Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

The treatise “Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew” was written by Origen in 249 and has partially survived. According to Eusebius of Caesarea, the work consisted of 25 books. The surviving books of the work are devoid of the usual introductions and conclusions for Origen’s commentaries; the presentation begins directly with the explained gospel words. Origen believed that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written for Jewish Christians, and therefore considered it most suitable for demonstrating both the continuity and the fundamental difference between the religious views of Jews and Christians. Christological considerations occupy a significant place in the commentary. Origen emphasizes the reality of the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ: being the “image of God,” the Word, Wisdom and Power of God, He takes on the properties of man in order to become “flesh for those who live in the flesh,” to serve as an “image” for all people and to bring about the salvation of those who believe in Him. At the same time, as in other works, when interpreting the relationship between the Father and the Son, Origen takes the position of subordinationism, emphasizing the difference between the “reflected” deity of the Son and the primitive and absolute deity of the Father. Throughout the commentary, Origen engages in anti-Jewish and anti-Gnostic polemics. He connects the first with the idea of ​​the “transition” of the Word of God from Jews to Gentiles, as well as with criticism of Jewish literalism in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and formalism in observing the requirements of the law. As part of the second, Origen opposes the Gnostic idea that some people are by nature predestined to destruction, and others to salvation, insisting on the free will of rational beings, but at the same time emphasizing the need for the constant help of God to acquire faith and virtues. *The title of the work in Latin is In Matthaeum commentarii. 1. Dating and degree of preservation “Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew” (hereinafter referred to as CM) refers to the late period of Origen’s work (185–253). According to Eusebius of Caesarea, it was created during the reign of Philip the Arab (244–249), along with the treatise Against Celsus, the Commentary on the 12 Prophets, and numerous homilies or sermons, which Origen only from this time allowed to be recorded by stenographers (Hist. Eccl. 6:34–36). A more precise dating proposed by Giraud, the publisher of 10–11 books of commentary in the Sources chrétiennes series, places the SM in 246. 1 In the indicated place, Eusebius also mentions that Origen's commentary consisted of 25 books. Only minor fragments have survived from the first 9 books. Books 10–17, which have come down to us in the original Greek, contain an interpretation of Matthew 13:36–22, 33 (with book 11 going up to Matthew 15:38 inclusive). There is also one preserved dating from the 5th or 6th century. anonymous Latin translation (Vetus interpetatio) of a large part of the commentary, starting from chapter 9 of the 12th book and almost to the end. It includes a commentary on Matthew 16:13–27, 65 2 . Thus, less than half of the original Greek composition has reached us. Nevertheless, along with the surviving portion of the Commentary on the Gospel of John, the eight books of the CM constitute the most extensive non-fragmentary text from which we can directly judge Origen's work in the genre of biblical commentary. 2. CM, 10–11 and Origen's exegesis Despite the fact that the name of Origen is often associated primarily with a number of unorthodox hypotheses of metaphysical and cosmological content, put forward by him in the treatise “On Elements” (hereinafter - RA), it can rightfully be argued that the central place in his activity was occupied not by philosophy, but by biblical exegesis. Along with Hippolytus of Rome, Origen was one of the first Christian authors who began to write special works devoted to the systematic interpretation of individual books of the Bible. In addition to detailed commentaries, these included the already mentioned homilies, shorthand records of his sermons, as well as brief explanatory scholia. Most of the works created by Origen were precisely exegetical in nature 3 . As an exeget, Origen formulated the famous theory of the existence of three senses of Scripture - “corporeal,” “mental,” and “spiritual” (RA 4:2, 3–5). However, in the context of a specific interpretation of a particular biblical text, he is not at all inclined to systematically apply this distinction, each time indicating all three possible meanings of the passage he is analyzing, or at least qualifying the meaning he sees as, say, “mental” as opposed to “spiritual” 4 . If we use SM 10–11 as an example, we can say that Origen is much more characterized by dualistic oppositions between the “obvious” and “hidden” meaning of Scripture, “history” and “allegory,” “simpler” and “deeper” interpretations (cf., for example, SM 10: 1, 34–38, 5, 5–13, 14, 34–45, 18, 9–13, 23, 22–23). Some of these oppositions presuppose a harmonious relationship between these two levels of the biblical text, as in SM 10:14, 44-45, which speaks of an ascent to the spiritual meaning taking into account the letter of Scripture, while in other cases Origen admits that what is said in Scripture, being true as an allegory, in a historical sense can contradict the truth (10, 18, 9-13, cf. RA 4:2, 9, 13–19). Most often, the “hidden” or “allegorical” meaning of the text in the SM corresponds precisely to the “spiritual” meaning from the RA, i.e. we are talking about “the image and shadow of what heavenly things the Jews served in the flesh and the shadow of what future blessings the law has” (RA 4: 2, 6, 12–14) 5 . In this case, Origen demonstrates how various events of the gospel history or gospel parables indicate that the Word of God was rejected by the Jews and became the property of the pagans (for example, 10, 16-18. 22-23; 11, 13-14). At the same time, the Jews and pagans themselves, as well as various peoples, localities, and cities in general that exist in earthly reality, can be considered as symbols of the corresponding elements of the spiritual world, namely, various categories of spiritual beings. A good example of this kind of exegesis, the closest analogy of which Danielou found in Gnosticism 6, is SM 11, 17. At the same time, the letter of Scripture can also be opposed to what is usually called the moral sense, although in SM 10–11 Origen does not fix this opposition at the terminological level. Yet it is quite obvious, for example, in SM 11, 5–6, where the Gospel episode from Matthew 14:22–32, in which the disciples are caught in a storm and Jesus comes to them on the water, is presented as an allegorical depiction of the trials and temptations that await the believer in his earthly existence. It can also be noted that one of the objects of Origen’s exegesis sometimes becomes the theory of this exegesis itself, if only because the hidden meaning of Scripture, in the opinion of the didaskal, often lies precisely in indicating the fact that Scripture has a hidden meaning. For example, in CM 10:14, 47–62, the deeper, in contrast to the simpler, meaning of Matthew 13:52, which speaks of a “scribe” who learns the “Kingdom of Heaven,” is seen by Origen as precisely a hint of a transition from the literal understanding of the Bible to the spiritual teaching hidden in it. Allegorical meaning, according to Origen, is present everywhere in the Bible. In principle, any passage of Scripture can become a starting point for its comprehension (10, 14, 53–57), the next stage of which is to collect all the passages of the biblical text relevant to the problem under consideration (10:1, 29–33, 10, 15, 721, 11, 3, 52–56, 11, 4, 4–10, 11, 17, 1–12). In essence, Origen professes the idea of ​​​​an exhaustive contextual analysis of biblical vocabulary: in order to understand what Scripture wants to say in any one place, one must take into account all the other places where similar expressions are used (in practice, however, he tends to limit himself to selecting a few of the most revealing quotations - cf. 11:4, 11-13). Of course, such contextual analysis is not strictly historical and philological in nature. We are talking specifically about the reconstruction of a single and consistent allegorical meaning, the presence of which is assumed in all biblical books, regardless of the historical context of their occurrence. For example, Matthew 6:20 speaks of “treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroyeth.” Origen draws on the text of Proverbs 25:20: “Like a moth to a garment and a worm to a tree, so sorrow harms the heart of a person,” based on which he states that in Matthew 6:20 “moth” denotes passions in general or sadness in particular (10:14, 82–94). Such an interpretation today may seem to be the result of an arbitrary association, but in fact it is a fairly natural consequence of applying to the biblical text well-defined and in its own way strict principles of interpretation. The total presence of allegorical meaning in the text of the Bible is also presupposed by Origen’s idea of ​​the “accuracy of Scripture” (ἀκρίβεια τῆς γραφῆς) 7 . In his opinion, all the smallest details of the biblical text, for example, one and not another grammatical form of a word, the presence or absence of an article, etc., are present in it for a reason and not by chance (cf. 11:18, 45 - μὴ ἀποκληρωτικῶς; 10:14, 13:11, 8:8, 11:17, 60 – ἀναγκαίως), but because they have some important conceptual meaning. One of the typical manifestations of this methodological attitude is to emphasize the non-accidentality of the use of a particular expression in the analyzed text in comparison with a real alternative borrowed from some other text (for example, a parallel passage from another evangelist) (cf. 11:5, 49–59, 11:7, 3–5). In other cases, Origen emphasizes the non-contingency of the biblical expression in comparison with what is “not said” in the text, that is, with a purely hypothetical alternative (cf. 10:16, 34–40, 10:19, 6–11. 25–34, 11:5, 77–82, 11:6, 67–69). However, despite this presumption of accuracy, Origen does not at all pretend to reveal the spiritual meaning of Scripture unambiguously and definitively. If his theology, in Cruzel's famous formulation, is théologie en recherche, “theology in search,” 8 then much the same can be said about his exegesis. It also reveals the hypothetical approach characteristic of Origen's thought, which in itself can be considered as the most significant argument against those researchers who, in relation to the theological field, saw in Origen's hypotheticalism just a tactical ploy of an esotericist who fears an open clash with orthodoxy 9 . In practice, in Origen's interpretation of the biblical text, one can detect numerous features similar to those characteristic of his approach to philosophical and theological problems in RA: the admission of several possible understandings of one text (a particularly striking example is 10: 2, 3-6); awareness of the inconclusiveness of one’s own interpretation and readiness to prefer someone else’s if it turns out to be better (11:2, 17–22); finally, a direct appeal to the reader with a call to think for himself about the question posed by the exegete (11:7, 33–37). The combination of the principle of “accuracy of Scripture” with a hypothetical setting quite often leads to somewhat disappointing situations for the reader, when Origen persistently draws his attention to specific details of some Gospel text, indicates that they all have some kind of allegorical meaning, but what exactly it is, he does not say or speaks only in the form of a hint (for example, 11:5, 49–59, 11:7, 8–37, 11:18, 74–86). Finally, it is worth noting separately that in SM 10:7–8 there is an interesting precedent for Origen’s appeal to extra-biblical data to interpret Scripture. In the mention of “good pearls” in Matthew 13:45–46, Origen sees a sufficient reason to, firstly, provide a number of information about the varieties of pearls from contemporary natural science works, and, secondly, apply them to the interpretation of this passage from the Gospel and, moreover, partly subject this information itself to an allegorical interpretation (since “bad pearls”, interpreted by Origen as heresies, are not mentioned in the Gospel text, and in the indicated writings). 3. Main topics of SM, 10–11 Origen consistently comments on the text of Matthew 13:36–15, 38, making virtually no omissions. As a rule, he quotes one or two verses, then gives them a certain interpretation, often both literal and figurative, while also drawing on subsequent verses from the text. Sometimes the interpretation of a particular passage ends with a moral conclusion that applies what is said to the situation in which the reader is or may find himself (for example, 10:18, 84–93, 10:22, 48–52, and generally 11:6); but in the SM and in general when interpreting the New Testament, Origen does not draw such conclusions systematically, as is the case with the exegesis of the Old Testament 10. The genre of commentary does not imply thematic unity, therefore the range of problems covered by Origen during the interpretation of the Gospel text turns out to be very diverse. The dominant theme of SM 10:11 is anti-Judaism. It is connected primarily with the already mentioned historiosophical concept of the “transition” of the Word of God from Jews to Gentiles, and, in addition, with criticism of Jewish literalism in the interpretation of Scripture and in observing various regulations of the law (for example, the distinction between clean and unclean foods) (see generally: 11:8-14). This also includes the historically interesting story about the Jewish practice of “korban” (11:9-10). At the same time, Origen emphasizes the agreement of the Old and New Testaments in spite of those who “divide” them, i.e., probably, Marcion and some Gnostics (10:15, 21–25, 11:14, 1–14; cf. generally 10:10). In addition, a more extensive anti-Gnostic polemic, as is most often the case with Origen, is directed against the Gnostic idea that some people are by nature predestined to destruction, and others to salvation. Origen, of course, insists on the free will of rational beings (10:11), although at the same time he emphasizes the need for Divine assistance in achieving faith and virtue (10:19). At the same time, the elitist features of Origen’s soteriology are quite clearly visible here. Origen repeatedly emphasizes the difference between the “disciples” of Jesus and the “people” (10:1.4, 11:4), and at one point even states that “the primary purpose of the Word is to save those who are more intelligent, for they are more related to Him than those who are less able” (11:17, 65–67). Finally, certain places in the text of these two books may be interesting for understanding Origen’s eschatology (eschatological differentiation of the saved in 10:3 and the denial of universal salvation at the end of this world in 10:13), psychology (denial of the transmigration of souls, including into the bodies of animals - 10:20, 11:17), angelology (the superiority of Angels over people - 10:13), Christology (the kenotic aspects of Christ's earthly activity in 10:14 and 11:17 and the suffering of the impassive Logos in 10:23) and the doctrine of the Eucharist (11:14). Below is a summary of the contents of SM 10–11: 1. On Matthew 13:36. The difference between the disciples entering the house with Jesus and the common people remaining outside. 2. On Matthew 13:37–43. “Sons of the Kingdom” as innate ideas, “sons of the evil one” as perverse opinions and teachings. Eschatological cleansing of the soul from the latter at the “end of the age.” 3. On Matthew 13:43. Eschatological differentiation of saved souls. 4. On Matthew 13:44. The distinction between parables addressed to the people and similes addressed to the disciples. 5. The “field” in which the “treasure” is hidden is either Scripture and its spiritual meaning, or Christ and what is hidden in Him according to Col. 2:3. 6. Accordingly, the person who buys this field is the one who discovers the hidden “treasure” in Scripture or in Christ. In historical terms, the transition of the field from its previous owners to the new one is the transition of the “Word of God” from Jews to Christians. 7. On Matthew 13:45–46. A natural science excursion about good and bad varieties of pearls, “herds” of shells and their “leader”. 8. Application of the data from this excursion to Matthew 13:45–46: good pearls are prophets, the leader of the flock (or the most valuable pearl) is Christ, bad pearls are heresies. 9 . The selling of all good pearls for the sake of the most valuable is a transition from the knowledge revealed by the law and the prophets to the more perfect knowledge revealed by Christ. 10. The Law and the Prophets are necessary as an introduction to understanding the Gospel. 11. On Matthew 13:47–50. Antignostic polemic: the mention of fish “of every kind” does not imply different natures, doomed to death or salvation. This concept is incompatible a) with moral censure or praise; b) with the actual moral variability of rational beings. The cause of evil in them is free will. 12. A “net” is a Scripture that catches people with a variety of free wills or pagans from different nations. 13. This place also shows that a) Angels are generally higher than people; b) at the end of this world, all members of the Church will not be saved. 14. On Matthew 13:51–52. The human nature of Christ and the unlimitedness of His knowledge. Problem: Why are the disciples of Jesus called “scribes” in Matthew 13:52, and “unlearned and simple people” in Acts 4:13? A Discourse on the Spiritual and Literal Meaning of Scripture. 15. Agreement between the Old and New Testaments. “Master of the house” is Jesus. 16. On Matthew 13:53–58. Problems with the distinction between parables and similes introduced in 10:4. “Fatherland” from Matthew 13:53 – all of Judea. Jesus is persecuted by the Jews, but is revered by the pagans. 17. Relatives of Jesus. Apocryphal information about Joseph's sons from his first marriage. Ever-Virginity of Mary. Josephus Flavius ​​on the murder of Jacob as the reason for the destruction of Jerusalem. The uniqueness of Jesus, incomprehensible to His listeners. 18. On Matthew 13:57. “Fatherland” is all of Judea or the Jewish people themselves, who do not honor their prophets and Jesus, unlike the pagans. Historical examples with references to the apocrypha. “Fatherland” is also a world in which the believer is dishonored. 19. On Matthew 13:58. The need for faith to perform a miracle. The mutual necessity of human activity and divine assistance for the achievement of faith and virtues. 20. On Matthew 14:1–11. Herod calls Jesus “John the Baptist” not because he shares the false teaching about the transmigration of souls, but believing that the spirit and power that were in John passed into Jesus. 21. The illegal murder of John the Baptist deprives the kings of the Jews of their legal power, including the right to kill. Herod stole his wife from his living brother, rather than marrying his widow. 22. The allegorical meaning of the murder of John is the cessation of prophecy among the Jews. Herodias as a “vicious teaching” ruling the Jews. Reference to Philo: the righteous do not celebrate their birthdays. Moral takeaway: Oaths that lead to evil should not be kept. Criticism of Judaism. 23. On Matthew 14:12–14. Jesus teaches to avoid persecution if possible. The departure of Christ into the wilderness is the departure of the Word of God from the Jews to the pagans. The impassive God experiences suffering out of love for people. 24. The diseases that Jesus heals are sins. Digression: The distinction between sickness, weakness, and sleep in 1 Corinthians 11:30 points to different forms of sinfulness. 25. On Matthew 14:15. To eat the bread of blessing, a preliminary moral healing is necessary. 1. “Bread” is the spiritual food that the people need after the time of the law and the prophets is over. He can get it from Jesus, contrary to the opinion of the disciples. 2. On Matthew 14:16–21. The “five loaves” are the sensual side of the Scriptures, and the “two fish” are either their internal and external meaning, or the doctrine of the Father and the Son. 3. “Men”, “women” and “children” symbolize various degrees of spiritual maturity, the command to “lie down on the grass” is the curbing of the flesh. Numerical symbolism. 4. On Matthew 14:22. The distinction between “the people” and “the disciples” indicates different categories of believers. Some passages from the Gospels that suggest this difference. 5. On Matthew 14:22–32. Leaving “to the other side” is a departure from the temporary and physical to the eternal and spiritual. The compulsion to get into a boat for this means the need for trials, which are symbolized by a storm and contrary wind. The coming of Jesus to the disciples on the water indicates the need for His assistance in overcoming trials. 6. Moral Inference: Applying this interpretation to a situation in which the reader may find himself. 7. On Matthew 14, 34–36. Comparison of the healings mentioned here with the healing of the bleeding woman in Matthew 9:20–22. The suggestion of some mysterious meaning in the details that differ between the two stories. 8. On Matthew 15:1–2. Anti-Judaist polemic. The disciples of Jesus kept the law, but out of leniency towards the customs of the place where they lived. In general, the law should not be followed literally; its spiritual meaning is important. The tradition of the elders about hand washing, violated by the disciples, meant physical cleanliness, but spiritual cleanliness is important for believers. 9 . On Matthew 15:3–9. Violation of the commandments by the Jews to honor parents (Ex.20:12; Lev.20:9) in connection with the practice of “korban”. Link to oral Jewish source. Accusing the Pharisees of extracting material benefits from the “korban”. A moral conclusion directed against Christian elders who steal the offerings of believers, like Judas. 10. An explanation of how a practitioner of korban “slanders” his father and mother, thereby violating the commandment of Exodus 21:15–17. 11. The formal nature of worship among the Jews. Because they have rejected Christ, the true meaning of Scripture is hidden from them. 12. On Matthew 15:10–20. One should not literally observe the provisions of the law regarding clean and unclean food, but one should classify them as spiritual food. 13. The Pharisees are not “a plant of the Heavenly Father” because of their incorrect approach to the interpretation of Scripture. 14. An attack against Marcion: it does not follow that the “Heavenly Father” is different from the God of the Old Testament. The law has a spiritual meaning that the Pharisees did not comprehend. Reasoning about the Eucharist: the substance of the bread itself does not sanctify the believer; what is important is his moral state. 15. The beginning of evil is evil thoughts. The same actions can be morally right and wrong depending on the thoughts accompanying them. Examples of imaginary virtues in the Christian environment. 16. On Matthew 15:21–28. Jesus withdraws from persecution, awaiting the time when it is fitting for Him to suffer. “The countries of Tire and Sidon,” where He retires, symbolize the pagans. 17. Comparison of the story of the Canaanite woman begging to heal her daughter with similar gospel episodes. This whole story symbolically points to events taking place in the spiritual world, in particular to the various categories of spiritual beings saved by Jesus. First of all, He saves the most intelligent souls (“Israel”). The Canaanite woman does not belong to them and is therefore called a “dog,” but she is worthy of leniency for her demonstrated faith. The limitations of Jesus' healing power are explained by kenosis. The names of irrational animals in Scripture indicate various spiritual states and do not testify in favor of the transmigration of the soul into the bodies of animals. 18. On Matthew 15:29–31. The “mountain” that Jesus climbed is the Church. The sick whom He heals there are catechumens. 19. On Matthew 15:32–38. Comparison of healings and multiplication of loaves in this place and in Matthew 14:14–21. The people of the people mentioned here are spiritually higher than those mentioned there. It is based on the already mentioned edition of Giraud in the SC series (the Greek text in this edition, with some exceptions 11, reproduces the text adopted in the edition of Klostermann in the GCS series 12. In this case, both the French translation of Giraud and the Latin translation of Huet in PG 13 were taken into account (naturally, adjusted for differences in the edition of the original text). In addition, the main text of the two SM books is supplemented in the notes corresponding fragments from the catenas in cases where their text does not coincide with the text of Origen’s commentary literally 13. I am grateful to A.G. Aleksanyan for the opportunity to use his unpublished translation of SM 10:11 and for a copy of Giraud’s edition, as well as to A.G. Dunaev for providing additional scientific literature. In general, as far as it is compatible with the grammatical and stylistic capabilities of the Russian language, I naturally strived for the most accurate translation of the Greek original, trying to avoid descriptive conveying of the meaning of the text. Where, for conceptual or stylistic reasons, this was not entirely possible, the corresponding Greek expression is given in brackets (in some cases this is done simply to demonstrate the terminology characteristic of Origen or to indicate a phrase whose translation is problematic). Moreover, I have never broken up Origen's often long and confusing periods into separate phrases, although this might have made their meaning clearer. However, in my opinion, the translation is intended to adequately reflect the original, and not to simplify its understanding. A particular problem was the translation of biblical quotations. Since the Synodal translation is not always accurate, and Origen quotes the Bible in literally every phrase, and even in a specific edition 14, it was not possible to simply take the corresponding quotes from the Synodal translation. Nevertheless, I tried, if possible, not to deviate from it, and where it seemed necessary to me, to also take into account the version from the Slavic Bible before offering my own. Literal biblical quotations corresponding to the text of the Old Testament in Ralphs's edition and the New Testament in Aland's edition are given in italics within quotation marks. At the same time, the most significant differences between Origen’s edition of the biblical text and the edition adopted in these publications are noted. In particular, when Origen has a different reading than Ralphs or Åland, the corresponding words in the quoted quotation are not italicized, and the difference is further indicated in the notes (O for Origen's reading, A for Åland, R for Ralphs). If such words are not accompanied by a note, then Ralphs or Aland have nothing corresponding to them at all, i.e., in relation to these editions of the text, they can be perceived as an insertion. If, on the contrary, the quoted quotation is missing some part of the text or a single word present in Ralphs or Aland, this is indicated by an ellipsis in angle brackets. In most cases, I ignore discrepancies regarding particles and word order in a sentence. Finally, simply italics without quotation marks is used where Origen does not literally quote the biblical text, but uses individual words and expressions from it, changing their grammatical forms and embedding them in the context of his own phrase. 5. Accepted abbreviations 15 I. Editions of texts, magazines and reference books A—The Greek New Testament, ed. by K. Aland etc. (4 Revised Edition). CR –The Classical Review. DOP - Dumbarton Oaks Papers. G – Girod R. (introduction, translation and notes in the edition: Origène. Commentaire sur l’évangile selon Matthieu. Vol. 1 (SC 162). Paris, 1970). HR – History of Religions. JBL – Journal of Biblical Literature. L – Lamp G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. L.S. – Liddell H.G., Scott R. Greek-English Lexicon. R – Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs. SVF – Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. TU – Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur. VC – Vigiliae Christianae. CJ – Commentarii in evangelium Joannis. SM – Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei. CMs – Commentariorum series in evangelium Matthaei. EM – Exhortatio ad martyrium. Ep. Afr. - Epistola ad Africanum. Exc. Ps. – Excerpta in Psalmos. Exp. Prov. – Expositio in Proverbia. Fr. CCor. – Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios (in catenis). Fr. J – Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis (in catenis). Fr. Jr – Fragmenta in Jeremiam (in catenis). Fr. L – Fragmenta in Lucam (in catenis). Fr. Lam. – Fragmenta in Lamentationes (in catenis). Fr. Ps – Fragmenta in Psalmos 1–150. HC – Homiliae in Canticum Canticorum. HGen. – Homiliae in Genesim. HJr – Homiliae in Jeremiam. HJob – Homiliae in Job (fragmenta in catenis). HN – Homiliae in Numeros. HEx – Homiliae in Exodum. HEz – Homiliae in Ezechielem. HJes – Homiliae in Jesu Nave. RA – Περὶ ἀρχῶν; De principiis. RE – Περὶ εὐχῆς; De oratione. Phil. – Philocalia sive Ecloga de operibus Origenis a Basilio et Gregorio Nazianzeno facta. Sch. Ap. – Scholia in Apocalypsem. Sch. M. - Scholia in Matthaeum. Sel. Ex. – Selecta in Exodum. Sel. Ez. – Selecta in Ezechielem. Sel. Ps. – Selecta in Psalmos. III. Works by other authors Aug. Enarr. Ps. – Augustinus. Enarrationes in Psalmos. Bas. Caes. Hom. Ps. – Basilius Caesariensis. Homiliae. Clem. Alex. Exc.Theod. – Clemens Alexandrinus. Excerpta ex Theodoto. Hier. Apol. contra Ruf. – Hieronymus. Apologia contra Rufinum. Hier. Ep.124. – Hieronymus. Epistola 124. Ad Avitum. Iren. Adv. Haer. – Irenaeus. Adversus haereses. Phil. De congr. – Philo. De congressu eruditionis gratia. Phil. De decal. – Philo. De decalogo. Phil. De ebr. – Philo. De ebrietate. Phil. De mut. nom. – Philo. De mutatione nominum. Phil. De spec. leg. – Philo. De specialibus legibus. Phot. Bibl. – Photius. Bibliotheca. Plat. Resp. – Plato. Republica. Plat. Tim. – Plato. Timaeus. Theophr. De lapid. – Theophrastus. De lapidibus. Abbreviated titles of works Hist. – Historiae (Herodotus). Hist. Eccl. – Historia ecclesiastica (Eusebius of Caesarea). Ant. Jud. – Antiquitates Judaicae (Josephus). Bell. Jud. – De bello Judaico (Josephus). Apol. I – Apologia prima (Justin Martyr). Cyr. – Cyropaedia (Xenophon). De nat. hom. – De natura hominis (Nemesius of Emesa). Hist. nat. – Historia naturalis (Pliny the Elder). Ad Out. – Ad Autolycum (Theophilus of Antioch). De nat. animal. – De natura animalium (Aelian). Just. – Justinianus Imperator. [ ] – additions according to the meaning in the translation, <> – supposed reading in the original, *** – gaps, “italics in quotation marks” – a literal quotation from the Bible, “regular type in quotation marks” – a reading in Origen different from the quoted text, – omission in the quoted text, italics – allusions. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 1. “Then [Jesus] sent the people away and entered His house. And His disciples came and said, “Explain 17 to us the parable of the tares in the field” (Matthew 13:36). When Jesus is with the people, He is not in the house, because the people are outside the house. And the work of His love for mankind [is] to leave home and go to those who cannot come to Him. So, having spoken enough with the people in parables, He releases them and enters His house, where His disciples come to Him, not staying with those whom He sent away. And all who listen to Jesus more conscientiously (γνησιώτερον) first follow Him, then, having asked about His abode, are allowed to see it and, having come, they see and remain with Him, all for that day (cf. John 1:39), and some of them, perhaps, longer. And, I think, just something similar is indicated in the Gospel of John in the following [words]: “The next day John stood again and two of his disciples [etc.]” ​​(cf. John 1:35–40). Moreover, to show that the [most] distinguished (ὁ διαφέρων) of those who are allowed to go with Jesus and see His house even becomes an apostle, to these [words] is added: “One of the two who heard from John [about Jesus] and followed Him was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter” (John 1:40). So, if we want to listen to Jesus not as the people, having sent them away and He enters the house, then, having perceived something special in contrast to the people ἀναλαμβάνοντες), let us become closer to Jesus in order, like His disciples, to approach [Him] who entered the house (cf. Matt. 13:36), and, having approached, ask for an explanation of the parable, be it [the parable] of the tares in the field or some other one. And in order to more accurately understand what the house of Jesus means, let someone collect from the Gospels everything that is said about the house of Jesus and what was said or done by Him in it. For, collected together, these [passages] will convince one who is attentively engaged in such reading (cf. 1 Tim. 4:13), that the Gospel Scriptures are not only simple [in meaning], as some think, but for the simple [believers] they have become, as it were, simple according to the economy, and for those who are willing and able to listen with greater discernment (ὀξύτερον) [they] contain hidden wise and worthy Words of God things. 2. After this, “He answered and spoke to them,” beginning with [the words]: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man” (Matthew 13:37) ***. If in the previous [statement] we, to the best of our ability, analyzed these [words], nevertheless, now what can be reconciled with them will be said, even if it is based on a different interpretation (καθ’ ἑτέραν διήγησιν ἔχει λόγον). Namely, pay attention to whether, in addition to the previous explanations, you cannot understand that the good seed is the sons of the Kingdom (cf. Matt. 13:38) also in another way - [in the sense] that whatever good grows in the human soul, it is the Word of God, [which was] in the beginning with God (cf. John 1:1), and is a product of the Kingdom of God, so that sound opinions about each [subject and] are the sons of the Kingdom. Since those who do not behave according to the commandment of Jesus, who said: “Watch and pray, lest you fall into temptation” (Matt. 26:41), sleep, the devil, who lies in wait for [them], sows the so-called “tares” (Matt. 13:38), perverted teachings, to what some call natural concepts (φυσικαῖς ἐννοίαις) 18, to the good seeds [sown] by the Word. In accordance with this, the whole world, perhaps, can be called a field, and not just the Church of God: after all, throughout the whole world the Son of Man sowed good seed, and the evil one sowed tares, which are perverted opinions, the sons of the evil one (cf. Matt. 13:38) from depravity 19. At the end of things, which is called the end of the age (cf. Matt. 13:39), a harvest will have to occur (cf. Matt. 13:39), so that the Angels of God appointed for this will collect the bad teachings that have grown to the soul and transfer them to destruction, destroying them with fire, which, as it is said, burns (cf. Matt. 13:40). And in this way, the Angels and ministers of the Word from the entire Kingdom of Christ will gather all temptations and lawless thoughts that are in the souls (cf. Matt. 13:41), destroying which they will throw [them] into a blazing furnace (cf. Matt. 13:42). Then those who realized that they had taken into themselves the seeds of the evil one because they slept will cry and seem to be angry with themselves. This is “gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:42), which is why the Psalms say: “they gnashed their teeth at me” (Ps. 34:16) 20. It is then that the righteous will shine, not differently as in the beginning, but all as one sun in the Kingdom of their Father (cf. Matt. 13:43). In any case, the Savior, as if pointing to a mystery, perhaps because of everything [said] when explaining the parable, and perhaps especially because of [the words]: “Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father,” adds: “Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear” (Matthew 13:43), teaching those who think that when explaining the parable it was interpreted to the extreme it is clear, so that it can be comprehended even among unprepared listeners (ἐν τοῖς τυχοῦσι) 21 that these [details] in the interpretation of the parable themselves need clarification. 3. But since we said above about [the words]: “Then the righteous will shine like the sun” (Matthew 13:43), that the righteous will not shine differently as before, but will all be like one sun, we will have to set forth the [understanding] of this passage that has presented itself to us. It seems that Daniel, knowing that the wise and many of the righteous, distinguished by glory, are “the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14), said: “And the wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and [some of the righteous many] as the stars, forever and ever” (Dan. 12:3). Yes, and the apostle in [the words]: “There is another glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars: and star differs from star in glory. So is the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:41–42), says the same thing as Daniel, taking this thought from his prophecy. And then someone will ask how they talk about the difference of light in the righteous, but the Savior [says] the opposite: they will shine like one sun 22 . I suppose that at the beginning of the bliss of those who are being saved [the righteous], since those who are not so have not yet been purified, there is [everything concerning] a difference of light in those who are being saved 23 . When, as we have explained, all temptations are collected from the entire Kingdom of Christ and the thoughts that create lawlessness are cast into the fiery furnace (cf. Matt. 13:41-42), and the worst is destroyed, and while these [events] take place, those who have internalized the opinions [which are] the sons of the evil one (cf. Matt. 13:38) come to consciousness, then, having become one solar light, the righteous will shine in the kingdom of their Father. For whom will they shine, if not for those lower [than them], who will benefit from their light, just as the sun now shines on those who are on earth? After all, they will not shine for themselves. It is possible that [the saying]: “Let your light shine before men” (Matthew 5:16), can be written on the tablet of the heart, according to what Solomon said, in three ways (cf. Proverbs 3:3 and 22:20), so that even now the light of the disciples of Jesus shines before the rest of people, both after death until the resurrection, and after the resurrection, until they all come to a perfect man (cf. Eph. 4:13 ) and they will not all become one sun: then they will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. 4. “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid” (Matthew 13:44). The previous parables He spoke to the people; This and the two that follow it, which are not parables, but likenings (οὐ παραβολὰς ἀλλ’ ὁμοιώσεις) to the Kingdom of Heaven, He apparently said to the disciples while in the house. Regarding this, as well as the next two, let the careful reader (cf. 1 Tim. 4:13) investigate: perhaps these are not parables. Indeed, in the case of those [previous parables] Scripture was not slow in introducing each with the word “parable,” but in the case of these it did not do the same. And It did so not without reason. After all, if [Jesus] spoke to the people in parables and [it is said that] “he spoke all these things in parables and did not tell them without a parable” (Matthew 13:34), but having entered the house, He speaks not to the people, but to the disciples who came to Him in it (cf. Matthew 13:36), then it is clear that what was said in the house are not parables. For He speaks in parables to those outside (cf. Mark 4:11) and to those who are not given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Matt. 13:11). Still, someone will say: if these are not parables, then what? Perhaps then, following the word of Scripture, we will say that these are similes. But a simile is different from a parable. For in [the Gospel] from Mark it is written: “To what 24 shall we liken (ὁμοιώσωμεν) the Kingdom of God, or with what parable (ἐν τίνι παραβολῇ) shall we depict it? "(Mark 4:30). From this it becomes clear that there is a difference between a simile and a parable 25. Indeed, it seems that likening is a generic [term], and parable is a specific one. It is also possible that likening, being the most general genus for parable (γενικωτάτη οὖσα τῆς παραβολῆς), includes as a species (ἔχει ἐν εἴδει) both parable and [species] likeness, called the same as the generic one. This happened with other [words] according to the observation of those knowledgeable in establishing many terms [people], who say that “attraction” (ὁρμὴν) is a general generic [term], many types, such as, for example, “aversion” (ἀφορμῆς) and “attraction” (ὁρμῆς), meaning that [the term] “attraction” the same name as generic, used to [denote] species in contrast to “disgust” 26. 5. And here you need to examine separately the field and separately the treasure hidden on it, and how, having found this hidden treasure, a person goes away with joy and sells everything he has in order to buy that field (cf. Matt. 13:44). You should research what he is selling. It seems to me that, according to this [place], the field is Scripture, planted with what is obvious in the words of [Holy] history, the law, the prophets and in the rest of the thoughts [of Scripture] - for this is a great and varied planting and [includes] the words of all Scripture - but the hidden field of treasure is the hidden and lying under the obvious [meaning] thoughts of wisdom hidden in mystery (cf. 1 Cor. 2:7 ) and in Christ, “in whom are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). Another, perhaps, will say that the field, truly full, which the Lord blessed (cf. Gen. 27:27) is “the Christ of God” (Luke 9:20), and the treasure hidden in it is what is hidden in Christ, according to Paul, who said about Christ: “in whom are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). So, about heavenly things and the Kingdom of Heaven it is figuratively written in Scripture, which [in this sense] is the Kingdom of Heaven; or Christ Himself, the King of the ages, is the Kingdom of Heaven, likened to a treasure hidden in a field. 6. Having reached this point [in the argument], you will ask whether the Kingdom of Heaven is likened only to the treasure hidden in the field, so that the field means [something] other than the Kingdom, or whether it is likened to all this treasure hidden in the field, so that the Kingdom of Heaven, according to the likeness, is both the field and the treasure hidden in the field. But a certain person, coming to the field, whether it be the Scriptures or Christ, who combines the obvious and the hidden, finds the hidden treasure of wisdom either in Christ or in the Scriptures - for going around the field and searching the Scriptures, and striving to comprehend Christ, he finds a treasure in it - and, having found it, hides it (cf. Matt. 13:44), believing that the secret thoughts of the Scriptures or the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (cf. Col. 2:3) in Christ are not safe to reveal to just anyone, and, having hidden them, he goes away, concerned about how he will buy a field, or Scripture, in order to make it his own, taking from what belongs to God (ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ) 27, the word of God, which was formerly entrusted (cf. Rom. 3:2) to the Jews. And after Christ’s disciple bought the field, the “Kingdom of God” (Matt. 21:43) is taken away from them, which, according to another parable, is a vineyard (cf. Matt. 21:33–42), and is given to “the people who bear its fruits” (Matt. 21:43), who bought the field by faith, since he sold all the property and he no longer has any of the previous property (and he had depravity). You will apply the same [explanation] if the field containing the hidden treasure turns out to be Christ. For those who left everything and followed Him (cf. Luke 5:11), to put it differently (κατ’ ἄλλον λόγον), as if they sold their property, so that, having sold and given it, and with divine help, receiving in return his good intention (καλὴν προαίρεσιν), buy the field that contains the hidden treasure for a large price worthy of this field. 7. “The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking good pearls” (Matthew 13:45). Since, although there are many merchants who trade in many [things], “the kingdom of heaven is like” not to any of them, but only to one who “seeks good pearls” and found one pearl of great price, worth many, which he acquired in exchange for all [his property], I believe that it makes sense to consider [information] about the nature of pearls. However, note that [Christ] did not say that [the merchant] sold all the [pearls] that he had: for the one who seeks good pearls sold not only the good pearls that he acquired, but also everything that he had in order to buy this good pearl (cf. Matt. 13:45). Regarding the nature of pearls, we found from those who wrote studies on stones 28 that some of the pearls are land-based, while others are sea-based. Terrestrial ones are born only among Hindus and are suitable for signets, frames and necklaces. And selected (διαφέροντες) sea [pearls] are found among the same Indians, and those that are born in the Red Sea 29 are the best. In second place among pearls are those that are collected in the ocean off the coast of Britain. The third, inferior not only to the first, but also to the second, are those that are found near the Bosporus in Scythia 30. The following is also said about Indian pearls - that they are born in shells that naturally resemble large spirals (στρόμβοις). They say that they graze in the sea in flocks under the leadership of a kind of leader of the herd, outstanding in color and size and superior to his subordinates, so that he can be compared with the so-called king of the bees 31. And about catching selected, that is, Indian, [pearls], they say this: local residents, having surrounded a large circle on the seashore with nets, dive, trying to capture one main [pearl] of all, because after it is caught, hunting for the herd subordinate to it, they say, becomes easy, since no one in it remains motionless, but, as if tied with a belt, follows the leader of the herd. It is also said that the birth of Indian pearls takes time (χρόνοις συνίστασθαι), since this animal undergoes numerous transformations and changes until it is finally formed. They also say that the shell of an animal carrying a pearl opens like a mouth and, having opened, receives pure and unclouded heavenly moisture, when filled with which it becomes shiny and produces a large and proportionate stone. If at times it absorbs cloudy, poor-quality and stormy (ἀνωμάλου χειμερίου τε) moisture, then it conceives a clouded and stained pearl. We also discovered that if, during the formation of a stone conceived by her, she is overtaken by lightning, [the shell] closes and, as if *** 32 out of fear, scatters and divides its generation into so-called “bubbles” (φυσήματα) 33 . And it happens when [pearls], as if premature, are born small and darkish, but otherwise proportionate. Indian pearls also have the following [difference] from others: they are white, their shine resembles silver and quietly emit a greenish glow, and their shape, as a rule, is round. Its surface is more delicate and soft than that of stone. It is so pleasant to look at that, as the one who wrote [the cited work] about stones (ὁ ἀναγράψας περὶ τῶν λίθων) said, 34 he is sung along with the most famous [miracles] (παρὰ τοῖς ἐμφανεστέροις ἀφυμνεῖσθαι). Another sign of selected pearls is that they have an evenly rounded surface, a dazzling white color and a very large size. This is what [they say] about Indian [pearls]. The same one from Britain, they say, is golden in color, but somehow clouded and with a duller shine. And [pearls] from the Bosporus Strait are darker than the British ones, pale blue and completely cloudy, soft and large. And [pearls] are born from the strait of the Bosphorus not in “pinnas” (πίναις), which are a type of shell that brings pearls, but in the so-called “mussels” (μυσί). The pasture of these [pearls], I mean those from the Bosphorus, is located in the swamps. They also say that in Acarnania 35 there is a fourth type of pearls, [born] in “pinnas”. They are not very valuable, but their shape is irregular and their color is completely cloudy and dirty. Besides them, in the same Acarnania there are other [pearls] that are unusable due to all [possible reasons] (πάντων ἕνεκεν ἀπόβλητοι). 8. Having collected this [information] from studies about stones, I believe that the Savior said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking good pearls” (Matthew 13:45), knowing about the difference in pearls, some of which are good and others bad: after all, if among the pearls some were not bad, then it would not have been said “to the one who seeks good pearls.” Look 36 for pearls in various words that proclaim the truth and carry them [within themselves], and let the prophets - one might say, shells that become pregnant with heavenly moisture and conceive the word of truth from heaven (cf. James 1:18) - be good pearls, which, according to this saying, the merchant is looking for. And the leader of the flock of pearls, having found whom they find the rest, is the pearl of great price, the Christ of God, the Word, surpassing the valuable writings and thoughts of the law and the prophets, having found which, everything else is easy to understand. The Savior - where He says: “Do not cast pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6) - speaks to all the disciples as to merchants, not only looking for good pearls, but [already] having found and acquired them. And that this was said [specifically] to the disciples is clear from the fact that these words are preceded [by the following]: “When He saw the people, He ascended the mountain; and when he sat down, his disciples came to him” (Matthew 5:1). After all, [only] after these words it is said: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, do not throw pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6). Perhaps the one who does not have pearls or a pearl of great price is not a disciple of the Savior and *** [the owner of] 37 good pearls, and not cloudy and darkish ones, such as the teachings of heretics, born not in the east, but in the west or in the north, if these [details] should also be included in view of the differences that we found between pearls born in different places 38 . Or maybe the clouded teachings and heresies, mired (κατειλιγμέναι) in the works of the flesh (cf. Gal. 5:19), are the darkish and ugly pearls born in the swamps. 9 . You will relate with [the expression] “one who seeks good pearls” [the words] “seek and you will find” (Matthew 7:7) and “everyone who seeks finds” (Matthew 7:8). For what do you “seek” or what “everyone who seeks finds”? I would venture to say - pearls and the pearl that he acquires by giving everything and suffering loss; for the sake of which, says Paul, “I have given up everything to gain Christ” (Phil. 3:8), “all” calling good pearls, and “to gain Christ” [speaking of] one pearl of great price (cf. Matt. 13:46). For a lamp is valuable to those who are in darkness, and there is a need for a lamp until the sun rises; The glory on the face of Moses is also valuable (cf. 2 Cor. 3:7), and I think also [on the face] of the prophets, [after all, it is] a beautiful sight, and with its help we are allowed to see the glory of Christ, which the Father testifies to in the words: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). But “that which is glorified in this part falls short of glory for the sake of the preponderant glory” 39 (2 Cor. 3:10), and at first we need glory, which can cease for the sake of the preponderant glory, just as we need knowledge in part, which will cease when that which is perfect comes (cf. 1 Cor. 13:10). Therefore, every soul, having reached infancy and heading “towards perfection” (Heb. 6:1), needs, until the “fullness of time” (Gal. 4: 4) comes for it, an educator, stewards and trustees (cf. Gal. 4: 2), so that after all this, previously no different from a slave, although the master of all (cf. Gal. 4: 1), received, freed from the teacher 40 stewards and trustees, a paternal inheritance corresponding to the pearl of great price and the perfection that has come, ceasing that in part (cf. 1 Cor. 13:10), when any one [of such people] is able to contain “the excellency of the knowledge of Christ” (Phil. 3:8), previously prepared by knowledge that, so to speak, is surpassed by the knowledge of Christ. But the majority, without comprehending the beauty of the numerous pearls of the law (μαργαριτῶν νομικῶν) and all prophetic knowledge, which is still “in part” (1 Cor. 13:10), thinks that they can, without clarifying and understanding this from beginning to end (δι’ ὅλων), find one pearl of great price and to see “the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:8), in comparison with which everything that preceded such a great and significant knowledge, not being rubbish (cf. Phil. 3:8) in its nature, looks like rubbish, which, perhaps, is the dung thrown to the fig tree by the vinedresser (cf. Luke 13:8-9) [and] being the reason that it bears fruit. 10. So, “for all [things] there is a time, and a time for every activity under the heaven” (Eccl. 3:1), and there is a certain “time to gather up stones” (Eccl. 3:5), [i.e. e.] good pearls, and the time, having gathered them, to find one pearl of great price, when it is proper to go and sell everything that you have in order to buy that pearl (cf. Matt. 13:45-46). For just as anyone who is going to become wise in the words of truth must first receive the initial information (στοιχειωθῆναι), [then] advance still further in the initial training and value it highly, but still not stop there, so that, having given it its due in the beginning, but moving on “to perfection” (Heb. 6:1), be grateful to the introduction for what it turned out to be useful at first, so the perfect comprehension of the law and the prophets is the initial training (στοιχείωσις) for a perfect understanding of the Gospel and everything that the words and deeds of Jesus Christ mean. 11. “The kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea” (Matthew 13:47). As with paintings and statues, the resemblance to those [things] after which they are made is not a resemblance in all [respects], but, for example, a picture painted with wax on some wooden surface 41 has a resemblance in appearance and color, but does not retain the recesses and protrusions, but only their appearance; whereas in the creation of statues they try to preserve the likeness as regards the recesses and protrusions, but, however, not the color; if a wax image is made (κήρινον ἐκμαγεῖον), then they try to preserve both - I mean [the similarity] in color, and the recesses and protrusions - but they do not depict what is in the depths - so, note, in the Gospel comparisons the Kingdom of Heaven is likened to something is likened not because of all [properties] inherent in the subject of likening, but because of some that the teaching perceived [by the listeners] needs (ὁ παραληφθεὶς λόγος). Therefore, here, too, “the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea” (Matt. 13:47) not [in the sense] as some believe, who claim that in this saying the different natures of the evildoers and the righteous caught in the net are implied, so that on the basis of [the words] “he who captured [fish] from every kind” (cf. Matt. 13:47) [should] think that there are numerous and different natures of the righteous and, in a similar way, of evildoers 42. After all, this interpretation is contradicted by all the Scriptures, which make explicit free will (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον) and blame sinners, but approve of the worthy, because censure follows representatives of bad generations, who turned out to be such by nature, or praise to representatives of more noble ones (τῶν ἀστειοτέρων) [births], would be unfair. For the reason that fish are bad or good is not in the souls of the fish, but in what the Word knew when it said: “Let the water bring forth living things that move” (Gen. 1:20), - when “God created great fish and every living creature that moves, which the water brought forth, according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:21). So, then, “every living thing that moves” was “produced by water according to its kinds,” and the cause was not in it [i.e. e. not in the soul]. In this case, we are to blame for the fact that there are good generations and worthy of the so-called vessels, or bad ones and worthy of being thrown out (cf. Matt. 13:48). For it is not nature in us that is the cause of depravity, but a voluntary decision that creates evil. And in the same way, it is not nature, as incapable of unrighteousness, that is the cause of righteousness, but the Word that prepares the righteous, which we have received (cf. Mark 4:20). And it is impossible to see that the genera of creatures living in water change from bad genera, like those of fish, to noble ones, or from better to worse, while among people one can always observe how righteous or evildoers either come from vice to virtue, or from success in virtue return to an abundance of vice. Therefore, in Ezekiel, the following is written about one who turns from lawlessness to the observance of the divine commandments: “And the wicked, if he turns from all his iniquities that he has committed,” and so on until [the words] “so that he turns from the evil path and lives” (cf. Eze. 18:21.23), about one who returns from success in virtue to the abundance of vice - the following: “And if the righteous departs from righteousness his own and will commit unrighteousness” and so on until [the words] “and in his sins that he has sinned, he will die in them” (cf. Eze. 18:24). Or let those who, on the basis of the parable 43 of the net, introduce [various] natures, tell us, the lawless one, who subsequently turned from all his iniquities that he had committed, keeping all the commandments of the Lord and doing righteousness and mercy (cf. Eze. 18:21), what nature was he, being a lawless one? Definitely not one worthy of praise. But if, therefore, one that is worthy of blame, then what nature could reasonably be attributed to him when he turns “from all his iniquities that he has committed”? For if it is bad because of the former, then how has it changed for the better? If noble because of what follows, then how, being of a noble nature, was he a lawless one? You will be faced with a similar question regarding the righteous man who departs from his righteousness and commits unrighteousness, indulging in all iniquities (κατὰ πάσας τὰς ἀνομίας) (cf. Eze. 18:24). For before he turned away from righteousness, while he was in the midst of righteous deeds, he was not of a bad nature; after all, in righteousness an evil nature would have no place, since a bad tree - vice - cannot bear good fruit (cf. Matthew 7:18) - [the fruits of] virtue. And on the other hand, being of a noble and unchangeable nature, he would not have turned away from good, after being reputed (χρηματίσαι) to be righteous, - “from his righteousness” to doing “unrighteousness, indulging in all the iniquities that [the wicked man] has committed” (cf. Eze. 18:24) 44. 12. Based on what has been said, one should think that the Kingdom of Heaven is likened to “a net thrown into the sea and captured [fish] from every kind” (Matthew 13:47) in order to show the diversity of human wills, which differ from each other as much as possible, so that [the words] “snatched from every kind” [mean] those who are worthy of praise and censure for inclinations towards [various] types of virtues or vices. And the Kingdom of Heaven is likened to the diverse interweaving of a net because the Old and New Testaments are woven from different and diverse thoughts. And just as of the fish caught in a net, some end up in some parts of the net, and others in others, and each in the part where it was caught, so, perhaps, in the case of those who find themselves in the net of the Scriptures, you will find that some, in accordance with this saying (κατὰ τόδε τὸ ῥητὸν) 45 are caught in a prophetic net, such as that of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Daniel, others by the [net of] the law, others by the gospel, and some by the apostolic. For at first, anyone who is caught in the Word, or appears to be caught, is caught [only] by a certain part of the whole net. But there is nothing absurd if some of the caught fish are entangled in the entire interweaving net of the Scriptures and are covered and held from everywhere, not being able to escape, but, as if enslaved on all sides, do not get the opportunity to fall out of the net. This net is thrown into the sea (cf. Matt. 13:47), [i.e. e. in] the life of people *** 46 full of unrest throughout the universe and floating in the bitter affairs of life. This net to our Savior Jesus was not completely filled (πεπληρωμένη); after all, the network of the law and the prophets lacked the one who said: “Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill (πληρῶσαι)” (Matthew 5:17). And the net of the net was filled (πεπλήρωται) through the Gospels and the words of Christ [transmitted] through the apostles 47 . That is why “the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea and captured [fish] of every kind” (Matthew 13:47). In addition to the explanation already given, [the expression] “taking [fish] from every nation” (ἐκ παντὸς <γένους>) can mean the calling of the pagans from every nation (ἀπὸ παντὸς γένους). And those who serve with a net thrown into the sea are the owner of the net, Jesus Christ and the Angels who came and serve Him (cf. Matt. 4:11), who do not pull the net out of the sea and do not carry it outside to the shore (cf. Matt. 13:48), [i.e. e.] into being outside this world (τὰ ἔξω τοῦ βίου πράγματα) 48, unless the net is filled, that is, [unless] the fullness of the Gentiles enters it (cf. Rom. 11:25). When he enters, then they will pull him out of this earthly existence and take him to what is figuratively called the shore; there those who pulled him out will sit down near the shore and position themselves on it 49 so that each of the good [people] in the net is placed in the appropriate category in their vessels mentioned here, but those who are disposed in the opposite way and are called bad are thrown out (cf. Matt. 13:48). And what is outside is a fiery furnace, as the Savior explained, saying: “So it will be at the end of the age: the angels will come out and separate the wicked from among the righteous, and cast them into the fiery furnace” (Matthew 13:49-50). In addition, it should be taken into account that already through the parable of the tares and the previous comparison we are taught that the Angels will be entrusted with distinguishing and separating the evil from the righteous. For it is said above that “the Son of Man will send His angels, and they will gather from His kingdom all temptations and the workers of iniquity, and will throw them into the fiery furnace; There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:41–42). Here it is said that “angels will come out and separate the wicked from among the righteous, and throw them into the fiery furnace.” 13. It does not follow from this, as some think, that people saved in Christ are better than even the holy Angels. For how can [people] thrown into vessels by the holy angels (cf. Matt. 13:48) be compared with those thrown into vessels, being placed under their authority? We say this without remaining ignorant that some of those angels who are not entrusted with such a duty (οἰκονομίαν), but still not all, are superior to people who will be saved in Christ. For we have also read [the words] “what angels desire to penetrate” (1 Peter 1:12), where it does not say “all angels.” We also know [the words] “we will judge the angels” (1 Cor. 6:3), where it does not say “all angels.” If this is written about the net and those in it, then the one who would like that until the end of the age and before the Angels come out and separate the wicked from among the righteous (cf. Matt. 13:49), there would be no evil of any kind in the net (cf. Matt. 13:47), seems to have not understood the Scripture and wants the impossible. Therefore, let us not be surprised if, before the Angels sent for this purpose separate the wicked from among the righteous, we see that our assemblies are also full of the wicked. On the contrary, how could those who were cast into the fiery furnace (cf. Matt. 13:50) not turn out to be more numerous than the righteous 50! Since we said at the beginning 51 that parables and similes do not refer to all [the properties of things] with which they are compared and likened, but to some, then in the further presentation it should also be shown that in the case of fish, if we talk about their life, something bad happens to them when they find themselves in a net - after all, they are deprived of the life corresponding to their nature, and neither thrown into vessels nor thrown out undergo nothing more than the loss of that life that is inherent in fish. In the case of what the parable refers to, it is bad to be at sea and not fall into a net in order to be thrown into vessels along with good [people]. So the bad fish are discarded and thrown out, and the bad [people] according to this simile (ὁμοίωσιν) are thrown into the fiery furnace, so that what was said in Ezekiel about the furnace may also happen to them: “And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Son of man, behold, all who are mixed with copper and iron have become my house of Israel,” and so further down to [the words]: “And you will know why I, the Lord, have poured out My wrath on you” (cf. Eze. 22:17–18, 22). 14. “Did you understand all this? They say: yes” (Matthew 13:51). Jesus Christ, who knows what is in the hearts of men, as John taught about this in the Gospel (see John 2:24-25), does not ask in ignorance, but, having once perceived the [nature] of a person, uses all his [properties], one of which is to ask. And it is not surprising if the Savior does this, since the God of all [beings], enduring the [imperfections] of people (τροποφορῶν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους), “as if a man were enduring 52 [the imperfections] of his son” (cf. Deut. 1:31), asks questions, for example: “Adam, where are you? " (Gen. 3:9) and "Where is Abel your brother? "(Gen.4:9). Someone here will declare, distorting [the meaning of the text] (βιασάμενος), that “understood” is not said interrogatively, but affirmatively, and will also say that the disciples say “yes” to Him, confirming His statement. However, whether He asks or affirms, it is no coincidence (ἀναγκαίως) [here] it is said not only “this” - that is, a demonstrative [pronoun] - and not only “everything”, but “all this”. It seems that He now indicates that for the sake of (πρὸ) 53 the Kingdom of Heaven, the disciples became scribes (cf. Matt. 13:52); but this is contradicted by what is said in the Acts of the Apostles as follows: “Seeing the courage of Peter and John and noticing that they were unlearned and simple people, they were surprised and recognized them that they were with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). After all, someone will raise the question on this matter: if they were scribes, how is it that in Acts they are called unscriptural and simple? If they were unlearned and simple, how does the Savior more clearly call them scribes? To these questions, one could say either that in Acts not everyone is called unscriptural and simple, but Peter and John, and there were more disciples who understood everything (cf. Matt. 13:51), to whom it is said “every scribe,” etc. (cf. Matt. 13:52); or that a scribe is called anyone who has been taught a teaching that is in accordance with the letter of the law, so that even unlearned and simple [people], who are nevertheless guided by the letter of the law, are in a sense called scribes. After all, this is for simple [people], ignorant of allegorical interpretation (μὴ εἰδότων τροπολογεῖν) and not understanding what relates to the spiritual meaning (τὰ τῆς ἀναγωγῆς) of the Scriptures, but Those who believe in the bare letter and defend it are especially likely to call themselves scribes. Someone will interpret [the words] this way: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites” (Matthew 23:13) - as spoken to everyone who knows nothing but the letter. Here you will ask whether he is like the scribe of the law, and the scribe of the Gospel, and whether he is like the one who reads and listens to the law, and says, “which is an allegory” (Gal. 4:24), and [he interprets] the Gospel, that is, preserving the literal meaning corresponding to the events (τηρουμένης τῆς κατὰ τὰ γενόμενα ἱστορίας), knows how to infallibly ascend to the spiritual [meaning] (εἰδέναι... τὴν ἐπὶ τὰ πνευματικὰ ἄπταιστον ἀναγωγήν), so that the knowledge [acquired by him] would not be “spirits of evil” (Eph. 6:12), but opposite the spirits of evil, spirits of good. The scribe learns the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Matt. 13:52), according to a simpler [meaning], when someone from Judaism accepts the church teaching of Jesus Christ, and according to a deeper [meaning], when someone, having mastered the first principles (εἰσαγωγάς) with the help of the letter of the Scriptures, ascends to spiritual [things] called the Kingdom of Heaven. One can comprehend the Kingdom of Heaven by encountering any thought [of Scripture], comprehending it in a sublime way, comparing it [with others] and justifying it, so that one who has an abundance of correct knowledge finds himself in the Kingdom of many Heavens thus explained. This is how, in a figurative sense, you will understand (τροπολογήσεις) and [the words]: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17) - [as a call to] so that the scribes, that is, those who rest on the bare letter, having repented of such an interpretation, learn [transmitted] through Jesus Christ, the Word Living (τοῦ ἐμψύχου λόγου) 54, spiritual teaching, which is called the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, to the extent that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, [who was] “in the beginning with God” (John 1:2), does not dwell in the soul, there is no Kingdom of Heaven in it; when someone gets close to receiving the Word, the Kingdom of Heaven approaches him. If the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are one and the same in essence (ὑποστάσει), although not in name (ἐπινοίᾳ), it is clear that to whom it is said: “The Kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21), then it could also be said: “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you,” and primarily in view of the conversion from letters to the spirit, because when someone turns to the Lord, the veil over the letter is removed, but the Lord is the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. 3:16-17). The true owner of the house (cf. Matt. 13:52) is both free and rich: thanks to the fact that, [starting] from understanding the letter (ἀπὸ γραμματείας), he has learned the Kingdom of Heaven, he is rich in “every word” from the Old Testament and “all knowledge” (1 Cor. 1:5) about the new the teachings of Jesus Christ, and this wealth, deposited in his treasury, where he collects treasure, as he who has learned the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Matt. 13:52), he stores “in heaven, where neither moth destroys nor thieves break in” (Matthew 6:20). Moreover, regarding the one who, as we explained, is collecting treasure in heaven, it can truly be argued that not a single moth of passions (σὴς τῶν παθῶν) can touch his spiritual and heavenly property. I spoke about the moth of passions, based on Proverbs, in which it is written: “Like a worm in a tree, so sorrow harms a person’s heart” (Proverbs 25:20). For the worm and the moth are sorrows that harm the heart whose treasures are not in heaven or in spiritual [things]; after all, if someone lays up treasure there, then his heart is in heaven, - for “where the treasure is, there is the heart” (Matthew 6:21), - and he says about it: “If an army gathers against me, my heart will not fear” (Ps. 26:3). Likewise, the thieves, about whom the Savior said that “all of them, no matter how many of them came before Me, are thieves and robbers” (John 10:8), cannot dig up the treasures stored in heaven, and the heart that is with them, and for this reason he says: “He raised us up and seated us in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 2:6) and “our citizenship is in heaven” ( Phil.3:20). 15. Since “every scribe who is taught of the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out from his treasury new and old” (Matthew 13:52), it is clear that, according to the so-called conversion of the premises (τῆς προτάσεως ἀντιστροφήν) 55, everyone who He does not bring out new and old things from his treasury, nor is he a scribe taught in the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, we must try in every possible way to collect in our hearts, engaged in reading, instruction, teaching (cf. 1 Tim. 4:13) and meditating on the law of the Lord day and night (cf. Ps. 1:2), not only the new sayings of the Gospels, the apostles and their Revelation, but also the old [sayings] of the law, which has a shadow of future good things (cf. Heb. 10:1), and the prophets who prophesied in accordance with them. They will be collected when we both read [them] and recognize them (cf. 2 Cor. 3:2), and, having remembered them, appropriately compare “spiritual with spiritual” (1 Cor. 2:13), comparing with each other not incomparable, but comparable and having some similarity in an expression denoting the sameness of both thoughts and teachings (λέξεως ταὐτὸν σημαινούσης καὶ νοημάτων καὶ δογμάτων), so that from the mouth of two or three, or even more witnesses from the Scriptures, he could establish and confirm every word of God (cf. 2 Cor. 13:1). And with their help, one should put to shame (δυσωπητέον) those who, as far as it is in their power, divide the Divinity and separate the new from the old 56, as those who are far from being like the owner of the house, taking out of his treasury new and old (cf. Matt. 13:52). Since the one who is likened to someone is different from the one to whom he is likened, then “the scribe taught in the kingdom of heaven” will be the one who is likened, and the owner of the house “who brings out of his treasury new and old” (Matthew 13:52) is different from him. The one who resembles him, as imitating him, wants to do [something] similar. In this case, perhaps the owner of the house is Jesus himself, bringing out of his treasury at a time suitable for teaching as new, [i.e. e.] spiritual [things] constantly renewed by Him in the inner man of the righteous, [also] constantly renewed from day to day (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16), and the old, written in letters on stones (cf. 2 Cor. 3:7) and on the hearts of stone (cf. Eze. 11:19) of the old man (cf. Eph. 4:22), so as to compare letters and the manifestation of the spirit to enrich the scribe taught in the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Matt. 13:52), and to make him like Himself, until the disciple is like a teacher (cf. Matt. 10:25), imitating first the imitator of Christ, and after that Christ Himself, according to what Paul said: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). And in a simpler [sense] Jesus, the owner of the house, can bring out new things from His treasury, [i.e. e.] Gospel teaching, and the old - a comparison of sayings taken from the law and the prophets, examples of which can be found in the Gospels. About these new and old [things], we must also listen to the spiritual law, which says in Leviticus: “And you will eat the old and the old things of the old (παλαιὰ παλαιῶν), and throw away the old things from before the new, and I will make My dwelling place 57 among you” (Lev. 26:10–11). For we eat in blessing (ἐν εὐλογίᾳ) 58 old things, [i.e. e.] prophetic words, and the old things of old, [i.e. i.e. words] of the law, and upon the arrival of the new Gospel [teaching], living according to the Gospel, we throw away the old [i.e. e.] letter [of Scripture], from the face of the new, and He establishes His dwelling place among us, fulfilling the promise He made: “I will dwell and walk among them” (2 Cor. 6:16; cf. Lev. 26:12). 16. “And when Jesus had finished speaking these parables, he went away from there. And having come to his own country” [etc.] (Matthew 13:53–58). Since above we examined whether what was said to the people were parables, and to the disciples - similes 59, and set out comments related to this, in my opinion, worthy of attention, it should be known that all of them seem to be contradicted by the fact that not only about the parables, but also about what we interpreted as similes, at the end it is said: “And when Jesus finished these parables, he departed from there” (Matthew 13:53). Therefore, let us pose the question whether we should reject all this 60, or say that there are two kinds of parables, those that are told to the people, and those that are proclaimed to the disciples, or the term “parable” should be considered ambiguous (ὁμώνυμον), or [the words] “And when Jesus finished these parables” should be attributed only to the previous parables that were before the comparisons. For in view of [the words]: “To you it is given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven 61, but to others in parables” (Luke 8:10; cf. Mark 4:11), it cannot be said that the Savior spoke in these parables to the disciples, since they do not belong to the number of external ones (cf. Mark 4:11). And from this it follows that either [the words] “And when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed from there” refer to the parables spoken above, or the word “parable” is ambiguous, or there are two kinds of parables, or what we called similes are not parables at all. And pay attention that the parables, having finished which He went from there, He speaks outside His fatherland, and, having come to His fatherland, He taught them in their synagogue (cf. Matt. 13:53-54). And Mark says: “And he came 62 to his own country; His disciples follow Him” (Mark 6:1). Therefore, regarding this statement, one should ask whether he calls His fatherland Nazareth or Bethlehem: Nazareth - because of [the words] “He will be called a Nazarite” (Matthew 2:23), Bethlehem - because He was born in it (see Matthew 2:1). I also wonder (ἐφίστημι): maybe the evangelists, although they could say “having come to Bethlehem” or “having come to Nazareth,” still did not do this, but used the word “fatherland”, since in this place concerning His fatherland, which was the whole of Judea, where He was not revered according to [the words]: “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country.” "(Matthew 13:57), - a certain mysterious meaning is expressed (τι μυστικῶς... δηλούμενον). And if anyone takes into account that Jesus Christ is a stumbling block to the Jews (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23), among whom He is persecuted to this day, but among the Gentiles He is preached and accepted by faith (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16), for His word has spread (cf. 2 Thess. 3:1) throughout the whole earth (cf. Rom. 10:18), then he will see that Jesus had no honor in His own country, but is revered by the pagans who are alien to the covenants (cf. Eph. 2:12). What He said while teaching them in the synagogue, the evangelists did not write down, but [reported] that it was so great and significant that everyone was amazed (cf. Matt. 13:54); and it is possible that what was said was too sublime to be written down (ὑπὲρ γραφήν). However, He taught them in the synagogue, without separating from it or rejecting it. 17. [The words]: “Where does He get such wisdom from?” "(Matthew 13:54) - clearly show the great and exceptional wisdom of the words of Jesus, worthy [to say]: "And behold, here is a greater one than Solomon" (Matthew 12:42). After all, He performed miracles (δυνάμεις) greater than Elijah, Elisha, and even earlier, Moses and Joshua. The surprised [listeners], who did not know that He was the son of the Virgin, and would not have believed [in this], even if they had been told, but believed that He was the [son of] Joseph the carpenter, said: “Isn’t He the son of carpenters?” "(Matthew 13:55). And showing contempt for everyone who seemed to be His closest relatives, they said: “Is not His Mother called Mary, and His brothers Jacob and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas? And are not His sisters all among us? "(Matthew 13:55-56). So they thought that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. As for the brothers of Jesus, some, based on the tradition from the Gospel entitled "from Peter", or from the Book of James 63, say that these are the sons of Joseph by his first wife who lived with him before Mary 64. Those who say this want to preserve to the end the virginal dignity of Mary, so that it does not [turn out as if] this body, chosen to serve the Word, who said: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35), knew the male bed after the Holy Spirit descended into her and the power that overshadowed her from on high 65. And I think there is meaning [in the statement that] Jesus is the firstfruits (ἀπαρχήν) of purity and chastity for men, and Mary for women. For it is wicked to attribute the firstfruits of virginity to another and not to Her. James is the one whom, according to him, Paul saw, who said in the Epistle to the Galatians: “But I saw no other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:19). This James was so famous for his righteousness among the people that Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, wanting to give the reason why the people suffered such great [disasters], so that even the church was destroyed, said that this happened to them because of the wrath of God because of what they had dared to do against James, the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ. And it is surprising (cf. John 9:30) that, not admitting that our Jesus is the Christ, he nevertheless testified to such great righteousness in James. According to him, the people also believed that they suffered this because of Jacob 66 ​​. And Jude wrote an epistle 67, which, although it consists of few verses, is full of words strong by heavenly grace; in the preface he said: “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, the brother of James” (Jude 1:1). We did not find out anything about Joseph and Simon. [The words] “And are not His sisters all among us?” "(Matthew 13:56), it seems to me, mean approximately the following: they think like us, and not like Jesus, and there is nothing unusual in them, [which is characteristic of] exceptional wisdom (τὰ ἡμέτερα φρονοῦσιν οὐ τὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ οὐδὲν ξένον ἔχουσιν ἐξαιρέτου συνέσεως), like Jesus. And perhaps these [words] express such a doubt: that if Jesus is not a man, but something more divine, [after all] being the son, as they believed, of Joseph and Mary, the brother of four [people], as well as (οὐδὲν δ' ἧττον) 68 others - female, He is completely unlike anyone from His kind and achieved such great wisdom and strength not thanks to education and training. Indeed, in another place they say: “How does He know the Scriptures without studying? "(John 7:15). This is close to what was said here. However, those who said such things and doubted and were amazed to such an extent, still did not believe, but were “offended because of Him” (Matthew 13:57), as if the eyes of their minds were restrained (cf. Luke 24:16) by the powers over which He was to triumph (cf. Col. 2:15) at the hour of His suffering on the cross 69. 18. “Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honor except in his own country” (Matthew 13:57). It should be asked whether this statement has the same meaning when applied to every prophet in general, that is, that each of the prophets is deprived of honor only in his own country - after all, not every [person] deprived of honor is deprived of it in his fatherland - or is it said about one [prophet], since it is spoken in the singular. So, if this is said about one thing, then what is stated [above] is sufficient if we relate what is written here to the Savior. If this [is said about all the prophets] in general, then from the point of view of history (ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἱστορίας) this does not correspond to the truth - after all, neither Elijah was deprived of honor in Thesvah of Gilead (see 3 Kings 17:1), nor Elisha in Abel-Mechol (see 1 Kings 19:16), neither Samuel in Ramathaim (see 1 Kings 1:1), nor Jeremiah in Anathoth (see Jer. 1:1), but in a figurative sense (τροπολογούμενον) this is absolutely true. For one must think that their fatherland is Judea, their relatives (cf. Mark 6:4) are this [carnal] Israel, and their home (cf. Matt. 13:57), perhaps, is the body. After all, all of them, while still in the body, were deprived of honor in Judea by Israel “according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18), as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said in reproach to the people: “For which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? they killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One” (Acts 7:52). About the same thing is said by Paul in the First [Epistle] to the Thessalonians: “But you, brethren, have become imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus, which are in Judea, because you also suffered the same from your fellow tribesmen as those from the Jews, who killed Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and do not please God, and oppose all men "(1 Thess. 2:14-15). So, there is no prophet without honor among the pagans: after all, they either do not know him at all, or, having recognized and accepted him as a prophet, they honor him. Such are those [of them] who belong to the Church. And prophets are deprived of honor, firstly, in the literal sense (κατὰ ἱστορίαν), when they are persecuted by the people, and secondly, when their prophecy does not find faith among the people. After all, if they [the Jews] believed Moses and the prophets, they would also believe Christ (cf. John 5:46), Who showed that those who believe Moses and the prophets should believe Christ, and those who do not believe Christ should not believe Moses. In addition, just as it is said of a sinner that he dishonors God by breaking the law (cf. Rom. 2:23), so he who does not believe prophecies dishonors the prophet by not believing in what is prophesied 70 . Regarding historical authenticity (ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν), it is useful to read what Jeremiah suffered among the people, about which he said: “And he said: I will not speak nor call the name of the Lord” (Jer. 20:9), and in another place: “I was in derision” ( Jer.20:7). And everything that he suffered from the then king of Israel is written in his prophecy. And that some people from the people repeatedly came to stone Moses, this is also written (see Ex. 17:4, Num. 14:10), and for him the fatherland was not some rocky terrain (οὐχ οἱ λίθοι τινὸς τόπου), but those who followed him, [i.e. e.] people from whom even he was deprived of honor. And about Isaiah it is reported that he was sawn to pieces by the people. If anyone does not accept this story because it is contained in the apocryphal [book of] Isaiah 71, let him believe what is written in [the Epistle] to the Hebrews in these words: “[the prophets] were stoned, sawn apart, and tortured” (Heb. 11:37). For “they were sawn apart” refers to Isaiah, just as “they died by the sword” (Heb. 11:37) - to Zechariah, who was killed “between the church and the altar” (Matt. 23:35; cf. Luke 11:51), as the Savior pointed out, testifying, in my opinion, in favor of a work that is not listed among the generally accepted and widely circulated books, but seems to be listed among the apocrypha 72. They were deprived of honor in their fatherland, [i.e. e.] among the Jews, and those who wandered “in mantles and goatskins, suffering disadvantages, sorrows” and so on (Heb. 11:37). For “all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12). It seems that Paul, knowing this - that a prophet has no honor in his own country (cf. John 4:44), having proclaimed the Word everywhere, did not proclaim it in Tarsus. And because of this, the apostles left Israel and fulfilled what the Savior ordered: “Teach all nations” (Matthew 28:19) and “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). They actually carried out what they were ordered to do in Judea and Jerusalem, but since a prophet has no honor in his own country, when the Jews did not accept the Word, they went “to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). Consider also whether, in view of the fact that [the words]: “I will pour out my spirit on all flesh, and they will prophesy” (Joel 2:28, Acts 2:17) after the appearance of the Savior were fulfilled in the churches of the pagans, say that those who were formerly of the world and, having believed, became no longer of the world (cf. John 15:19), having received the Holy Spirit and having begun to prophesy, they have no honor in their own country, [i.e. e.] the world, but are dishonored. Therefore, blessed are those who endured the same as the prophets, according to what the Savior said: “For their fathers did the same to the prophets” (Luke 6:23). Whoever pays due attention to these [words], if he endures hatred and malice because he lives with great zeal and denounces sinners, he, as persecuted and reviled “for righteousness’ sake” (Matt. 5:10), will not only not be upset, but will also rejoice and be glad, confident that for this he will receive a great reward in heaven (cf. Matt. 5:12) from Him, Who likened him to the prophets, since he suffered the same thing [as they]. Therefore, it must be that those who seek the prophetic life and the spirit that is present in them should not have honor in the world and among sinners who are irritated by the life of the righteous. 19. Further you can see that He “did not perform many miracles (δυνάμεις) there because of their unbelief” (Matthew 13:58). These [words] teach us that miracles happened among believers, since “to everyone who has, more will be given and he will have abundance” (Matthew 25:29), but among unbelievers, miracles not only did not happen, but, as Mark wrote, they could not happen. For pay attention to [the words]: “And he could not perform any miracle there” (Mark 6:5). After all, he did not say “didn’t want to,” but “couldn’t,” as if the miracle that was happening was assisted by the faith of the one affected by the miracle, and unbelief would prevent it from happening. And notice that those who said: “Why couldn’t we drive him out? “, - He said: “Because of your lack of faith” (cf. Matt. 17:19-20), and Peter, who began to drown, was told: “O you of little faith, why did you doubt? "(Matthew 14:31). But [the woman] who was suffering from bleeding, without asking for treatment, but only judging that she would be healed if she touched “the hem of His garment” (Mark 6:56), “was immediately healed” (Luke 8:47), and the Savior admits [that this was] the method of healing, saying: “Who touched Me? 73 For I felt the power (δύναμιν) going out from Me” (Luke 8:46). And perhaps, just as in the case of bodies, some have a natural attraction to others, for example, a magnetic stone to iron and the so-called oil (νάφθᾳ) to fire, so in such faith [there is a craving] for a divine miracle (δύναμιν). That is why it is said: “If you have faith the size of a mustard seed and say to this mountain, “Move from here to there,” and it will move” (Matthew 17:20). It seems to me that Matthew and Mark, wanting to show the superiority of divine power (δυνάμεως), [i.e. e.] that it is capable of [acting] even in the midst of unbelief, but it is capable of no more than with [the presence of] faith among those to whom it does good, observing the necessary accuracy (ἀκριβῶς) 74 they did not say: “He did not perform miracles there because of their unbelief,” but: “he did not perform many miracles there” (Matthew 13:58). And Mark did not say that He “could not perform any miracle there,” and stopped there, but added: “Only laying His hands on a few sick people did He heal [them]” (Mark 6:5), since the power (δυνάμεως) [which was] in Him, and in such circumstances, conquered unbelief 75. It seems to me that, as in the case of bodily [goods], neither cultivating the land is enough to collect fruits, unless the [grain] contained [in it] (τὸ περιεχόμενον), and even more so the environment containing it (τὸ περιέχον), does not contribute to this [by the] quality in which He who puts it in order and makes it the way he wants 76 wills, nor a containing environment without cultivating the land - or rather, the Provider (ὁ προνοῶν) will not allow the [fruits] growing from the earth to grow out of it without cultivation, because He did this [only] once, saying: “Let the earth sprout the former herbs, sowing seed according to their kind and likeness.” (Gen. 1:11), - so neither miraculous powers (τὰ ἐνεργήματα τῶν δυνάμεων) (cf. 1 Cor. 12:10) without the faith of those being healed do not reveal an effect completely sufficient for healing, nor faith, whatever it may be, without divine power. And you will apply what is written about wisdom both to faith and to every type of virtue (ταῖς ἀρεταῖς κατ’ εἶδος) 77 so as to obtain the following statement: “even if someone were perfect” in faith “among the sons of men, if Your” power is absent, “he will be considered as nothing”; or “[even if someone] is perfect” in moderation (σωφροσύνῃ) “among the sons of men, if Thy” moderation is absent, “he will be considered as nothing”; or “[even if someone] is perfect” in justice and other virtues “among the sons of men, if Yours” justice and other virtues, “he will be considered as nothing” (cf. Wisdom 9:6). Therefore, “let not the wise boast in his wisdom, nor the mighty in his strength” (Jer. 9:23), because what is worthy of praise is not ours, but the gift of God: the wisdom of God and the power of God, and likewise the rest. 20. “At this time Herod the tetrarch heard the rumor about Jesus and said to his servants: This is John the Baptist” [etc.] (Matthew 14:1-11). And so it is in Mark, and so in Luke (cf. Mark 6:14; Luke 9:7). The Jews had different opinions about the objects [of faith], some were false, which were held by the Sadducees about the resurrection of the dead, as if they do not rise, and about angels, as if they do not exist, but what is written about them has only an allegorical meaning (τροπολογουμένων) and does not contain anything true in the historical sense (ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἱστορίαν); others [opinions] seem to be true, as the Pharisees taught about the resurrection of the dead, that they are resurrected 79 . The question that arises in connection with this passage is whether this was the opinion about the soul, which, erringly, was held by Herod and some [people] from the people, that not long before this, John, who was killed by him, after cutting off his head, rose from the dead (cf. Matt. 14: 2) and that, using a different name and now called Jesus, he was the same [man], capable of perception (δεκτικός) the same forces that were previously active in John. So, how plausible is it that [Jesus], so well known to all the people and glorified throughout all Judea, was said to be the son of the carpenter and Mary and to have such and such brothers and sisters (cf. Matthew 13:55), was considered none other than John, whose father was Zechariah, and whose mother was Elizabeth, also well-known among the people? After all, it is likely that the people, thinking about John, “that [he] was certainly a prophet” (Mark 11:32), and being so numerous that the Pharisees were afraid to answer, “from heaven or from men” (Matthew 21:25, Mark 11:30, Luke 20:4) his baptism, so as not to seem as if they were saying something displeasing to the people, were not ignorant that he was the son of Zechariah. And some of them may have received [information] about the vision they saw in the church when Gabriel appeared to Zechariah (cf. Luke 1:19-22). So, in fact, how plausible is the delusion of either Herod or some of the people, so that they believe that there were not two [persons], John and Jesus, but John, being one and the same [person], having risen from the dead after being cut off, bore the name Jesus? Someone may say that Herod and some of the people shared a false opinion about reincarnation (μετενσωματώσεως ψευδοδοξίαν), 80 based on which they thought that the one who had once been John was reborn (ἐν γενέσει γενέσθαι) and returned from the dead to life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and Jesus, which takes no more than six months (cf. Luke 1:24-26.36), does not allow us to consider this false opinion plausible. It is possible that Herod rather had something like this assumption: the forces operating in John moved into Jesus, and because of them the people believed that He was John the Baptist. And we can use this conclusion: just as because of the spirit and power of Elijah (cf. Luke 1:17), and not because of his soul, it is said about John: “He is Elijah, who must come” (Matthew 11:14), since the spirit [that was] in Elijah and the power [that was] in him passed into John, so Herod thought that the powers [that were] in John produced in John that which is connected with baptism and teaching - after all, “John did not perform any miracle” (John 10:41), - but in Jesus there are extraordinary miracles (cf. Matt. 14:2). Someone will say that this was what was meant by those who claimed that Elijah appeared in Jesus or that one of the ancient prophets was resurrected (cf. Luke 9:8.19, Matthew 16:14, Mark 8:28). The opinion of those who said that Jesus was “a prophet, as one of the prophets” (Mark 6:15) is completely irrelevant to [this] issue. So these words written about Jesus [i.e. e. Matthew 14:2], whether they belong to Herod, or were said by some [people from the people], are erroneous. And yet, it seems to me, there is more plausibility in the similarity between what they here assume about John and Jesus, and [the assertion] that John came as the forerunner (προεληλυθέναι) “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17). Because, firstly, we learned that after the temptation the Savior, “hearing that John was given [into custody], withdrew into Galilee” (Matthew 4:12); secondly, that, being in prison, having heard [stories] about Jesus, “he sent two 81 of his disciples and said to him: Are you the one who is coming, or are we looking for someone else? "(Matthew 11:2-3); and at the same time (ἁπαξαπλῶς), thirdly, what Herod said about Jesus: “This is John the Baptist; he rose from the dead” (Matthew 14:2) - but they did not receive any preliminary information about the method of killing the Baptist, so now Matthew wrote about this, and Mark is close to him. Luke passed over in silence much of the history [recounted] by them. 21. The text of Matthew is as follows: “For Herod took John, bound him [and put him] 82 in prison” (Matthew 14:3). In this regard, it seems to me that, just as the law and the prophets [existed] before John (cf. Matt. 11:13), after which the prophetic grace of the Jews ceased, so the power of those who reigned over the people, which reached them even to [the right] to kill those considered worthy of death, was before John, and after the last of the prophets was lawlessly killed by Herod, the king of the Jews was deprived of power kill. After all, if Herod had not been deprived of it 83, then Pilate would not have condemned Jesus to death, but Herod would have been sufficient for this, together with the council of high priests and elders of the people [84] assembled for this purpose. And then, I think, the following words of Jacob to Judah were fulfilled: “The prince of [the tribe] of Judah will not fail, nor the 85 leader of Israel 86 until He comes to whom 87 is set aside, and He is the hope of the nations” (Gen. 49:10). It is also possible that the Jews were deprived of this power when Divine Providence allowed the teachings of Christ to spread among the people. διδασκαλίᾳ ἐν τῷ λαῷ νομήν) so that, even if it encounters obstacles from the Jews, it does not lead to the murder of believers, which would apparently be carried out in accordance with the law. And “Herod, having taken John, bound him and put him in prison” (Matthew 14:3), showing by this (σύμβολον ποιῶν) that, as far as it depends on him and on the depravity of the people, he bound and imprisoned the prophetic word, preventing him from continuing to remain a preacher of the truth in freedom, as before. Herod did this “because of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because John said to him: you must not have her” (Matthew 14:3–4). This Philip was the tetrarch of “Ituraea and the region of Trachonitis” (Luke 3:1) 88. Some think that after Philip died, leaving behind a daughter, Herod married Herodias, his brother's wife, although the law allows [such] marriage [only] when childless 89 . We, having nowhere clearly discovered that Philip died, believe that Herod committed an even greater lawlessness, that he stole the wife of his living brother 90. 22. Therefore, John, endowed with prophetic free speech and not embarrassed by the royal dignity of Herod, and also not keeping silent about such a great sin because of the fear of death, filled with divine wisdom, said to Herod: “You should not have it” (Matthew 14:4). For “you must not have your brother’s wife” (Mark 6:18). Herod took John, bound him, and put him in prison (cf. Matt. 14:3), not daring to kill him completely and take away the “prophetic word” from the people (2 Pet. 1:19). But the wife of King Trachonite, - [i.e. e.] a certain bad opinion and vicious teaching - gave birth to a daughter of the same name 91, whose movements (κινήματα), which seemed proportionate, pleased Herod, who loved created goods (τὰ γενέσεως πράγματα) 92, and became the reason that there was no longer a prophetic head among the people (κεφαλὴν προφητικήν) 93 . At this time, I believe that the actions of the Jewish people, which seem to be in accordance with the law, turn out to be nothing more than the actions of Herodias the daughter. But Herodias’s dance was the opposite of the sacred dance, those who did not dance it would be reproached and hear: “We played the flute for you and you did not dance” (Matthew 11:17, Luke 7:32). And they dance at the birthday party while they are ruled by the lawless doctrine ὀρχοῦνται) 94 so that their movements would please this teaching. In fact, one of our predecessors drew attention to the birthday of Pharaoh described in Genesis (Gen. 40:20) and explained that [only] a bad [man], who loves created goods (τὰ γενέσεως πράγματα), celebrates his birthday 95. We, having found this starting point [for research] from him, did not find anywhere in Scripture that a birthday was celebrated by a righteous person 96 . But Herod is much more unrighteous than that Pharaoh: for at his birthday party he kills the chief baker (cf. Gen. 40:22), this same one - John, the greater of whom did not rise up among those born of women (cf. Matt. 11:11, Luke 7:28), about whom the Savior says: “But why did you come out? See the prophet? 97 Yes, I say to you, and greater than the prophet” (Matthew 11:9, Luke 7:26). But we must thank God for the fact that, although prophetic grace was taken away from the people, much greater than any such [grace] was poured out on the pagans through our Savior Jesus, who became “free among the dead” (Ps. 88:6). “For although He was crucified in weakness, He lives by the power of God” (2 Cor. 13:4). Look also at this people, who distinguish between clean and unclean food, but despise prophecy, presented “on a platter” (Matthew 14:8-11), like a snack. “Heads” (κεφαλήν) (Matthew 14:8) the Jews do not have prophecies, denying the main thing (τὸ κεφάλαιον) in every prophecy - Jesus Christ. And the prophet is beheaded “for the sake of oaths” (Matthew 14:9), which were more appropriate to break than to keep. After all, it is not the same thing - an accusation of rashness of an oath and perjury due to this rashness and an accusation of murdering a prophet. And not only for this reason [he] is beheaded, but also “those who reclined with” (Matthew 14:9) [Herod’s tablemates], who wanted the prophet to be killed rather than live. Those who rejoice at his birth will recline and feast together with the vicious teaching that rules the Jews. Perhaps someday you will wittily use what has been said in relation to those who swear hastily and want to firmly keep oaths that were taken for the sake of iniquity, telling [them] that not every observance of an oath is correct, as in the case of Herod. Also, pay attention that Herod kills John not openly (οὐ μετὰ παρρησίας), but secretly and “in prison” (Matthew 14:10): so the present Jewish people do not deny the prophecies openly, but in essence (δυνάμει) and implicitly deny them and is convicted of not believing them. After all, just as if they had believed Moses, they would have believed Jesus (cf. John 5:46), so if they had believed the prophets, they would have accepted the One about whom there was a prophecy. Not believing in Him, they do not believe them either and behead, locking up in prison, the “prophetic word” (2 Pet. 1:19), and they have it dead, divided and in no way sound (cf. Titus 2:8), since they do not understand it. With us, Jesus is unharmed, for the prophecy about Him was fulfilled: “A bone will not be broken” (John 19:36, cf. Exod. 12:46, Num. 9:12) 98. 23. John's disciples came, buried his remains and went and told Jesus (cf. Matt. 14:12). He withdrew into a deserted place (cf. Matt. 14:13), [i.e. e. to] the pagans. And after [the Jews] were deprived of prophets, the people followed Him from everywhere from the cities (cf. Matt. 14:13). Seeing his large numbers, He “took pity and healed their sick” (Matthew 14:14), and after that he fed those who followed Him [with pieces of bread], which he blessed and multiplied from the few loaves. “When Jesus heard it, he departed from there in a boat to a deserted place alone” (Matthew 14:13). What is said here teaches us to distance ourselves as much as possible from persecutors and from the expectation of intrigues [directed against us] because of the Word. After all, this would, perhaps, be the most prudent thing, but when someone who may be out of danger goes to meet it (ὁμόσε χωρεῖν), this is reckless and impudent 99 . Who else would doubt that such a thing should be avoided, if Jesus not only withdrew after what [was done] against John, but also teaches and says: “If 100 people persecute you in this city, flee to another” (Matthew 10:23)? So, the test that comes independently of us (οὐ παρ’ ἡμᾶς) must be endured with utmost nobility and courage; when it is possible to avoid [it], not to do so is reckless. Since after the literal expression (μετὰ τὸ ῥητόν) this place should also be examined according to the spiritual meaning (κατὰ ἀναγωγήν), it must be said that since the prophecy became a victim of intrigues and was taken away from the Jews due to the fact that they valued created goods (τὰ γενέσεως πράγματα) and due to [their] approval of the vain movements of [Herodias], - judging by the truth, awkward and clumsy, but, in the perception of the ruler of the wicked (ὁ τῶν φαύλων ἄρχων) and his companions, proportionate and pleasant to them, then Jesus departs from the place where the prophecy suffered from the wiles was condemned. He retires to a deserted place (ἔρημον), [i.e. i.e. deprived] of God, from the pagans, so that the Word of God, after the Kingdom was taken away from those [i.e. e. Jews] and given to “a people bearing the fruit thereof” (Matthew 21:43), appeared among the pagans and thanks to Him the children of a forsaken (τῆς ἐρήμου) [woman] who was not taught either the law or the prophets became numerous rather than those who had a husband (cf. Gal.4:27, Is.54:1, Gen.16:1), [i.e. e.] law. Moreover, when before the Jews had the Word, it was not with them as it was with the pagans. That is why it is said that on a boat, that is, in the body, [Jesus] went to a deserted place alone, having heard about the murder of the prophet. Finding himself in the desert, He was alone in it (κατ’ ἰδίαν), because the Word was alone (ἰδιάζοντα) and His teaching turned out to be contrary to the habits and customs of the pagans. And the people from among the pagans, hearing that the Word had arrived in their wilderness and that He [i.e. e. Jesus] found himself alone, as we indicated above, followed Him from their cities (cf. Matt. 14:13), since everyone left the superstitious customs of their fathers and came to the law of Christ. He followed Him on foot (cf. Matt. 14:13), and not by boat, like those who followed the image of God (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15, Rom. 8:29, Phil. 2:6-11, Heb. 1:3) not with the body, but with only the soul and free will (προαιρέσει), convinced by the Word. And so Jesus comes out to them, unable to approach Him (cf. Matt. 14:14), so that, finding himself among the outsiders (cf. Mark 4:11), he can lead the outsiders inside. This external people, to whom the Word of God comes, is numerous, and, having poured out the light of His visitation on them, He saw them, and seeing that they were rather worthy of compassion because they were in similar [circumstances], the Impassive, being a lover of mankind, suffered, since he experienced pity (ὡς φιλάνθρωπος πέπονθεν ὁ ἀπαθὴς τῷ σπλαγχνισθῆναι) 101, and not only had compassion, but also healed their sick (cf. Matt. 14:14), having various and varied diseases [caused by] vice 102. 24. If you want to see what the illnesses of the soul are, think with me about the money-lovers, the ambitious and the lovers of boys, and even if there is someone who loves women: after all, seeing them among the people and taking pity on them, He healed them. However, not every sin should be considered a disease, but one that affects the soul entirely. Thus, one can see that money lovers are entirely focused on money, its preservation and accumulation, while ambitious people are focused on insignificant glory (τὸ δοξάριον), for they, with their mouths open, expect praise from the majority and from [people] very insignificant. And you will notice something similar in the case of the other [diseases] that we have named, as well as others close to them, if there are any. Since, interpreting [the words] “he healed their sick,” we said that not every sin is a disease, this difference between them [i.e. e. sins] confirm based on Scripture. In fact, the apostle, addressing the Corinthians who have various sins, writes: “That is why many among you are weak and sick and sleep a lot (κοιμῶνται)” 103 (1 Cor. 11:30). Pay attention in these [words] to the conjunction “and”, connecting various sins and forming a coherent sequence from them (τοῦ “καὶ” συνδέσμου, πλέκοντος καὶ according to which some are weak, others are rather sick than weak, but from both Those who sleep are different from others. For those who, due to the powerlessness of the soul, are susceptible to this or that sin, although not completely subject to any type of sin, like the sick, are only weak. And those who, with all their soul, with all their heart and with all their mind, instead of loving God (cf. Matt. 22:37), love money, insignificant fame, women or boys, have experienced more than weakness: they are sick. Those who sleep are those who, while they should be attentive and awake in soul, do not do this, but because of great inattention they are dormant in will and drowsy in thoughts; those who “indulging in dreams defile the flesh, reject the authorities, and speak evil of the high authorities” (Jude 1:8). Because they sleep, they are in empty and dream-like dreams of reality, do not accept reality and truth, but are misled by what they [see] in these empty dreams. Isaiah also says about them: “As a thirsty man dreams that he drinks, and when he gets up, he still thirsts, but his soul hoped in vain, so it will be with the wealth of all the nations that went to war against Jerusalem 104” (Is. 29:8). And if it seemed that we deviated from the topic, explaining the difference between the weak, the sick and the sleeping in connection with the fact that the apostle in [the Epistle] to the Corinthians said the [words] interpreted by us, then we made this digression, wanting to show what the spiritual meaning is (τί σημαίνεται νοητόν) [of the words] “and healed their sick ". 25. After this, the Word says that “when evening came, His disciples came to Him, saying: This place is deserted and the hour is already past; Let the people go, so that they can go into the villages and buy food for themselves” (Matthew 14:15). First of all, notice that, intending to give the bread of blessing to the disciples to give to the people, He “healed the sick” so that they would receive a share of the bread of blessing while being healthy: for those who are still sick cannot receive the bread of blessing of Jesus. But if someone, when he should listen to [the words]: “Let everyone examine himself 105 and thus eat from the bread” (1 Cor. 11:28) and so on, does not listen to them, but receives a share of the Lord’s bread and His cup in an unprepared state (ὡς ἔτυχε), he becomes weak or sick or - due to the fact that he is, so to speak, deafened by power bread - falls asleep. 1. “When evening came, His disciples came to Him” (Matthew 14:15) - that is, at the end of the age, to which it is appropriate to apply [the expression] “the last time” found in the Epistle of John (1 John 2:18) - they, not yet understanding what the Word was going to do, tell Him that “this place is desolate” (Matthew 14:15), seeing the absence of the divine law and the Word among the majority [of people in this place]. They also tell Him that “the hour is past” (Matthew 14:15), as if the time suitable for the law and the prophets had already passed. Or perhaps they said this, hinting with this statement (ἀναφέροντες τὸν λόγον) also that John was beheaded, and the law and the prophets who were before John ceased. So, they say that the hour has passed and there is no food, since the time appropriate for it has already passed, [such] that those in the wilderness, following You, would serve the Law and the Prophets. And the disciples also say: let them go, so that everyone, if he cannot [do this] in the cities, buys food in the villages (cf. Matt. 14:15), places less worthy. The disciples said this, not hoping that after the letter of the law was abolished and the prophecies ended, the people would find unusual and new food. But see that Jesus, almost crying out, answers the disciples in clear words: “You think that if they leave Me, this large people in need of food, they will find it in the villages rather than with Me, and among the crowds of people, not city, but country, rather than staying with Me! I declare to you that what you think they need, they do not need, for “they do not need to leave” (Matthew 14:16), but what you think they do not need - that is, Me, since I am allegedly not able to feed them - this is what, contrary to your expectation, they need. Since, having instructed you, I made [you] able to give spiritual food to those in need (λογικὴν τροφήν), then you give food to the people who followed Me (cf. Matt. 14:16). For you have the power received from Me to give the people food: if you took it into account, you would understand that I am much more able to feed them, and you would not say: “Let the people go, so that when they go away they can buy food for themselves” (Matthew 14:15). 2. Jesus said: give them something to eat (cf. Matt. 14:16), because he gave the disciples the power to feed others. They, not denying that they can give loaves, but considering that they themselves (αὑτούς) 106 are too few in number and unable to feed those who followed Jesus, and not seeing that Jesus, having taken each loaf of bread, increases (ἐκτείνει) it as much as he wants, making it sufficient for everyone he wants to feed, they say: “We have only five here.” loaves and two fish" (Matthew 14:17), - perhaps secretly hinting (αἰνισσόμενοι) to the fact that the five loaves are the words of the Scriptures perceived by the senses, for this reason equated in number to the five senses, and the two fish are either the external and internal meaning (τὸν προφορικὸν καὶ τὸν ἐνδιάθετον λόγον) 107, which are, as it were, an addition to the sensible [objects] contained in the Scriptures, or, perhaps, the teaching that reached them about the Father and Son. That is why He also ate baked fish after the resurrection, taking a portion from the disciples (cf. Luke 24:42-43) and accepting the theological teaching about the Father, which they could present to Him [only] in part. In any case, we were able to approach the saying about the five loaves and two fishes in this way, but it is possible that those who are better able than us to connect the “five loaves and two fishes” with each other could give them a fuller and better explanation. Moreover, it is worth noting that in Matthew, Mark and Luke the disciples say that they have only five loaves and two fish, without mentioning that [the loaves] were wheat or barley. Only John said that the loaves were barley, and therefore, perhaps, in the Gospel of John the disciples do not admit that they themselves have these [loaves] - with him they say that “there is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish” (John 6:9). And until these five loaves and two fish were brought by the disciples to Jesus, they did not increase and multiply, and could not feed a larger number [of people]; when, having taken them, the Savior, first, looked up to heaven 108 (cf. Matt. 14:19), as if bringing down from there with the rays of his eyes (ταῖς ἀκτῖσι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν) 109 the power that was to saturate the loaves and fishes, intended to feed five thousand people, and after that he blessed (cf. Matt. 14:19) five loaves of bread and two fish, increasing and multiplying them with a word and blessing, and, thirdly, dividing (cf. Mark 6:41) and breaking (cf. Matthew 14:19), gave it to the disciples to give to the people - then there were enough loaves and fishes for everyone to eat and be satisfied (cf. Matthew 14:20), but they could not eat some of the blessed loaves. After all, for the people there was so much [bread] in excess that it was not the people themselves, but the disciples who were able to collect the remaining pieces and put them in boxes (cf. Matt. 14:20), full of leftovers and equal in number to the tribes of Israel. For it is written about Joseph in the Psalms: “His hands worked in a box” (Ps. 80:7), and about the disciples of Jesus [in the Gospel] - that, I believe 110, twelve [of them] took up the remaining pieces of twelve boxes, not half empty, but full (cf. Matt. 14:20). And I think that until now and until the end of the century, twelve boxes filled with pieces of living bread (cf. John 6:35, 48, 51), which the people cannot eat, remain with the disciples of Jesus, better than the people. Those who ate from the five loaves - even before there were twelve baskets left in abundance - having reached [understanding] the sensual [side of the Scriptures], had a relationship with the number five τῶν αἰσθητῶν φθάσαντες) 111, and therefore there are five thousand (cf. Matt. 14:21). Or those who ate received the sensual [in the Scriptures] because they too were fed by Him who looked up to heaven, blessed and broke them [i.e. e. loaves], and [these were] not children or women, but men (cf. Matt. 14:20). After all, in sensual food, I think, there are differences, so that some of them are among those who have left children (cf. 1 Cor. 13:11), and some are still infants and carnal in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1). 3. And we said this about [the words]: “And there were five thousand men who ate, without women or children” (Matthew 14:21). But there is an ambiguity in them: either there were five thousand husbands who ate and among those who ate there was not a single child or woman, or there were only five thousand husbands, not counting children and women. Some indeed interpreted [this passage] as we said at first - that neither children nor women were present at the increase and multiplication of [the food] from the five loaves and two fishes. But someone, perhaps, will say that since those who ate were many and they received their share of the bread of blessing in accordance with their dignity and ability, they are worthy of being counted (οἱ μὲν ἀριθμῶν ἄξιοι) - like the Israelites who were counted in the book of Numbers, who reached twenty years of age (cf. Numbers 1:18 ff.) – there were men; and those who were not worthy of such mention and counting were children and women. But you should understand “children” with me in a figurative sense (τροπολόγει δέ μοι), in accordance with [the words]: “I could not speak to you as spiritual, but as to carnal ones, as to babes in Christ” (1 Cor. 3:1), as well as “women” - in accordance with [the words]: “I want all of you 112 to present Christ as a pure virgin” (2 Cor. 11:2); “husbands” - in accordance with [the words]: “When he became a man, he left behind his children” (1 Cor. 13:11) 113. Let us not leave [the words] without explanation: “he commanded the people to lie down on the grass, took five loaves of bread and two fish, looked up to heaven, blessed and, breaking them, gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples to the people. And they all ate” (Matthew 14:19–20). What does it mean “and commanded all the people to lie down on the grass”? And what [meaning], worthy of the command of Jesus [himself], can be seen in this place? I think that he commanded the people to recline on the grass, because Isaiah says: “All flesh is grass” (Is. 40:6), that is, [he ordered] to place the flesh below (ὑποκάτω ποιῆσαι) and curb the “carnal mind” (Rom. 8:6), so that in this way one could receive a share of the loaves, which Jesus blesses. Further, since there are different classes of those who need food from Jesus, for not everyone is fed with the same words, because of this, I think, Mark wrote: “And he commanded them all to sit down in 114 sections on the green grass. And they sat down in rows, by hundreds and by fifties” (Mark 6:39–40), and Luke: “He said to his disciples, “Set them in rows of about fifty” (Luke 9:14). For it was fitting that those who were to find comfort in the food of Jesus should be either in the class of those who were [seated in] hundred (and this number is sacred and dedicated to God because of [present in it] one (διὰ τὴν μονάδα) 115), or in the class of those who [were seated in] fifty (this number implies remission [of sins] in accordance with the sacrament of both the year of jubilee, which takes place every fifty years, and the feast of Pentecost 116). And I think that those disciples had twelve boxes to whom it was said: “You will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28). And just as one could say that the throne for the one who judges the tribe of Reuben, and the throne for the one who judges the tribe of Simeon, and another for the [judge] of the tribe of Judah, and so on, are a mystery, so the box of food for the [tribe of] Reuben, and another for the [tribe of] Simeon, and another for the [tribe of] Levi [and so on, are also a mystery]. But now is not the place in this work to deviate so much from the subject as to collect [passages] relating to the twelve tribes and each of them separately, and to tell what each tribe of Israel is. 4. “And immediately he compelled the disciples to get into the boat and go before Him to the other side, until He let the people go” (Matthew 14:22). It is worth noting how often the word "people" and another word, "disciples", are found in the same places, so that, based on this observation and collecting the relevant [quotations], we can see that the intention of the evangelists was, through the gospel history, to show the differences among those who come to Jesus: some of whom are people and are not called disciples, while others are disciples, and they are better than the people. Now it is enough for us to give just a few quotations for someone, starting from them, to do [something] similar in relation to all the Gospels. So, the following is written about the fact that the people are below, and the disciples can approach Jesus ascending the mountain, where the people could not get to: “When He saw the people, He ascended the mountain; and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And He opened His mouth and taught them, saying: “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:1-3) and so on. And in another place, since the people need healing, it is said: “And a great multitude followed Him, and He healed them” (Matthew 12:15). But we do not find a story about healing concerning the disciples, since if someone is already a disciple of Jesus, then he is healthy and, being in excellent condition, needs Jesus not as a doctor, but because of His other abilities. And again in another place: “When He spoke to the people, His mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak with Him” (Matthew 12:46); He was informed about this [by someone], to whom He answered, “pointing his hand” not at the people, but “at the disciples, and said: Behold my mother and my brothers” (Matthew 12:49); and testifying that the disciples do the will of the Heavenly Father and for this reason are worthy to be called relatives and those closest to Jesus [people], He adds to [the words] “behold my mother and my brothers”: “Whoever does the will of the Heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matthew 12:50). And in another place it is written that “all the people stood on the shore, and He spoke many things to them in parables” (Matthew 13:2-3); then, after the parable of the sowing (cf. Matt. 13:3-8), “the people, not the people, but the disciples came and said to Him, Why do you speak to them in parables? ”(Matthew 13:10), and not “why do you speak to us in parables?” Then He said in response (cf. Matthew 13:11) not to the people, but to the disciples: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 13:11), “but to others in parables” (Luke 8:10). Therefore, of those who approach the name of Jesus (τῶν προσερχομένων τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ) 117, some who have learned the “mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven” can be called students; others, to whom this was “not given” (Matthew 13:11), can be called a people lower than the disciples. So, pay great attention to what He said to the disciples: “It has been given to you to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven,” and about the people: “But to them it has not been given” (Matthew 13:11). And in another place he dismisses the people, but not the disciples, and enters the house; and His disciples, not the people, came to His house, saying: Explain to us the parable of the tares in the field (cf. Matt. 13:36) 118. But also in another place, when, having “heard” [the news] about John, “Jesus went away on a boat to a deserted place alone,” “the people followed Him,” and then “Jesus saw a multitude of people and, having compassion on them, healed their sick” (Matthew 14:13–14), [i.e. e. sick] from the people, and not from the disciples; “When evening came, they came to Him” not [people from] the people, but “the disciples, saying,” as those who differ from the people: “Let the people go, so that they can go into the villages and buy themselves food” (Matthew 14:15). But when He, taking five loaves and two fish, looking up to heaven, blessed [them], then, having broken the loaves, He gave [them] not to the people, but to the disciples, so that the disciples would give to the people (cf. Matt. 14:19), who could not take the loaves of Jesus’ blessing from Him [Himself], but were barely [able] to accept them from the disciples. And they do not eat all of them, for the people, having had their fill, left a surplus in twelve full boxes***. 5. We drew on these [quotes] in connection with the previously cited [story that] Jesus, having separated the disciples from the people, forced them to enter the boat and go before Him to the other side until He let the people go (cf. Matt. 14:22). For the people could not go to the other side (εἰς τὸ πέραν), since in the spiritual sense (μυστικῶς) [people from the people] are not “Jews,” which is translated “those on the other side” (περατικοί) 119 . But this was the work of the disciples of Jesus, I mean - to go to the other side and rise above the visible and bodily, as above the temporary, to reach the invisible and eternal (cf. 2 Cor. 4:18). So for a people unable to go to the other side [precisely] because they were a people, the very sufficient benefit that Jesus showed them was that Jesus let them go. In this case, no one has the power to release except Jesus, and no one could be released before he had eaten the loaves that Jesus blesses; and no one could eat the bread of Jesus' blessing unless he did as Jesus commanded and lay down on the grass (cf. Matt. 14:19), as we have related. But the people could not have done this either without following Jesus from their own cities, who withdrew into a deserted place alone (cf. Matt. 14:13). And although the disciples had previously asked to let the people go, He did not let them go until He had fed [them] with the bread of blessing; now He releases [him], first forcing the disciples to enter the boat (cf. Matt. 14:22), and releases him when he is somewhere below, because the desert [is located] below, and He “went up to the mountain to pray” (Matthew 14:23). It should also be noted that Jesus forced the disciples to get into the boat and go before Him to the other side immediately (cf. Matt. 14:22) after the five thousand [people] had been fed. However, the disciples could not, having set off, [arrive] before Jesus on the other side, but, having reached the middle of the sea (cf. Matt. 14:24, Mark 6:47) 120, since the boat was beaten [by waves] due to the wind contrary to them (cf. Matt. 14:24), they were afraid when, at about the fourth watch of the night, Jesus went to them (cf. Matt. 14:25 ). And if Jesus had not boarded the boat, then the wind contrary to the sailing disciples would not have stopped, and those sailing would not have arrived, having crossed (cf. Matt. 14:34) to the other side. And, perhaps, He forced [them] to enter the boat and go before Him to the other side, wanting to teach them by this test that without Him it is impossible to go to the other side. Having appeared to them when they were unable to swim further than the middle of the sea, and having accomplished what is written [in this place] (cf. Matt. 14:26 ff.), He showed that the one who gets to the other side gets there if Jesus swims with him. What is the boat into which Jesus forced the disciples to enter, if not, apparently, a struggle with temptations and vicissitudes, into which someone is forced by the Word and as if against his will, since the Savior wants the disciples to exercise [spiritually] in this boat, which is beaten by waves and contrary winds (cf. Matt. 14:24)? Since He “immediately caused the disciples to get into the boat and go before Him to the other side” (Matthew 14:22), and Mark, having slightly changed this sentence, wrote: “And immediately he caused His disciples to get into the boat and go forward to the other side to Bethsaida” (Mark 6:45), it is necessary to dwell on [the word] “forced,” having previously noted the slight difference [in the text] of Mark, which is expressed more precisely by adding pronoun: for it is not the same thing expressed [in the words of Matthew] “immediately he compelled the disciples,” but in the words written in Mark “his disciples” there is something more than just [in the word] “disciples” 121. So, if you pay attention to the word [“forced”]: perhaps the disciples, inseparable from Jesus, cannot part with him even for an insignificant reason (κατὰ τὸ τυχόν), wanting to be with Him 122. He, having decided that they should be tested in the waves and the contrary wind, which would not have arisen if they had been with Jesus, confronted them with the necessity of parting with Him and entering the boat. And so, the Savior forces the disciples to enter the boat of temptation, to go before Him to the other side and to find themselves on the other side of the vicissitudes, having overcome them. They, finding themselves in the middle of the sea, waves of temptation and contrary winds that prevented them from going to the other side, [although they] struggled, could not overcome the waves and contrary wind without Jesus and get to the other side. Therefore, having compassion on them, who had done everything in their power to get to the other side, the Word went to them, walking on the sea (cf. Matt. 14:25), which had no waves or wind that could resist Him, even if it wanted to. And it is not written: “I went to them, walking on the waves,” but: “on the water” (Matthew 14:25) 123. Yes, and Peter said: “Command me to come to You” not on the waves, but “on the water” (Matthew 14:28), - and at first, after Jesus said to him: go, - getting out of the boat, he walked not on the waves, but on the water, to approach Jesus (cf. Matthew 14:29); when he doubted, he saw a strong wind (cf. Matt. 14:30), which was not strong for one who had cast aside lack of faith and doubt. And when Jesus and Peter got into the boat, the wind ceased (cf. Matthew 14:32): he could no longer do anything against her when Jesus entered [there]. 6. And then the disciples, “having crossed over, arrived in the land of Gennesaret” 124 (Matthew 14:34) - if we knew the translation of this [name] 125, it would probably be useful for interpreting this [place]. Since God is faithful, who does not allow the people to be tempted beyond their strength (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13), then pay attention to how the Son of God forced the disciples to enter the boat (cf. Matt. 14:22) - after all, they are stronger [than the people], and are able to reach the middle of the sea and withstand the test of the waves until they become worthy of Divine help, do not see Jesus, do not hear, 126, after He enters [into the boat], cross over and arrive in the land of Gennesaret, - and [how, on the contrary,] having released the people, who, as weaker, were not tested by the boat, waves and contrary wind, He went up the mountain to pray alone (cf. Matt. 14:23). For whom to pray, as, probably, on the one hand, not about the people, so that He who was released (ἀπολυθέντες) with the bread of blessing He would not do anything that would contradict the absolution (ἀπολύσει) 127 [received] from Jesus, and on the other hand, about the disciples, so that, forced by Him to enter the boat and go before Him to the other side, they did not suffer at all in the sea, either from the waves that beat the boat, or from the opposite wind? And I would dare to say that thanks to the prayer of Jesus for the disciples, [addressed] to the Father, they did not suffer at all, although they were opposed by the sea, and the waves, and the contrary wind 128. So, let the simpler [reader] be satisfied with the historical meaning (τῇ ἱστορίᾳ); But if we ever encounter temptations that cannot be avoided (ἀνάγκαις πειρασμῶν), we will remember that Jesus [thus] forced us to enter the boat, wanting us to go before Him to the other side. For it is impossible to get to the other side without enduring the tests of waves and contrary winds. Further, when we see numerous and difficult to bear disasters (πράγματα) surrounding us, and with considerable effort (κάμνοντες μετρίως) 129 we sail among them for some distance (ἐπὶ ποσόν), we will conclude that the boat is ours then is in the middle of the sea and the waves beat her (cf. Matt. 14:24), wanting us to be shipwrecked in faith (cf. 1 Tim. 1:19) or in any of the virtues. And when we see how the spirit of the evil one opposes our enterprises (τοῖς πράγμασιν), we will understand that in this case the wind [is blowing] against us (cf. Matt. 14:24). When, in the midst of these sufferings, fighting with dignity as much as possible and taking care of ourselves so as not to suffer shipwreck in our faith (cf. 1 Timothy 1:19) or in any of the virtues, we will spend three night watches in the darkness of temptation - the first watch [denotes] the father of darkness and vice; the second - his son, who opposes and exalts himself against everything called God or that is holy (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4); the third - a spirit contrary to the Holy Spirit 130 - then in this case we will believe that at the onset of the fourth watch, when “the night is past and the day is drawing near” (Rom. 13:12), the Son of God will come to us to prepare the sea for us, walking on it (cf. Matt. 14:25). And when we see the Word that has appeared to us, before we clearly understand that this Savior is with us, we will be alarmed, still thinking that we are seeing a ghost, and we will cry out in fear (cf. Matthew 14:26), but He will immediately speak to us and say: take heart, it is I, do not be afraid (cf. Matthew 14:27). And if among us there is a certain Peter who is more ardently inspired [by the call] “be of good cheer” [than others], then, being only on the way “to perfection” (Heb. 6:1), but not yet becoming so [i.e. e. perfect], although he will get out of the boat, as if finding himself outside of the temptation that tormented him, and at first they will walk on the water, wanting to approach Jesus, but, still being of little faith and doubt, he will see a strong wind, will be afraid and begin to drown; will not endure this because, having shouted loudly, he will call Jesus and say to Him: “Lord! save me” (cf. Matthew 14:30). Then, while this Peter is still speaking, saying [the words]: “Lord! save me,” the Word will immediately stretch out his hand, providing him with help, support him as he begins to drown, and reproach him for his lack of faith and doubt (cf. Matt. 14:31). However, notice that He did not say: “unfaithful,” but: “little faith” (Matthew 14:31), and that it was said: “Why did you doubt? ”(Matthew 14:31), having, therefore, some faith, but still leaning towards its opposite. 7. And after this, Jesus and Peter will enter the boat, the wind will subside, and those who are in the boat, realizing from what dangers they have been saved, will worship [Him] and say (cf. Matt. 14:32–33) not just: “You are the Son of God,” as the two demon-possessed [said] (cf. Matt. 8:28–29), but: “Truly You are the Son of God” ( Matthew 14:33) - this is what the disciples who were in the boat say [precisely], for I do not think that this was [ever] said by others other than the disciples (ἄλλους τῶν μαθητῶν) 131 . When we find ourselves in the midst of all these [circumstances], then, having crossed, we will arrive in the land (cf. Matt. 14:34), where Jesus commanded us to go before Him (cf. Matt. 14:22). And perhaps some inexpressible and hidden secret (τι ἀπόρρητον καὶ κεκρυμμένον μυστήριον) 132 concerning those saved by Jesus is revealed in [the words]: “and, Having recognized Him, the inhabitants of that place” – obviously [a place] on the other side – “sent into all that surrounding area” – the surrounding area [of the place] on the other side, [which is] not in this place itself, but around it – “and they brought to Him all the sick” (Matthew 14:35). In this [place], notice that they brought to Him not just many, but all the sick in that vicinity. The sick, who were brought to Him, “begged Him just to touch the hem of His garment” (Matthew 14:36), begging Him for this mercy, for they were not like that woman who had suffered with bleeding for twelve years, who came up from behind and touched the hem of His robe, for she said to herself: if I only touch His robe, I will be healed (cf. Matthew 9:20–22), - note also in [the words] the hem of His garment, - as a result of which “immediately the flow of her blood stopped” (Luke 8:44). And these [sick people] from the vicinity of the land of Gennesaret, to which, having crossed, Jesus and His disciples arrived (cf. Matt. 14:34), did not themselves come to Jesus, but were brought by those who sent (cf. Matt. 14:35) [for them], since they could not come themselves due to severe illness; and they did not simply touch the hem [of His garment], like the bleeding [woman], but first those [who brought them] asked [for it] (παρακαλεσάντων ἐκείνων) 133 (cf. Matt. 14:36). However, even among them “those who touched were healed” (Matthew 14:36). Is there any difference between [the expression] “healed” (διεσώθησαν) 134 used in relation to them, and the salvation (τὸ σωθῆναι) [of the woman], - after all, it was said to the one suffering from bleeding: “your faith has saved (σέσωκε) you” ( Matthew 9:22), - think about it for yourself. 8. “Then the Pharisees and scribes came to Him 135 from Jerusalem and said: Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread” (Matthew 15:1–2). The one who noticed at what time the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem came to Jesus and said: why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? and so on, - he will see that it is no coincidence that Matthew not only wrote that the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem came to the Savior to learn from Him the above, but said [precisely]: “Then they come to Him from Jerusalem.” So, we need to understand when “then”. At the time when Jesus and the disciples “crossed over and arrived in the land of Gennesaret” (Matthew 14:34), after Jesus had boarded the boat and the wind died down, and when “the inhabitants of that place recognized Him, they sent into all that surrounding area and brought to Him all the sick, and asked just to touch the hem of His garment; and those who touched them were healed” (Matt. 14:35–36), - then the Pharisees and scribes came to Him from Jerusalem, who were not amazed by the power of Jesus, who healed [only] those who touched the hem of His garment (cf. Matt. 14:36), but meticulously accused [the disciples] before the teacher of violating not the commandment of God, but one tradition of the Jewish elders. And, perhaps, this very accusation on the part of [people] picky shows the piety of the disciples of Jesus, who did not give the Pharisees and scribes any reason for reproach in connection with the violation of the commandments of God, and they, perhaps, would not have brought charges against the disciples of Jesus for violating the commandment of the elders, if they could convict the accused and prove that they were violating the commandment of God. However, do not think that this proves the necessity of observing the Mosaic Law according to the letter, since the disciples of Jesus had observed it up to that time; for He who, having suffered for men, became a curse for us, did not redeem us from the curse of the law before He suffered (cf. Gal. 3:13). But if Paul also became a Jew for the Jews in a fitting manner in order to win the Jews (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20), then what is absurd if the apostles, whose life passed among the Jews, although they understood the spiritual [content] of the law (τὰ πνευματικὰ τοῦ νόμου), showed leniency (χρῆσθαι τῇ συμπεριφορᾷ), like Paul, who circumcised Timothy (cf. Acts 16:3) and made a sacrifice according to a certain vow prescribed by the law (cf. Acts 18:18, 21:23–24) as written in the Acts of the Apostles? Meanwhile, those who had nothing to accuse the disciples of Jesus in connection with the commandment of God, but only in connection with the tradition of the elders, look like [people] very prone to nit-picking. And it is especially evident how picky they are in the fact that they bring this accusation in the presence of those very [people] who were healed of illnesses, apparently against the disciples, but in fact, deciding to slander the Teacher. For there was a tradition of the elders that washing [hands] was necessary for piety. They thought that the hands of those who did not wash [them] before eating bread were dirty and unclean, but those who rinsed them with water were clean and sanctified, not in a symbolic sense (οὐ συμβολικῶς), according to the letter of the Mosaic Law. We, in accordance not with the tradition of their elders, but with sound reason, when we are going to eat the three loaves that we ask from Jesus, who wants to be our friend (cf. Luke 11:5), we will try to make our own actions pure and thus wash the hands of [our] souls; for one cannot take a share of this bread with unclean and unwashed (cf. Mark 7:2), with dirty hands. 9 . Jesus reproaches them not in connection with the tradition of the elders of the Jews, but in connection with two of the most important commandments of God, one of which is the fifth 136 of the ten commandments, which reads: “Honor your father and mother, so that it may go well with you and that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you” (Ex. 20:12); the other is written in [the book of] Leviticus as follows: “If a man curses his father or 137 his mother, he shall be put to death: he has cursed his father or his mother, he will be guilty” (Lev. 20:9). But since we want to consider the saying that Matthew cited, that is: “he who curses his father or mother, let him die” (Matthew 15:4), then think about whether it was perhaps borrowed from the place where it is written: “Whoever strikes his father or his mother, let him die” 138 - and: “he who curses his father or his mother, let him die” 139 ( Ex.21:15–16) 140. These are the sayings of the law concerning these two commandments. Matthew presented them partially, in a truncated form and in other words. We must understand why the Savior condemns the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, saying that they transgressed the commandment of God for the sake of their tradition (cf. Matt. 15:3). After all, God said: “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12), instructing those born from them to show due respect to their parents. Part of this honoring of parents was to take part in their everyday needs regarding food, clothing and anything else that could please their parents. The Pharisees and scribes came up with the following tradition, contrary to the law, not clearly enough mentioned in the Gospel (cf. Matt. 15:5-6), which we ourselves would not have guessed if one Jew (τῶν Ἑβραίων τις) 141 had not conveyed to us the following [information] relating to this place: sometimes, he claims, moneylenders, faced with wayward debtors, capable but unwilling to repay the debt, donated what they owed to the account of the poor, for whose benefit everyone who wanted to take part threw [money] into the treasury as far as possible. Therefore, sometimes they said to the debtors in their own language: “What you owe me is “korban” (that is, “gift”). For I have given it to the poor for the sake of piety before God.” Then the debtor, as if he no longer owed a debt to people, but to God and piety before Him, was, as it were, forced to repay the debt, without even wanting to do so, but no longer to the usurer, but to God, in favor of the poor and on behalf of the usurer. And this is what the usurer did with the debtor, some sons sometimes [did] with their parents and told them: “Whatever you use from me, father or mother (cf. Matt. 15:5), know that you take it from the “korban”, from the account of the poor, dedicated to God.” Then the parents, hearing that what was given to them was a “korban” dedicated to God, no longer wanted to take [it] from their sons, even if they really needed the [basic] necessities. The elders preached the following tradition to the people from the people - that if someone tells his father or mother that what is given to one of them is “korban” and a gift (cf. Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11), then he is no longer a debtor to his father and mother with regard to the provision of vital [benefits]. It is this tradition that the Savior condemns as incorrect and contrary to the commandment of God. For if God says: “Honor your father and mother”; the tradition said: one who dedicated to God as a “korban” what [otherwise] would have been given to parents should not honor his father and mother with his gifts - it is clear that God’s commandment to honor parents was abolished by the tradition (cf. Matt. 15:6) of the Pharisees and scribes, which says that once he dedicated to God what his parents would have received, he should no longer honor his father and mother. And the Pharisees taught this, being lovers of money, so that, citing the poor, they could take away what was intended as a gift to someone’s parents 142 . Moreover, the Gospel testifies to their love of money, saying: “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this and laughed at Him” (Luke 16:14). Therefore, if one of those whom we call elders (πρεσβυτέρων) 143, or in general any leaders of the people, prefers on behalf of the community to give [money] to the poor rather than to the relatives of those who made the donation, then, if they need what is necessary, and those who donated cannot do both 144, he can rightly be called a brother the Pharisees who abolished the Word of God for the sake of tradition, and the hypocrites exposed by the Savior (cf. Matt. 15:6–7). Moreover, not only this [place] severely turns us away from the desire to take anything from the account of the poor and consider other people's piety as profit (cf. 1 Tim. 6:5), but also what is written about the traitor Judas, who apparently cared about the poor and said indignantly: “You could sell this ointment for three hundred denarii and give it to the poor” (Mark 14:5; cf. John 12:5), - but in fact “he was a thief and, having [with him] a box [for money], he stole what was placed there” (John 12:6). Therefore, even now, if someone, holding a church box [for money], speaks, like Judas, about the poor, but steals what they put there, he, perhaps, chooses for himself a fate [common] with Judas, who did the same thing (τὴν μερίδα ἑαυτῷ τιθείη μετὰ τοῦ ταῦτα πράξαντος Ἰούδα). Due to the fact that this [evil], like gangrene, found food in his soul, the devil put it in his heart to betray the Savior (cf. John 13:2) and subsequently, when he was struck by a fiery arrow for this purpose (cf. Eph. 6:16), entering his soul, he himself filled it (cf. Luke 22:3, John 13:27). And, perhaps, when the apostle says: “The love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. 6:10), he says [so] because of the love of money of Judas, which is the root of all evil [directed] against Jesus. 10. But let us return to the previous [quotes], in which the Savior briefly set forth two of the commandments of the law, one from the ten commandments in Exodus, the other from [the book of] Leviticus or some other of the [books of] the Pentateuch. Now, when we have explained how those who say: “may not honor his father or mother, whoever says to his father or mother: “It is a gift [to God] that you would enjoy from me” (cf. Matt. 15:5-6) - have canceled the Word of God, which reads: “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12), - someone, perhaps, will raise the question: how appropriate [is the saying here] “Whoever curses father or mother, let him die” (Matthew 15:4)? Indeed, let the one who donated what was intended for honoring his father and mother in the so-called “korban” not honor his father and mother, but how does the tradition of the Pharisees abolish the [commandment] that says: “Whoever curses his father or mother, let him die”? But, perhaps, “whoever says to his father or mother: a gift to [God] is what you would use from me,” is the same as insulting the father or mother, as if calling the parents who take the donated “korban” [gift] from the one who donated it, robbers of the sanctuaries. So, the Jews, according to the law, punish sons who say to their father or mother: “It is a gift [to God] that you would use from me,” as slandering the father or mother; you 145 by one of your traditions abolished two commandments of God. After which you are not ashamed to reproach My disciples, who have not violated a single commandment - for they act according to all His commandments and statutes blamelessly (cf. Luke 1:6) - but they violate one tradition of the elders, while fearing lest they violate the commandment of God (εὐλαβείᾳ τοῦ μὴ παραβῆναι ἐντολὴν θεοῦ) 146 . If you had this intention, you would have kept both the commandment about honoring your father and mother, and [another commandment] that says: “Whoever curses his father or mother, let him die,” and you would not have kept the tradition of the elders that contradicts these commandments. 11. After this, wanting to censure all the traditions of the elders [that existed] among the Jews with the help of prophetic statements, He cited a saying from Isaiah, the exact words of which are: “And the Lord said: “This people draweth near unto Me with their mouth” (Is. 29:13; cf. Matt. 15:8-9) and so on. And we have already said before that Matthew did not record the prophetic [saying] with the same words 147. If we should, as far as possible, interpret it [here] as the Gospel uses it, we will add the preceding words, to which, I think, it is useful for us to pay attention when interpreting the taken from the prophet [saying] in the Gospel: “Be weak and mad, become intoxicated, not with strong drink, not with wine; For the Lord has given you a spirit of slumber, and will close the eyes of them, and of their prophets, and of their princes, who see the unseen. And all these words will be to you like the words of a sealed book, which is given to a person who knows how to read, saying: “read it”; and will say: “I cannot read it, for it is sealed.” And they will give a book to someone who cannot read, and they will say: “read it”; and he will say: “I can’t read.” And the Lord said, “This people is drawing near to Me,” and so on until [the words] “Woe to those who work in secret, and their deeds will be in darkness” (Is. 29:9-13, 15). So, having examined the above-mentioned saying [used] in the Gospel, I have cited a few [lines] before it and a few after it, to show how the Word threatens to close the eyes of those of the people who are mad, drunk and drunk with the spirit of sleep, and also threatens to close the [eyes] of their prophets and their princes, who claim to see the unseen (cf. Isa. 29: 9-10). This, I think, is what happened in this people after the appearance of the Savior; for all the sayings of all the Scriptures, including Isaiah, became to them “as the words of a sealed book” (Is. 29:11). “Sealed” is said [about a book], as if closed due to obscurity and not opened due to the clarity [of its meaning]. It is equally unclear to those who initially cannot read it because they cannot read, and to those who claim to be able to read but do not understand the meaning of what is written. Therefore, [the Word] rightly adds to this that when the people, weakened and maddened by their sins, become enraged against Him, because of them they will [revolt] against Him, becoming drunk (κραιπαλήσει κατ’ αὐτοῦ) with the spirit of sleep, with which the Lord who surrounds them will give [him] drink. their eyes, for they are not worthy to see, and also [the eyes of] their prophets and their princes, who claim to see the hidden things in the mysteries of the Divine Scriptures (cf. Is. 29:9-10), - and when their eyes are closed, then the prophetic sayings will be sealed and hidden for them - which is what the people of those who do not believe in Jesus as the Christ have endured. When prophecies become for them “like the words of a sealed book” (Is. 29:11), not only for those who cannot read, but also for those who claim to be able to read, then, according to the Lord, the people of the Jews approach God only with their lips (τῷ στόματι) 148; and He says that [the people] honor Him with their lips (τοῖς χείλεσι) ​​149 because their heart is far from the Lord because of their lack of faith in Jesus (cf. Is. 29:13). And especially now, since they rejected our Savior, God could say about them: in vain they worship Me; for they no longer study the commandments of God, but the [commandments] of men, and not the teachings [derived] from the wisdom of the spirit, but those of men (cf. Is. 29:13). As a result, when this happened to them, God changed the people of Judah and destroyed the wisdom of those wise ones that they had - for they no longer have wisdom, as well as prophecy - but God also buried the mind of the wise people somewhere (κατορώρυχέ που) and hid it (cf. Is. 29:14), and it no longer brilliant and not famous. Therefore, even when it seems that they are doing some kind of deep advice, not doing it for the sake of the Lord (cf. Is. 29:15), they are recognized as unhappy (ταλανίζονται); even when they proclaim the hidden [contents] of the counsel of God, they lie, since their deeds are not [deeds] of light, but of darkness and night. We decided to briefly outline this prophecy and, to some extent, its explanation, since Matthew mentioned it. Mark also mentioned [him] (cf. Mark 7:6), from which we will usefully cite the following passage about the sin against the elders, who believed it was right for the Jews to wash their hands when eating bread: “For the Pharisees and all the Jews, holding to the tradition of the elders, do not eat unless they wash their hands thoroughly; and, [coming] from the market, they do not eat unless they wash themselves; There is also something else that they accepted to adhere to - the washing of cups, tankards, cauldrons and benches (κλινῶν)" 150 (Mark 7:3-4). 12. “And calling the people, he said to them: Hear and understand! "and so on (Matthew 15:10 ff.). With these [words] the Savior clearly teaches us when we read in Leviticus (cf. Lev. 11) and Deuteronomy (cf. Deut. 14) [prescriptions] about clean and unclean food, of which we are accused by the Jews according to the flesh (οἱ σωματικοὶ Ἰουδαῖοι) (cf. 1 Cor. 10:18) and the Ebionites 151, who differ little from them, do not think that the purpose of Scripture is the public meaning of these [precepts] (τὸν πρόχειρον περὶ τούτων νοῦν). For if “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes 152 out of the mouth” (Matthew 15:11), and especially since the Savior said this also [in the Gospel] of Mark, “cleansing all food” (Mark 7:19), it is clear that we are not defiled when we eat what the Jews, who want to serve the letter of the law, call unclean, we become defiled then, when we say that we have to, let us discuss what we should not, which is the source of sins for us, while our lips must be bound by feeling (cf. Proverbs 15:7), and we have made for what we say weight and measure (cf. Sir. 28:25) 153. And, of course, it is fitting for the law of God to prohibit what [comes] from vice, and to prescribe what is in accordance with virtue, and those [things] that are indifferent in their essence (τὰ δὲ τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ ἀδιάφορα) 154 - to leave them as there is (ἐᾶν ἐπὶ χώρας), [since] depending on the free choice and [state of] reason in us (διὰ τὴν προαίρεσιν καὶ τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν λόγον) they can either become bad if they are committed in sin, or become good if they are performed in a righteous manner. Whoever thinks carefully about this will see that it is possible to sin even in those [things] that are considered good if one takes them up badly and under the influence of passion; and what is called unclean, if used by us in accordance with reason, can be considered as pure. Just as to a sinning Jew, circumcision will be counted as uncircumcision, but to a righteous Gentile, uncircumcision will be counted as circumcision (cf. Rom. 2:25-26), so what is considered clean will be considered unclean to the one who uses it in the wrong way, at the wrong time, in the wrong amount and for the wrong reasons; whereas everything that is called unclean becomes clean for the pure, but for the defiled and unbelieving there is nothing pure, since both their mind and conscience are defiled (cf. Titus 1:15). Being defiled, they stain everything they touch, just as, on the other hand, a pure mind and a clear conscience, on the contrary, make everything clean, even if [what] seems unclean; after all, not from intemperance and not from love of pleasure, and without doubts pulling in opposite directions The righteous eat and drink, remembering [the words]: “Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). If we need to describe unclean food according to the Gospel, let’s say that this is the kind that is provided by greed, saved by avarice, received from the love of pleasure, from the fact that the belly is worthy of deification (cf. Phil. 3:19) whenever it and the desires that agree with it, and not reason, rule our soul. But even if, knowing that some [food] was used by demons, or, although not knowing, but suspecting and doubting on this score, we consumed such [food], then we would not use it “for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31) and not in the name of Christ, because the one who eats is condemned not only by the conviction that [the food] is sacrificed to idols, but also by doubt on this score. For, according to the apostle, “he who doubts, if he eats, is condemned, because it is not by faith; and whatever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). “By faith” one eats who is sure that what he eats was not sacrificed in the churches, that it is not strangled or blood (cf. Acts 15:20, 29, 21:25), and “not from faith” - one who doubts any of this; and the one who knows that this [food] was sacrificed to demons and nevertheless consumes [it] with an unclean thought about the demons involved in the sacrifice, finds himself in communion with demons (cf. 1 Cor. 10:20). And, however, the apostle, knowing that it is not the nature of food that causes harm to the one who consumes [it] or benefit to the one who abstains, but [his] opinions and his inherent mind, said: “Food does not bring us closer to God: for if we eat, we gain nothing; If we don’t eat, we lose nothing” (1 Cor. 8:8). And since he knew that those who more sublimely understand what is pure and unclean according to the law, do not make distinctions when eating food, rejecting the distinction regarding clean and unclean, and the superstition that, in my opinion, is in this distinction (καὶ δεισιδαιμονίας οἶμαι ἐν διαφόροις), and therefore are condemned by the Jews as lawless, which is why he said somewhere: “So let no one condemn you for eating or drinking” (Col. 2:16) and so on, instructing us that what is in accordance with the letter [of the law] is a shadow, hidden behind this is the true meaning of the law (τὰ δ’ ἀληθῆ τοῦ νόμου ἐναποκείμενα τούτοις νοήματα) - these are future benefits, thanks to which one can discover which spiritual food of the soul is pure and which is unclean, causing harm to the one who feeds on it, with false and hostile words: “For the law had 156 a shadow of good things to come” (Heb. 10:1) 157. 13. Just as in many [cases] it is worth paying attention to the surprise of the Jews at the words of the Savior 158, for they were spoken to those in authority (ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἐλέγοντο) (cf. Matt. 7:29), so is the case with what [is said] in this place. So, [the Savior], “having called the people, said to them: listen and understand! "(Matthew 15:10) and so on; and He spoke this, and the Pharisees were offended by this word (cf. Matt. 15:12), for due to perverse opinions and a bad interpretation of the law, they are not a plant of His Heavenly Father and therefore are uprooted (cf. Matt. 15:13). And they were truly uprooted by not accepting Jesus Christ, the true vine that the Father cultivates (cf. John 15:1). For how could they be the plant of the Father - those who were tempted by the words of Jesus, which turned away from [the instructions]: “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle - all that was 159 destined for destruction by consumption, according to the commandments and teaching of men” 160 (Col. 2: 21-22), - but inclining the one who listens to them with understanding, in connection with them, to seek the things above, and not earthly (cf. Col. 3:1–2) like the Jews? And since, due to false opinions, the Pharisees were not a plant of the Heavenly Father (cf. Matt. 15:13), therefore He speaks of them to the disciples as incurable: “leave them” (Matthew 15:14). “Leave” - because, although, being blind, they should have realized their blindness and looked for leaders, they are not aware of their own blindness and even claim that they lead the blind, not thinking that they will fall into a pit (cf. Matt. 15:14), about which it is written in the Psalms: “he dug a ditch, and digged it, and fell into the pit that he had prepared” ( Ps.7:16). So, in another place it is written: “When He saw the people, He went up to the mountain; and when he sat down, his disciples came to him” (Matthew 5:1); here He stretches out His hand to the people, calling them and canceling the literal interpretation (τῆς ῥητῆς ἐκδοχῆς) in matters concerning the law, first when He said to them, who did not yet understand what they were hearing: “Hear and understand!” "(Matthew 15:10), and then - [when] He spoke to them as if in parables: "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out" (Matthew 15:11). 14. Following this, it is worth looking at the saying perverted by those who say that the God of the law and [the God of] the Gospel of Jesus Christ are not the same 161 . They say that the Heavenly Father of Jesus Christ is not the husbandman (γεωργός) (cf. John 15:1) of those who believe [correct] to honor God according to the law. Jesus Himself said that the Pharisees - and they worshiped God, who created the world and the law - were a plant that His Heavenly Father did not plant (cf. Matt. 15:13) 162, and therefore it is uprooted. They will probably say the following - that if the Father of Jesus was the One who brought and planted the people who came out of Egypt on the mountain of His inheritance, into His ready dwelling (cf. Exodus 15:17), Jesus would not have told the Pharisees that “every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted” (Matthew 15:13). To this we say that to all those who, due to a perverse interpretation of what concerns the law, were not a plant of the Heavenly Father - [all] of them, as those who do not believe the truth, but love unrighteousness (2 Thess. 2:12), have had their minds blinded by the one whom the sons of this age have idolized and who for this reason is called by Paul the god of this age (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4). And do not think that our Paul says that he truly is God. After all, just as the womb, not being God, is called by Paul the god (cf. Phil. 3:19) of those who, valuing pleasure excessively, are rather lovers of pleasure than lovers of God, so the prince of this age, about whom the Savior says: “Now the prince of this world is condemned” (John 16:11), - not being a god, is called the god of those who do not want to receive the spirit of adoption (cf. Rom.8:15), to become sons of that age and the resurrection of the dead (cf. Luke 20:35), and therefore remains in the sonship of this age. This is what seemed necessary to me to add, even if it is said in the form of a digression, in view of [the words] “blind leaders of the blind” (Matthew 15:14). Really, who are [these blind people]? - The Pharisees, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, for they are unbelievers, because they did not believe in Jesus Christ; and he blinded them, so that the light of the gospel of the glory of God would not shine for them in the face of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4) 163. And you must not only avoid being led by those blind men who feel that they [themselves] need leaders, since they have not yet acquired the ability to see for themselves, but you must also listen carefully to all who proclaim themselves to be leaders [of others] in sound doctrine, and apply sound judgment to what [they] say, so that, guided in accordance with the ignorance of the blind and blind (τὰ πράγματα) of sound teaching, we ourselves did not turn out to be blind due to the fact that we do not see the meaning of the Scriptures, so that both the leader and the led would fall into the pit (cf. Matt. 15:14), about which we spoke above 164. Following this, it is written how Peter in response said to the Savior: “Explain this parable to us” (Matthew 15:15), for he did not understand [the words] “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out” (Matthew 15:11). To which the Savior says: “Do you really not yet understand? "(Matthew 15:16), - as if [meaning]: can it be that, having been with Me for such a long time, you still do not understand the purpose of what was said and do not yet understand that what enters his mouth does not defile a person because it passes into the womb and, moving further, is ejected into a latrine (cf. Matt. 15:11, 17). It was not because of the law that they apparently believed that the Pharisees were not a plant of the Father Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. 15:13), but because of a misinterpretation of the law and what was written in it. For since two [ministries] are conceivable according to the law - the ministry of death, sealed in letters and having nothing to do with the spirit, and the ministry of life (cf. 2 Cor.3:7-8), implied in the spiritual law, are those who, due to a disposition to the truth (ἀπὸ διαθέσεως ἀληθευούσης) are able to say: “For we know that the law is spiritual” (Rom. 7:14), and therefore “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12), they were the plant that the Heavenly Father planted (cf. Matt. 15:13); and those who are not such, but honor only the letter that kills (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6), were the plant not of God, but of him who hardened their heart and put a veil on it (cf. 2 Cor. 3:13-14), having power over them until they turn to the Lord: “for if anyone turns to the Lord, the veil will be taken away. The Lord is spirit" (2 Cor. 3:16-17) 165. Faced with this passage, someone will perhaps say that, just as “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person,” even if considered unclean by the Jews, so it is not what goes into the mouth that sanctifies a person, even if the simpler 166 [believers] (τῶν ἀκεραιοτέρων) believed that so the so-called bread of the Lord sanctifies. And I think this consideration deserves attention and therefore needs to be clearly stated, which, in my opinion, is this. Just as it is not the food, but the conscience of the one who eats with doubt, that defiles the eater, for “if he who doubts eats, he is condemned, because he does not eat according to faith” (Rom. 14:23); and how for the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, not in itself, but as a result of his defilement and unbelief; so that [food] that is sanctified by the word of God and prayer (cf. 1 Tim. 4:5) does not sanctify the one who consumes [it] in itself (τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ) 167 . After all, if this [were so], she would sanctify the one who eats unworthily (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27) Lord, and through this food no one would become weak or sick or sleepy; but Paul mentioned something similar in [the words]: “That is why many among you are weak and sick, and many sleep” (1 Cor. 11:30) 168. And in the case of the bread of the Lord, there will be benefit for the one who consumes [it] if he partakes of the bread with an undefiled mind and a clear conscience. In this way, we do not lose any good because we do not eat, [i.e. e.] simply because we do not eat bread sanctified by the word of God and prayer, and we do not acquire any good because of what we eat (cf. 1 Cor. 8:8). For the cause of loss is vice and sins, and the cause of gain is righteousness and right actions, so that Paul said something similar in [the words]: “If we eat, we gain nothing; if we don’t eat, we lose nothing” (cf. 1 Cor. 8:8 169). If “everything that enters the mouth passes into the belly and is spewed out into the latrine” (Matthew 15:17), then food, sanctified “by the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:5), by virtue of its very substance, “passes into the belly and is spewed out into the latrine.” But thanks to prayer performed over it “according to the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:6), it becomes useful and turns out to be the cause of clear vision (διαβλέψεως) 170 for the mind, looking out for what is useful; and it is not the substance of the bread, but the word spoken over it that benefits the one who does not eat it in a way that would be unworthy (cf. 1 Cor. 11:27) of the Lord. This is what [can be said] about the body having a spiritual and symbolic meaning (τοῦ τυπικοῦ καὶ συμβολικοῦ σώματος) 171 . Much could be said about the Word itself, which became flesh and true food (cf. John 6:55), whoever ate it will certainly live forever (cf. John 6:51), because no bad [person] can eat it: for if it were possible, while still remaining bad, there is the Word made flesh (cf. John 1:14), which is also living bread, it would not have been written, that whoever eats this bread will live forever (cf. John 6:51). 15. Following this, let us see how what comes [from the mouth] and defiles a person does not defile a person because it comes from the mouth, but the cause of defilement is in the heart (cf. Matt. 15:18), when evil thoughts proceed from it, even before what comes from the mouth, the type of which includes murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy; for it defiles a person (cf. Matt. 15:14) when it comes from the heart and, coming from it, passes through the mouth, since if [it] were not outside the heart, but were contained somewhere there, near the heart, without receiving permission to be expressed by the lips, it would very soon disappear and the person would no longer be defiled. Therefore, the source and beginning of all sin is evil thoughts: if they do not prevail, then there will be no murder, no adultery, or anything else of the kind. For this reason, everyone should guard his own heart with all [possible] vigilance; for on the Day of Judgment “the Lord,” having appeared, “will illuminate the hidden things in darkness and reveal the intentions of the heart” (1 Cor. 4:5) among all the thoughts of men, accusing or justifying (cf. Rom. 2:15), when people are surrounded by their own plans (cf. Hos. 7:2). And evil thoughts are such that sometimes they make what seems to be good blameworthy and, at least from the point of view of the majority, praiseworthy. In fact, when we do alms before people, striving in our thoughts so that people see [us] as lovers of mankind and glorify us for our love of mankind, we [already] receive a reward from people (cf. Matt. 6:1-2). And in general, everything that is consciously done by an actor in order to be glorified by people (cf. Matt. 6:2) has no reward from the One who sees in secret (cf. Matt. 6:4) and the One who gives reward to those who are pure in secret. Likewise, apparent chastity, if it contains thoughts of vanity or greed, and what is considered church teaching, if it becomes base through flattering speech (ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας) or as a pretext for acquisitiveness, or when someone, with the help of teaching, seeks glory from people, is not what they had in view of those appointed by God in the Church, firstly, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28). You can say roughly the same thing about someone who wants to become a bishop (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1) for the sake of glory among people, or human flattery, or profit from those who come to preach and give for the sake of godliness. In fact, such a bishop does not “desire a good work” (1 Tim. 3:1) and cannot be blameless, sober and chaste (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2), getting drunk on glory and reveling in it uncontrollably. You can say the same about elders and deacons. If it seems to some that by saying this we have deviated, then think whether it was not necessary to say this in view of the fact that the source of all sins is evil thoughts, capable of tainting those [deeds] that, if done without them, would make the one who committed [them] righteous. So, as far as possible, we have considered what it is that defiles [a person]. “And eating with unwashed hands does not defile a person” (Matthew 15:19), but, if I must express it boldly, eating with an unwashed heart anything that is characteristic of our guiding principle (τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν) 172 - [that’s what] defiles [it]. 16. “And Jesus departed from there and departed into the countries of Tire and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman” [etc.] (Matthew 15:21–22). Where did “from there” come from, if not from the land of Gennesaret, about which it was previously said: “And having crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret” (Matthew 14:34)? He “withdrew,” perhaps because the Pharisees were offended when they heard that it is not what goes in, but what goes out that defiles a person (cf. Matt. 15:11). And that He happened to withdraw because of those whom He suspected of plotting [against Himself] is clear from [the words]: “When He heard that John had been handed over [to custody], He withdrew into Galilee" (Matthew 4:12). Perhaps this is why Mark, writing down what relates to this place, says that He, “having set out, came to the borders of Tire; and having entered the house, he did not want 173 anyone to know” (Mark 7:24). It is likely that He avoided the Pharisees who were tempted by His teaching, waiting for a more suitable and correctly determined time to suffer. Someone, perhaps, will say that Tire and Sidon signify the pagans; therefore, having departed from Israel, He arrives in the “countries” of the pagans. In fact, among the Jews the name “Tire” is rendered as “Sor”, which is translated: “constraint” (συνοχή) 174. And the name “Sidon”, which is also the case among the Jews, is translated as “hunting” (θηρῶντες) 175 . It is precisely among the pagans that there are “hunters” - evil forces, and they [have] great “restraint” in vice and passions. So, having left the land of Gennesaret, Jesus departed from Israel, but came not to Tire and Sidon, but “to the countries (τὰ μέρη) 176 of Tire and Sidon” (Matthew 15:21), because the pagans now believe in part (ἐκ μέρους), because if He had visited all of Tire and Sidon, there would not be a single unbeliever left in them. And according to Mark, “having gone, Jesus came to the borders (τὰ ὅρια) of Tire” (Mark 7:24), to the “trouble” of the pagans (τῆς συνοχῆς τῶν ἐθνῶν), so that even within these limits those who believed could be saved if will come out of them. In fact, pay attention to [the words]: “And behold, a Canaanite woman, coming out of those borders (τῶν ὁρίων), cried out to Him, saying: have mercy on me, son of David, my daughter is terribly 177 raging” (Matthew 15:22). And I think that, without leaving those limits, she could not, [turning] to Jesus, shout out of great faith, as is attested to (cf. Matt. 15:28). And “according to the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:6) everyone leaves the borders of the pagans, which the Most High set according to the number of the sons of Israel 178 when he divided the nations (cf. Deut. 32:8) and prevented their further movement. So, here it is said about certain borders of Tire and Sidon, and in Exodus - about the borders of Pharaoh (cf. Ex. 7:27, 10:4, 14, 13:7), in which, they say, the Egyptian plagues take place. And we must think that each of us, when he sins, is within the boundaries of Tire or Sidon, or within [the boundaries of] Pharaoh and Egypt, or any of those [located] outside the inheritance intended by God; turning from vice to virtue, he leaves the limits of evil (ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ τὰ φαῦλα ὁρίων) and reaches the limits of God’s lot and the difference [reigning] in them 179, which will become clear to those who are able to bring together those [places] that relate to division and inheritance of Israel, in accordance with the spiritual meaning of the law (πνευματικῷ νόμῳ) 180. Pay attention also to the kind of meeting that takes place between Jesus and the Canaanite woman - for He is heading to the countries of Tire and Sidon, and she, coming out of those borders, shouted to Him, saying: have mercy on me, O Lord, son of David (cf. Matt. 15:21-22). This woman was a Canaanite, which translates as “prepared to be humiliated.” The righteous are prepared for the Kingdom of Heaven and for exaltation in the Kingdom of God, and sinners are prepared for humiliation from their own vice and the deeds corresponding to it (τῆς ἐν αὑτοῖς κακίας καὶ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὴν πράξεων) 181, which prepare them for it, as well as from sin in their mortal body (cf. Rom. 6:12) 182. However, the Canaanite woman, having left those limits, came out of [the state of] preparation for humiliation, shouting and saying: have mercy on me, O Lord, son of David. 17. Collect from the Gospels [passages showing] who calls Him the Son of David, like this [woman] and the blind men in Jericho (cf. Matt. 20:30), who call Him the Son of God and at the same time do not add “truly,” like the demon-possessed, who say: “What have you to do with us, Son of God? ”(Matthew 8:29), - and whoever adds “truly”, like those who worship in the boat, saying to Him: “Truly you are the Son of God” (Matthew 14:33). After all, it will be useful for you to collect them, I think, in order to see the difference of those who come [to Jesus]: ​​some come [to Him] as to one born of the seed of David according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 1:3), some as one who was revealed as the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness (cf. Rom. 1:4), and of these, some with [the addition] “truly” and some without it. Then pay attention that the Canaanite woman is not praying for a son, whom she apparently never gave birth to, but for a daughter who is terribly raging (cf. Matt. 15:22); another mother receives back alive her son, who was carried out as dead (see Luke 7:12–15). And again, the ruler of the synagogue asks for his twelve-year-old daughter as if she were dead (see Luke 8:41–42) 183, and the courtier asks for his son as for someone who is still sick and close to death (see John 4:46–47). Therefore, two mothers had a possessed daughter and a dead son, and two fathers, one of whom was the head of the synagogue, and the other a courtier, had a dead daughter and a terminally ill son. I am sure that these [details] contain the teachings about the various generations among souls (περὶ γενῶν ἐν ψυχαῖς διαφόρων), which Jesus, giving life, heals 184 . And all the healings that He performed among the people, especially those recorded by the evangelists, took place then, so that those who would believe only by seeing signs and wonders would believe (cf. John 4:48). On the other hand, the events of that time were symbols of what is always accomplished by the power of Jesus. For there is no [such time] when each of the healings described [in the Gospels] is not carried out by the power of Jesus in accordance with the merits of each. In fact, by her race (γένους χάριν) the Canaanite woman was not worthy to receive an answer from Jesus, who admits that he was sent by the Father for nothing else, but [only] to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (cf. Matt. 15:24) - a lost race of [spiritually] insightful souls (γένος ψυχῶν διορατικῶν ἀπολωλός) 185 . But thanks to her determination (προαιρέσεως) and worship of Jesus, the Son of God, she receives an answer that exposes her ignobility and shows what she is worth, [namely] - that she was worthy of crumbs [from the table] like a dog, but not of bread (cf. Matt. 15:26-27). When, persistent in her determination and accepting the judgment of Christ, she insists on receiving crumbs, even like a dog, and recognizes those who are more noble as masters, then she receives a second answer, testifying that her faith is great, and promising that it will be for her according to her desire (cf. Matt. 15:28) 186. I think that the Canaanite woman, the mother of a terribly raging [daughter], who is a symbol of the mother of the same [raging] soul, will need to be understood according to the model of the free Jerusalem on high, the mother of Paul and those close to him (cf. Gal.4:26). And consider whether it is not reasonable [to believe] that there are many fathers and many mothers, like the fathers of Abraham, to whom the patriarch went (cf. Gen. 15:15), and Jerusalem, the mother, according to the words of Paul concerning himself and those like him. Probably this [mother], whose symbol is the Canaanite Woman, having left the borders of Tire and Sidon, the images of which were the [corresponding] areas on earth, 187, approaching the Savior, begged Him, and still begs Him, saying: “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David, my daughter is terribly raging” (Matthew 15:22). Then He, answering when required both to those outside (cf. Mark 4:11) and to the disciples, said: “I was sent only [to the lost sheep of the house of Israel]” (Matthew 15:24), making it known that there are certain primary intelligent and [spiritually] insightful souls who perished (προηγούμενοι ψυχαὶ νοεροὶ καὶ διορατικαὶ ἀπολωλυῖαι): figuratively they are called “sheep of the house of Israel,” and, I think, the simpler [believers] ἁπλούστεροι) 188, believing that this is said about Israel “according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18), will be forced to admit that our Savior was sent by the Father not to anyone else, but to those lost Jews. But we, boasting that in accordance with the truth we say (εὐχόμενοι ἐξ ἀληθείας λέγειν): “If we once knew Christ according to the flesh, now we no longer know” (2 Cor. 5:16), we know that the primary task of the Word is to save those who are more intelligent, for they are more akin to Him than those who are less able. But since the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” with the exception of the remnant by the election of grace (cf. Rom. 11:5), did not believe in the Word, for this reason [God] “chose the foolish things of the world”—not Israel and not the discerning [people]—“to put to shame the wise” (1 Cor. 1:27) Israel, and called “the foolish” (1 Cor. 1:28) reasonable 189 people, conveying to them what they could accommodate, the “foolishness of preaching” (1 Cor. 1:21), and deigning to save those who believe (cf. 1 Cor. 1:19) in it, in order to condemn “the things that matter” (1 Cor. 1:28), arranging for Himself to be praised from the lips of babes and sucklings when it became hostile to the truth (cf. Ps.8:3). The Canaanite woman, “approaching, bowed to Jesus as to God, 190 saying: Lord! Help me. He answered and said: You cannot 191 take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (Matthew 15:25–26). Someone, perhaps, will wonder about the meaning of this saying: for when the available number of loaves of bread is limited (μέτρου μὲν παρόντος ἄρτων), then both children and domestic dogs cannot eat the loaves, or when well-cooked loaves are excellent, then from the point of view of common sense it is impossible to give excellent food to dogs. bread prepared for children, [however] nothing of the kind, of course, is found (φαίνεται) in the case of the power of Jesus, a part of which both children and the so-called “dogs” could receive. Therefore, see if it should not be said about [the words] “you cannot take the children’s bread” that He who made Himself of no reputation, taking on the form of a servant (cf. Phil. 2:7), brought [with Him] a limited power corresponding to what the reality of this world contained (μέτρον δυνάμεως, καθ’ ὃ ἐχώρει τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ πράγματα, ἐκόμισεν) 192 . And He felt when a certain amount of this power came out of Him, as is clear from [the words]: “Someone touched Me, for I felt the power that came out of Me” (Luke 8:46). Thus He distributed this limited power, giving more to the first-rate [souls] called “sons,” and less to those who were not, like dogs. But even if this was so, nevertheless, where [there was] great faith (cf. Matt. 15:28), He, like a child, gave the bread [intended] for children to the Canaanite woman, who, because of her ignobility, was a “dog.” Also among the words of Jesus there may be some “bread” that can only be given to those who are more intelligent, like children, and [there are] other words, like crumbs from a great feast and from the table of nobler masters, which some souls can use, like “dogs.” And according to the law of Moses, about certain [types of food] it is written [that they should] be thrown to the dog (cf. Ex. 22:30 193), [that is,] the Holy Spirit took care to give instructions that certain food should be left to the dogs. So let others, strangers to church teaching, believe that souls pass from human bodies into dog bodies in accordance with varying degrees of vice (κατὰ τὴν διάφορον κακίαν) 194! We, however, not finding this at all in the Divine Scripture, say that a more reasonable state [of the soul] passes into a less reasonable one, and this is experienced as a result of great frivolity and negligence (ἐκ πολλῆς ῥᾳθυμίας καὶ ἀμελείας) 195 . In the same way, the less reasonable choice (ἀλογωτέρα προαίρεσις) - a consequence of neglecting the Word - will someday turn into a reasonable one, so that the one who was once a “dog” who loves to eat the crumbs that fall from the table of his masters (cf. Matt. 15:27) will reach the position of a “child”. For virtue greatly contributes to making [a person] a child of God, while vice, wildness in proud speech and shamelessness contribute to the fact that someone is forced to be called a “dog,” according to the word of Scripture. You will think about the same in the case of other names of non-rational animals [mentioned in Scripture]. However, the one who is reproached like a dog, not being angry that he is called unworthy of the bread [intended for] children, but with complete resignation uttered the words of that Canaanite woman, saying: “So, Lord! but even dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters" (Matt. 15:27), - will achieve a more favorable answer from Jesus, who will say to him: “Great is your faith,” since he has acquired such faith, and will also say: “Let it be done 196 as you want” (Matt. 15:28), so that he himself will be healed, and if he has given birth to any fruit 197 in need in healing, then this [fruit] will be cured 198. 18. “And passing from there” - from what was said above it is obvious that from the countries of Tire and Sidon - “Jesus came to the Sea of ​​Galilee,” and this is what is usually called the Lake of Gennesaret, and again went up “to the mountain,” and, “going up” there, “sat down” (Matthew 15:29). We can say that not only the healthy ascend to this mountain where Jesus sits, but along with the healthy also those who suffer from various diseases (see Matthew 15:30). And perhaps this mountain, having ascended which Jesus sits down, is what is more commonly called the Church, which, thanks to the Word of God, has risen above the rest of the earth and those who [dwell] on it; there come not disciples who have left the people, as in the case of the Beatitudes (ἐπὶ τῶν μακαρισμῶν) (cf. Matt. 561), but a multitude of people, about which in itself it is not claimed that they are deaf or suffer from anything, but they have this kind of [people] with them (cf. Matthew 15:30). And indeed, along with those who come to this mountain where the Son of God sits, you can see some [people] who have become deaf to the promises (τὰ ἐπαγγελλόμενα), and others who are blind in soul and do not see the “True Light” (John 1:9), and still lame and unable to walk through life in accordance with reason (πορεύεσθαι κατὰ λόγον), and those still crippled and unable to work in accordance with reason. And yet these [people], suffering from such [illnesses] in their souls, having ascended with the people to the mountain where Jesus was, while still far from His feet, are not healed; when, as those suffering from similar [diseases], the people throw them at His feet (cf. Matt. 15:30) and to the ends of the body (τὰ τελευταῖα τοῦ σώματος) of Christ, then they are healed by Him, although they are not worthy of this in themselves. And when in the assembly of what in a more familiar way is called the Church, you see how the catechumens, cast down behind her [members], standing at the edges (μετὰ τοὺς τελευταίους αὐτῆς), as if at the feet of the body of Jesus, [i.e. e.] The churches, having come with their deafness, blindness, lameness and maiming, are healed in time according to the word of [Jesus] (cf. Matt. 11:5), you, perhaps, will not be mistaken if you say that they, having ascended together with the church people to the mountain where Jesus was, were cast down at His feet and that they were healed (cf. Matthew 15:29–30), so that the church people were amazed, seeing (cf. Matthew 15:31) the changes for the better that had occurred from such great evil, and one could say: the former deaf and dumb now speak the Word of God and “the lame walk” (Matthew 11:5), for in relation not only to bodily, but also to spiritual [things], the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which reads: “Then the lame will leap up like a deer, and the tongue of those who hum will be clear” (Is. 35:6). If it is not just that it is said: “The lame man leaps up like a deer,” then here we will say that it is not for nothing that those who were previously lame, but thanks to Jesus leap like a deer, are likened to a deer, a pure animal that is hostile to snakes and cannot suffer any harm from their poison 199 . And when [the people] see how the deaf and dumb speak, this is the fulfillment of the prophecy that says: “And the tongue of the deaf will be clear,” or rather where it says: “Hear, ye deaf” (Is. 42:18). Yes, and the blind see according to the prophecy, which, following [the words] “Hear, you deaf,” says: “See, you blind, that you may see” (Is. 42:18). The blind see when, looking at the world, they, from the greatness of the beauty of creatures in comparison with them, recognize the Author of existence (cf. Wisdom 13:5) and when they contemplate His invisible - God - from the creation of the world through viewing creations (cf. Rom. 1:20), that is, they look carefully and clearly and understand. Seeing these [healings], the people glorified the God of Israel (cf. Matt. 15:31), and they glorify [Him], being convinced that one and the same God is the Father of the One who healed the above-mentioned [people] and the God of Israel: for He is the God not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles (cf. Rom. 3:29) 200. So let us bring with us to the mountain where Jesus sits [i.e. e. in] the Church, the deaf, the blind, the lame, the crippled and many others who want to ascend to it with us, and we will cast them at the feet of Jesus, so that He will heal them (cf. Matt. 15:30), so that the people will marvel at their healing (cf. Matt. 15:31). But it is not written about the disciples that they marveled at such [events], although they were with Jesus even then, as is clear from [the words]: “Jesus called His disciples and said, “I have pity on the people,” and so on (Matthew 15:32). If you pay special attention to [the words] “a multitude of people came to Him” (Matthew 15:30), then perhaps you will discover that the disciples did not come to Him then, but, having long ago begun to accompany [Him], followed Him to the mountain. Those who were lower than the disciples and then came to Him for the first time came to Him - they did not suffer in the same way as those who ascended [the mountain] with them 201. So look carefully about whom it is written in the Gospel that they followed Jesus, about whom it is written that they approached [Him], about whom it is written that they were brought; and who is divided into those walking in front and accompanying; and of those who came, some came to Him while He was in the house, and some - somewhere else. For by comparing the spiritual with the spiritual (cf. 1 Cor. 2:13), thanks to careful study (ἐκ τῆς παρατηρήσεως), you will probably find many [things] worthy of the gospel wisdom, which is characterized by accuracy (τῆς ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις ἀκριβοῦς σοφίας) 202 . 19. “Jesus called his disciples and said” [and so on] (Matthew 15:32). Above, in the story of the loaves, similar to this one, before [the multiplication of] the loaves, Jesus “went out and saw a multitude of people and had compassion on them 203 and healed their sick. And when evening came, His disciples came to Him, saying: This place is deserted and the hour has already passed; let them go” 204 ​​(Matthew 14:14–15) and so on; now, after healing the deaf and others, He feels sorry for the people that they have been with Him for three days and have nothing [to eat] (cf. Matt. 15:32). And there the disciples ask for five thousand [people] (cf. Matt. 14:21), but here He Himself speaks of four thousand (cf. Matt. 15:38). And those [people] who spent the day with Him are fed in the evening, and these, about whom it is testified that they stayed with Him for three days, receive a share of the loaves, so that they do not “weak on the road” (Matthew 15:32). And there the disciples say that they only have “five loaves and two fish” (Matt. 14:17), although He does not ask, but here, when He asks, they answer about seven loaves and a few fish (cf. Matt. 15:34). And there He orders the people to sit down (ἀνακλιθῆναι) on the grass (cf. Matthew 14:19), and not to recline (ἀναπεσεῖν), - after all, Luke wrote: “Set (κατακλίνατε) them” (Luke 9:14), and Mark says: “he commanded them to seat (ἀνακλῖναι) everyone” ( Mark 6:39), - here He does not command, but invites the people to lie down (ἀναπεσεῖν) (cf. Matt. 15:35) 205. Again, in that case, the three evangelists say in the same words that He “took the five loaves and two fish, looked up to heaven, and blessed” (Matthew 14:19, Mark 6:41, Luke 9:16); here, as Matthew and Mark wrote, He “having given thanks (εὐχαριστήσας) broke” [the bread] (Matthew 15:36, Mark 8:6). There they also squat “on the grass” (Matthew 14:19), and here they lie down “on the ground” (Matthew 15:35). You will also consider the difference in the corresponding places in John, who, regarding the first act, wrote that Jesus said: “Tell the people to lie down (ἀναπεσεῖν)” (John 6:10), and that He, “having given thanks (εὐχαριστήσας), gave to those who were reclining” (John 6:11) [pieces] from bread, but did not mention the second at all 206. So, carefully considering the differences between what is written in these places regarding the loaves, I believe that these [men of the people] are of a higher order than those. That is why they eat on the mountain, and they eat in a deserted place, and they are with Jesus for three days, and they are alone, in the evening of which they were fed. Moreover, if what Jesus did on his own is not the same as what He did after listening to the disciples, see if those who were favored by Jesus Himself, who fed them to do them good, are not superior. If, according to John, the loaves of which twelve baskets remained were barley (cf. John 6:13), and nothing like that is said about these [loaves], then how are they not better than the first? And among those [people] He “healed the sick” (Matthew 14:14), but here He heals not the sick [who came] with the people, but the blind, the lame, the deaf and the crippled (cf. Matt. 15:30) - therefore, in the case of the latter, four thousand [people] marvel [at the healing] (cf. Matt. 15:31), but nothing like that is said about those sick. So, I think that those who ate from the seven loaves over which He gave thanks (cf. Matt. 15:36) are better than those who ate from the five that He blessed (cf. Matt. 14:19); and those who ate from a few fish (cf. Matt. 15:34) are [better] than those who ate from two (cf. Matt. 14:17), and perhaps those who reclined on the ground (cf. Matt. 15:35) are [better] than those who sat down on the grass (cf. Matt. 14:19). And those from the smaller number of loaves leave “twelve baskets” (Matthew 14:20), and those from the larger one leave “seven baskets” (Matthew 15:37), since they are able to contain more. And perhaps they rise above all earthly [things] and fall on them (cf. Matt. 15:35), and those only “on the grass” (Matthew 14:19), [i.e. e.] only on your flesh, for “all flesh is grass” (Is. 40:6). And after this, pay attention that Jesus does not want to send them away hungry, so that they do not become weak, like those deprived of the bread of Jesus, and suffer harm while still on the road to their home (cf. Matt. 15:32). So, mark where it is written that Jesus sent away (ἀπολελυκέναι) [people], in order to see the difference between those whom He sent away after He fed, and those sent away in another way. An example of [a person] released in a different way is [the words]: “Woman, you have been released (ἀπολέλυσαι) from your illness” (Luke 13:12) 207. Moreover, the disciples, who are always with Jesus, do not leave Him, but the people, when they have eaten, are sent away. In a similar way, the disciples, not at all proud of the Canaanite Woman, say: “Let her go, because she is screaming after us” ( Matthew 15:23), but it is not clear from anywhere that the Savior is letting her go. For having said to her: “Oh, woman! great is your faith; “Let it be done to you according to your desire,” He healed her daughter “at that hour” (Matthew 15:28); however, it is not written that He released her. This is all that we have been able to make out and see in the text that occupies us at this time. lane and approx. A.V. Seregina For more details see: Origène. Commentaire sur l'évangile selon Matthieu. Vol. 1 (SC 162)/Ed. R. Girod. Paris, 1970. P. 8 (hereinafter referred to as G). Giraud follows in this Klostermann, who published the CM in the GCS. That part of this translation for which there is no parallel Greek text is usually designated as Series veteris interpretationis. It does not maintain the division into books. For more details, see: Girod R. La traduction latine anonyme du Commentaire sur Matthieu // Origeniana prima: Premier colloque international des études origèniennes. Bari, 1975. P.125–138. See their listing in Bardenhewer (Bardenhewer O. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1903. Bd. 2. S. 89–116). Wed. Crouzel H. Origene. Paris, 1985, pp. 113–114. Kruzel believes that the trichotomous classification of meanings does not particularly clarify Origen's actual exegetical practice. Russian translation quoted from the publication: Origen. About the beginnings. St. Petersburg: Amphora, 2000. P. 328. Danielou J. Origen. London-New-York, 1955, pp. 191–199. This is more about a methodological rather than a substantive analogy. Compare, for example: CM 14:13, 98; HL 32, P. 181, 14; Sel. Ex. // PG 12, 285 C. For abbreviations of names, see below in section. 5. See: Crouzel H. Origène. R. 216–223. This position is expressed in the work: Kettler F. Der ursprüngliche Sinn der Dogmatik des Origenes. Berlin, 1966. That Origen's hypotheticalism in the exegetical field is in no way connected with such motivation is well shown in the article: Vogt H.J. Wie Origenes in seinem Matthäus-Kommentar Fragen offen lässt // Origeniana secunda: Seconde colloque international des études origeniennes. Quaderni di "Vetera Christianorum". 1980. 15. P. 191–198. See: Torjesen K. The Logos Incarnate and the Origen’s Exegesis of the Gospel // Origeniana tertia: the Third International Colloquim for Origen Studies. Roma, 1985. P. 29–42 (about SM – P. 34–36). Origenes Werke. Origenes Matthauserklarung. Bd.10.1/Hrsg. von E. Klostermann, E. Benz (GCS 40. 1). Leipzig, 1935. Fragments are given in the notes. Translation based on the publication: Origenes Werke. Origenes Matthäuserklärung. Bd. 11/Hrsg. von E. Klostermann, E. Benz (GCS 41). Leipzig, 1941, pp. 136–147. Of the fragments that Klostermann considers as not going back to Origen, I have omitted fr. 323, which was taken from Chrysostom, but still brought fr. 334, where there are semantic parallels with the text of SM. For details of the text of the Gospel of Matthew used by Origen, see: Kim K.W. The Matthean Text of Origen in His Commentary on Matthew For general abbreviations, see pages 589–590. If there is (l.) next to the title of the work, this means that we are talking about a Latin translation. With such abbreviations, I indicate not only the book, chapter or fragment number, etc., but also the page in the edition available to me (SC or PG). Places in Origen's Greek works are given according to the editions used in the TLG. Going back to Stoicism, the idea of ​​general concepts, including moral ones, naturally formed in the human mind (cf. SVF II 83). In the same sense, Origen often uses the Stoic term κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι, that is, actually “general concepts” (for example, CC 1: 4–5, 3, 40, 8, 52). For more details see: Banner W.A. Origen and the Tradition of Natural Law Concepts // DOP. 1954. Vol. 8. P. 49–82 (reprinted in: The Early Church and Greco-Roman Thought / Ed. by E. Ferguson. N.Y.-L., 1993. P. 181–214); Girardi M. Osservazioni sulle nozioni comuni in Origene con particolare riferimento al Contra Celsum // Origeniana secunda. P. 279–292. Wed. Sel. Ps. // PG 12, 1281 C: “Blessed is he who is abandoned by the devil and his wife - depravity (τῆς συζύγου αὐτοῦ κακίας), from which he gives birth to his lawless sons... through depravity the devil gives birth to evil ones.” Fr. 304 (on Matt. 13:42): “The soul that chews and softens its own food and the opinions contrary to the truth, thought by it during the test, gnashes its teeth or, condemning itself for having endured something similar, is tormented.” Wed. G.P. 149: même aux premiers venus. Another option: “in minor details.” Actually, Origen himself adds the word “one” to the text of Matthew, but perhaps he only wants to emphasize that Matthew is talking only about the “sun” in the singular, while in the passages quoted here from Daniel and Paul, numerous luminaries are mentioned, including “stars” in the plural (cf. G.P. 100; p. 150, n. 2). See in general: Scognamiglio R.A. La citazione di Mt 13:43 nel Commento a Matteo di Origene // Origeniana tertia. P. 71–77. Giraud contrasts the “saved” of this phrase with the righteous in the previous phrase (G.P. 150, n. 3). In my opinion, the general meaning of this chapter may be precisely that the righteous (“those who are saved”) shine with different lights and have different glories until the purifying suffering of sinners (“those who are not so”) ends. By the time this period of purification is completed, the righteous, for their part, will be equal in light and glory and will become “like one sun,” and the object of their radiance will be the purified sinners. Apparently, Origen, based on the idea of ​​​​the “accuracy of Scripture” (see the preface), sees in this phrase a conceptual opposition between ὁμοιώσωμεν and ἐν τίνι παραβολῇ. Origen gives an example from Stoic terminology. Wed. SVF III 118–122, 169, 175, etc. This phrase itself from Origen appears in SVF III as fr. 170. Wed. G.P. 161: du domaine divine, i.e. “from the property of God.” Pearls were considered as a type of stone (eg, Theophr. De lapid. 36) (G.P. 162, n. 1). The main parallels to the information that Origen provides in this chapter can be found in Pliny the Elder (Hist. nat. 9, 106-115) and Aelian (De nat. animal. 15, 8), which, apparently, is explained by common sources (G.P. 119-121, 162-168). That is, in the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf - an identification characteristic of many authors, for example, Herodotus (Hist. 1, 180, 1, 203, 2, 8, etc.) and Xenophon (Cyr. 8:8, 1) (G.P. 162, n. 2). Scythian Bosphorus or Cimmerian-Kerch or Kerch-Yenikalsky Strait, connecting the Azov and Black Seas. That is, with the queen bee. Most often, the ancients considered her precisely as a “king” and not a “queen,” although some authors (for example, Xenophon) also used the latter designation. See: Hudson-Williams T. King Bees and Queen Bees // CR. 1935. No. 1. P. 2–4. Giraud gives the following option for filling this gap: (G.P. 165, n. 3). This term is also mentioned by Pliny the Elder (Hist. nat. 9, 108). Apparently, in this case, Origen refers to only one of his sources, although above he speaks of them in the plural (G.P. 166, n. 2). Region in western Greece. The handwritten reading of ζητεῖ (“he seeks”) is considered in modern editions as a scribal error and is replaced by the imperative ζήτει (G.P. 169, n. 5). If we preserve the manuscript reading, then Origen simply explains in what sense Matthew 13:45 says that the merchant is looking for pearls. Giraud, following Klostermann, fills the gap as follows: “... is not a disciple of the Savior, good pearls” (G.P. 171, n. 3). Giraud points out that the west and north can symbolize death and cites relevant passages from Lactantius, Gregory the Great and Isidore of Seville (G.P. 171, n. 4). I would add to this that in some fragments of Origen himself the north is symbolically associated with sin and the devil - see: Fr. Ps. 47:3, 88, 13 (28 sq.); Sel. Ez. // PG 13, 796 CD; Exp. Prov. PG 17, 237 A. But in this case, Origen wants to reconcile this symbolism with the information given above about the geographical areas where various types of pearls are common (10:7). Synodal translation: “That which is glorified does not even turn out to be glorious from this side because of the predominant glory of what follows.” Or: “having been freed, I received it from the teacher,” etc. This means encaustic. Origen has in mind the Gnostics, to whom he, following Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria (for example, Iren. Adv. Haer. 1:6, 1–2, 1:7, 5, Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. 3, 56–57) attributes the idea that some people are by nature destined for salvation, while others are destined for destruction (about this hereseological tradition, see: Lohr W.A. Gnostic determinism reconsidered // VC. 1992. No. 4. P. 381–390). Origen himself insists throughout his entire work on the freedom of the human will (e.g. PA Praef. 5:1, 3:6, 1:7, 2:1, 8:3, 2:3, 4, 2:6, 5:3, 1, PE 29:13, CC 4:3, 4:67, 5:21, CJ 20:13, 106–107, 20:24, 202–210, 20:28, 252–255; Phil. 23:7, Fr J 42–43; And not comparisons, as in 10:4. Wed. G.P. 182, n. 1. From Origen’s point of view, the fact of moral change proves the absence of an unchanging nature, predetermined for destruction or salvation - cf. RA 1:8, 2, CJ 20:24, 217. Giraud points to a similar argument in Justin (Apol. I, 43), although not directed against the Gnostics (G.P. 106). We may recall, however, that, according to the heresiological tradition mentioned in approx. 26, the Gnostics allowed the existence of people of a “spiritual” nature, who have the freedom to choose between death and salvation and can change. That is, Matthew 13:47. Giraud translates: “...a prophetic network, for example, of Isaiah in such and such of his texts (dans tel de ses textes)” (G.P. 187). Lacuna and conjecture of Koetschau (G.P. 187, n. 3). In this place, Origen plays on the two meanings of the verb πληρόω - “to fill” and “to fulfill.” Wed. L, s.v. βίος, A, 7–8. Wed. G.P. 189: assis le long du rivage où ils seront installés. Thus, Origen directly speaks out against the idea that at the end of this world salvation is possible not only for all spiritual beings in general, but at least for all members of the Church. However, this passage does not contradict his hypothesis of universal salvation or apokatastasis, since the latter should not be correlated with the end of this world, but with the end of a long sequence of future worlds. See my article about this: “Apocatastasis and traditional eschatology in Origen” // VDI. 2003. No. 3. pp. 171–193. See 10, 11. This refers to the beginning of the interpretation of the parable of the net. τροποφορήσαι O: τροφοφορήσει R. I follow Giraud’s translation: pour le royaume des cieux (G.P. 195). Literally: “the animated Word.” Origen repeatedly applies this term to Christ. Wed. SS 2:9, 3:81, 5:4, 6:17; CJ 2:8, 60, 13:25, 152, 19:8, 45; EM 47; Fr. Lam. 8. A logical term already used by Aristotle (for example, An. Pr. 25ab; 29a, etc.). Fr. 310 (on Matthew 13:52): “With these statements we should put to shame those who divide the Divinity and [separate] the new from the old” (cp. 11, 14). Origen alludes to some Gnostics and, above all, to Marcion, who denied the Old Testament, recognizing only the New (and even then partially), and viewed the God of the Old Testament as an evil demiurge or, in any case, as a lower deity, just, but not good. An extensive polemic against this position is contained in PA 2:4–5 (cf., for example, PA 2:7, 1, CJ 1:35, 253). According to Giraud, we are talking about the Eucharist (G.P. 208, n. 1). Either the distinction between parables and similes in 10:4, or the verse itself in Matthew 13:53 as inauthentic (see G.P. 210, n. 3). τῶν οὐρανῶν O: τοῦ θεοῦ A. The Gospel of Peter has not survived except for a short fragment. In Chapter 9 The “Proto-Gospel of Jacob” that has come down to us actually talks about the sons of Jacob, who he had even before his marriage to Mary. Both of these apocrypha are first mentioned by Origen in this place (cf. G.P. 216, n. 1). Origen clearly differentiates the four canonical Gospels from the apocryphal ones (cf. HL (l.) 1, 1–2 SC 87. P. 98–100, as well as the Greek fragment from the prologue to the SM, preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6:25, 4–6), but at the same time he very actively (in comparison with his predecessors) cites apocryphal literature. See about this: Spada C.A. Origene e gli Apocrifi del Nuovo Testamento // Origeniana quarta. Innsbruck, 1987. P. 44–53 (especially p. 48 – about SM 1017); Bammel E. Die Zitate aus den Apokryphen bei Origenes // Origeniana quinta. Leuven, 1992, pp. 131–136. Wed. Fr. J 31; HL (l.) 7:4 SC 87. P. 158, where Origen expresses this opinion on his own behalf. According to Crouzel, Origen is the first Christian theologian to clearly affirm the ever-virginity of Mary (see: Crouzel H. Origène. P. 189; for more details - Origène. Homélies sur S. Luc (SC 87). Paris, 1962. Introduction. P. 35–44). Origen makes similar statements in CC 1:47, 2:13 (followed by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 2:23). The text of the Antiquities of the Jews that has come down to us only says that the Sanhedrin sentenced James, the brother of Jesus Christ, to be stoned (Ant. Jud. 20:9, 1 (200)). For more details see: G.P. 113–117. Origen mentions the Epistle of Jude, but says nothing about the Epistle of James, which is traditionally attributed to James, the brother of Jesus. This silence is sometimes seen as evidence that Origen did not consider the Epistle of James canonical. For more details see G.P. 218–219, n. 2. Or: “and no less.” Fr. 312 (on Matthew 13:54): “Wisdom instructed the wise, and powers (=miracles, δυνάμεις) convinced the simple. And they looked at this man as if he were an ordinary [person], but they were amazed at His deeds and wisdom (for wisdom contributes to strength, and strength to wisdom), not realizing that He is the very Word, Wisdom and Power of God.” Fr. 313 (on Matthew 13:57): “If you take into account that Jesus Christ is still persecuted among the Jews, but is preached among the pagans, then you will see how He has no honor in His fatherland. A similar thing can happen in all other cases (καθολικῶς), when each prophet is deprived of honor in his own homeland - Jeremiah in Anathoth, Elijah in Thesvah, Elisha in Abel-Mechol, Samuel in Ramathaim - or in Judah as in his own homeland. Moses, [although] deprived of honor, chose the people as his fatherland. Nowadays the prophets are not deprived of honor among the pagans, but in their own fatherland, that is, in the people of Judea, once persecuted, now they have no faith. After all, if they [the Jews] believed Moses, they would also believe Christ (cf. John 5:46). So they will prophesy against all flesh (Joel 2:28). Those who believe the Gospel of Christ are deprived of honor in their own country, [i.e. e. in] the world. Perhaps because of this saying, Paul did not preach in Tarsus and the apostles, leaving Israel, went to the pagans.” The apocryphal “Martyrdom of Isaiah,” which tells how he was sawn to death by order of King Manasseh, came to us as part of the Ethiopian edition of the so-called “Ascension of Isaiah” (the turn of the 1st–2nd centuries AD), but was probably originally a separate text. Excerpts from its Greek edition have also survived. See: Hall R.G. The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date and Place in Early Christianity In this case, Origen obviously has in mind a certain apocrypha that talks about the murder of Zechariah (cf. CMs (l.) // PG 13, 1637 A). The identification of this Zechariah is problematic. In Matthew 23:35 he is called the “son of Barachi,” like the prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 1:1, cf. Is.8:2), about whose murder the sacred tradition says nothing. As a rule, Matthew 23:35 was associated with the murder of Zechariah, mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20–22, but he was the son of Jehoiada (in addition, he was stoned, and not stabbed with a sword, like Origen’s Zechariah). We can also talk about the father of John the Baptist, who was also killed, according to the apocryphal “Proto-Gospel of Jacob” (chapter 23), or - despite the anachronism - about Zechariah, son of Baruch, whose murder in 67 AD. e. describes Josephus in Bell. Jud. 4:5, 4 (334–344) (see G.P. 226, n. 1, and also: Macpherson J. Zacharias: A Study of Matthew 23, 35 // BW, 1897. No. 1. P. 26–31; Broades J.A. Commentary on Matthew. Grand Rapids, 1990. P. 476–477). It is clear, however, that Origen himself connected Matthew 23:35 specifically with the father of John the Baptist, since in his commentary on this verse he correlates it with the tradition according to which this Zechariah was killed “between the church and the altar” for allowing Mary, after the birth of Christ, to take that place in the church where only virgins could be (CMs. P. 42, 15–43, 33; CMs (l.) // PG 13, 1631–32). Epiphanius mentions the apocrypha “The Birth of Mary,” which was in circulation among the Ophites, which also spoke of the murder of this Zechariah in the church (Panarion. V. 1. P. 290, 19–292, 8). Τίς μου ἥψατο; O: Ἥψατό μού τις A. One of those places where Origen's idea of the "accuracy of Scripture" appears. Greek δύναμις can mean both "power" and "miracle". If we accept the punctuation in PG (13, 884D), then an alternative translation of this part of the phrase is possible: “It seems to me that, as in the case of bodily [goods], it is not enough to cultivate the earth for the harvest of fruits, unless this is facilitated by the [grain] contained [in it], and even more so by the One who puts in order the environment that contains it, [endowing it with the] quality that he wants, and makes it what he wants...” Judging by the context, Origen alludes to the four cardinal virtues of ancient philosophical ethics, i.e. wisdom, moderation (or prudence), courage and justice (e.g. Plat. Resp. 427e sq.; cf. Phil. 26:2, 9-10, where Origen explicitly lists all these virtues). An obvious development of Acts 23:8: “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but the Pharisees admit both” (cf. Matt. 22:23). Modern scholars doubt that the Sadducees did not recognize the existence of angels, and prefer to interpret Acts 23:8 differently than Origen. See: Bamberger B.J. The Sadducees and the Belief in Angels // JBL. 1963. No. 4. P. 433–435; Daube D. On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels // JBL. 1990. No. 3. P. 493–497; Viviano B.T., Taylor J. Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection (Acts 23, 8–9) // JBL. 1992. No. 3. P. 496–498. Contrary to the assertions of his opponents (Hier. Ep. 124, 3–4, 7:10, 14; Apol. contra Ruf. 1, 20; Just. ACO III. P. 211, 10–23; Phot. Bibl. cod. 8, 3b; cod. 117, 92a), Origen always denied the doctrine of the transmigration of the soul in its traditional variant, implying, among other things, the possibility of its transition into the bodies of animals (for example, RA 1:8, 4, SM 11:17, 13:1–2; CJ 6:10, 64–11, 66, CC 1:13, 1:20, 3:75, 5:29, 8:30), but at the same time, in the context of the hypothesis put forward by him of the plurality of worlds or eons, he allowed the possibility a one-time incarnation of the soul in each new world (RA 2:3, 4–5). See: Dorival G. Origène, a-t-il enseigné la transmigration des âmes dans les corps d’animaux? (A propos de PArch. 1:8, 4) // Origeniana secunda. P. 11–32; Bianchi U. Origen’s Treatment of the Soul and the Debate over Metensomatosis // Origeniana quarta. P. 270–281; Maritano M. L’argomentazione scritturistica di Origene contro i sostenitori della metensomatosi // Origeniana sexta. Leuven, 1995, pp. 251–276; Maritano M. Argomenti “filosofici” di Origene contro la metensomatosi // Origeniana octava. Leuven, 2003, pp. 503–536. Omitted from Origen in this place, but appears later. From this formulation it seems to follow that Origen considers Herod Antipas, who killed John the Baptist, to be the king of Judea, while he was the tetrarch of Galilee and initially did not have the right to execute anyone in the territory of Judea, which was ruled by Roman governors at that time (but compare Luke 23: 7-12, where Pilate, having learned that Jesus was from Galilee, himself refers him to Herod Antipas). Perhaps Origen means that at that historical moment Herod Antipas personified royal power in all Jewish territories in general (cf. G.P. 244, n. 1). The idea that the Jews could not execute Jesus themselves is reflected in John 18:31, and is traditionally explained by the fact that the corresponding right (the so-called jus gladii) was taken from them by the Romans. However, the New Testament mentions several executions carried out by Jews without any Roman intervention (Acts 7:57, 12:1, 12:19). The degree of historicity of all this evidence is actively debated in New Testament studies. See, for example: Horvath T. Why was Jesus brought to Pilate? ἐξ Ἰσραήλ O: ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν αὐτοῦ R. ᾧ ἀπόκειται O: τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ R. Misidentification, given the testimony of Josephus in Ant Jud. 18:5, 4 (136–137). The son of Herod the Great, Herod Antipas married Herodias, who had previously been the wife of his brother, whom Josephus simply calls Herod (hereinafter referred to as Herod II). At the same time, Herod the Great had another son, Philip, who was the “tetrarch of Iturea and the Trachonite region” mentioned in Luke 3:1. This Philip, according to Josephus, was not married to Herodias at all, but to Salome, her daughter from Herod II. But in Matthew 14:3 and Mark 6:17 the first husband of Herodias is called “Philip” (Luke 3:19 does not name him). From this, some researchers conclude that the full name of Herod II is Herod Philip, and under this name this character appears in many reference books. Others believe that in Matthew 14:3 and Mark 6:17 the husband of Herodias is mistakenly named as the tetrarch Philip, mentioned in Luke 3:1 (see, for example, Gillman F.M. Herodias: At Home in That Fox’s Den. Liturgical Press (USA), 2003. P. 16, 40, 55). The latter is also sometimes called "Herod Philip", which adds to the confusion. Wed. Deut.25:5. Herod's marriage is usually seen as a violation of the commandments of Lev. 18:16, 20:21. The latter circumstance corresponds to the story of Josephus. Wed. Fr. 315 (on Matthew 14:3–4): “Philip did not die at all, but during his lifetime he was deprived of both the tetrarchy and his wife. Therefore, this marriage is not legal, but sinful and in need of prophetic freedom of speech.” Josephus (see note 87) mentions the daughter of Herodias by Herod II, Salome. In the New Testament, the name of the daughter of Herodias who danced before Herod is not named, but due to Josephus's account, she is traditionally called Salome, although there are arguments against such an identification. In connection with the fact that Origen also calls the daughter of Herodias Herodias, it is worth mentioning that in many influential New Testament manuscripts for Mark 6:22, instead of the traditionally accepted reading “the daughter of Herodias herself,” there is “his (i.e., Herod himself! - A.S.) daughter Herodias,” and in modern editions this latter option is sometimes preferred. For more information, see: Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books and the New Testament / Ed. by C. Meyers, R.S. Kraemer, T. Craven. Houghton Mifflin Books, 2001, pp. 21, 94–95, 148–149. Literally: “deeds of birth.” But γένεσις can mean “creation” as the totality of created things (cf. L, s.v. 3), and I prefer the broader meaning (unlike G.P. 248, n. 2). Fr. 316 (on Matthew 14:6–8): “The wife of the king of Trachonitis, - [v. e.] a certain vicious opinion and teaching, thanks to the movements of the child of the same name, commensurate with those who loved created goods (τὰ γενέσεως πράγματα), becomes the reason that now there is no prophetic head among the people.” I follow Giraud’s translation: c’est pour un anniversaire qu’ils dansent, tandis que regne sur eux une doctrine impie (G.P. 249). But we can translate: “they dance at the birthday party of the lawless teaching that rules them,” since in the further context this “teaching” is likened to Herod celebrating his birthday. Wed. Phil. De ebr. 208–209. On Philo's influence on Origen, see: Runia D.T. Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers. Brill, 1997, pp. 117–126; Hoek A., van den. Philo and Origen: A Descriptive Catalog of their Relationship // The Studia Philonica Annual, 2000. 12. P. 44–121; Thummel H.G. Philon und Origenes // Origeniana octava. R. 275–286. Most references to Philo in Origen's texts are characterized by vagueness of formulation, which we encounter here too (“one of our predecessors”). Wed. Runia D.T. Op. cit. P. 125. Fr. 317 (on Matthew 14:6): “A bad [man], who loves created things (τὰ γενέσεως), celebrates his birthday like Pharaoh, but not a single saint is found celebrating his birthday.” ἐξεληλύθατε; προφήτην ἰδεῖν; O: ἐξήλθατε ἰδείν; προφήτην; A. Fr. 318 (on Matthew 14:10): “And now the Jews are killing the prophecies, not openly, but as if in prison and secretly. For they are dead and beheaded, since they do not have the main thing [in prophecy] - Jesus Christ, Who is unharmed among us, for, he says, “His bone will not be broken.” According to the story of Eusebius of Caesarea, in his youth, during the persecution under Septimius Severus, Origen was just so eager to meet dangers (ὁμόσε τοῖς κινδύνοις χωρεῖν), seeking martyrdom along with his father, that his mother had to hide clothes from him so that he could not leave the house (Hist. Eccl. 6:2, 3-6). If this account is correct, then this passage of SM (like, for example, CJ 28:23 or SS 1:65) reflects a change in Origen's position towards martyrdom in adulthood. Eusebius also contains a story about the fortitude with which Origen endured imprisonment and torture during the persecution under Decius (Hist. Eccl. 6:39, 5). What is meant is that pity represents πάθος, “suffering” or “endure.” This is a paradoxical statement in which the Platonic idea of ​​the impassibility of God (cf. PA 2:4, 4; HN (l.) 23:2 // PG 12, 718 C; Sel. Ez. 16 // PG 13, 809 D) is combined with an assertion of His ability to suffer because of love for people (cf. especially H. Ez. (l.) 6:6 // PG 13, 714 C–715 A), can be considered as an exemplary formula expressing the specifics of Origen’s approach to this problem. For more details see: Kobusch T. Kann Gott leiden? Zu den philosophischen Grundlagen der Lehre von der Passibilitat Gottes bei Origenes // VC. 1992. No. 4. P. 328–333; Fedou M. La Sagesse et le monde. Essai sur la christologie d'Origène. Paris, 1995. P. 323–328; Weinandy Th. Origen and the Suffering of God // SP. 2001. XXXVI. P. 456–460. It is typical for Origen to interpret bodily illnesses mentioned in Scripture as allegories of mental vices. Compare, for example, SM 13:4, 16:24; CJ 6:33, 166; Phil. 26:4. See in this regard: Bostock D.G. Medical Theory and Theology in Origen In the Synodal translation: “many die.” Greek κοιμῶνται can indicate both sleep and death. I prefer the first option only because in this context Origen develops a metaphor for spiritual sleep based on this verse. ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ O: ἐπὶ τὸ ὄρος Σιων R. An alternative reading is αὐτούς. In this case, the speech should be translated: “that they (i.e., the loaves - A.S.) are too few in number.” Stoic terms (eg, SVF II, 135; 223), denoting the meaning of a statement (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) and its external verbal expression (λόγος προφορικός); were also used by Philo (De vita Mosis, 2:13, 129, etc.). Theophilus of Antioch applied them to the Logos as the second Person of the Trinity (Ad Aut. 2:10. 2:22), distinguishing between the eternal existence of the Logos as the Mind of the Father and His “birth” for the creation of the world and the performance of other economic functions. Origen usually uses these terms close to their original meaning (eg CC 6, 65), but does so rarely, so that it is difficult to accurately establish their conceptual meaning in this context. Since both terms are contrasted with the “sensual” side of Scripture, it remains to be assumed that they denote different levels of its meaning. See also: Sch. M Fr. 321 (on Matthew 14:19): “The Savior lifts his eyes to heaven, pointing us to His Father. And He did this so that, thanks to miracles, we would believe Him as God, and because He gives thanks and looks at heaven, we would recognize that He is a man” (possibly from Chrysostom). A metaphor characteristic of the ancient Greek language (cf. LS, s.v. ἀκτίς), which corresponded to a widespread philosophical theory that explained visual perception by the action of rays emanating from the eyes of the subject (for example, in Plato in Tim. 45b–d; from Christian authors, see: Nemesia - De nat.hom. 7). That it was the twelve disciples who collected the remaining bread into boxes is Origen’s assumption. I interpret this passage in accordance with the allegorical interpretation of the five loaves proposed by Origen in the first paragraph of this chapter. βούλομαι δὲ τοὺς πάντας ὑμᾶς O: ἡρμοσάμην γὰρὑμᾶς ἐνὶ ἀνδρὶ A. In connection with the spiritual meaning of such words in Scripture, cf. HEx. (l.) 10:3 // PG 12, 371–373. πᾶσιν ἀνακλιθῆναι O: ἀνακλῖναι πάντας Α. See 11, 19 and approx. 204. In RA 1:1,6 Origen applies the term "monad" to God to emphasize that He is a simple spiritual nature, devoid of any complexity. This numerical symbolism is already present in Philo - De mut. nom. 228; De spec. leg. 2:122, 2:176; De decal. 164 (G.P. 279, n. 2). Daniélou notes about this passage that the symbolic meaning of the number 50 has biblical roots, and 100 has Hellenistic roots (see: Daniélou J. Origen. P. 185). This expression seems to imply a connection between the name of God and His essence, so that approaching the name of Jesus means approaching the knowledge of divine secrets (cf. G.P. 282-284, n. 3, where references are made in this connection to PE 24:2, EM 46). See also: Dillon J. The Magical Power of Names in Origen and Later Platonism // Origeniana tertia. P. 203–216; Janovitz N. Theories of Divine Names in Origen and Pseudo-Dionysius // HR. 1991. No. 4. P. 359–372. Or “passing over [to the other side],” transeuntes, as stated in the Latin text HN 19:4 // PG 12, 725 B. See generally: Wutz F. Onomastica Sacra: Untersuchungen zum Liber Interpretationum Nominum Hebraicorum des Hl.Hieronymus (TU 3 Reihe, 11 Bd.). Leipzig, 1914–1915; Hanson R.P.C. Interpretations of Hebrew Names in Origen // VC. 1956. No. 2. P. 103–123. These researchers, in particular, showed that most often Origen did not come up with this kind of etymology himself, but depended on various sources (which is indirectly confirmed at the beginning of 11:6). But cf. below 11:16. In Åland, the mention of “the middle of the sea” is excluded from the main text of Matthew 14:24 and appears only in the apparatus. Origen again insists on the “precision of Scripture,” but does not reveal what the conceptual meaning of this “precision” is in this case. Fr. 325 (on Matthew 14:22): “This shows their inseparability from Him and their complete reluctance to part with the Lord. Compulsion consisted in an order given with persistence.” τὰ ὕδατα O: τὴν θάλασσαν Α. εἰς τὴν γῆν Γενησαρέτ O: ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν εἰς Γεννησαρέτ Α. The etymology accepted in the era of patristics is “garden of leaders” (G.P. 294, n. 1). Klostermann's conjecture (G.P. 295, n. 2). Wed. below 11:19. Origen plays on the different meanings of the verb ἀπολύω (“to let go,” “free,” “forgive”) and cognates. Fr. 326 (on Matt. 14:13, 23): “Jesus goes into the wilderness and goes up to a mountain to pray, teaching us [what are the necessary] conditions for prayer” (possibly goes back to Chrysostom). Or: “experiencing the proper amount of suffering.” “The father of darkness and vice” is the devil (cf. HEx. (l.) 8:6 // PG 12, 359 C, Fr. CCor. 18, 110–111, Exp. Prov. Wed. G.P. 301: d'autres que les disciples. In principle, one can translate “others from among the disciples” or simply “other disciples,” i.e. in this case, Origen contrasts the disciples who were in the boat with all the other disciples (cf. Hue in PG 13, 923 B: nec enim alios discipulos arbitrer id dixisse). Origen seems to suggest that the use of different but rooted forms διεσώθησαν and σέσωκε must have some conceptual meaning. In different traditions, the text of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:2–17, Deut. 5:6–21) is divided into separate commandments in different ways. Origen focuses on the Jewish tradition, while later, thanks to Blessed. To Augustine, the dominant alternative in the Catholic Church was that the commandment to honor the father and mother would be the fourth (cf. G.P. 310, n. 1). ἐὰν ἄνθρωπος – καὶ O: ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἃν – ἢ R. τελευτάτω O: θανατούσθω R. θανάτῳ τελευτάτω O: τελευτήσει θανάτῳ R. Exodus 21:15, 17 in the Synodal Version. A very typical for Origen is a vague reference to his personal contacts with representatives of contemporary Judaism. Compare: Lange N. R.M., de Jewish Influence on Origen // Origeniana prima. P. 226. The specific meaning and degree of historicity of the practice of “korban”, which is described in Matthew 15:5–6, are the subject of debate. See, for example: Bruner F.D. Matthew, A Commentary. Volume II: The Churchbook, Matthew 13–28. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2004. P. 87–88, Keener K.S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 1999, pp. 410–411. From Origen’s description it appears that the Pharisees and scribes received direct material benefit from the “korban”, but according to another common version, it could be those who thus made an offering to God, since it was supposedly of a formal nature and they continued to actually own the means that constituted this gift (see G.P. 121–123). We are talking about elders, but the same Greek word is used in Matthew 15:2 to designate Jewish elders or “elders.” That is, help your loved ones and the poor at the same time. That is, the Pharisees. Origen proceeds to reasoning on behalf of Jesus. Wed. above 10:1. Perhaps it would be more natural to translate: “out of fear, as if”, etc. (cf. Hue in PG 13, 935 B: ne transgrediantur), but in this case it is not clear how observing the commandment to wash one’s hands could lead to a violation of the commandment to honor one’s father and mother. Perhaps Origen refers to the lost books of SM (G.P. 320, n. 3). Wed. 10:9, which says that Matthew in an abbreviated form conveyed the commandment to honor parents from the Mosaic Law. Wed. apparatus in Ralphs's edition of Isaiah 29:13. This refers to the table beds. Ebionites - Judeo-Christian sect of the 2nd–3rd centuries. n. e., which preached, in particular, the need to observe the Mosaic Law (cf. in this regard HGen (l.) 3:5 // PG 12, 179 A; CMs (l.) 79 // PG 13, 1728 C). Since the name of this sect can be translated from Hebrew as “poor”. Origen argued that they were so named in a figurative sense - because of the spiritual "poverty" that characterized their interpretation of the law (SS 2:1), their faith in Jesus (SM 16:12) or simply their thoughts (RA 4:3, 8 (22)). In addition, he distinguished between two varieties of Ebionites: some believe in the birth of Christ from the Virgin, others do not (SS 5:61; the latter are also mentioned in HL (l.) 17:4 // SC 87. P. 254). These Origenian ideas are then reproduced by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3:27, 6:17). See also: HJr 19:12, Fr. L 212. τὸ ἐξερχόμενον O: τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον Α. Synodal translation - Sir.28:29. “Indifferent” (τὰ ἀδιάφορα) is a Stoic term (SVF III 70; 117, etc.). According to the Stoics, only virtue and vice are good and evil, and the so-called “external” and “bodily goods”, including life and death, are in fact value-indifferent. Origen shares this Stoic concept. Wed. SS 4:45, 4:65, 6:54–55; 6:73; Phil. 26:1; CJ 20:25, 224–226; 20:39, 363–366; CM 13:9. παρίστησι O: παραστήσει Α. Fr. 329 (on Matthew 15:11): “The Law established what one should eat and what one should abstain from. Not because it was food that gave rise to purity or impurity of thought, but so that we do not strive for everything with unbridled lips, like animals, and do not make pleasures out of food. That is why [the law] said: “You shall not eat any fat or any blood” (Lev.3:17) - the first, because it makes the body fat and encourages licentiousness, and the second - as something bestial and wild. Let us not be surprised if, although the law prohibits this, the Lord seems to introduce the opposite [teaching], that there is no bodily uncleanness. For what is in the law pertains more to the outward man, but the [teaching] of the Lord pertains to the inward man.” The last two phrases in Klostermann's edition are considered as clearly not going back to Origen. Wed. Matthew 7:29, 8:27, 9:33, 13:54, 15:31, etc. (G.P. 334, a). I am following one possible translation of this New Testament phrase. See, for example: Harris M.J. Colossians and Philemon. Grand Rapids, 1991, pp. 129–130. Fr. 332 (on Matthew 15:13): “And what shall we say in connection with [the words]: “I planted, Apollos watered”? But see if [this question is not resolved by the words] “God has increased” (1 Cor. 3:6) and “we are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor. 3:9). For we are fellow workers with God, who plants and works together [with us].” Fr. 331 (on Matthew 15:11–14): “The teaching (cf. John 6:60) seemed strange to eat, contrary to custom, what the law says defiles a person. He who is washed has no need to wash his hands, as He who said: “Except only My feet” taught (cf. John 13:10). Therefore, the disciples who ate the bread did not wash their hands. The Pharisees, not knowing the power of the Word, were tempted. The one who walks in darkness, or the blind and without a leader, is tempted. And those who truly abandoned the “true light” (John 1:9), who had previously prepared and made smooth [for them] the good path and led them in the wilderness, walked in darkness. Therefore, the Savior says: “Leave them, they are blind.” Fr. 333 (on Matthew 15:13–14): “The plant that is not from God is everything external to God, which will be uprooted. The one who matches him in quality (πεποιωμένος) is blind.” Fr. 334 (on Matthew 15:13): “The Manichaeans, wanting to show that the law does not belong to the Father of Christ, took advantage of this testimony, deviating from the truth as much as possible. For it does not speak about a way of life in accordance with the law, but about the sect (αἱρέσεως) of the Pharisees, who, with the help of their own inventions, instilled in those who believed them many [things] contrary to the law, as can be seen from the fact that the Lord Himself clearly denounces them above.” Klostermann singles out this fragment as inauthentic, but, with the exception of the mention of the Manichaeans, its content is close to what Origen says in this chapter of the SM. The so-called “simple believers” (ἀκεραιότεροι; ἁπλούστεροι; simpliciores) are a constant object of Origen’s criticism. See in this regard: Hallstrom G. Fides simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria. Helsinki, 1984. Giraud, based on the context where we are talking about purity and defilement, prefers in this case to translate ἀκεραιότεροι as “les gens qui n’ont pas de souillure”, i.e. “unsullied” or “deprived of defilement people” (G.P. 344–345, n. 1). Giraud: par la parole seule, i.e. “in just one word” (?) (G.P. 345). In my opinion, here Origen means the same thing as a little lower: the substance of food itself does not defile or purify the believer. Wed. Hue: non ex se (PG 13, 947D–950A). Compared to the usual edition, Origen has changed the sequence of the two parts of this phrase. On this passage in connection with Origen's views on the Eucharist, see, for example: Daniélou J. Origen. P. 63–65, Crouzel H. Origène. P. 295–297, Lies L. Die dreigestaltige Eucharistieauffassung nach SerMt 85 und 86 // Origeniana secunda. P. 205–214 (especially 212–214). Danielou and, to an even greater extent, Krousel are trying to demonstrate the fundamental compatibility of Origen's approach with orthodoxy (naturally, in their case, Catholic), while Lees pays more attention to the specificity of Origen's concept. That is, the mind. Origen uses a common Stoic term. Wed. HEz (l.) 13:4 (PG 13, 764B); HJes (l.) 14:2 (SC 71. P. 325). Hanson admits that in this case we are dealing with the original etymology invented by Origen himself (Hanson R.P.C. Interpretations of Hebrew Names in Origen. P. 104). In this case, Origen focuses on the Hebrew text. In the Septuagint: “according to the number of the angels of God” (G.P. 357, n. 5). In connection with the differences between the righteous in the process of their attainment of the perfect state, cf. 10:3. Literally: “with spiritual law.” This kind of two-part terminological phrase (“vice and its corresponding deeds” or “virtue and its corresponding deeds”) is used by Origen repeatedly (Phil. 26:1–2; CC 6:54; Sel.Ps. // PG 12, 1581 B). It has analogies in Stoic sources (SVF III, 75–76; 97 a) and emphasizes the difference between vice or virtue itself, as an internal state of the soul, and the corresponding external actions (cf. HJob. P. 369, 22–24). Fr. 336 (on Matthew 15:21–28): “The Canaanite woman is a symbol of the Church [formed] from the pagans. For the pagans, at first rejected, were subsequently elevated to the level of sons and awarded bread, but the Jews became dogs, considering it right to eat small crumbs, that is, the insignificance and insignificance of the letter. For Tire means “trouble,” Sidon means “hunting,” and Canaanite means “prepared for humiliation.” In fact, those oppressed by vice were pagans, among whom were demons hunting souls. They were prepared for humiliation, but the righteous were prepared for greatness in the Kingdom of Heaven.” Åland gives no alternatives for this verse, and the main text contains an imperfect, indicating that the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue was dying, but not yet dead (cf. G.P. 360, n. 2). The interpretation developed in this chapter may serve as an example of what Daniélou considered the “gnostic” element in Origen's approach to biblical interpretation (Daniélou J. Origen, pp. 191–199). See also the preface. The mention of the “clairvoyance” of these souls is probably due to the fact that Origen, following Philo (De congr. 51) and others (see: Writings of ancient Christian apologists, pp. 578–579), translated the word “Israel” as “seeing God” (HN (l.) 11:4 // PG 12, 648 B: mens videns Deum). Compare: Hanson R.P.C. Interpretations of Hebrew Names in Origen. P. 103, n. 6. Fr. 337 (on Matthew 15:22–28): “Jesus does not answer the Canaanite woman, fulfilling the law and showing the strength of this woman in the truth, which is also visible in the Church [formed] from the Gentiles. Bread is doctrine, children are Israelites, dogs are pagans because of [the consumption of] things sacrificed to idols and the uncleanness of life. On this basis, she composes a defensive speech for herself, saying: “Even though I am a dog, I am not someone else’s, but Yours, and I should receive a share, if not bread, then still crumbs.” To think that even the smallest part of His power (after all, she calls it a “crumb”) is sufficient to lead to the healing of her daughter is a sign of exceptional faith. So the Canaanite woman is shown to be filled with great knowledge, humility and faith.” Klostermann points out possible parallels in Chrysostom. According to Giraud, in this case Origen means the Ebionites (G.P. 365, n. 3; RA 4:3, 8 (22) may support this version). Quite a dark place. In terms of meaning, and also in view of the possible allusion in this case to Rom. 10:19 and Deut. 32:21, “foolish” would clearly be better suited. Giraud suggests that, if it is not a copyist's error, Origen may mean that the "unwise" and "insignificant" of the world can be called rational due to divine election (cf. G.P. 366, n. 1). In PG 13, 961 B, this part of the phrase is presented in a different edition, but the meaning does not become more satisfactory: “...and he called for the “unmeaning” (1 Cor. 1:28), handing over the understanding people (?) to those who could accommodate the “foolishness of preaching” (1 Cor. 1:21),” etc. ὡς θεῷ τῷ Ἰησοῦ O: αὐτῷ Α. οὐκ ἔξεστι O: οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν Α. I follow Giraud’s interpretation: “...n’a emporté qu’une quantité mesurée de puissance, conforme à la capacité des réalités de ce monde” (G.P. 367–369). In this case, the power of Jesus is limited because the ability of this world to perceive it is limited. A possible translation is also possible: “[Jesus] brought a limited power according to which He perceived the reality of this world” (cf. Hue in PG 13, 963 A: mensuram potestatis, secundum quam res mundanas continebat, attulisse). Synodal text – Ex. 22:31. Origen very often mentions passive states as the cause of moral or spiritual decline, such as “negligence” (ἀμέλεια – cf. PA 3:1, 13–14, CC 6:45, CI 20:5, 32, Fr. Lam. 20, Sch. Ap. 30), “inattentiveness” (ἀπροσεξία – cf. RE 29:13, SS 7:69, SM 10:24) or “frivolity” (ῥᾳθυμία – cf. Fr. Lam. 35, Sch. Ap. 30). This also applies to the fall of rational spiritual beings in pre-existence (cf. RA 2:9, 2). An allusion to the sick daughter of the Canaanite woman. Fr. 338 (on Matthew 15:28): “After the word has been spoken, the deed is not delayed. For He who speaks is God, the saying is effective, and [His] power is everywhere.” Wed. SS 2:48, HJr 18:9, Fr. Ps. 28:9, 103:18. In HC (l.) 2:11 (SC 37. P. 99) Origen states that the deer lures snakes out of their holes with its breath and feeds on them without suffering harm from their poison. Similar ideas are found in various ancient authors, for example, in Aelian in De nat. anim. 2:9. Christian authors use this image, giving it an allegorical meaning associated with the victory of Christ or the believer over evil forces or vices. Wed: Bas. Caes. Hom. Ps. // PG 29, 300 A; Aug. Enarr. Ps. 43:3 // PL 36, 465–466. Fr. 339 (on Matthew 15:31): “They had not yet comprehended the [divine] dignity of our Lord Jesus Christ - that He performs healings, possessing perfect power (αὐτοδυνάμως), Himself being the One through whom the Father does everything, but they thought that He was a man acting beyond the [capabilities] of man, and they gave praise to God. And then what the Lord said to the Father was fulfilled: “I have glorified You on earth” (John 17:64). For a person who does something miraculous does not glorify God himself, but is glorified by God, receiving part of the miraculous power. Christ Himself, the One who works miracles, Himself glorifies the Father, making His power obvious, which He Himself is. But they glorify God not [any] other, but the one of Israel, for there is no other, according to Marcion’s madness, but He is one.” That is, the patients they brought with them. Literally: “the exact wisdom of the Gospels.” ἐπ’ αὐτὸν O: ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς Α. In the Synodal Translation, the verbs ἀνακλιθῆναι in Matthew 14:19 and ἀναπεσεῖν in Matthew 15:35 are translated in the same way - “to lie down.” Since Origen emphasizes the difference between these verbs, I rendered the first form as “sit down”, focusing on the Synodal translation of Luke 9:14 and Mark 6:39, where the forms κατακλίνατε and ἀνακλῖναι are translated by the verb “to seat”. Origen draws attention to the fact that in the text of John, in relation to the first of the two compared episodes, the forms ἀναπεσεῖν and εὐχαριστήσας are used, which in other evangelists are found only in the second episode, to which immediately before this Origen himself attached some fundamental, although not explained, meaning.