Commentary on Matthew, Book 14

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

Origen, from his exegetical works on the Gospel according to Matthew, Book 14. "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them" (18:19[20]). Properly speaking, the term "agreement" (symphonia) is applied in music to the harmony of sounds; and among musicians there are notes that are consonant (symphonoi) with other notes

and others that are dissonant. The gospel writing too knows this term applied to matters of music, in the passage "he heard symphony and choruses." For it was fitting that, at the reconciliation arising from the repentance of the son who had been found again after being lost, a symphony should be heard to mark the household's rejoicing toward the father. But the base Laban does not know the term "symphony,"

where he says to Jacob: "and if you had told me, I would have sent you away with rejoicing and with musical instruments and tambourines and a lyre." Akin to this kind of symphony is what is written in the second book of Kingdoms, when "the brothers" of Aminadab "were going before the ark, and David and the sons of Israel were playing before the Lord on instruments tuned in

strength and songs"; for the instruments tuned "in strength and songs" contained within themselves musical harmony, which has such power that when only two people, along with a request made in accordance with divine and spiritual harmony, bring before the Father in heaven a petition about anything whatsoever, the Father grants the requests to those who agree on earth (which is most paradoxical),

granting what those who have agreed in the aforesaid agreement would ask. Thus I also understand the apostolic saying: "Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer." For since the term "harmony" is applied to those who marry in accordance with God, in the saying so arranged from Proverbs: "a house and possessions fathers apportion

to their children, but from God a wife is harmonized to a husband," it follows that both the term and the deed of harmony from God enjoy the benefit of agreement unto prayer, which is indicated in the phrase "except perhaps by agreement." Then, further explaining that the agreement of two on earth is the same thing as agreeing with Christ, the text adds: "for where

there are two or three gathered together in my name." Therefore those who are gathered together into the name of Christ, two or three, are the ones who agree on earth—not only two, but sometimes also three. But whoever is capable will examine whether this agreement and this kind of gathering, in whose midst Christ is, can be found among a greater number,

since "narrow and constricted is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it." Perhaps, indeed, not even a few, but two or three agree in such agreement, namely Peter, James, and John — to whom, inasmuch as they were of one accord, the Word of God disclosed his own glory. And two agreed, namely Paul and Sosthenes, when they wrote

the first letter to the Corinthians, and afterward Paul together with Timothy, dispatching a second letter to that same church; and three agreed together when "Paul and Silvanus and Timothy" instructed the Thessalonians by letter. But if it will also be necessary to establish from the ancient writings those who agreed on earth as three, so that the word is in their midst uniting them, pay attention to the

superscription of the Psalms, as that of the forty-first has it thus: "To the end; for understanding, for the sons of Korah." For there being three sons of Korah, whose names we found in Exodus - Asher, which is interpreted EDUCATION, and the second, Elkanah, which is rendered POSSESSION OF GOD, and third, Abiasaph, which would be said

in the Greek tongue GATHERING OF THE FATHER - the prophecies were not divided, but as though by one spirit and one voice truly working in harmony in a single soul, so they were both spoken and written, and the three speak, saying, as one: "As the deer longs for the springs of water, so my soul longs for you, O God." And they also speak in the plural,

in the forty-third: "O God, with our own ears we have heard." Yet should you wish to discern still further those who stand in agreement upon the earth, consider those who heard the exhortation: "that with one mind and single judgment you may be made complete," and who were zealous for the saying "the soul and the heart (of all who believed) were one," having become <one>, if indeed it is possible

*** to find such a thing in more people, so that there is not even the slightest disagreement among them, just as the ten chords of that stringed instrument produce no discord one with another. But those did not agree on earth who declared, each one, "Paul is mine," or "Apollos is mine," or "Cephas is mine," or "Christ is mine," but there were "divisions" among them, and when these were dissolved, they were gathered together with

the spirit that was in Paul, "joined to the power of our Lord Jesus," so that they might cease biting and consuming each other, lest they be "consumed by one another"; for disagreement consumes, just as agreement gathers together, and it separates from the midst of those who agree the one who alone becomes the Son of God, present only among the agreeing. And properly speaking, agreement comes about in two general respects: in the (as the

apostle named it) fitting together of the same mind with respect to holding the same doctrines in mind, and in the same judgment with respect to living in like manner. See: "If two of you agree on earth about anything whatsoever they ask, it will be done for them by the Father of Jesus who is in the heavens." And it is clear that where it does not come about from the Father who is in the heavens

concerning anything whatsoever they ask, there not even two have agreed on earth. And this is the cause for us of not being heard when we pray: our not agreeing with one another on earth, neither in doctrines nor in life. Further, since we ourselves make up Christ's body, and "among the members, each within the body, God has appointed a place," so that "the same

...the members might care for one another,' and be in harmony with one another; when a single member is in pain, the rest suffer along with it, while at the glorifying of one, the rest share the joy. We ought to practice the harmony that comes from divine music, so that whenever we come together under the name of Christ, Christ himself may stand among us — God's Word, God's Wisdom, and his Power. These things, then,

...as concerning the two or three whom the passage calls to be in harmony, understood in the more common sense. But let us now also take up another interpretation, which one of those before us used to give, exhorting married people to chastity and purity. For the two whom the passage says the Word wishes to be in harmony upon the earth are to be understood as a man and a woman who, by mutual agreement, deprive one another of bodily intercourse, so that

they may devote themselves 'to prayer,' at a time when, praying about anything they might ask for, they will receive it, the request that comes from such agreement being given to them, through Jesus Christ, by the Father who dwells in heaven. And this interpretation seems to us not to bring about the dissolution of marriage, but to be an exhortation toward harmony — as, if one partner should wish to remain pure but the other should not wish to <or should not be able to>,

and for this reason the one who both wishes and is able to do the better thing should condescend to the one who does not wish or is not able, then both would not have it — that concerning anything they ask, it should come to pass for them from the Father in heaven, through Jesus Christ. But I know also another interpretation, coming after the one concerning married people, regarding the harmony of the

two, of the following kind. In the wicked, 'sin' of the soul 'reigns,' established as on its own throne in this 'mortal body,' so that the soul 'obeys its desires.' But in those who have raised sin, which had previously reigned, up from the throne of the body, so to speak, and struggle against it, 'the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit'

'against the flesh.' But in those who have already been made perfect, the spirit has prevailed and has put to death 'the deeds' 'of the body,' and imparts its own life to the body, so that even this now comes to pass: 'he will give life also to our mortal bodies, because of his Spirit dwelling in us.' And a harmony of the two (body and spirit) comes about upon the earth, and once this has been rightly established,

the prayer too is offered in harmony, from one who 'believes with the heart' 'unto righteousness' and 'confesses with the mouth' 'unto salvation,' with the result that the heart dwells near to God rather than far off, and the righteous person, along with the heart, draws near to God also with lips and mouth ***. And it is yet more blessed if the three should be gathered together in the same place in the name of Jesus,

so that what is written might be fulfilled: 'may God sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless when our Lord Jesus Christ comes.' But someone will ask, because of the harmony just described between spirit and body, whether it is possible for these two to be in harmony without the third also — I mean the soul — or whether it is not

it follows the harmony of these on earth, that once the two have joined together under the name of Christ, the three likewise now come together under his name, and into their midst the Son of God arrives, since all things belong to him (I mean, of the three) and nothing is opposed to him — not only is the spirit not opposed, but

nor is the soul any longer, nor the body. It is also pleasant to practice and understand and set forth the harmony of the two testaments, the one before the Savior's bodily coming and the new one; for in whatever the two testaments agree, so that there is nothing dissonant in them of the one toward the other, in these would prayers be found

as concerning any matter whatsoever they might ask, that it come to pass for them from the Father in heaven. But if you also desire the one who joins the two as a third, do not hesitate to name it the Holy Spirit, for 'the words of the wise' (whether uttered before his coming or during and after it) are 'like goads and like nails planted, which

were given by the collectors of sayings, from one shepherd.' Do not let this pass unnoticed either, that his words were not: wherever two or three should be found gathered, there I will be in their midst, but rather 'there I am' — not delaying nor being slow, but at once, together with the harmony, he himself is found and comes to be in their midst. Then Peter came to him and said: Lord, how many times will my brother sin against

me, and I will forgive him (18:21[22])? To suppose that this was said rather simplistically — by Peter, as though choosing to forgive his brother seven sins committed against him, but no longer an eighth; and by the Savior, as though teaching one to sit and count the sins of one's neighbor against him, so that one forgives the seven and the seventy-

seven, but from the seventy-eighth on no longer forgives the one who has wronged him — seems to me altogether foolish and unworthy both of Peter's progress with Jesus and of Jesus's divine greatness of mind. Perhaps, then, these words too partake of an obscurity akin to ‘Hear my voice, wives of Lamech,’ and what follows. Now the true meaning, then, which Jesus himself

would have made clear concerning these things — if anyone has by now grown into friendship with Jesus, so that his spirit teaches him, illumining the leading faculty of one who has advanced thus far according to merit, such a person would know. But we, who fall short of that friendly greatness toward Jesus, must be content if we can even discourse briefly on the matters at hand. It seems, then, that the

number six is a laborious and toilsome one, while seven contains rest; and observe, if you can, whether one who loves ‘the world’ and does the works of the world and practices material things may be said to sin six times, and that for him the end is sin, whereas one who has grasped Peter's meaning is willing to forgive seven sins committed against him by his brother. But since

The tens and hundreds reckoned by units have a certain common ratio of proportion to the number reckoned in units, but he knew that sins are intensified and increased still further; for this reason, I think, Jesus takes the number seventy along with the number seven, and says that forgiveness must be granted to brothers who have sinned here, in matters pertaining to this present life; but

if someone should sin beyond the measure proper to this world and this age, even if this too should be some small thing, such sin could no longer reasonably be granted release; for release reaches only the affairs of this present life and is rightly granted for sins committed within the affairs of this life, whether the release should come more slowly or more quickly. But there is no forgiveness even for a brother who has sinned beyond

the seventy-seven. You might say that such a one sins either against Peter as a brother, or against that Peter over whom the doors of Hades hold no power. With regard to such sins he is within the lesser number of sin; but with regard to still worse sins he is within the number that has no forgiveness of sins. For this reason I say to you: the kingdom of the heavens

was likened to a man, a king, who wished to settle accounts with his servants (18:23[–35]). The general purport of the parable wishes to teach us to forgive the wrongs done to us by those who wronged us, and especially in a case where, once the wrong has been done, the wrongdoer comes to the one he wronged asking that his earlier offenses be forgiven him. The parable also wishes to teach us this, by setting forth

that even for the sins already forgiven us by God, for which we have received remission, exaction might occur even after the forgiveness, if we do not forgive those who have wronged us their sins, so that not even the slightest memory of having been wronged should any longer be left in us. Rather, with a whole heart benefited by freedom from resentment (no ordinary virtue), we should forgive the one who wronged us

the things wickedly and treacherously done by him against one of us. Now after the general purport of the parable, it is possible also to examine it more simply, word for word, in its entirety, so that the one who progresses by diligently seeking to understand rightly each of the things written above may profit from the testing of what has been said. But there is also, as is likely, a more elevated account, and a certain more mystical one difficult to discern, according to which

one might seek out, by analogy with the parables interpreted by the evangelists, the meaning of each element in this one: for instance, who is the king, and who are the servants, and what is the beginning of the settling of accounts, and who is the one servant who owed ten thousand talents among the many debtors, and who is his wife, and who are his children, and what is the meaning of everything else said besides these, which the

king ordered to be sold, so that the debt might be paid from that man's possessions; and what it means that the one who had been forgiven the many talents went out; and who is the one found among his fellow servants who owed, not to the master of the house, but to the servant who had been forgiven; and what the number of a hundred denarii signifies; and what it means that he choked him, saying, "Pay back what you owe"; and who is the

the prison into which the fellow servant was thrown by the one who had had all his talents forgiven; which fellow servants were the ones grieved, the ones who made clear to their master what had happened; and who were the torturers to whom the man who had thrown his fellow servant into prison was handed over; and how, once handed over to the torturers, he paid back everything owed, so that he no longer owed anything. And it is likely that other points as well

could be brought forward by a more inquisitive treatment of the passage — points whose narration and interpretation I consider too great to be attained "according to man," and needing rather the Spirit of Christ who uttered them, so that they may be understood as Christ meant them. For just as no one "knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man that is within him," and likewise no one knows the things belonging to

God except the Spirit of God, so too, apart from God, no one knows what Christ has spoken in proverbs and in parables, save the Spirit of Christ; and whoever partakes of that Spirit, not only insofar as it is the Spirit of Christ, but also insofar as it is of Christ as wisdom and as word, would be able to contemplate what is revealed to him concerning this passage. But as for

the highest level of exposition, we do not promise it, yet neither do we despair of it, trusting that Christ, the wisdom of God himself, will help us grasp what is signified in the parable. But whether it is the case that such things were even dictated for this scripture as it stands, or not, God, through Christ, might suggest — so as to do what is pleasing to him — provided only that concerning these matters too there be given the "word of wisdom" that is given "through the Spirit,"

and the "word of knowledge" that is supplied "according to the Spirit," from God. "The kingdom" (he says) "was likened" — and so on. But if it was likened to a king who had done such and such things, what must we say except that this is the Son of God? For he himself is the King of the heavens, and just as he himself is Wisdom itself and Righteousness itself and Truth itself, so too, perhaps,

he is also Kingship itself. And this is a kingdom not of anything below, nor of a portion of the realms above, but of the whole of what lies above, all of which have been named heavens. And if you ask how "theirs is the kingdom of the heavens," you may say that Christ is theirs, insofar as he is Kingship itself, reigning according to each conception of himself over the one who is no longer ruled by sin, sin which reigns "in the

mortal body" belonging to those who have made themselves subject to it. And if I say "reigning according to each conception of himself," I mean something of this sort: he reigns as righteousness does, and as wisdom does, and as truth does, and as the remaining virtues do, over the one who has come to be (through bearing "the image of the heavenly one") of heaven and of every power, whether angelic or of the rest that are named, "not only in this

age but also in the age to come" — of the holy and those worthy of such a kingdom. This, then, is the kingdom of the heavens, which, when it came to be "in the likeness of sinful flesh," so that it might condemn "sin, concerning sin," when he "who knew no sin" was made "sin on our behalf" for us who bear the body "of sin" — this kingdom was likened to a man, a king, understood with reference to Jesus, having been united to him,

having more (if one may be so bold as to say it) toward being united and becoming altogether one with the firstborn «of all creation,» if «he who clings to the Lord» is made «one spirit» with him. And this kingdom of heaven, likened to the man understood as king according to the Savior, and united to him, is spoken of proleptically, because he wished to settle accounts with his servants.

<For he has not yet settled accounts>, but he is about to settle accounts with them, so that it may be shown how each one used the master's approved silver and rational coins. And indeed the example in the parable is taken from masters who settle accounts with their own household servants. Yet we shall grasp more exactly what the parable indicates in these matters, if we fix our thinking on the

things that happen among the household servants who have managed their master's money and are required to give an account of it; for each of them, receiving a different sum from the master's funds, has used it either as he ought, so as to increase the master's money, or has spent it wastefully on what he ought not and poured out carelessly, without caution, what was entrusted to him. And there are some who have managed such-and-such sums well,

and lost other sums; and whenever they render the account, the master settling it with them, it is reckoned how much each one lost, and it is also counted how much profit each one brought in, and according to the worth of how he managed it, he is either honored or made to pay a penalty, or in some cases forgiven and in others deprived. Come, then,

let us, on the basis of what has already been stated, turn first to examine the rational currency and the master's tested silver coins, of which some persons receive a greater share and others a smaller one. For according to each one's capacity, one is given «five talents,» being deemed able to manage such an amount, another receives «two,» not having the same capacity as the one before him, and yet another is given «one,» being weaker still than the second.

...are [they], or are these spoken of concerning certain persons in what follows in the gospel, and are there also others besides these? And in other parables some are found: in one there are two debtors, one of five hundred and the other of fifty denarii, either these having been entrusted with them and having managed them badly (being of lesser capacity than the one entrusted with the talent), or *** that these indeed received them,

we have not been told; yet it seems we are taught by the parable that they owed that much. There are also found ten other servants entrusted with a mina each. And if anyone should consider the variety of the human soul and the natural gifts and lack of gifts that differ so greatly from one another, tending toward more virtues or fewer, and toward these virtues or those, perhaps he would come to understand how

each soul has come into this world with some of the householder's coins, which become manifest with the coming to fullness of reason and with the diligence and training that follow upon the fullness of reason—training directed toward what is needful, or diligence and training directed toward other things that are useful (such as the various pursuits), or in some respects useful and in other respects not useful

(such as are opinions neither wholly true nor entirely false). And you will ask, concerning these things, whether all human beings can be called slaves of this king, or whether some are slaves — “whom he foreknew and predestined” — while others are <not slaves but> those who do business with the slaves, called bankers. And you will likewise ask whether there are, apart from the slaves, people from whom, with interest,

the master of the house promises to exact payment — not only those foreign to piety, but also some of the believers. And only the stewards of the word are slaves ***. And when the king settles accounts with the slaves, he also demands payment from those who have borrowed from the slaves, whether they received “a hundred cors of wheat,” or “a hundred baths of oil,” or whatever else — those outside the king's

household. For according to the parable, the one who owes the hundred measures of wheat and the hundred baths of oil is not found to be a fellow slave “of the steward of injustice,” as is clear from “How much do you owe my master?” <and he did not say, “our master”>. Understand me now: every deed resembles, if it is good or fitting, a gain and a profit, while if it is wretched, it resembles

a loss. And just as there is a gain of more money and another of less, and variously of more and less, so too, according to good deeds, there is, as it were, an assessment of gains, greater or lesser, [which] *** belongs to him alone who knows how to examine such things — seeing, from the disposition and the reasoning and the deed and the things that work together

with what is in our power out of what is not in our power — and to calculate which deed is a great gain, which a lesser one, and which the least; and likewise, on the opposite side, which sin, when accounts are settled with the slaves, is found to be a great loss, which a lesser one, and which (if it must be so named) a loss of the last small coin or of the

last quadrans. Of the whole of life, then, and of all of it, an account is settled by the aforesaid kingdom of the heavens (likened to a man who is a king), when “it is necessary for all of us to stand before the tribunal of Christ, so that each may receive back the things done through the body in accordance with what he has done, whether good or worthless.” And then, when the account is settled, there will be brought into the account being settled also “every

careless word that people speak,” and whether anyone ever gave to drink “a cup of cold water, only in a disciple's name.” And these things will happen when what is written in Daniel comes to pass: “the books were opened, and the court sat in judgment.” For there occurs, as it were, a written record of everything spoken and done and thought, and every hidden thing is laid bare by divine power

in us will be made manifest, and everything covered will be uncovered, so that if someone is not found to have “made an effort to be released” from his adversary, he will travel, by way of the ruler, the judge, and the officer, to prison, until he pays back the last small coin; but if he has “made an effort to be released” from him and “owes nothing to anyone,” and has already made the mina yield tenfold or fivefold, or the “five

doubling the talents, or making the two into four, might obtain the fitting reward, entering into ‘the joy of his lord,’ or hearing, while being appointed ruler ‘over all his possessions,’ ‘Be one having authority over ten cities,’ or ‘Be one having authority over five cities.’ But let us not suppose that these things require a long time, so that the account concerning all the times

of life here might be gathered for us — as if one should suppose that, since the king is settling accounts with each of so many servants, the matters require so much time, until the things from the beginning of the world to the completion of the age come to their end, not of one age but of several ages ***. Yet that is not how matters truly stand. For God, wishing all at once, having

to fan into flame in the memories of all — so that each might perceive, better or worse, what has been done by himself — everything that has happened to each throughout the whole time, would do by an ineffable power. For it is not as we, when wishing to bring something to remembrance, need a lasting time for the recounting of what we say and for bringing to memory those things we wish to remind of, that

God, wishing to remind us of the things done in this life, so that, perceiving what we have done, we might grasp for what reasons we are punished or honored, would do it. And if anyone disbelieves the swiftness of God’s power in these matters, this person has not yet understood the God who made all things without needing periods of time to make so great a creation of heaven and earth and

of all the things in them. For even if he seems to have fashioned these things across six days, understanding is needed to grasp how it is said ‘in six days,’ for this reason: the text reads, ‘Such is the record of the origin of heaven and earth,’ and so on. One must therefore be bold and say that the time of the expected judgment does not need periods of time, but, just as the resurrection is said to occur ‘in an instant,’

‘in the twinkling of an eye,’ so too, I think, is the judgment. After this must be discussed the passage: ‘And when he had begun to settle accounts, one debtor of many talents was brought to him.’ This seems to me to have the following sense: the ‘time for the judgment to begin’ is that which begins ‘from the house of God,’ as it is said — as is also written in Ezekiel — to the angels appointed over

the punishments: ‘Begin from my holy ones’ — and these resemble ‘the twinkling of an eye’; but the settling of accounts has its beginning, taken conceptually (for we have not forgotten what was said before), from those who owe the most. For this reason it is not written ‘while he was settling accounts,’ but it says instead that once he had begun to settle accounts, a certain man was brought before him — at the very outset of his reckoning — one

debtor of many talents, as one who had incurred countless losses and had great things entrusted and committed to him, yet brought no profit to his master, but incurred countless losses, with the result that he was in debt for many talents. It may be that his debt of many talents arose because he had often followed after the woman seated on the talent of lead, whose name is Lawlessness. Understand this according to the passage

each of these is the greatest sin, a penalty of talents belonging to the master of a household, and such are the sins committed by fornicators, adulterers, men who lie with men, the effeminate, idolaters, murderers. So perhaps nothing is small, but the single debtor brought before the king, owing many talents, had sinned in everything great and grievous — and if you go searching for him among men, you would perhaps discover him to be the man of sin himself, destruction's own son, the one who opposes and

exalts himself “above every god or object of worship”; yet if the search must range beyond mankind, who could this be but the devil, who has destroyed as many men, receiving him at work in them in sin, as there are talents? “For a man is great, and a merciful man is precious,” precious as being worth a talent, either of gold (such as the golden lampstand weighing a talent was) or of silver, or of whatever

material is taken in a spiritual sense. As symbols this is recorded in Chronicles, where David is enriched with many talents, the number of which is also given — a stated quantity of talents of gold, a stated quantity of silver, and the rest of the material named there, out of which the temple of God was built. Yet this man, having nothing with which to repay the talents (for he had lost them), possesses a spouse, offspring, and other property

concerning which it stands written: “all that he has.” It was possible, then, by his being sold together with what is his, for him to come into means, the one who bought him having paid off, through the price paid for him and for his own, the whole debt — so runs the text, that everything he owns be sold — and he could no longer be a slave of the king, but would become the slave of the one who bought him. And indeed he lays claim to remaining, without being sold, together with his own

in the house of the king; therefore, falling down, he worships him (knowing the king to be God) and says: “Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything”; for it was likely, being also a man of action, seeing that he was able, by a second round of dealings, to make up whatever was lacking from the earlier loss of the many talents. And this good king was moved with compassion also toward the debtor

of the many talents, and at that point released him, granting him more than the favor he had asked to be deemed worthy of. For the debtor had promised the master, who had shown him patience, to repay all his debts; but the lord, who was moved with compassion toward him (not on condition of receiving payment as a result of his patience), at that point not only released him, but released him completely, and forgave him the whole debt.

But this wicked servant, though he himself had asked patience of the master concerning the many talents, acted without mercy. For finding a fellow servant of his who was in debt to him for a hundred denarii, he seized him and began choking him, saying, “Pay back what you owe” — and how did he not display an extreme of wickedness, seizing his fellow servant over a hundred denarii and choking him and depriving him of the freedom to breathe,

when he himself, in the matter of the many talents, was neither seized nor choked, but was first ordered to be sold together with his wife and children and his own, and later (after he had worshiped) was released when the lord was moved with compassion toward him, and was forgiven the whole debt entirely? And indeed it is a task to say, in keeping with the intention of Jesus, who is * * * the one found

a fellow slave who owed, not to his own lord, but to the one owing many talents, a hundred denarii — and who were the fellow slaves who saw the one choking [him] and the other being choked, and were greatly grieved and clearly reported to their own lord everything that had happened. Now as to how the matter truly stands, I declare that no one is able to explain it except Jesus, who "to his own

disciples, privately, explained everything," who set his mark upon the governing faculty and opened, in the parable, all the treasures that are dark, hidden, and invisible, and who, through clear proofs, gives full assurance to whomever he wishes to illuminate with the light of knowledge of everything pertaining to this parable — so that he might at once show who is the one debtor brought before the king who is a man, owing many talents, and so on, and who is the

one who owes this man the hundred denarii, another single person, and the rest — whether it is possible for him to be the "man of sin" spoken of earlier, or else the devil, and if not either of these two, someone else again, either a man or one of those under the devil's power. For it is also a work of the wisdom of God, concerning the things done, or made, in their own way, according to such

qualities — whether among invisible powers or among certain men — to render, in whatever way, what has been prophesied and recorded by the divine Spirit. But since we have not yet attained a sufficient understanding capable of being mingled with the mind of Christ, of reaching as far as such great matters, and of searching out, together with the Spirit, "all things, even the depths of God," we think — still forming an indefinite impression concerning the matters at

hand — that the parable points to one particular wicked servant, the one presented here as owing the many talents. But it is worth examining when the king, who is a man, according to the parable, wished to settle accounts with his servants, and to what time the things said ought to be referred. For if [it is referred] to after the consummation, or to it itself

(according to the time of the expected judgment), how could one preserve the account concerning the one who owed a hundred denarii and was being choked by the man to whom the many talents had been remitted? Yet if the setting is prior to the judgment, how could one show that, before that judgment, an accounting settled by the king who is a man with his servants applies to the sense of every parable whose narrative has not been recorded

by the evangelists — that Jesus also "explained everything to his own disciples privately," and that for this reason those who wrote the gospels concealed the clarity of the parables, since the things signified in them were greater than the nature of writing could bear. And indeed the solution and clarity of each such parable was such that not even "the world itself could contain"

what is written of such parables, "the books." But may a heart be found that is fit, and through its purity capable of containing the writings of the clarity of the parables, so that upon it may be written "the Spirit of the living God." But someone will say that perhaps we act impiously, we who wish — because of the secret and mystical character of certain things — that these letters signify things above them, and who attempt to clarify them, even though it may seem

...on the hypothesis that we have carefully grasped their intention. But it must also be said in response to this that those who have apprehended these things with precision know what they must do; but we, who confess that we fall short of being able to reach the depth of what is indicated in these things, even if we do attain some briefer understanding, to a certain degree, of the matters at hand, will say that some things,

which we think we have found through much toil and inquiry, be it through God's grace or through the strength of the mind that is in us, we do not dare entrust to writing. But some things we set forth, to a certain degree, for the sake of our own exercise and for the benefit of those who will read them. But let this serve as our defense on account of the depth of the parable. As for when the king who is the man of the parable wished to settle accounts with

his servants, we shall say that this appears to concern what has been proclaimed. Two passages establish this: one parable found near the close of the gospel now before us, the other drawn from the Gospel according to Luke. And so as not to lengthen our discussion by setting out the wording itself, since anyone who wishes may take it from the scripture itself, we shall say that the parable according to Matthew

shows that "like a man going abroad, he called his own servants and handed over to them his possessions," giving to one five, to another two, to another one talent. Then those servants did as they did with what had been entrusted to them; a long while afterward the master of those servants returns, and it is written in these very words that "he settles accounts with them." And

consider, then, what it says: "and he settles accounts with them," and compare it with "and when he began to settle accounts," and observe that he named as the householder's going abroad the period during which "we, while present in the body, are absent from the Lord," but named as his arrival the moment when "the master of those servants returns after a considerable time" — the moment of the judgment at the consummation,

the season. For once a considerable time had passed, "the master of those servants returns and settles accounts with them," and what follows takes place. But the parable in Luke presents it more clearly: a nobleman journeyed "to a distant country in order to obtain a kingdom for himself and then return," and before departing he called ten servants and "gave them ten minas, telling them, Trade with this until I return." This

nobleman, then, was despised by his own countrymen, who dispatched "envoys behind him" since they refused to have him rule over them; yet he came back having obtained "the kingdom, and gave orders that his servants, those to whom he had entrusted the silver, be summoned before him, so that he could learn what profit each had made through trading." Seeing what they had accomplished, he praised the one who had turned the mina into ten minas, saying, "Well done, good servant,

because you have been faithful in a very small thing," he gives him authority over it. And to another, who had multiplied the mina fivefold, he withheld the identical praise given earlier and likewise did not name the extent of authority as he had fixed for that former servant, but instead said to him: "And you" — and to the one who had kept the mina wrapped in a cloth he said, "Out of your own mouth I will judge you, wicked servant," "and"

he said to those standing by: 'Take the mina away from him and give it to the one who holds the ten minas.' Who, then, would deny, regarding this parable too, that the nobleman who journeyed 'to a distant country to obtain a kingdom for himself and return' represents Christ, as one going abroad, so to speak, to receive the kingdom of the world and of those within it, and

those who received the ten minas are the ones entrusted to administer the account which they were entrusted with, while his citizens (he having taken up citizenship in this world by having become man), who were unwilling for him to reign as king — perhaps this is Israel, which did not believe in him, and perhaps also the nations that revolted from him? But I have said these things because I refer his return to his coming with the

kingdom to the consummation, when 'he said that the servants to whom he knew what they had transacted should be called to him,' and because I wish from this to demonstrate also concerning the parable of the talents, that also the phrase 'he who wished to settle accounts with his servants' refers to the consummation, when he is already king, receiving back the kingdom, on account of

which (according to another parable) 'he journeyed to a distant land, there to obtain a kingdom for himself before returning.' Having returned, then, and having received 'the kingdom,' he wished to settle accounts with his servants; and as he set about the settling, one debtor owing many talents was brought before him — brought before him as before a king, by his appointed ministers, angels I suppose. And perhaps he is one of those under the kingdom

who was entrusted with some great stewardship and did not administer it well, but squandered what had been placed in his charge, until he owed, as a debtor, the many talents he had lost. This man, then, having nothing to offer in repayment, receives the king's command that he be sold, his wife with him, she by whom he became, in partnership with her, father of certain children. It is no ordinary task to see, among intelligible realities, a father and a mother

and children. As to the truth, then, God would know what this work is that he intends; and as for us, whether he himself has granted it or not, let the one who is able judge. But we understand something of this sort with regard to this passage: just as the Jerusalem above is mother of Paul and of those like him, so there would be a mother of others, analogous to Jerusalem as mother — for instance

Syene of Egypt, or Memphis, and to others Tyre and Sidon, or as many cities as have been named in the scriptures. Then, just as Jerusalem is a bride adorned 'for her husband,' Christ, so those mothers would be, as it were, wives or brides of certain powers allotted to them. And just as Jerusalem, as mother, and Christ, as father, have certain children,

so too would Syene, Memphis, Tyre, or Sidon, along with the officials appointed over them, each be as children under their fathers. The debtor of many talents to the man who is king has, as we have explained, a wife and children; these the king at first ordered sold, ordered them sold, and all his possessions along with them, but afterward, moved with compassion, released him and all

he forgave him the debt — not because he was ignorant of what was to come, but so that we might learn what had taken place; thus it is recorded that he acted. Each, then, of those possessing, as we have explained, a wife and children, will render account whenever the king sets out to settle accounts, taking the ruler of Syene, Memphis, or Tyre — and each of them holds office as ruler of some place, whether Syene or Memphis or Tyre or

Sidon or some similar place — and the debtors. This man, then, having been released and forgiven the whole debt, upon leaving the king's presence came across one of his fellow servants, and so on. And it was for this reason, I think, that he choked him, since he had already left the king's presence; for had he not gone out, he would not have choked his fellow servant. Then observe the precision of the scripture, how the one

one, falling down, did homage, while the other, falling down, did not do homage but pleaded. And the king, moved with compassion, set him free and cancelled the entire debt on his behalf, but the servant was not willing even to show mercy to his fellow servant. And that one, even before the forgiveness, had ordered him to be sold, along with all he had, while the one who had been forgiven threw him into prison. And observe

that the fellow servants did not slander him or merely speak, but made the matter clear — that they did not call him “wicked” at the outset in the matter of the money, but reserved that word for later, concerning the fellow servant. Observe too the moderation of the king. He did not say, “You did homage to me,” but, “You pleaded with me,” and he no longer ordered him to be sold along with all he had, but handed him over to the torturers, to suffer the worse on account of his wickedness.

Who, then, might these be but those appointed over punishments? At the same time, take note, for the sake of those from the heresies who make use of this parable, that supposing they charge the Creator with being irascible on account of the words that display the wrath of God, they ought likewise to accuse this king, since in anger he handed the debtor over to the torturers. Further, it must be said to those unwilling to have

anyone handed over by Jesus to the torturers: explain to us, you people, who is the king who hands the wicked servant over to the torturers? And let them also attend to the words, “So also will my heavenly Father do to you.” To these same people it might even more fittingly be said, in connection with the parable of the ten minas, that the Son of the good God

said, “But as for those enemies of mine who did not want me [to reign over them]…” and so on. The conclusion of the parable, however, fits even the simpler readers as well. For we are all alike taught that we shall suffer the same fate as the one who, having been forgiven yet not forgiving his fellow servant, was punished — we who have received forgiveness of sins and do not forgive our brothers. “And so it came to pass that, once Jesus had brought these sayings to a close” (19:1–2), he who

goes through each of the problems set before him completely, so as to leave nothing in them lacking — such a one finishes his own words. But one might declare this yet more boldly by attending more carefully to every reading of the old and new covenant. For if the phrase “he finished these words” is set down of no one else — neither Moses nor any of the prophets — but of Jesus alone, then one might venture…

One might say that Jesus alone brought the words to completion, since he came to set a completion upon the matters and to fill up what was lacking in the law through "it was said to the ancients" and what follows. And once more: "so that what was spoken by the prophets might find its fulfillment." But if it is also written somewhere in those prophets, one might then examine together the words completed by them and the words completed by the

Savior, so as to find the difference between them, though even there one might inquire whether "he completed" is applied to the sayings given by way of oracle, or to the sayings of Moses or of one of the prophets, or to both together. For a careful observation would suggest the grandest concepts to persons skilled at setting "spiritual things" side by side "with spiritual," who accordingly speak "not in words taught by human wisdom,

but in those taught by the Spirit." But someone else, hearing "he completed" in a more curious way, taking it as applied to the more mystical matters — inasmuch as one person "handed down to his subjects mysteries and rites" not in a praiseworthy way, while another hands the mysteries of God down to worthy recipients, along with rites suited to such mysteries — might say that he performed a rite, initiating them, a rite through which the words proved themselves powerful, so that "the gospel" was proclaimed

of Jesus "in the whole world" and prevailed, through the divine rite, over every soul the Father draws toward the Son, in keeping with what the Savior said: "No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." And for this reason too the word of those who bring the gospel by the grace of God

and whose "preaching" of the gospel came about "not in persuasiveness" of "words" of wisdom, "but in a demonstration involving spirit and power" — by these the words of the teaching of Jesus were brought to completion. You, then, will observe how often "he completed" is said, and in reference to what. You will take as an example what is said concerning the beatitudes and the whole teaching, after which it is added: "And it came to pass, when

Jesus had finished these words, all the crowds were astonished at his teaching." And now too "Jesus finished these words" is applied, in the nearest sense, to the most mystical parable, in which "heaven's kingdom was likened to a man, a king, who wished to settle accounts with his servants," and further, above this parable, to what is recorded before it.

Only, once Jesus had brought these sayings to their end, having uttered them in Galilee near Capernaum, he then moved on from that place and arrived at the territory of Judea, a region distinct from Galilee. And he arrived at the frontier of Judea, not its central parts, but so to speak its farthest edges; and there great crowds accompanied him,

whom he healed there, at those very borders of Judea beyond the Jordan, where baptism was given to people. You will observe the difference between crowds who merely tagged along, on the one hand, and Peter, on the other, along with the rest who abandoned everything to become his followers, and Matthew as well, who, as it says, "got up and went after him." It was not mere following — rather he "got up"; for that phrase "got up" carries great weight. There are, then, always some who are like crowds

many follow, neither having risen up to follow nor having left all their former things; but few are those who rise up and, <having left all things,> follow — who will also sit “in the regeneration” “upon twelve thrones.” Still, should anyone desire healing, let that person become a follower of Jesus. After this it is written that the Pharisees came to him, testing him and saying: ‘Is it lawful

for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ (Mark recorded the equivalent as well) (19:3–12). So then, among those who approached and questioned Jesus there were some who were testing him as they questioned; and when our Savior, great as he is, was being tested, which of his disciples, appointed as he is to teaching, would be indignant at being tested by some who were inquiring not out of

a love of learning, but out of a wish to test? You would find many instances, were you to gather them together, in which our Jesus was tested by the Pharisees and by others besides them (such as a certain lawyer, and perhaps scribes too); gathering into one place the accounts concerning those who tested him, you would find something [the accounts concerning those who tested

him] useful, on examination, for understanding the character of these sayings. Yet the Savior answers even those who test him with teachings <of piety>; for their question was: ‘May a man send his wife away on any pretext whatsoever?’ But in reply he said: ‘Have you never read that the one who fashioned them at the outset formed them male and female?’ and so on. And

I think that the Pharisees raised this very question in the hope of catching him out, no matter what he answered. For example, had his reply been ‘It is permitted,’ they would have charged him with sanctioning divorce for any petty reason; but had it been ‘It is not permitted,’ they would have charged him with allowing a man to remain joined to a woman even in sin. <But they did not see in what way he would answer them blamelessly and wisely,>

as in the case of the census tax. For if he had said to pay it, they would have accused him of putting <God's people under human rule, treating them as though subject> to Rome rather than to God's law; but if he told them not to pay, of stirring up war and sedition, and rousing those who were unable to stand against so great an army. [But they did not see in what

way he would answer them blamelessly and wisely.] <But see how blamelessly he answered:> first, by denying that a wife may be divorced for any cause, and second, by responding on the matter of the certificate of divorce *** . For he saw that not every cause dissolves a marriage rightly, and that a husband ought to live with his wife “giving honor to her as to the weaker

vessel," and bearing her "burdens" in her failings. And he shames the Pharisees, who boasted in the writings of Moses, by appealing to what stands written in Genesis, saying, 'Have you not read this: that the creator, from the beginning, fashioned them male and female?' and so on, adding for their sake, on this account, that 'the two shall become

one flesh, in keeping with the teaching that leads to one flesh, so that they are no longer two but one flesh. This is meant to make a man ashamed to divorce his wife for every cause, and also the saying, "what God has joined together, let no man separate." One must observe, however, in the way the Gospel sets out the sayings from Genesis, that

the things are not stated in the order in which they were written. And I think, moreover, that they are not even spoken about the same persons - those made according to the image of God, and those made from the dust of the earth and from a single rib taken from Adam. For where it says, "male and female he made them," this concerns those made according to the image; but where it also says, "for this reason

a man shall leave his father and his mother," and what follows, this is not about those made according to the image; for it was later, at some point after those, that "the Lord God shaped the man, drawing dust up from the ground," and from his rib the helper. At the same time, note that in the case of those made according to the image, it does not say "man and woman," but

"male and female." We have observed this in the Hebrew as well: man is denoted by the word IS, but male by ZACHAR; and woman, on the other hand, by the word ESSA, while female is rendered by OUNKEBA. It is not "man," but rather those who differ are, on the one side, male, and on the other, female. But also, if a man leaves father and mother, he clings not

not to the female but to the woman who belongs to him, and (since man and woman come to be one flesh) they are made into a single flesh - ISSA. Then, describing what ought to characterize those joined together by God, in a manner worthy of having been joined by God, the Savior adds, "so that they are no longer two." And wherever there is concord and harmony and agreement of husband toward wife <and of wife

toward husband>, the one as ruler and the other as obedient to the saying, "he will have mastery over you," it is truly possible to say of such couples, "they are no longer two." Then, since it was necessary that the one joined to the Lord should preserve the fact that he becomes "one spirit" with him, it is said of those joined together by God, after "so that they are no longer two," the words "but one flesh."

And it is God who has joined the two into one, so that they are no longer two - MEIS, ISSA, MEIS, ISSA - <where> "from the Lord a wife is fitted for a husband." And since it is God who has joined them together, for this reason there is a gift of grace among those joined together by God, which Paul, knowing this, says is a gift of grace in the same way that pure celibacy is a gift of grace, and marriage according to God's own reasoning is likewise a gift of grace,

when he says, "I want all men to be as I myself am, but each has his own gift from God, one in this way, another in that." And those joined together by God both think and do what is said: "husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church." The Savior, then, commanded that what God has joined together,

let no man separate; but a man wishes to separate what God has joined together, when, having departed from sound faith, giving heed to spirits of deceit and teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of liars whose own conscience has been branded, who forbid not only fornication but also marrying, he dissolves even those who have already, by providence, been joined together by God. These things, then, let it be said while the precepts about male and female, man and woman, are kept, as the Savior taught in his answer to the Pharisees.

Since the apostle understands "into Christ" and "the church" in the statement "and the two shall become one flesh," it must be said that Christ did not divorce his former wife (so to call her, so to speak)—the former synagogue—for some other reason,

while keeping the rule that what God has joined together, let no man separate, except when that woman committed fornication, was turned into an adulteress by the wicked one, plotted together with him against her husband, and killed him by crying out, "Take such a one away from off the earth," and, "Crucify, crucify him!" That woman, then, put herself away rather than the husband sending her away and divorcing her; and so, reproaching

her for having fallen away from him, he says in Isaiah: "What is this bill of divorce of your mother, with which I sent her away?" And indeed he who from the beginning created the one made according to the image—being "in the form of God"—fashioned him as male and the church as female, bestowing the same image as a shared gift on both. And it is on the church's account, then, that the Lord as husband left the one to whom

he was father when he existed "in the form of God," and he left also his mother, being himself a son of the Jerusalem above, and he clung to his wife who had collapsed down here, and the two here became a single flesh; for on her account he too became flesh, when "the Word was made flesh and made his dwelling among us," and they are no longer two,

but now they are indeed one flesh, since to the woman—the church—it is said, "You are the body of Christ and members individually"; for there exists no body of Christ separate and apart from the church, called "body" of him "and members individually." And indeed it was God who united these, not two, but ones become one flesh, commanding that a man

should not sever the church from the Lord. And whoever gives heed to himself so as not to be cut off from Christ has confidence that he will never be cut off, and declares, "Who will part us from the love of Christ?" Here, then, it is written, addressed to the Pharisees, that what God has joined together, let no man separate; but it could be said to those better than the Pharisees:

what God has joined together, let nothing separate—neither rule nor authority; for stronger than all things anyone could name or conceive is the God who joined them together. After this we shall take up the argument the Pharisees put to Jesus: why, then, did Moses instruct that a certificate of divorce be given and the wife sent away? And fittingly for this purpose we shall bring in the wording from Deuteronomy concerning

of the book of divorce, which runs thus: ‘And if a man takes a wife and dwells with her, and it comes about that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has discovered in her something improper’, and so on down to ‘and you shall not defile the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.’ Now I inquire, in the matters pertaining to this law,

whether nothing beyond the letter needs to be sought in it (since it was not God who gave it), or whether it was said out of necessity to the Pharisees—who had used the words ‘Moses commanded to give a bill of divorce and to send her away’—the statement that Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. But if someone should ascend to the

gospel of Christ Jesus, teaching that ‘the law is spiritual’, will likewise search out the spiritual meaning of this law. And whoever wishes to interpret it tropologically will say this as well: just as it was said by Paul, speaking with the confidence he had by the divine grace he possessed, ‘a woman is bound for as long as her husband lives; but if the husband falls asleep, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, only

in the Lord. But she is more blessed if she remains as she is, in my judgment; and I think that I too have the Spirit of God’ (for in these words, by saying ‘in my judgment’, so that it might not be despised as empty of the Spirit of God, he rightly added, ‘I think that I too have the Spirit of God’)—so too for Moses, on account of the authority given to him to legislate, so that he also, with a view to the

hardness of heart of the people, permitted certain things, among which was also the divorcing of wives, one ought to be persuaded that, in the matters concerning which he legislated according to his own judgment, in these too, God's Spirit was likewise present in the giving of the law. And he will say this: if one law be spiritual, while another is not of that kind, yet since this too is a law, it too must be spiritual

and this one too, and its spiritual sense must be sought. Now recalling what we said above concerning the saying of Isaiah about the book of divorce, we shall say that Christ's mother, the people, withdrew herself from her husband, without having received the book of divorce. But later, when ‘an unseemly matter’ was found in her and she did not find ‘favor before him’, there was written

for her a book of divorce. Calling into his house one from the nations, in place of the former wife he had cast off, he gave the book of divorce to the former woman who had departed from the law and word of her husband. Therefore he too, having departed—if I may call it so—married another, having put into the hands of the former woman the book of divorce; wherefore they can no longer perform the things

enjoined upon them according to the law, because of the book of divorce. And a sign that she has received a book of divorce is that Jerusalem has been destroyed, together with what they called the sanctuary and the venerable things believed to have taken place in it, and the altar of burnt offerings and the whole of the worship connected with it. And a sign of the book of divorce is also the fact that they neither keep festival

them to be able even according to the letter, since the intent of the law commanded them to keep the feast ‘in the place which the Lord God shall choose.’ But also the fact that the whole assembly cannot stone those who have sinned in this way or that, and countless other things among what was commanded, is a sign of the book of divorce, and that ‘there is no longer a prophet,’

still. For (he says) the Lord took away ‘from Judea, and from Jerusalem too, in the words Isaiah used, the mighty man and the mighty woman, the giant and the strong man’ and the rest, down to the intelligent hearer. Now it is possible, first, that Christ took the synagogue as a wife and dwelt with her, but afterward did not find that woman ‘finding favor before him’; and the reason for not

finding ‘favor before him’ was that ‘an indecent matter’ was found in her. For what is more indecent than this: when it was proposed to release one man at the feast, that they should have deemed it right to release for them Barabbas the robber, and to condemn Jesus? And what is more indecent than that all should have said of him, ‘Crucify, crucify him,’ and ‘Take such a man away from the earth’? And how would it not be indecent

also the saying, ‘Let his blood come upon us, and upon our children as well’? For this reason, as vengeance was taken on his behalf, Jerusalem was surrounded ‘by armies,’ and ‘her desolation’ came upon her, and ‘their house’ was left to them, and ‘the daughter of Zion’ was left abandoned ‘like a hut in a vineyard, and like a watchman’s shelter in a cucumber field, and like a besieged city.’ At the same time (I suppose),

to the former wife the husband wrote ‘a bill of divorce,’ placed it in her hands, and sent her out of his house, while for the one from the nations the handwriting has been wiped out; concerning which the apostle says, ‘erasing the record of debt expressed in decrees that stood against us, he removed it from our midst, fastening it to the cross.’ And

Paul indeed, with regard to the one from the nations *** they became proselytes of Israel. The former wife, then, went out — she who did not ‘find favor before’ her husband because ‘an indecent matter’ was found in her — from ‘the house’ of her husband, and ‘having gone away’ became wife ‘to another man’ to whom she attached herself, whether one should call Barabbas the robber the husband (understood figuratively as the devil),

or some evil power. And for some in that assembly the first thing written in the law came to pass, and for others the second; for the last husband hated the wife, ‘and shall write her,’ at some point at the end of affairs, ‘a bill of divorce’ (God arranging this) ‘and shall put it into her hands and shall send her away from his

house.’ For just as the good God ‘placed’ ‘hostility’ midway ‘between the serpent and the woman, and midway between her seed’ ‘and his seed,’ so too he arranges that ‘the husband who comes last shall hate her.’ But there are those for whom it has happened that the husband dwells with them without hating them, by their remaining in the house of the

...of the last man, and he too takes their assembled wife for himself. But even in their case the last husband dies as well — perhaps at the time when "the last enemy, death, is abolished, which is Christ's." But whichever of these should happen, whether the former or the latter husband to the woman, it says that the earlier husband, having dismissed her, will not have the power, upon returning, "to take her to be his

wife for himself after she has been defiled, because it is," it says, "an abomination before the Lord your God." But this will seem not to correspond with "if Israel shall be saved." Consider, however, whether it can also be said with reference to this passage that assuredly, if she is to be saved, it will be by her former husband's returning and "taking her to be his wife again after she has been defiled" that she will be saved.

she will be saved. A priest, then, "will not take" for himself a wife who is "a prostitute" or "one who has been cast out," but someone else, not being prevented (as one of lesser rank than the priest) from doing such a thing. But if you are inquiring about the calling of the nations under the term "prostitute," you will make use of the text, "take for yourself a wife of whoredom, and children of whoredom," and what follows. For just as "the priests in the temple

who profane the Sabbath are guiltless," so too the one who, at the proper time, takes a wife of whoredom, casting out the former wife, is guiltless, having done this in accordance with the command of him who said (when it was necessary, and for as long as it was fitting) that "he will not take a wife who is a prostitute," and who said (when it was fitting) "take for yourself a wife of whoredom." For just as it is written that the Sabbath finds its master in the Son of Man

and not a slave to the Sabbath as ordinary folk are, so too he who gave the law rules over it, being free both to give it "until the season of correction" and to alter that law; and once the season of correction has arrived, he is likewise free to grant, in place of the earlier path and the earlier heart, "a different path and a different heart," "in a season that is welcome" "and on a day of deliverance." Let this much, then, be said by way of narrative exposition concerning the law of the bill of divorce.

One might inquire, moreover, whether the human soul can figuratively be called "wife," and the angel who presides over it and rules it (toward whom "her conduct" is directed, since he has dominion over her) can be called "husband," so that on this reckoning each soul that is worthy of the oversight of a divine angel lawfully dwells with him. It might happen

also, even after a lengthy period of dwelling together, that causes arise in the soul such that she no longer finds "favor before" the angel who rules and governs her, on the ground that "an unseemly matter" is found in her, and there could be written, as certificates of debt are written, a "bill of divorce," which is written and given "into the hands" of her who is being cast out, so that she who is being sent out "from his house" might no longer belong to her

former guardian. And it might happen that she who has "departed" from her former house, on becoming the wife of "another" man, might fare badly with him too, not only in that, as with the former, she does not find "favor" before him because "an unseemly matter" is found in her, but also in being hated by him. And a "bill of divorce" might be written for her by this second husband as well.

And it might be given 'into her hands' by the last husband, the one sending her away: one might, boldly indeed yet nonetheless, inquire whether a transition of the life of angels who dwell with men can occur, such that their death too (so far as it concerns their relation to us) is of this kind. But however it may come about, she who has once fallen away from a former husband will not return to him; for 'not'

'will the former husband, the one who sent her away, be able, having returned, to take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled.' And if, venturing boldly, one must also draw support for such a matter from a certain writing that circulates in the churches but is not acknowledged by all to be divine, one might take what is said in the Shepherd concerning certain persons

in the Shepherd, concerning certain persons who, at the very moment of believing, come to be under Michael, but who, through love of pleasure, fall away from him and come to be under the angel of luxury, then under the angel of punishment, and after him under the angel of repentance. For you see that once she has indulged in luxury, she no longer comes back to the first ruler, yet after her punishment she comes to be under one who ranks below Michael.

For the angel of repentance is inferior to that one. We must therefore take care lest 'some indecent thing' be found in us, and lest we fail to 'find favor' before our husband — whether Christ, or the angel appointed over us. For if we do not pay attention, perhaps we too shall receive the bill of divorce, and either be left widowed of our protector or shall come to another husband — though for my part I think that

this is not a good omen (and I think it best not to pursue what I mean) — that is, receiving angels in a kind of marriage in relation to our soul. But since I have come to this point, I would say that a certain question raised concerning the apostle's legislation about matters of the church we shall perhaps now be able to grasp and set forth clearly, difficult though it is to seize and hard to see through. For Paul does not wish any of those from

the church who has received some preeminence above the many, as though marked out by tokens of office, to attempt a second marriage. For in legislating concerning bishops, in the first letter to Timothy he says: 'if anyone aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a good work. The bishop, then, must be above reproach, husband of one wife, sober, self-controlled,' and so on. And concerning deacons he says, 'let deacons be'

'husbands of one wife, ruling well over their children and their own households,' and the rest. And in appointing widows he says, 'let a widow be enrolled who is not less than sixty years old, wife of one husband,' and after this he states what follows as a second and third point to this. And in the letter to Titus he says, 'for this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set right what remains,

and appoint elders city by city, in the manner I prescribed to you — if any man is beyond reproach, the husband of a single wife, whose children are believers,' evidently, and so on. We were indeed at a loss, seeing that it is possible for some who have married twice to be far better than those who have married once, as to why in the world Paul does not permit the twice-married to be established in the offices of the church; for it seemed to me that this too was worthy of inquiry —

Something like this: it is possible for someone who has had the misfortune of two marriages, having lost the second while still young, to have lived most self-controlled and pure a life for the rest of his time, even to old age. Who then would not reasonably raise the difficulty: when we are seeking one to rule the church, why is it that we do not appoint such a twice-married man because of the words concerning marriage, but instead we hold on to the once-married man as ruler—

—even one who (as it may happen) has lived with his wife right up to old age, sometimes without ever having exercised himself toward purity and self-control? From what has been said, I come to a stop before the law concerning the bill of divorce, wondering whether, since each of these three offices — overseer, presbyter, deacon — is itself a symbol of realities true to those names, God wished to establish them as symbolic single-married men, so that

the one able to attend to the realities might discover, from the spiritual law, that the man is unworthy of ecclesiastical office whose soul has "not found favor before" her husband, because "some indecent matter" has been found in her, and she has become deserving of the bill of divorce. For once hated a second time by such a man, she is no longer able, once the second bill of divorce is issued, to return to

her former husband. It is likely, then, that other explanations will be found among the many who are far wiser than we are and better able to see into matters of this magnitude—whether concerning the law about the bill of divorce, or concerning the apostolic precepts that forbid twice-married men from ruling the church or presiding in it as men held in special honor. As for us, until better explanations are found, ones able, by the great superiority of the light of

knowledge, to obscure what has been said by us, we have set down what has occurred to us on these topics. And even if we seem to have touched upon matters too deep for our ability with regard to these passages, nonetheless, on account of the wording, this too must be stated: certain of the laws were set down not because they carry equal weight, but rather in accommodation to the weakness of those for whom they were legislated. Something of

this sort, indeed, is indicated in the statement, "Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives"; while what is primary and of greater importance than the law written on account of hardness of heart is indicated in the statement, "yet from the very beginning it was not thus." And in the New Testament too there are certain things legislated analogous to the statement that "Moses, because of your hardness of heart permitted you"

"to divorce your wives." For it is as though it were written, because of our hardness of heart (on account of our weakness), the statement "a woman is better left untouched by a man; yet on account of instances of sexual immorality, each man should keep a wife of his own, and each woman a husband of her own," and the statement "let the husband render to the wife what is owed, and likewise the wife also to the husband." Indeed, he adds concerning these,

"But this I say by way of concession, not of command." But also the statement "a wife is bound for as long a time as her husband lives; but if her husband falls asleep, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, only in the Lord," is spoken by Paul because of our hardness of heart or weakness, to those who are unwilling to be zealous for "the greater gifts" and to become more blessed. Already

Contrary to what is written, some of those who lead the church have permitted a woman to be married "while her husband is living" — acting contrary to what is written (where the phrase runs: "a wife remains bound for as long as her husband is alive," and "So then she will be styled an adulteress if she becomes another man's while her husband lives"), yet not altogether without reason; for it is likely that

this concession was granted by comparison with lesser evils, running counter to what had been legislated and written from the start. But perhaps some bold Jewish man, one who would set himself against the teaching of our Savior, will say that Jesus himself, in saying, "Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery," permitted the wife to be divorced just as Moses did, whom he said had legislated on account of the hard-heartedness of the

people, and he will say that this is the same thing as the matter of sexual immorality, on account of which a wife might reasonably be cast out from her husband — namely, "because he found in her some indecent matter." But it must be said to him that, if a woman convicted of adultery under the law is to be stoned, clearly the "indecent matter" is not understood in that sense; for one is not required, on account of adultery, to write a "bill of divorce"

and to give it "into the hands" of the woman being dismissed. But rather perhaps Moses called any fault of a wife an "indecent matter," which, if it is found by the husband in a wife who does not find favor before her husband, a bill of divorce is written, and the wife is then dismissed "from the house" of the husband. But from the beginning it was not so. After this, our

Savior says, in no way permitting marriages to be dissolved on account of any other fault than sexual immorality alone being found in the wife: "Whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery." One might inquire whether, if he commands the wife to be divorced only for this reason, what is to happen if she is not caught in sexual immorality, but, let us say, in sorcery or in the killing

(during her husband's absence) of a child born to them, or in any kind of murder whatsoever. And if she should be found stealing from and plundering or pillaging her husband's house, though not committing sexual immorality, one might ask whether it would be reasonable to cast out such a woman, given that the Savior forbids anyone to divorce his own wife except on the ground of sexual immorality. For in either case something absurd appears —

though I do not know whether it is truly absurd. For to put up with such great sins, which seem to be worse than adultery and fornication, will seem unreasonable; but again, everyone would agree that to act contrary to the intent of the Savior's teaching happens to be impious. I raise the question, then, why it was not said instead, "Let no one divorce his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality," but instead says, "Whoever

divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery." For it is admittedly the case that the one who divorces his wife when she has not committed sexual immorality "makes her" (as far as it lies in him) commit adultery. For if "she will be styled an adulteress while her husband lives, should she become another man's," and by divorcing her he gives her the occasion for a second marriage, clearly he thereby makes her commit adultery. But as for the woman convicted of sorcery or of murder

<or having done something of this kind> *** whether she has a defense or not, you too might inquire. For a husband can also cause his own wife to become an adulteress for reasons other than the divorce itself — for instance, by permitting her beyond what is proper to do as she wishes, and to descend into intimacy with men she wishes; for often such stumblings occur in wives through the simplicity of their husbands.

But whether or not there is room for a defense for such husbands in such circumstances, you will determine by careful inquiry, and this will also apply to the difficulties we have raised on this topic. And a man who deprives his wife of himself often makes her be made an adulteress, by not fulfilling her desires, even if he does this under the pretense of greater dignity and chastity; and it may well be that this man bears

culpable — insofar as it depends on him — for making her be made an adulteress by not fulfilling her desires, than the man who divorces her apart from a charge of fornication, but on account of poisoning or murder or one of the gravest sins. And just as a woman is an adulteress, even if she seems to be married to a man, while her former husband is still living, so too a man who seems to marry a divorced woman does not marry her (according

to the pronouncement of our Savior) insofar as he commits adultery. After this, the disciples of Christ, considering how many mishaps can occur in marriages, which a husband must bear with, and that on this account either bearing with them he must part with them most harshly, or not bearing with them he transgresses against the words of Christ, say to him that it is more advantageous to take refuge in celibacy, and that this is more expedient than marriage seems to be expedient —

if such is the cause of a man's situation with his wife, marrying does not profit him. In response to this the Savior said to them, teaching us that complete purity is a gift given by God, and that it comes about not only through discipline but is given by God together with many prayers — that not all can receive this teaching, but those to whom it has been given. Then,

since some slander the phrase "those to whom it has been given," as though those desiring to keep themselves pure while unmarried, yet overcome by their desires, had a defense, it must be said that if indeed we believe what is written, why is it that we seize upon "but those to whom it has been given," yet no longer attend to "ask, and it will be given to you," and to what follows it, "for everyone who asks receives"? For if those to whom it has been given can receive

the teaching about being completely pure, let the one who wishes ask, trusting and believing him who says, "ask, and it will be given to you," and let him receive it without doubting concerning "everyone who asks receives." At this point, having arrived here, you would inquire who it is that asks. For no one among those who do not receive, even if he seemed to have asked, actually asked — since it is not permissible to say that "everyone who

asks receives" is a falsehood. Who then is the one who asks, but the one who is persuaded by Jesus when he says, "if you stand praying," "believe that you receive, and you will receive"? And the one who asks must do everything in his power, so that he prays "in spirit," and prays "also with the mind," and remembers "pray without ceasing," and also "he spoke a parable to them about the need for them always to pray and not

from losing heart, saying: "There was a judge in a certain city," and so on. And it is useful for knowing what asking and receiving is, and what "everyone who asks receives" means, and also: "I say to you, even if he refuses to get up and give to him out of friendship, yet because of his persistence, he will get up and give him as much as he needs."

He then adds: "And I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you," and so on. This is a further exhortation, since not everyone makes room for the word, but only those to whom it has been given, toward asking in a manner worthy of receiving; and also: "which of you, if his son asks him for a fish, will hand him a serpent instead of a fish?" and so on. He will therefore give the good

gift — complete purification in celibacy and chastity — God gives to those praying to him "with the whole soul," in faith, and "without ceasing" in supplication.

← All of Origen: Commentaries & Homilies