Commentary on Matthew 13.28–14.5

In favour of the view expressed in “From the time I became an infant in Christ through the washing,” one might say that a holy angel is not present to those who are still in wickedness, but that during the time of unbelief they are under the angels of Satan; while after the new birth the one who redeemed us with his own blood hands us over to a holy angel, who because of his purity sees the face of God. A third account of the passage might be one which says this: it is possible that, just as a human being changes from unbelief to faith, and from licentiousness to self-control, and in short from vice to virtue, so also the angel entrusted with a soul at its birth may at first be bad, but later at some time believe as the believer does, and advance so far as to become one of the angels who always see the face of the Father in heaven. Beginning from this time, he is joined to the one who was foreknown to believe at this time and was predestined; for the ineffable and unsearchable judgments of God, which fittingly resemble abysses, have brought together all such harmony, angels with human beings. It is possible too that, just as with a husband and wife who are both unbelievers, sometimes the husband believes first in time and saves the wife, and sometimes the wife begins and later at some time persuades the husband, so it may happen also with angels and human beings. Whether this happens in the case of other angels or not, you will examine for yourself; but perhaps it is not fitting to say such a thing of the angel of each of the little ones, so highly honoured according to our Saviour's word that he is said always to see the face of the Father in heaven. And since we said above that the little ones have angels, while the great have passed beyond such an order, someone will object to us from the Acts of the Apostles, where it is written that when Peter knocked at the door a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer, and, recognizing Peter's voice, ran in and reported that Peter was standing before the gate; and those gathered in the house, amazed and thinking it impossible that Peter was really standing there, said, “It is his angel.” For he will say that they, having once learned that each believer has a particular angel, knew that Peter too had an angel. But one who supports what we have said will say that Rhoda's word is not necessarily doctrine, and that perhaps they had not understood precisely when someone is cared for by angels as a little one who fears God, and when he is now cared for by the Lord himself. After this, to establish that “little one” is to be understood as we have taken it, it will be said that we do not need a commandment not to despise the great, but we do need it in the case of the little ones. That is why it is not said simply, “Do not despise one of these,” as if all the disciples were being pointed to, but “one of these little ones,” pointed out by him who sees the smallness and greatness of the soul.

Another might say that “little one” here means the perfect, making use of “For he who is least among you all, he is great.” He will say that the one who humbles himself and becomes an infant among all believers, even if he is an apostle or a bishop, and becomes “as a nurse cherishing her own children,” is the little one pointed out by Jesus, and that it is fitting that such a person's angel should see the face of God. For calling the perfect “little ones” here, in line with “For he who is least among you all, he is great,” and with Paul's words, “To me, the very least of all the saints, this grace was given,” will seem to agree with “Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble” and with “So it is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” For the one who is now little in the sense explained would not be made to stumble, nor would he perish: “For great peace have those who love the name of God, and there is no stumbling-block for them”; and the one who is least among all the disciples of Christ, and for that reason becomes great, would not perish; and since he would not perish, he might say, “Who shall separate us from the love,” and what follows. But the one who wishes to hold this last interpretation will say that even the soul of the righteous is liable to fall, as Ezekiel too testifies when he says that the righteous man can turn away from God's commandments, so that his former righteousness is not reckoned to him; and so it is said, “Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble,” and “It is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” As for the hundred sheep, you have it in the Homilies on Luke.

“If your brother sins, go, reprove him between you and him alone.” One who relies on the wording, and presents the surpassing kindness of Jesus, will say that, since the words do not suggest any distinction among sins, those who understand them as applying only to lesser sins add something superfluous and contrary to the goodness of Jesus. But another, also relying on the wording and not wishing to supply these things from outside, will say that it is not said of every sin, because one who commits those great sins is not even a brother, but at most is named a brother, as the Apostle says, “But if anyone named a brother is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater,” and what follows, “with such a one do not even eat.” For no idolater is a brother, nor a sexually immoral person, nor a greedy person; for if someone who seems to bear the name of Christ has any of these, he is named a brother, but would not justly be called a brother. Just as, then, the one who says that such things are said of every sin, even if the sin is murder or sorcery or the corruption of boys or any sin of such gravity, would give occasion to imagine an excessive leniency in Christ; so, on the other side, the one who distinguishes the brother from the one named a brother would teach that, for the lesser human sins, one who did not turn after the reproof is to be reckoned as a Gentile and a tax collector, for sins “not unto death,” or, as the law named them in Numbers, not deadly. And this might seem rather harsh; for I do not think anyone will easily be found who has not been reproved three times for the same kind of sin: for example, reviling, by which revilers speak ill of their neighbours when they are angry, or heavy drinking, or false or idle speech, or one of the other sins common among the many. You will inquire, then, whether something in the passage escapes notice, both by those who, imagining the goodness of the Word, grant pardon even to those who have committed the greatest sins, and by those who teach that for the least sins a person is to be reckoned as a Gentile and a tax collector, making the one who has sinned three times in lesser matters a stranger to the church. What escapes both seems to me to be this. The Word set “You have gained your brother” for the one who listened at the first reproof only, and no longer set it for the one who fell a second or third time and was reproved, but left in suspense, as it were, the corresponding “You have gained your brother,” which might be said of one reproved a second or third time. Such a one, then, is not certainly gained, nor will he certainly perish or receive stripes. Note carefully the first step, which says, “If he listens to you, you have gained your brother,” and the second step in the wording, which says, “But if he does not listen, take with you one or two more, so that every word may be established at the mouth of two or three witnesses.” What, then, will happen to the one admonished a second time, after every word has been established at the mouth of two or three witnesses, he has left to us to consider. And again: “If he refuses to listen to them” (clearly, to the witnesses who were brought), “tell it,” he says, “to the church.” He did not say what he will suffer if he does not listen to the church; but he taught that if he refuses to listen to the church, he must from then on be, to the one who admonished him three times and was not heard, as the Gentile and the tax collector. Such a one, then, is not certainly gained, nor will he certainly perish; but whatever will befall the one who did not listen at first, and needed witnesses, or refused to listen even to them and was brought before the church, God would know. For we do not pronounce judgment, in keeping with “Judge not, that you be not judged,” “until the Lord comes, who will also bring to light the things hidden in darkness and disclose the purposes of the hearts.” As for what seems harsh toward those who have committed the lesser sins, one might say that it is not impossible for one who twice in succession did not listen to listen the third time, so that for this reason he is no longer as a Gentile and a tax collector, or no longer needs the reproof before the whole church. For one must remember, “So it is not the will of my Father in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” And indeed, if “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive according to what he has done in the body, whether good or bad,” one must do what lies with oneself as far as one can, so as not to receive for more bad deeds done in the body, even if one is going to receive for all the worse things one has done; and one must strive to receive the reward for more good deeds, since “with the measure we measure it will be measured back to us,” and “According to the works of our hands it will happen to us.” And those who have sinned will receive their sins from the hand of the Lord not infinitely many times over, but either double or sevenfold, when someone is repaid not according to the works of his hands but more than he has done. For Jerusalem, as Isaiah taught, “received from the hand of the Lord double for her sins”; and the neighbours of Israel, whoever they may be, will receive sevenfold, according to what is said in the Psalms: “Repay to our neighbours sevenfold into their bosom the reproach with which they reproached you, O Lord.” Other modes of repayment might also be found; if we understand them, we shall know that it is profitable to repent after however many sins, so that, besides our not being punished for more, some hope of good may also be left to us from what we have done later, even if before that someone has stumbled countless times. For it is absurd that the worse things should be reckoned to someone, but the better things done after the worse should benefit him nothing, as those who carefully observe the sayings about such things can learn from Ezekiel too.

It seems to me that “Truly I say to you” (clearly to those who judged someone to be as the Gentile and the tax collector) “whatever you bind on earth,” and what follows, is well joined to the case of one who, after being admonished three times, was judged to be as the Gentile and the tax collector. For the one who admonished three times and was not heard justly bound the one judged to be as a Gentile and a tax collector. Therefore such a person, bound and condemned by such a one, remains bound, since none of those in heaven undoes the sentence of the one who bound him. So too the one who was admonished once and did what made him worthy of being gained, being loosed through the admonition of the one who gained him, and no longer bound by the cords of his own sins for which he was admonished, will be judged loosed by those in heaven. It seems, however, that what was given above to Peter alone is shown here to have been given to all who bring the three admonitions to all who have sinned, so that, if they are not heard, they may bind on earth the one judged to be as a Gentile and a tax collector, such a one being bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something common was said of Peter and of those who admonish the brothers three times, that Peter should have something special beyond those who admonish three times, this was set out specially for Peter beforehand: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” before “And whatever you bind on earth,” and what follows. And yet, if we attend carefully to the Gospel writings, we would find in them too, even in the things that seem to be common to Peter and to those who admonish the brothers three times, a great difference and pre-eminence in what was said to Peter compared with the second group. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of several, and that whatever he binds on earth will be bound not in one heaven but in all of them, compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that what they bind and loose is bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in Peter's case, but in one heaven; for they do not reach as far in power as Peter, so as to bind or loose in all the heavens. By as much, then, as the one who binds is better, by so much more blessed is the one who is loosed, so that his being loosed holds everywhere in the heavens.

“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them.” The word “agreement” (symphonia) is properly used of the harmonies of voices in music. Among musicians some notes are concordant with others, and others discordant; and the Gospel Scripture also knows the word as used of music, in “He heard music and dancing”; for it was fitting that, at the agreement through repentance with the father of the son who was found again after being lost, music should be heard at the rejoicing of the house. The wicked Laban does not know the word “music” in what he says to Jacob: “And if you had told me, I would have sent you away with rejoicing, with musicians and drums and harp.” Kindred to such agreement is what is written in the second book of Kings, when “the brothers” of Aminadab “went before the ark, and David and the sons were playing before the Lord on tuned instruments, with might and with songs.” For the instruments tuned with might and with songs had in them musical concord, which is so powerful that, when only two bring their request, with the concord of divine and spiritual music, to the Father in heaven about anything whatever, the Father grants the requests to those who ask while agreeing on earth (which is most wonderful): whatever those who have agreed in the concord described might ask. In this way I understand also the apostolic saying, “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a season, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.” For since the word “harmony” is used of those who marry according to God, in the saying from Proverbs, “Fathers divide house and property among their children, but a wife is joined in harmony to a husband by God,” it follows from the harmony that comes from God that both the name and the work should enjoy agreement for prayer, which is shown in “except perhaps by agreement.” Then the Word, explaining further the “agreeing of two on earth,” shows that this is the same as agreeing with Christ, and adds, “For where two or three are gathered in my name.” Those who are gathered in the name of Christ, two or three, are therefore those who agree on earth, not only two but sometimes also three. One who is able will consider whether this agreement, and such a gathering in whose midst Christ is, can be found among many, since “narrow and hard is the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” And perhaps not even a few but two or three agree in this way, like Peter and James and John, to whom, as they agreed, the Word of God showed his glory. Two agreed, Paul and Sosthenes, when they wrote the first Epistle to the Corinthians; and after that, Paul and Timothy, when they sent the second to the same people; and three agreed when Paul and Silvanus and Timothy instructed the Thessalonians by letter. And if we must also show from the old writings three who agreed on earth, so that the Word was in their midst uniting them, consider the titles of the Psalms, such as that of the forty-first, which reads, “For the end; for understanding; for the sons of Korah.” For there were three sons of Korah, whose names we found in Exodus: Assir, which is interpreted “instruction”; the second, Elkanah, which is translated “possession of Christ”; and the third, Abiasaph, which in Greek would be called “gathering of the father.” Their prophecies were not divided, but by one spirit and one voice working truly in concord in one soul they were spoken and written, the three speaking as one: “As the deer longs for the springs of water, so my soul longs for you, O God.” And in the forty-third they speak in the plural: “O God, we have heard with our ears.” And if you wish to see still more clearly those who agree on earth, look at those who heard “that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment,” and who emulated “the soul and heart of all who believed was one,” becoming such (if indeed such a thing can be found among many) that there was not even the slightest discord among them, just as there is no discord between the strings of the ten-stringed psaltery. But those did not agree on earth who said, “I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ”; there were divisions among them, and when these were removed they were gathered together with the spirit that was in Paul, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that they might no longer bite and devour one another and be consumed by one another. For discord consumes, as agreement gathers together and makes room for the Son of God, who comes to be in the midst of those who agree. Agreement, properly speaking, comes about in two general things: in what the Apostle called being joined together in the same mind, by holding the same doctrines with understanding, and in the same judgment, by living alike. But if, when “two of us agree on earth about anything they ask, it is done for them by the Father in heaven,” then where this does not happen, not even two have agreed on earth; and the cause of our not being heard when we pray is this: that we do not agree with one another on earth either in doctrines or in life. Further, if we are the body of Christ, and “God has set the members, each one of them, in the body,” so that “the members may have the same care for one another” and agree with one another, “and if one member suffers, all suffer with it, and if one is honoured, all rejoice with it,” we must practise the agreement that comes from divine music, so that, when we are gathered in the name of Christ, Christ may be in our midst, the Word of God and the wisdom of God and the power …

So much, then, taking the two and three whom the Word calls to agree in a more general sense. Now let us take up another interpretation, which one of those before us used to give when exhorting married people to purity and chastity. The two whom the Word wishes to agree on earth, he says, must be understood as husband and wife, who by agreement deprive one another of bodily intercourse so that they may devote themselves to prayer; then, when they pray “about anything they ask,” they will receive it, the request that comes from such an agreement being granted them by the Father of Jesus Christ in heaven. This interpretation seems to us not to bring about the dissolution of a marriage but to be an exhortation to agreement. So if one of the two wished to remain pure and the other did not, and for this reason the one who both wished and was able to do the better thing gave way to the one who either did not wish or was not able, the two of them would not have what is promised, that “about anything they ask,” it will be done for them by the Father of Jesus Christ in heaven.

I know also another interpretation, besides the one about married people, concerning the agreement of the two, as follows. In the wicked, sin reigns over the soul, seated as on its own throne in this mortal body, so that the soul obeys its desires. In those who have roused themselves and driven the sin that reigned before from the throne of the body, as it were, and are contending against it, “the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.” But in those already perfected the spirit has prevailed and has put to death the deeds of the body, and imparts of its own life to the body, so that now there comes to pass also “He will give life to our mortal bodies too, through his Spirit who dwells in us”; and there comes about an agreement of the two, body and spirit, on earth. When this has been achieved, the prayer too is sent up in concord, the prayer of the one who “believes with the heart unto righteousness and confesses with the mouth unto salvation,” so that the heart is no longer far from God, and with it the righteous man draws near to God with his lips and his mouth as well. Still more blessed is it if the three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, so that this may be fulfilled: “May God sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Someone will inquire, concerning the agreement of spirit and body just described, whether it is possible for these two to agree while the third, I mean the soul, does not; and whether perhaps it does not follow from the agreement of these two on earth, after the two have been gathered in the name of Christ, that the three are now also gathered in his name, in whose midst the Son of God comes, as though all three were dedicated to him and none of them were opposed to him: not only the spirit not opposing him, but neither the soul, nor yet the body.

It is also a graceful exercise to understand and set forth the agreement of the two Testaments, the one before the Saviour's bodily coming and the new one. For in the things in which the two Testaments agree, so that there is nothing in them in which one is discordant with the other, prayers would be found such that “about anything they ask,” it is done for them by the Father in heaven. And if you long for a third, who gathers the two together, do not hesitate to say that it is the Holy Spirit himself, since the words of the wise, whether of those before the coming, or of those at the time of it, or after it, are “like goads, and like nails firmly fixed, which were given from the collections by one shepherd.” Do not leave this unobserved either: he does not say, “Where two or three are gathered, there I will be in their midst,” but “there I am”; not about to be, nor delaying, but found there himself at once with the agreement, and coming to be in their midst.

“Then Peter came up and said to him, Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?” To think that these words were said in a more simple sense, by Peter as asking whether he should forgive a brother who sins against him seven sins but no longer the eighth, and by the Saviour as teaching that one should sit and count up the sins of one's neighbour against oneself, so as to pardon “seventy times seven,” but from the seventy-eighth not to forgive the one who has wronged him, seems to me altogether simple-minded and unworthy both of Peter's standing with Jesus and of Jesus' divine greatness of mind. Perhaps, then, these words too contain an obscurity akin to “Hear my voice, wives of Lamech,” and what follows. The true account, the one that Jesus himself would have had in mind in saying these things, would be known by anyone who has already become a friend of Jesus, so as to be taught by his Spirit, which illuminates the ruling faculty of one who has advanced so far as he deserves. But we, who fall short of the greatness of friendship with Jesus, must be content if we can say even a little about the passage. The number six seems to be a number of work and toil, while seven contains rest. Consider, then, whether you can say that the one who loves the world, and does the works of the world, and busies himself with material things, sins six times, and that the end of their sin is the number seven; as if Peter, understanding something like this, wished to pardon his brother seven of the sins committed against him. But since the tens and hundreds corresponding to the units have a common relation of proportion to the number in units, yet he knew of a relation that is intensified and greater, for this reason, I think, Jesus added to the number seven the number seventy also, and said that forgiveness must be given to brothers here who have sinned in the things of this world; but that if anyone, having gone beyond the things of the world and this age, should sin, even if the sin is small, he would no longer have a reasonable claim to forgiveness of sins. For forgiveness reaches as far as the things here, and in sins committed here forgiveness may come either more slowly or more quickly. But there is no forgiveness even for a brother who has sinned beyond the seventy-seven. You might say that the one who sins in this way, either against Peter as a brother, or against Peter, against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail, is, as regards such sins, in the lesser number of sin, but as regards still worse sins, in the number that has no forgiveness of sins.