Commentary on Matthew 11.14–11.18

After this it is worth looking at a text that is maligned by those who say that the God of the law and the God of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the same; who say that the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ is not the cultivator of those who think they worship God according to the law of Moses. Jesus himself, they say, said that the Pharisees, who worshipped the God who created the world and the law, were not a planting that his heavenly Father had planted, and that for this reason it was being uprooted. But you might also say this: that even if the Father of Jesus was the one who brought in and “planted” the people that came out of Egypt “in the mountain of his inheritance, in his prepared dwelling place,” Jesus would still have said of the Pharisees: “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.” To this we will say that all those who, because of their vicious interpretation of what is in the law, were not a planting of the Father in heaven, had their minds blinded, as not believing the truth but taking pleasure in unrighteousness, by him who has been made a god by the sons of this age, and is for this reason called by Paul “the god of this age.” And do not think that Paul tells us that he is truly God; for just as the belly of those who prize pleasure too highly, “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,” though it is not a god, is said by Paul to be their god, so the ruler of this age, though not God—of whom the Saviour says, “Now the ruler of this world has been judged”—is said to be the god of those who did not wish to receive the spirit of adoption so as to become sons of that age and of the resurrection from the dead, and who for this reason remained in the sonship of this age. These things, even if said by way of digression, seemed to me necessary to include because of “They are blind guides of the blind.” And who are they? The Pharisees, whose minds the god of this age blinded, since they were unbelievers in not having believed in Jesus Christ; and he blinded them “so that the light of the gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ might not shine on them.” And we must not only avoid being guided by those blind ones who perceive that they need guides because they have not yet recovered the power of seeing by themselves; but also, in the case of all who profess to guide in sound teaching, we must listen carefully and bring sound judgment to what is said, lest, being guided in ignorance by the blind, who do not see the matters of sound teaching, we too prove to be blind, because we do not see the sense of the Scriptures, so that both, the guide and the guided, fall into the pit of which we spoke before. Next after this it is written how Peter answered and said to the Saviour, as not having understood “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth”: “Explain the parable to us.” To which the Saviour says: “Are you also still without understanding?”—as if to say: having been with me so long, do you still not understand the intent of what is said, and do you not yet perceive that what goes into his mouth does not defile a person for this reason, that it passes into the belly and, passing on from it, is cast into the latrine? It was not because of the law in which they seemed to believe that the Pharisees were not a planting of the Father of Jesus, but because of their vicious interpretation of the law and of what is written in it. For since two things are understood in the law, the ministry of death engraved in letters, which has nothing akin to the spirit, and the ministry of life understood in the spiritual law, those who could say with a sincere disposition, “For we know that the law is spiritual,” and therefore “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good,” were a planting which the heavenly Father planted; but those who were not such, but clung only to the letter that kills, were not a planting of God but of him who hardened their heart and laid a veil over it, which had force in them so long as they did not turn to the Lord; “for when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed; and the Lord is the Spirit.” One who has come to this passage might say that, just as it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, even if it is thought by Jews to be defiled, so it is not what goes into the mouth that sanctifies a person, even if what is called the bread of the Lord is thought by the simpler to sanctify. And the point is, I think, not to be despised, and therefore needs a clear explanation, which seems to me to be as follows. Just as it is not the food but the conscience of one who eats with doubt that defiles the one who has eaten—“for whoever doubts is condemned if he eats, because it is not from faith”—and just as nothing is pure to the defiled and unbeliever, not because of the thing itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so what is “sanctified by the word of God and prayer” does not by its own nature sanctify the one who uses it. For if it did, it would sanctify even the one who eats the bread of the Lord unworthily, and no one would become weak or sick or fall asleep because of this food; for Paul showed something of the kind in the words, “For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a good number are asleep.” In the case of the bread of the Lord, then, there is benefit to the one who uses it when he partakes of the bread with an undefiled mind and a pure conscience. And so neither are we deprived of any good merely by not eating of the bread sanctified by the word of God and prayer, nor by eating do we abound in any good; for the cause of the lack is wickedness and sins, and the cause of the abundance is righteousness and right actions; so that this is the meaning of what Paul says: “If we eat, we do not abound, and if we do not eat, we do not lack.” And if “whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly and is cast out into the latrine,” the food sanctified by the word of God and prayer too, as regards its material part, passes into the belly and is cast out into the latrine; but by the prayer that has come upon it, according to the proportion of faith, it becomes beneficial and a cause of the mind’s clear sight as it looks to what is beneficial; and it is not the matter of the bread but the word spoken over it that benefits the one who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And so much concerning the typical and symbolic body; but much might also be said about the Word himself, who became flesh and true food, which whoever eats will surely live for ever, no wicked person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who still remains wicked to eat him who became flesh, being the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written that “everyone who eats this bread will live for [ever].”

Next to this let us see how the things that come out and defile a person do not defile a person because they come out of the mouth, but have the cause of the defilement in the heart, when evil thoughts come out of it before the things that issue through the mouth; of which the kinds are “murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies; these are what defile a person,” when they come out of the heart and, having come out of it, pass through the mouth; so that if they did not come to be outside the heart, but were held fast somewhere about the heart itself, not being allowed to be spoken through the mouth, they would very quickly vanish, and a person would no longer be defiled. The spring and beginning of all sin, then, is evil thoughts; for if these do not prevail, there will be neither murders nor adulteries nor anything else of the kind. Therefore one must guard one’s heart with all vigilance; for indeed in the day of judgment, when the Lord comes, he “will bring to light the things hidden in darkness, and will disclose the purposes of hearts,” all the thoughts of human beings meanwhile accusing or excusing them, when their own counsels surround them. Such are evil thoughts that they sometimes make blameworthy even what seem to be good things and, as far as the judgment of the many goes, praiseworthy. If, for instance, we give alms before people, aiming in our thoughts to be seen by people as loving toward humankind and to be glorified for our love of humankind, we have our reward from people; and, in a word, everything done with the doer’s consciousness that it is for being glorified by people has no fruit from him who sees in secret and gives the reward to those who are pure in secret. So, then, the seeming chastity too, if it has thoughts of vainglory or love of gain; and what is thought to be the teaching of the Church, if it becomes servile in flattering speech, or on the pretext of greed, or when someone seeks glory from people for his teaching, is not reckoned among the teaching of those whom “God has appointed in the Church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers.” And you will say the same of one who “aspires to the office of bishop” for the sake of glory among people, or the flattery of people, or the gain from those who come to the word and give on the pretext of piety; for such a bishop “does not desire a noble work,” nor can he be “above reproach, sober, self-controlled,” being drunk with glory and gorging himself on it without restraint. And you will say the same of presbyters and deacons. And though we may seem to some to have said these things by way of digression, consider whether they have not been said of necessity, because evil thoughts are the spring of all sins, able to defile even what, if done without them, would have justified the doer. What defiles, then, we have examined as best we could; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile a person; rather, if one may make bold to say it, what defiles is eating with an unwashed heart anything whatever that our ruling faculty is by nature fitted to eat. [Heading of the next chapter:] On the Canaanite woman.

“And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon; and behold, a Canaanite woman.” From where, “from there”? Was it from the land of Gennesaret, of which it was said before, “And having crossed over they came to the land of Gennesaret”? And he withdrew perhaps because the Pharisees were offended when they heard that it is not what goes in but what comes out that defiles a person. That he used “withdrew” because of those suspected of plotting against him is clear from “Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee.” Perhaps for this reason Mark too, recording what concerns this passage, says: “Rising, he went to the region of Tyre, and entering a house he wished no one to know.” It is likely that he was keeping out of the way of the Pharisees who had been offended at his teaching, awaiting the time more suitable for suffering and rightly appointed. But someone might say that Tyre and Sidon stand for the Gentiles. Withdrawing, then, from Israel, he comes to the districts of the Gentiles. Now Tyre, as it is named among the Hebrews, is rendered Sor, which is interpreted “constraint”; and Sidon, named so among the Hebrews as well, is rendered “hunters.” And among the Gentiles there are both the hunters, the wicked powers, and much constraint among them, the constraint in wickedness and the passions. Going out, then, from Gennesaret, Jesus withdrew from Israel, and came not into Tyre and Sidon, but into the districts of Tyre and Sidon, because those of the Gentiles now believe in part; for if he had visited the whole of Tyre and Sidon, no unbeliever would have been left in it. According to Mark, “Rising, Jesus went to the region of Tyre,” the constraint of the Gentiles, so that those who believe may be saved from those regions too, when they go out of them. For notice: “And behold, a Canaanite woman came out from those regions and cried out, saying, Have mercy on me, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” And I think that had she not gone out from those regions she could not have cried out to Jesus from great faith, as was testified of her; and according to the proportion of faith one goes out from the regions among the Gentiles which, “when the Most High divided the nations, he fixed according to the number of the sons of Israel,” checking their further advance. Here, then, certain regions of Tyre and Sidon are spoken of; and in Exodus the regions of Pharaoh, in which, they say, the plagues against the Egyptians take place. And we must think that each of us, when he sins, is in the regions of Tyre or Sidon, or of Pharaoh and Egypt, or of one of those outside God’s allotted inheritance; but when he changes from wickedness to virtue, he goes out from the regions of evil things and reaches the regions of the portion of God, and there is a difference among these too, which will be apparent to those who can relate the matters of the division and allotment of Israel to the spiritual law. Notice also the meeting, as it were, that took place between Jesus and the Canaanite woman: he comes as to the districts of Tyre and Sidon, and she, going out of those regions, cried out, saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David.” The woman was a Canaanite, which is interpreted “prepared for humiliation.” The righteous are prepared in the kingdom of heaven and for the exaltation in the kingdom of God; but sinners are prepared for humiliation by the wickedness in them and by the deeds that accord with it, which prepare them for it, and by the sin that reigns in their mortal body. But the Canaanite woman, going out from those regions, went out from being prepared for humiliation, crying out and saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David.”

Gather from the Gospels who call him Son of David, as she does, and the blind men in Jericho; and who call him Son of God, either without the addition “truly,” like the demoniacs who say, “What have we to do with you, Son of God?”, or with the addition “truly,” like those in the boat who worshipped him, saying to him, “Truly you are the Son of God.” For the collection of these will be useful to you, I think, for seeing the difference among those who come to him: some come as it were to him who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, others to him who was “declared Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness,” and of these some with the “truly,” others without it. Then notice that the Canaanite woman made her request not about a son, whom she does not seem to have borne at all, but about a daughter severely possessed; another mother receives back alive her son who was being carried out dead; and again the ruler of the synagogue asks for a twelve-year-old daughter, as having died, and the royal official for a son, as still sick and about to die. A possessed daughter and a dead son, then, belonged to two mothers; and a dead daughter and a son sick to the point of death to two fathers, of whom one was ruler of the synagogue and the other a royal official. I am persuaded that these things contain meanings about different kinds among souls, which Jesus heals by giving them life. And all the healings that he performs among the people, especially those recorded by the evangelists, took place at that time so that those who would not otherwise believe unless they saw signs and wonders might believe; for the things done then were symbols of what is always being accomplished by the power of Jesus. For there is no time when each of the things written is not taking place by the power of Jesus, according to the worth of each. Because of her race, then, the Canaanite woman was not worthy even to receive an answer from Jesus, who acknowledged that he had been “sent” by the Father for nothing else than “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” a lost race of discerning souls; but because of her resolve and because she worshipped Jesus as the Son of God she receives an answer, which exposes her low birth and shows her worth: that she was worthy of crumbs, as a little dog, and not of loaves. But when she intensified her resolve and, accepting Jesus’ word, claims to receive crumbs even as a little dog, and acknowledges the nobler as masters, then she receives a second answer, bearing witness to her faith as great and promising that what she wishes will be hers. And I think we will need to understand the Canaanite woman, mother of the severely possessed daughter, by analogy with “the Jerusalem above, the free,” the mother of Paul and those like him, as the symbol of the mother of such a soul. And consider whether it is not reasonable that there are many fathers and many mothers, like the fathers of Abraham, to whom the patriarch went away, and Jerusalem the mother, as Paul says of himself and those like him. And it is likely that she of whom the Canaanite woman is a symbol, having gone out from the regions of Tyre and Sidon, of which the places on earth were types, came to the Saviour and asked him, and still now asks him, saying: “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” Then, answering both those outside and the disciples when necessary, he said, “I was not sent …,” teaching that there are certain preeminent souls, intellectual and discerning, that are lost, figuratively called “sheep of the house of Israel.” The simpler, I think, thinking that this is said of Israel according to the flesh, will necessarily admit that our Saviour was sent by the Father to none other than those lost Jews. But we who pray to say in truth, “Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer,” know that it is the principal work of the Word to save the more intelligent; for these are more akin to him than the duller. But since “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” apart from “the remnant chosen by grace,” disobeyed the Word, for this reason “he chose the foolish things of the world,” that which was not Israel nor discerning, “to shame the wise” of Israel; and he called “the things that are not,” handing over to them an understanding nation, who could receive “the foolishness of the preaching,” and was pleased to save those who believe in it, so that he might confound “the things that are,” having “prepared praise for himself out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes,” since it had become hostile to the truth. And the Canaanite woman came and worshipped Jesus as God, saying: “Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” One might ask the intent of this saying too. For where the measure of loaves is such that both the children and the little dogs of the house, or others besides, cannot eat loaves, it is not reasonable, when the loaves are well made, for the children’s well-made bread to be given as food to little dogs. But nothing of the kind appears in the case of Jesus’ power, from which both the children and the so-called little dogs could partake. Consider, then, whether in answer to “It is not right to take the children’s bread” we should say that he “who emptied himself” by taking on “the form of a servant” brought a measure of power, as much as the things in the world could contain; from which power he also perceived a certain quantity going out from him, as is clear from “Someone touched me; for I perceived that power had gone out from me.” From this measure of power, then, he dispensed, giving more to those who were preeminent and called sons, and less to those who were not such, as to the little dogs. But even if these things were so, none the less, where faith was great, he gave the children’s bread, as to a child, to her who was a little dog because of her low birth as a Canaanite. And perhaps among the words of Jesus too there are some loaves which may be given only to the more rational, as to children, and other words, like crumbs from the great hearth and table of the nobler and the masters, which some souls might use, like dogs. And in the law of Moses it is written of certain things, “you shall throw them to the dog,” and the Holy Spirit took care to give a command about certain foods, that they be handed over to dogs. Let others, then, strangers to the teaching of the Church, suppose that souls pass from human bodies into dogs’ bodies according to their different wickedness; but we, finding this nowhere in the divine Scripture, say that a more rational condition changes into a less rational one, suffering this from great sloth and neglect; and likewise a less rational will, which has neglected reason, sometimes turns back to being rational, so that the one who was once a little dog, glad to eat of the crumbs that fall from its masters’ table, comes to the condition of a child. For virtue contributes greatly to making one a child of God; and wickedness, and rabid fury in insulting words, and shamelessness, to one’s being called, according to the word of Scripture, a dog. And you will understand the like also of other names taken from irrational animals. But one who is reproved as a dog, and is not indignant at being said to be unworthy of the children’s bread, and says with all forbearance the word of that Canaanite woman who said, “Yes, Lord, for even the little dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table,” will obtain the gentlest answer of Jesus, who says to him, “Great is your faith,” when he has taken up such great faith, and says, “Let it be done for you as you wish,” so that he himself may be healed, and, if he has borne any fruit that needs healing, this too may be cured. [Heading of the next chapter:] On the crowds who were healed.

“And Jesus passed on from there.” It is clear from what was said before that it was from the districts of Tyre and Sidon that “he came beside the Sea of Galilee,” which is the lake usually called Gennesaret, and again “went up the mountain,” where, having gone up, he sat. One may say, then, that to this mountain where Jesus sits not only the healthy go up, but with the healthy also those who have suffered various afflictions. And perhaps this mountain, where Jesus went up and sat, is what is more commonly called the Church, raised up by the word of God above the rest of the earth and those who belong to it; where not the disciples, leaving the crowds, come to him, as in the case of the beatitudes, but great crowds, who themselves were not charged with being dumb or having suffered anything, but have such people with them. For one can see, with the crowds that come to this mountain where the Son of God sits, some deaf to what is proclaimed, others blind in soul and not seeing the true light, others lame and unable to walk according to reason, and others maimed and unable to work according to reason. These, then, who have suffered such things in soul, who have gone up with the crowds to the mountain where Jesus was, are not healed by him so long as they are away from the feet of Jesus; but when, as having suffered such things, they are cast by the crowds at his feet, the last parts of the body of Christ, not being worthy even of these as far as lies in themselves, then they are healed by him. And when you see in the assembly of what is more commonly called the Church the catechumens cast down after its last members, as it were at the feet of the body of the Church of Jesus, who have come with their own deafness and blindness, lameness and maimedness, and in time are healed according to the Word, you would not be wrong in saying that such people, having gone up with the crowds of the Church to the mountain where Jesus was, were cast at his feet and were healed, so that the crowd of the Church marvels at seeing changes for the better from such great evils, so as to say: Those formerly dumb now speak the word of God, and the lame walk; the prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled not only in bodily things but also in spiritual, which says: “Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear.” And there, if “The lame shall leap like a deer” is not said at random, we will say that it is not without purpose that those formerly lame, who leap like a deer because of Jesus, have been compared to the deer, a clean animal, an enemy of serpents, which cannot be harmed by their venom. And when the dumb are seen speaking, the prophecy is fulfilled that says, “And the tongue of the stammerers shall be clear,” or rather the one that says, “You deaf, hear”; and the blind see, according to the prophecy that says next, “You deaf, hear, and you blind, look up to see.” And the blind see when, looking at the world, they contemplate by analogy, from the greatness of the beauty of created things, their maker, and when they perceive the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, being understood through the things made, that is, see them carefully and clearly and understand them. And seeing these things the crowds “glorified the God of Israel,” and glorify him, being persuaded that the same God is Father of him who healed those mentioned and God of Israel; for he is not the God of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles. Let us, then, bring up with us to the mountain where Jesus sits, his Church, those who wish to go up to it with us, the deaf, the blind, the lame, the maimed, and many others, and let us cast them at the feet of Jesus, so that he may heal them, so that the crowds marvel at their healing; for the disciples are not recorded as marvelling at such things, although they were with Jesus then too, as is clear from: “But the Lord called his disciples to him and said, I have compassion on the crowd,” and so on. And perhaps if you attend carefully to “Great crowds came to him,” you would find that the disciples did not come to him then, but, having begun to follow him long before, followed him to the mountain too. Those less than the disciples came to him, and coming to him then for the first time, had not suffered the same things as those who had gone up with them. Observe in the Gospel who are recorded as having followed Jesus, who as having come to him, who as having been brought to him, who as being divided into those going before and those following, and among those who came to him, who came to him in the house and who came to him elsewhere. For from such observation, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” you would find much that is worthy of the exact wisdom in the Gospels.