what was said. The one who had been deceived, and who benefited from being deceived, refrained from saying “Thus says the Lord.” For this reason he too, wishing
to deceive so as to benefit from the deceiving, would say: “I speak my own words to you, since you will not listen to the words of the Lord.” Then they would offer their ears as though to the words of Jeremiah, and would hear the words of God. This is what the one who handed the passage to me was saying, examining the prefaces and the openings of the prophecies. There is, then, also an opening of Jeremiah’s prophecy
in our tradition, as the Seventy have handed it down, for some reason I do not know: “The word of God that came upon Jeremiah son of Chelkias, of the priests”; but in the Hebrew and in the rest of the editions: “The words of Jeremiah son of Chelkias,” and all agreed in saying: “The words of Jeremiah son of Chelkias.” Why then “the words of Jeremiah”? Because the preface
for him, in speaking to those unwilling to listen, was: “Hear my words.” And we too, at times, do such things, when it seems advantageous to us. Sometimes we bring words to those from the nations, wishing to bring them to the faith, and if we see that they are prejudiced against Christianity and abhor the name and hate to hear that this
is the speech of Christians, we do not pretend to speak the beneficial speech of Christians. But whenever that speech is composed by us to the best of our ability, and we seem to grip the hearer so that he does not hear what is said as if by chance, then we confess that this was the praiseworthy speech of Christians. And we do something similar to the one who no longer says “thus says the LORD” but rather: “Hear the words of me, Jeremiah.”
These things because of “I have become a laughingstock.” And do we grow indignant if ever, when speaking, we are laughed at, when Jeremiah, such a man, says: “I have become a laughingstock; all day long I have continued to be scorned”? Why do I say Jeremiah? Even my Jesus was scorned; for it says, “The Pharisees, being lovers of money, heard all these things, and they scorned him.” But the Lord thoroughly scorns all who scorn the words of God.
“I have become a laughingstock.” See what sorts of lives the prophets lived: at one time being laughed at, at another time endangered and struck down and stoned by the people, killed, hated, driven out; and they suffered and endured all things, so that, in accordance with the will of God, seeking the glory that comes from him alone, proclaiming the word, they might attain the end that comes from God. “All
the day I have continued to be scorned.” He continued the day being scorned. (19,) “For at my bitter word I will laugh.” There is a certain laughter that is a promise, of which promise the patriarch Isaac bears the name; for it is interpreted “Laughter.” That laughter is a promise is clear from “Blessed are those who weep now”; and the promise is “for they shall laugh.” Just as the promise is “they shall be called sons of God,” and “they shall see God,” and “they shall inherit
the earth,” and “theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” so too laughter is a promise; and opposite to that promise, the weeping that is blessed is its counterpart. But you will inquire whether, according to one line of thought or another, the weeping that is blessed accords with this good laughter, while a different weeping, reserved and opposed, is set against those pronounced wretched by the opposite fate. For “woe to those who laugh now, for they shall mourn and
weep”: for the weeping that is blessed is one thing, and the weeping reserved for those who have lived wickedly is another. But whether that latter weeping too has some beneficial end, I do not know. What am I saying? [But whether that latter weeping too has some beneficial end, I do not know.] Hear Paul. Because he taught, he made it his business to grieve his hearers, as he says. And he confesses that he rejoiced most of all at the very time when someone was grieved on his account; for he says: “And
who is it that gladdens me, if not the one who is grieved by me?” And if anyone is capable of moving the soul of a hearer, especially one who has sinned, he prays to speak such words as, delivered with power and marshaled force and divine quality and sacred thoughts, will shake the soul of the hearer and move him to mourning and to weeping and to tears, so that the speaker rejoices
when he sees the audience delighted and filled up at what is said. For where the speech leads to the promises, as “through the narrow and constricted road of grieving, toward life,” it leads through weeping to the laughter that is pronounced blessed. But when it does not achieve this, I fear it may be saying something like: “woe to those who laugh now, for you shall mourn…”
"...and you will weep." Why has this been said to me, except because he wishes to hint that he says, "I will laugh at my bitter word," and to set forth a laughter of weeping, and that weeping which those who laugh here will weep, since God is perhaps working to bring forth weeping in them? For "there" "will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth." And this is what God is working, seeing that the one who weeps over
his own sins, who mourns over his own transgressions, has already come to a perception of his own evils. Would that each of us, for each sin, said: "Every night I will wash my bed, I will drench my couch with my tears." Would that each of us, weeping over his own sins, said: "My tears became my bread by day and
by night." If my word here is somewhat bitter, and bitter because I am afflicted on its account, those who hear are displeased. Those who are reproved, when they find the speaker burdensome - I know that the end of my bitter word is to laugh, and to laugh the laughter of the blessed. And perhaps knowing this the prophet said: "for I will laugh at my bitter word" - already
with "a bitter word," but not yet do I laugh; rather, "I will laugh at my bitter word." (19.) "I will invoke faithlessness and wretchedness." The righteous man invokes God, and the unrighteous man also invokes wisdom; for it says, "it shall be that when you call upon me, I will not listen to you." There indeed are the unrighteous; and the righteous too clearly invoke wisdom at some point: "and everyone who
calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But here the prophet says: "I will invoke faithlessness and wretchedness," as if invoking faithlessness the way one invokes God, and wretchedness the way one invokes the Lord. Is it then a good thing you invoke, Jeremiah, in that you promise, saying, "I will invoke faithlessness and wretchedness"? But one must consider the covenants we make and their breakings, that it is possible at times to make covenants badly; and
after making covenants badly, would that we might then invoke the breaking of them. So too if I consider "the broad and spacious way that leads to destruction," and that in walking on it I do not suffer hardship, then passing over from the "broad and spacious way" and coming to the "narrow and constricted" one, and suffering hardship, I say: "I will invoke wretchedness." I am about to break the covenants made with
the world and worldly affairs, so that I may take up heavenly covenants. "I will invoke faithlessness." And so, leaving behind the "broad and spacious way" and coming to the "narrow and constricted" one, so that I may become wretched like Paul, I say: "I will invoke wretchedness." For not every man will say, "Wretched man that I am! Who shall rescue me out of this body doomed to death?"
But the one who has understood the body of death, who wishes to be delivered from this body of death, will say, "Wretched man that I am." But the one who loves the body, the majority, who disbelieves in the age to come, does not say, "Wretched man that I am," but calls himself blessed, both because he is a man, and because he is in the body of death. If then I am able, having understood,
How Paul said, "Wretched man that I am," not yet having invoked wretchedness — I will invoke it, from setting aside the covenants made for wickedness, and I will say, as Jeremiah did, "I will invoke faithlessness and wretchedness." For he did not say, "I will invoke the faithlessness of God." I want to give an example from Scripture of a righteous person who set aside covenants, so that I may show how that person, by the deed, invoked faithlessness. Judith made a covenant
with Holofernes, that after going out for so many days to pray to God, and after so many days she would give herself to Holofernes' bed. Holofernes accepted these terms. He released Judith outside the camp for her prayers. What was Judith obliged to do — keep the covenant or set it aside? It is agreed that she was to set it aside; for to set aside the covenant made with Holofernes was a blessed thing to do
before God. Judith was about to set aside the covenant made with Holofernes; she was about to say, "I will invoke faithlessness" — and indeed she did invoke faithlessness. Would that I too might become such a person, that I might say, "I will invoke faithlessness," and invoke the faithlessness toward the serpent, toward the devil. Once the serpent made a covenant with Eve, and he was dear to her, and the serpent was dear
to the woman. But God, being good, brought it about that this covenant be dissolved and this evil friendship be broken up, and, as a good God, he says: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed." Let us then listen with gratitude to how God makes enmity toward
this one, so that he may make friendship toward Christ; for it is impossible to be a friend of opposites at the same time. And just as "no one can serve two masters," so no one can be a friend both of God and of mammon, a friend both of Christ and of the serpent. But it is necessary that friendship toward Christ produce enmity toward the serpent, and that friendship
toward the serpent produce enmity toward Christ. "I will invoke faithlessness and wretchedness." But so that you may understand more fully "I will invoke wretchedness," let me describe something that happens among ascetics. Often, when marriage lies within reach and there is no obstacle to it, yet the flesh rises up against the spirit, someone chooses not to make use of the right to marry, but instead to endure wretchedness and toil, to buffet the body with fastings
and to enslave it through abstinence from certain foods, and by every means to bring the body's deeds to death through the spirit. Does not such a person, then, invoke wretchedness, when it was possible to give himself over to luxury and pleasure and not invoke wretchedness? If, then, anyone is able to imitate the prophet, let him invoke faithlessness too, as we have explained, and let him invoke wretchedness in his ascetic labors as well. It happened
that the account concerning Jeremiah was true also in this respect, that he lived in purity as well; for the Lord said to him: "You shall not take a wife, nor shall you beget children." And he lived in purity; for he invoked faithlessness and wretchedness. (19) "Because the word of the Lord became to me a reproach." Blessed is Jeremiah, having no other reproach than the word
...of the Lord. But we wretches bear reproaches not on account of the word of the Lord, but on account of our own sins, and we are reproached for the things in which we stumble and have stumbled, and are reviled for our wicked deeds. But the Savior does not want us to be reproached with reproaches of that kind; rather, let them say, "Blessed are you when they reproach you and persecute you and say every kind of evil word against
you for my sake." "Rejoice on that day and leap for joy." "The word," then, it says, "of the Lord has become for me a reproach and a mockery all the day." Then consider how the prophets are honest men, and do not hide their own sins as we do, and speak not only of the sins of their own time, but of all the generations that have
sinned. I myself hesitate to confess my sins before the few people here, since those listening are about to condemn me. But Jeremiah, though he suffered something sinful, was not ashamed, but recorded his own sin; for what follows was a sin, in the words: "And I said: I will not name the name of the Lord, and I will no longer speak in his name."
You have been taught to "do everything in the name of the Lord," to act in the name of God; but you say, "shall I not name the name of the Lord"? But what name are you going to name instead? "You shall not call to mind the name of other gods in your hearts," and yet you say, "I will not name the name of the Lord, and I will no longer speak in his name"? He speaks, then, having undergone something human, which
we too are often at risk of undergoing. And especially if someone is conscious in himself of having once suffered hardship and affliction and hatred on account of teaching and the word, he often says: I will withdraw — what do I have to do with such affairs? If it is from this that I am even involved in troubles, from teaching, from putting forth the word, why should I not rather withdraw into solitude and quiet? Something of this sort
the prophet too underwent, when he declared: "So I said, I will never again pronounce the Lord's name, nor speak any longer in his name." But in this the Lord is good, who prevents such sins on the part of such great men. He did not allow the prophet to make true what he had said, but even in this made Jeremiah call upon and nullify what had been said as a breach of faith.
For he said: "I will not name the name of the Lord any longer, and I will no longer speak in his name." But "there came to be," he says, "in my heart something like a burning fire, blazing in my bones, and I am utterly undone and I cannot bear it." The word of the Lord came to be a fire burning his heart. "And it
came to be in my heart like a burning fire, blazing in my bones." He cast off the sin which he had committed in saying, "I will not name the name of the Lord, and I will no longer speak in his name," and Jeremiah cast off the sin at the very moment of speaking. Would that I too, at the very moment of sinning and speaking a sinful word, perceived that "there has come to be a fire"
burning and flaming in my heart, so that I am not able to bear it.” The discourse is about to venture something, though I do not know whether it is advantageous for such an audience, and one of this kind. He has said that there is a certain kind of fire, a fire not perceptible to sense, punishing the one being punished with pain so as not to be able
to bear it. For he said: “It became in my heart like a burning fire,” and “flaming,” not only in my heart but also “in my bones, and I am undone on every side, and I am not able to bear it.” I am afraid that what is stored up for us may be of this kind, becoming fire, as it became in the heart of Jeremiah. But we have not suffered this. If we had suffered
this, and the two fires were set before us, this fire and the outer fire which we see upon those being burned by the rulers of the nations, we would have chosen that fire rather than this one. For that fire burns the surface, but this one burns the heart, and beginning from the heart it makes its way through to all the bones, and making its way through to
the bones it comes upon the whole person burning, and it comes in such a way that the one burning cannot bear it. Who, in the case of this fire, can say, “and I am not able to bear it”? I know that even robbers have been able to endure this fire, the pain that comes from this fire. The pain from the fire that Jeremiah described is different, when he says: “And
it became in my heart like a fire burning, flaming in my bones, and I am undone on every side, and I am not able to bear it.” It is that very fire which the Savior kindles, who declared, “Fire is what I came to cast upon the earth.” And since it is that fire the Savior kindles, for this reason, to those who are beginning to hear him, he starts from the fire, casting fire first
upon their heart; which Simon and Cleopas confess, saying concerning his words, “Was not our heart burning within us on the road, as he opened the scriptures to us?” Here the heart burns with fire, both Simon’s and Cleopas’s. Hear them saying, “Was not our heart burning?” 9. Who is now worthy to receive that fire
in the heart, so that he may not receive it there? I want to describe who it is that has this fire in the heart. Describe for me two people who have committed the same sin in kind, the foul, the unclean fornication, and among these two who have fornicated, picture the one who is not grieved nor pained nor stung, but who suffers what is said in Proverbs
concerning the promiscuous woman, “who, whenever she does it, washes herself and says she has done nothing wrong.” Show me the other one, who after the fall cannot bear it, but is punished in conscience, tormented in heart, unable to eat and drink, fasting not by rule but by the anguish of repentance. Describe for me such a one, gloomy the whole day, and worn down, and going about, groaning
...from the groaning of his heart, seeing his sin set before him, continually accusing him to his face. And behold such a man being punished not for one day nor for one night, but for a long time. Which of the two do you prefer? Which do you say has hopes before God? Is it that man who fornicated and gave it no thought, but grew callous, even to the point of handing
himself over to licentiousness, or this man who mourns and laments after a single sin? This man † is of hopes. The more he is burned by the fire of grief, the more he is shown mercy, and there is for him a sufficient time of relief, as much as is given to that other man as a time of punishment, the one who fornicated and grieved. And since for this man the time of punishment here is beneficial, for this reason
[Paul] undertook to punish the man who had fornicated, and when he had punished him with grief and saw that the grief was sufficient, he says: "lest such a man be swallowed up by excessive grief, confirm your love toward him." Let each of us examine his own conscience, and see what he has sinned, since he must be punished. Let him pray to God that this fire which is in Jeremiah come upon him, and then the
fire that came upon Simon and Cleopas come upon him too. But whoever has sinned and given it no thought will be kept for that other fire. "And it became in my heart like a burning fire, blazing in my bones, and I am undone on every side and cannot bear it, for I have heard the reproach of many gathering round about." The blameless, blessed Jeremiah (I say this with the exception of this small sin of his
and whatever other small thing he may have done) was reproached by many. But the reproach he received from the many was, before God, a commendation. For those who reproached him said: "Gather together, and let all of us, his friends, gather together against him; watch his design, and he will be deceived." They wished to deceive him with another, destructive deception, the opposite of the deception about which he said: "You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived."
And these who gather together against him say: "and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him." Those who have been rebuked for their own sins think that they have been wronged, and because they suppose they have been wronged they say: "we shall take our revenge on him." Those who sawed Isaiah in two did something of the same sort; for as though they had been wronged (since the prophecies kept turning them back and punishing
them, rebuking them, censuring them) they sawed him in two and passed a death sentence upon him. But Jeremiah says of these who gathered together against him: "and the Lord is with me like a mighty warrior." If we become the kind of people we ought to be, and welcome that fire coming upon our own sins as it came upon Jeremiah and those like him, the Lord afterward becomes with us "like a mighty
warrior." And "therefore they persecuted, and were not able to understand" [the Jews who persecuted him: "they were greatly ashamed and did not perceive their own dishonor," being dishonored for so long a time they do not speak of their own sins], because the Lord was with the one being persecuted, and one who is persecuted cannot become subject to them. Perhaps, then, just as many things said of Jeremiah are referred to the Savior, this too
Can it be so? For ‘assemble’ and ‘let us assemble against him’ is also said of the Savior. And ‘the Lord’ was with him ‘as a mighty warrior; therefore they pursued him and were not able to understand’ — the Jews who pursued him. ‘They were greatly ashamed and did not perceive their dishonor,’ though dishonored for so long a time they do not speak of their own sins, ‘which will never be forgotten,’ but they suppose
that in this age their lawless deeds will be forgotten. But we see that their lawless deeds will not be forgotten forever, and seeing this we remember the saying, ‘Do not be arrogant, but fear; for if God did not spare the branches that grew by nature, how much more’ will he ‘not spare’ those contrary to nature? ‘The Lord,’ then, ‘of hosts’ is with us, ‘testing what is just, understanding kidneys
and hearts.’ The Lord tests what is just and rejects what is unjust, and he is, if I may put it this way, a money-changer of just and unjust things; and this same Lord also ‘understands kidneys and hearts.’ I ask what difference there is between ‘understanding kidneys and hearts’ and, on the other hand, ‘examining hearts and kidneys.’ He does not examine the hearts and kidneys of everyone, but of those who have sinned; for I am pausing on
the meaning of ‘examining,’ as it is used in this life concerning those who are tortured. In courts of law, some examine and others are examined, and some are also under the heaviest of pains. But he alone has a new manner of examination, for he examines hearts, and to the Lord alone belongs the examining of hearts and kidneys. Here robbers are examined, at the command of a governor, in their
sides; but there it is not at the command of God but by the Lord himself that someone’s kidneys and heart are examined — unless indeed I should say here that the one who is commanded is the Son, and the one who commands is the Father, and the Word is the one who examines hearts and kidneys. And I think that of all torments, of all pains, the heaviest are those that come from the
Word, whenever it examines both hearts and kidneys. Therefore let us do everything possible so that we are not handed over to that examination. I think that those handed over to the ones called torturers in the gospel suffer less than that examination; for they are handed over to many, perhaps at first to more torturers, since they are not yet worthy of being handed over to the one Word who examines hearts and kidneys. That rich man was not yet worthy
of being handed over to the one who examines hearts and kidneys; for this reason he was tormented by many. But whether later he too suffers this or not, let whoever is able examine the question. In any case, what await us are torturers, and the one who examines hearts and kidneys because of our sins; and if we are not swiftly freed from these sins, we shall be among them. Therefore let us rise up and ask for help
from God, that we may be blessed in Christ Jesus, to whom be glory forever. Amen.