Commentary on Matthew, Book 11

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

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.

← All of Origen: Commentaries & Homilies