Origen · a new plain-English translation from the Greek and Latin
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.