Commentary on Matthew 10.12–10.17

With this said, we must suppose that “the kingdom of heaven is likened to a net that was cast into the sea and gathered from every kind” to show the variety of choices among men, which differ from one another as widely as can be, so that “gathering from every kind” means those who are praiseworthy and blameworthy in their inclinations toward the kinds of virtues or of vices. And the kingdom of heaven was likened to a net of varied weave because of the Old and New Scripture, woven of thoughts of every sort and variety. Just as of the fish that fall into the net some are found in these parts of the net and others in others, each in the part by which it has been caught, so you would find of those who have come into the net of the Scriptures that some are caught in the prophetic weave—say, of Isaiah in this passage, or of Jeremiah, or of Daniel—others in the weave of the law, others in that of the Gospel, and some in that of the apostles. For when someone is first caught by the Word, or seems to be caught, he is taken from some part of the whole net. And there is nothing strange if some of the fish caught are enclosed by the whole weave of the net in the Scriptures, and are held and gripped on every side, unable to escape, but, as it were, made captive from every side and not allowed to fall out of the net. This net has been cast into the sea, that is, into the life of men tossed by waves everywhere in the inhabited world and swimming in the bitter affairs of life. Before our Saviour Jesus this net was not wholly complete; for the weave of the law and the prophets lacked the one who said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the law; I did not come to abolish the prophets but to fulfil.” And the weave of the net has been completed in the Gospels and in the words of Christ through the apostles. For this reason, then, “the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea and gathered from every kind.” Besides what has been said, “gathering from every kind” can also indicate the calling of every race of the nations. Those who serve the net cast into the sea are Jesus Christ, the lord of the net, and “the angels who came and served him”; they do not draw the net up out of the sea, nor bring it to the shore outside it—the things outside this life—until the net is filled, that is, until “the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” to it. But when it has come in, then they draw it up from the things here below and bring it to what is figuratively called the shore. There it will be the task of those who drew it up to sit down by the shore and settle themselves there, so that they may set each of the good things in the net in its own rank, according to what are here called their vessels, and cast out those of the opposite kind, which are called rotten. The “outside” is the furnace of fire, as the Saviour explained, saying: “So it will be at the consummation of the age: the angels will come out and separate the wicked from the midst of the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire.” Note, however, that already through the parable of the weeds and through the present similitude we are taught that angels are to be entrusted with judging and separating the bad from the righteous. For above it is said, “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all stumbling blocks and those who do lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth”; and here …

It does not follow from this, as some think, that the men saved in Christ are better even than the holy angels. For how can those who are cast into vessels by the angels be compared with those who cast them into the vessels, being placed under their authority? We say this not unaware that the men who will be saved in Christ surpass some angels, those who have not been entrusted with such a stewardship—though not even all of these. For we have read: “Into which angels long to look,” where it is not said “all angels.” We know also: “We shall judge angels,” where it is not said “all angels.” Since these things are written about the net and those in the net, the one who wants that, before the consummation of the age and before the angels come out and separate the wicked from the midst of the righteous, there should be no wicked of every kind in the net, seems not to have understood the Scripture and to desire the impossible. So let us not be surprised if, before the wicked are separated from the midst of the righteous by the angels sent out for this, we see our assemblies filled with wicked people too. But may those who will be cast into the furnace of fire not be more numerous than the righteous! And since we said at the beginning that parables and similitudes are not taken in respect of everything with which they are compared or likened, but in respect of certain things, this must be shown also from what follows. For in the case of the fish, as regards their life, it is something bad that befalls them to be found in the net; for they are deprived of the life natural to them, and whether thrown into vessels or outside they suffer nothing more than losing the life of fish. But in the case of those for whom the parable is taken, it is bad to be in the sea and not to come into the net so as to be cast into vessels with the good. So bad fish are cast out and thrown away; but those who are bad according to the present similitude are cast into the furnace of fire, so that what is said in Ezekiel about the furnace may reach them too: “And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man, behold, the house of Israel has become to me all mixed with bronze and iron,” and so on as far as “and you will know that I the Lord have poured out my wrath upon you.”

“Have you understood all these things? They say, Yes.” Christ Jesus, who knows what is in the hearts of men, as John taught about this too in his Gospel, does not ask out of ignorance; but having once taken up manhood, he uses all that belongs to it, one part of which is asking. And it is not surprising that the Saviour does this, since even the God of all, bearing with men as a man might bear with his son, inquires, as in “Adam, where are you?” and “Where is Abel your brother?” But someone forcing the text here will say that “you have understood” is said not as a question but as a statement; and he will say that the disciples, bearing witness to his statement, say to him, “Yes.” However, whether he asks or states, it was necessary to say, not just “these things,” which is demonstrative, nor just “all,” but “all these things.” He seems now to show that the disciples had become scribes before the kingdom of heaven. But against this will stand what is said in the Acts of the Apostles in this way: “When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlettered and common men, they were amazed, and recognized that they had been with Jesus.” Someone might ask, then: if they were scribes, how are they called unlettered and common in the Acts? And if they were unlettered and common, how are they most plainly named scribes by the Saviour? To what has been asked it might be said, either that not all, but Peter and John, are called unlettered and common in the Acts, while the disciples were more numerous, and to them, since they understood all, was said “Every scribe,” and so on; or that everyone who has been instructed in the teaching according to the letter of the law is called a scribe, so that those who are unlettered and common but are led by the letter of the law are called scribes in a certain sense. Indeed it belongs above all to common men, who do not know how to interpret figuratively, nor understand the anagogical sense of the Scriptures, but believe the bare letter and defend it, to be called scribes. In this way someone will also explain “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” as said to everyone who knows nothing but the letter. Here you will inquire whether, just as there is a scribe of the law, so there is also a scribe of the Gospel; and whether, just as one reads, hears and speaks the law, “which things are an allegory,” so also the Gospel; so as to know, while the literal account of what happened is preserved, the unerring anagogical sense that leads to spiritual things—not lessons of “the spiritual hosts of wickedness,” but, contrary to the spiritual hosts of wickedness, spiritual things of goodness. A scribe is made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, in the simpler sense, when someone comes from Judaism and takes up the church’s teaching of Jesus Christ; in the deeper sense, when someone, having received the introductions given through the letter of the Scriptures, ascends to the spiritual things, which are named the kingdom of heaven. And with every thought that is attained, rightly understood in its ascent, set forth and proved, one can conceive the kingdom of heaven, so that the one who abounds in true knowledge comes to be in the kingdom of the multitude of heavens thus explained. In this way you will also interpret figuratively “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near,” so that the scribes, that is, those who rest on the bare letter, repenting of such an interpretation, may be made disciples by the spiritual teaching given through Jesus Christ, the living Word, which is called the kingdom of heaven. That is why, as long as Jesus Christ, the God Word who was in the beginning with God, does not dwell in a soul, the kingdom of heaven is not in it; but when someone comes near to containing the Word, to him the kingdom of heaven draws near. And if the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are the same in reality, even if not in concept, then clearly to those to whom it is said, “The kingdom of God is within you,” it could also be said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you,” and above all because of the turning from the letter to the spirit; for “when one turns to the Lord, the veil over the letter is taken away; and the Lord is the Spirit.” The true householder is both free and rich; rich because, from being a scribe, he has been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, in every word of the Old Testament and in all knowledge of the new teaching of Christ Jesus; and he has this wealth laid up in his treasure, which he stores up, as one made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, in heaven, “where neither moth consumes nor thieves break in.” Indeed one may truly define the one who, as we have explained, stores up treasure in heaven as one whose spiritual and heavenly riches not a single moth of the passions can touch. I said “moth of the passions” taking occasion from the Proverbs, where it is written: “As a worm in wood, so grief harms a man’s heart.” For grief is a worm and a moth, harming the heart that does not have its treasures in heaven and in spiritual things; but whoever stores up treasure there, since “where the treasure is, there is the heart also,” has his heart in heaven, and because of it he says: “Though an army encamp against me, my heart shall not fear.” So neither can the thieves, of whom the Saviour said, “All who came before me are thieves and robbers,” break into what is stored up in heaven, nor into the heart present with it, which therefore says: “He raised us up with him and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ,” and, “Our citizenship is in heaven.”

Since “every scribe who has been made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven is like a householder,” clearly also, by what is called the conversion of the proposition, everyone who does not bring out of his treasure things new and old is not a scribe made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven. We must try, then, in every way to gather in our heart, by attending to reading, to exhortation, to teaching, and by meditating “on the law of the Lord day and night,” not only the new oracles of the Gospels, of the apostles and of their Revelation, but also the old things of the law that has a shadow of the good things to come, and of the prophets who prophesied in accordance with it. And these will be gathered when we both read and know them, and, keeping them in memory, compare spiritual things with spiritual at the right time—not comparing things that cannot be compared with one another, but things comparable, which have some likeness of wording with the same meaning, and of thoughts and doctrines—so that on the mouth of two or three or even more witnesses from Scripture we may establish and confirm every word of God. Through these words we must also put to shame those who, as far as in them lies, divide the Godhead and cut off the new things from the old, as being far from likeness to the householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old. And since one who is likened to someone is other than the one to whom he is likened, the one likened will be the scribe made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven, and other than he the householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old. And the one likened to him, as imitating him, wishes to do the like. Perhaps, then, the householder is Jesus himself, who brings out of his treasure, at the time of his teaching, new things—the spiritual things, always renewed by him in the inner man of the righteous, who are always “renewed day by day”—and old things, those engraved in letters on stones and on the stony hearts of the old man, so that by comparing the letter and setting forth the spirit he may enrich the scribe made a disciple to the kingdom of heaven and make him like himself, until the disciple becomes like the teacher, imitating first the imitator of Christ, and after him Christ himself, according to what Paul said: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” More simply, Jesus the householder can be said to bring out of his treasure new things, the teaching of the Gospel, and old things, the comparison of texts taken from the law and the prophets, examples of which can be found in the Gospels. Concerning these old and new things we must also listen to the spiritual law, which says in Leviticus: “And you shall eat old things, and old things of old things, and you shall bring out the old because of the new, and I will set my tabernacle among you.” For we eat with blessing the old things, the words of the prophets, and the old things of these old things, the words of the law; and when the new things of the Gospel have come, living according to the Gospel, we bring out the old things of the letter because of the new; and he sets his tabernacle among us, fulfilling the promise he spoke: “I will dwell and walk among them.”

“And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there; and coming into his own country …” Since above we examined whether the things spoken to the crowds were parables and those spoken to the disciples similitudes, and set out the observations that occurred to us on this, which are, I think, not to be despised, we must know that all of them will seem to be contradicted by the fact that “And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there” is said not only of the parables but also of what we have explained as similitudes. We ask, then, whether all that must be set aside; or whether we must speak of two kinds of parables, those spoken to the crowds and those announced to the disciples; or whether we must consider the name “parable” homonymous; or whether “It came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables” must be referred only to the parables above, those before the similitudes. For because of “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to the rest in parables,” it is not possible to say that the Saviour spoke in parables to the disciples, since they were not among those outside. It follows from this, then, either that “It came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there” refers to the parables spoken first, or that the name “parable” is homonymous, or that there are two kinds of parables, or that what we have named similitudes are not parables at all. Note that he speaks the parables outside his own country; and “when he had finished them, he went away from there, and coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue.” And Mark says: “And he came into his own country, and his disciples follow him.” We must inquire, then, also according to the wording, whether by his own country he means Nazareth or Bethlehem: Nazareth because of “He shall be called a Nazarene,” Bethlehem since he was born there. I further consider whether the evangelists, though they could have said “coming into Bethlehem” or “coming into Nazareth,” did not do so, but named it “his country,” because something is indicated mystically in the passage about his country, namely the whole of Judea, in which he was dishonoured, according to the saying, “A prophet is not without honour except in his own country.” And if one considers Jesus Christ—“to the Jews a stumbling block,” among whom he is persecuted to this day, but preached and believed among the Gentiles (for his word has run to the whole earth)—he will see that Jesus had no honour in his own country, but is honoured among “the strangers to the covenants,” the Gentiles. What he said when he taught in their synagogue the evangelists have not recorded, but only that it was so great and of such a kind that all were astonished; and it is likely that what was said was beyond writing. However, he taught in their synagogue, not separating from it nor setting it aside …

But “Where did this man get this wisdom?” clearly shows the greater and exceptional wisdom of the words of Jesus, worthy of “And behold, something greater than Solomon is here”; and he did greater mighty works than those done through Elijah and Elisha, and still earlier through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun. Those who marvelled spoke, not knowing that he was the son of a virgin, nor believing it even if it was said, but supposing him to be the son of Joseph the carpenter: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” And belittling the whole of what appeared to be his nearest kin, they said: “Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” They thought, then, that he was the son of Joseph and Mary. As for the brothers of Jesus, some say, basing themselves on a tradition of the Gospel entitled “according to Peter,” or of the Book of James, that they were sons of Joseph by a former wife who had lived with him before Mary. Those who say this wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body which was chosen to serve the Word that said, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you,” might not know the bed of a man after the Holy Spirit had come upon her and the power from on high had overshadowed her. And I think it reasonable that Jesus became the firstfruits of the purity that consists in chastity among men, and Mary among women; for it is not fitting to ascribe the firstfruits of virginity to any other woman than her. This James is the one whom Paul says he saw, in the Epistle to the Galatians, saying: “But I saw none of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord.” This James was so renowned among the people for righteousness that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Jewish Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to set out the cause of the people’s having suffered so much that even the temple was razed, said that these things befell them by the wrath of God because of what they had dared against James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. And the remarkable thing is that, though he did not accept our Jesus as Christ, he nonetheless bore witness to such great righteousness in James. He says that the people too thought they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude wrote an epistle of few lines, but filled with the strong words of heavenly grace, who said in the opening: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James.” Of Joseph and Simon we have learned nothing. But “And his sisters, are they not all with us?” seems to me to mean something like this: they think as we do, not as Jesus does, and have nothing strange of exceptional understanding as Jesus has. But perhaps through these words a doubt is expressed whether Jesus was even a man, and not something more divine, being, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary and the brother of four, and of other women besides, yet having nothing like any of his kin, and having come to such wisdom and power not from education and teaching either. For elsewhere too they say: “How does this man know letters, having never studied?” What is said here is similar. Yet those who said this, and doubted so much and were astonished, did not believe, but “took offence at him,” as though the eyes of their understanding were held by the powers which he was to triumph over on the tree at the time of his passion.