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