Commentary on Matthew 14.13–14.20

I have said these things, however, because I refer his return, when he comes with the kingdom, to the consummation, when “he said that the servants to whom he had given the money should be called to him, so that he might know what they had gained by trading”; and because from this I wish to show from the parable of the talents too that “who wished to settle accounts with his servants” also refers to the consummation, when he is already king, having received the kingdom, for which, according to the other parable, he went into a far country to receive a kingdom for himself and to return. Having returned, then, and received the kingdom, “he wished to settle accounts with his servants, and when he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed many talents.” He was brought, as to a king, by the ministers appointed by him, I think angels. And perhaps he is one of those under the kingdom who was entrusted with some great stewardship and did not manage it well, but squandered what was entrusted to him, so that he became a debtor of the many talents he had lost. This one, perhaps having nothing with which to repay, is ordered by the king to be sold together with his wife, through partnership with whom he became the father of certain children. It is no ordinary task to see a father and a mother and children among the things perceived by the mind. As for the truth, God would show this task to whom he wishes; and whether he has given it to us or not, let the one who is able judge. We understand, however, something like this about the passage. Just as “the Jerusalem above” is “the mother” of Paul and of those like him, so there may be a mother of others, analogous to Jerusalem the mother: say, Syene of Egypt, or Sidon, or whatever cities are named in the Scriptures. Then, just as Jerusalem is a bride adorned for her husband Christ, so those mothers may be, as it were, wives or brides of certain powers which have them as their allotted portion. And just as there are certain children of Jerusalem as mother and of Christ as father, so there may be certain children of Syene and Memphis, or Tyre or Sidon, and of the rulers set over them. Perhaps, then, this one debtor of many talents who was brought to the king has, in the sense we have explained, a wife and children; and the king first ordered them to be sold, and all that he had to be sold, but later, having compassion, released him and forgave him all the debt. He was not ignorant of what would happen, but it is recorded that he did so in order that we might learn what took place. Each, then, of those who have, in the sense we have explained, a wife and children will give an account when the king comes to settle accounts, having received the kingdom and returned; and each of them, as ruler of some Syene or Memphis or Tyre or Sidon or some similar place, also has debtors. This one, released and forgiven all the debt, going out from the king, “found one of his fellow servants,” and what follows. And it was for this reason, I think, that he choked him: because he had gone out from the king; for had he not gone out, he would not have choked his fellow servant. Then observe the precision of Scripture: the one fell down and worshipped; the other fell down and did not worship, but entreated. The king had compassion, released him, and forgave him all the debt; but the servant would not even have mercy on his fellow servant. The king, before the forgiveness, ordered him to be sold, with his possessions; but the one who had been forgiven threw his fellow servant into prison. Note too that the fellow servants did not slander him or merely talk, but explained clearly; and that the king did not say “wicked” at the beginning, about the money, but kept it for later, about the fellow servant. See also the restraint of the king: he did not say, “You worshipped me,” but “You entreated me”; and he no longer ordered him to be sold with his possessions, but “delivered him to the torturers,” the worse fate, because of his wickedness. Who might these be but those appointed over the punishments? At the same time note this, because of those from the heresies who make use of the parable: if they accuse the Creator of being wrathful because of the words that show the anger of God, they ought to accuse this king too, since in anger he delivered the debtor to the torturers. Further, it must be said to those who do not want anyone to be delivered by Jesus to torturers: “Explain to us, you people, who is the king who delivers the wicked servant to the torturers?” And let them attend to “So also my heavenly Father will do to you.” To the same people one might also say, still more, what is in the parable of the ten minas: that the Son of the good God said, “But those enemies of mine who did not want me,” and what follows. The conclusion of the parable, however, fits the simpler too; for we are all taught together that those who have received forgiveness of sins and do not pardon their brothers will suffer what the servant suffered who was forgiven and did not forgive.

“And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words.” The one who goes through each of the problems set before him completely, so as to leave none of them lacking, finishes his own words. One could speak more confidently about this after attending more carefully to the whole reading of the Old and New Testaments. For if “he finished these words” is used of no one, neither of Moses nor of any of the prophets, but only of Jesus, then one might dare to say that Jesus alone finished words, he who came to bring things to their end and to fill up what the law lacked, through “It was said to those of old,” and what follows; and again, “so that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled.” But if it is written somewhere of them too, then one would examine the words finished by them alongside those finished by the Saviour, so as to find the difference between them. And there too it might be asked whether “he finished” is used of words spoken by divine oracle, or of those spoken by Moses or one of the prophets, or of both. For careful observation might suggest the greatest thoughts to those who know how to “compare spiritual things with spiritual,” and who for this reason “speak not in words taught by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit.” Another, taking “he finished” (etelesen) more curiously, as used of more mystical things (for just as one person handed on to those under him mysteries and initiations that are not praiseworthy, so another hands on mysteries of God to the worthy, and initiations corresponding to such mysteries), might say that he performed an initiation, initiating them, and that through this initiation the words appeared powerful, so that the Gospel of Jesus was preached in the whole world and, through the divine initiation, prevailed over every soul that the Father draws to the Son, according to what the Saviour said: “No one comes to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” That is why the word of those who by God's grace are ambassadors of the Gospel, and their preaching, “was not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”: those in whom the words of Jesus' teaching were brought to completion. You, then, will observe how often “he finished” is said, and of what. You will take as an example what was said after the beatitudes and the whole teaching that follows them, which ends: “And it came to pass when Jesus finished these words, all the crowds were astonished at his teaching.” And now too “Jesus finished these words” refers immediately to the most mystical parable, in which “the kingdom of heaven was likened to a man, a king, who wished to settle accounts with his servants,” and further, beyond it, to what is recorded before it.

But “when Jesus had finished these words,” having spoken them in Galilee around Capernaum, he then departed from there and came to the region of Judea, which is distinct from Galilee. He came to the borders of Judea, not to the middle but, as it were, to the outer parts; there great crowds followed him, and he healed them at the borders of Judea, beyond the Jordan, where baptism was given. You will observe the difference between the crowds who simply followed, and Peter and the others who left everything and followed, and Matthew, who “rose and followed him”: he did not simply follow, but rose. The addition “rose” is a great one. There are always, then, some who follow like the great crowds, neither having risen in order to follow nor having left all their former things; but few are those who have risen and followed, who will also sit in the regeneration on twelve thrones. However, if anyone wishes to be healed, let him follow Jesus.

After this it is written that “the Pharisees came to him, testing him and saying, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” Mark too recorded the equivalent. So among those who came to Jesus and questioned him there were some who asked him in order to test him. When our Saviour, great as he is, was tested, which of his disciples who has been appointed to teach would be indignant at being tested by some who question him not from a love of learning but from the wish to test him? If you gathered them together you would find many occasions on which the Pharisees tested our Jesus, and others besides them, such as a lawyer, and perhaps also a scribe; so that, gathering together what concerns those who tested him, you might find from the examination something useful for this kind of discourse. But the Saviour answers with teachings even those who test him. For they said, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” And he answered and said, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” and what follows. I think the Pharisees put forward this question so as to lay hold of him whatever he might say. If he said, “It is lawful,” they would accuse him of dissolving marriages for trivial reasons; if, “It is not lawful,” of allowing a husband to live with a wife even when there are sins; as in the case of the tribute: if he said to pay it, they would accuse him of subjecting the people to the Romans and not to the law of God; and if not to pay it, of causing war and sedition and stirring up those who could not stand against so great an army. They did not see in what way he answers them blamelessly and wisely: first denying that a man may divorce his wife for any cause, and secondly answering what concerns the bill of divorce. For he saw that not every cause reasonably dissolves a marriage, and that the husband must “live with the wife as with a weaker vessel, giving her honour,” and bear her burdens when she sins. And he puts to shame, from what is written in Genesis, the Pharisees who boasted in the writings of Moses, saying, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” and what follows; and, from “And the two shall become one flesh,” he adds for them the teaching that follows from “one flesh”: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.” And as a rebuke against divorcing a wife for any cause he adds: “What God has joined together, let not man separate.” One must observe, however, in the citing of the passages from Genesis in the Gospel, that they are not quoted in the order in which they stand one after another; and I think they are not even said of the same beings: those made in the image of God, and those made from the dust of the earth and from one of the ribs of Adam. For where it is said, “Male and female he made them,” it is about those made in the image; but where he said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother,” and what follows, it is not about those in the image; for at a later time than those, the Lord God formed man, taking dust from the earth, and from his side formed the helper. Note too that of those in the image it is not said “man and woman,” but “male and female.” We have observed this in the Hebrew as well: “man” is expressed by the word is, “male” by another word …; again “woman” by the word essa, “female” by another word … For never is “woman” said to be in the image, nor “man,” but the superior are called “male” and the secondary “female.” But when a man leaves mother and father, he is joined not to the female but to his wife; and they become one flesh, since man and wife are in the flesh. Then, describing what must be found in those whom God has joined, in a manner worthy of being joined by God, the Saviour adds, “So they are no longer two.” And where there is concord and agreement and harmony of husband with wife, he as ruling and she obeying “He shall rule over you,” one can truly say of such people, “They are no longer two.” Then, since it was fitting to keep for the one who is joined to God that he becomes one spirit with him, of those whom God has joined it is said, after “So they are no longer two,” “but one flesh.” And it is God who has joined the two into one, so that they are no longer two, since it is by him that a wife is joined in harmony to a husband. And since God has joined them, there is for this reason a gift of grace in those whom God has joined. Knowing this, Paul says that, just as holy celibacy is a gift of grace, so too marriage according to the Word of God is a gift of grace, saying, “I wish all people to be as I myself am; but each has his own gift from God, one of this kind and another of that.” And those whom God has joined both think and do this: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church.” The Saviour, then, commanded that what God has joined man should not separate. But man wishes to separate what God has joined when, “having departed from the sound faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose own conscience is seared, who forbid” not only sexual immorality but also “to marry,” he dissolves even those who have already been joined by the providence of God. Let this much be said, keeping to the sayings about male and female, and man and woman, as the Saviour taught in his answer to the Pharisees.

Since the Apostle takes “And the two shall become one flesh” of Christ and the church, it must be said that Christ did not divorce his former wife, if I may call her so, the former synagogue, for any other cause (keeping “What God has joined together, let not man separate”) than when that wife committed sexual immorality, having been seduced into adultery by the evil one, and with him plotted against her husband and killed him, saying, “Away from the earth with such a one; crucify, crucify him.” She, then, removed herself rather than being sent away by her husband in divorce. That is why, reproaching her for having departed from him, he says in Isaiah, “What is the bill of divorce of your mother, with which I sent her away?” And he who from the beginning created the one in the image, who exists in the form of God, made him male and the church female, granting to both the one state of being in the image. And the Lord, the husband, for the church's sake left the Father whom he saw when he was in the form of God; and he left also the mother, being himself a son of the Jerusalem above; and he was joined to his wife who had fallen down here, and here the two have become one flesh. For because of her he too became flesh, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”; and “they are no longer two, but now are one flesh,” since it is said to the wife, “You are the body of Christ, and members each in part.” For there is not some body of Christ by itself, other than the church, which is his body, and members each in part. And God has joined these, who are no longer two but have become one flesh, commanding that man should not separate the church from the Lord. And the one who takes heed to himself so as not to be separated is confident that he will not be separated, and says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Here, then, it is written as said to the Pharisees, “What God has joined together, let not man separate”; but to those better than the Pharisees it might be said, “What God has joined together, let nothing separate, neither principality nor power”; for God who joined them is stronger than all the things that anyone could conceive and name.

After this we shall discuss what the Pharisees said to Jesus: “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to send her away?” For this we shall reasonably take up the passage from Deuteronomy about the bill of divorce, which reads: “If anyone takes a wife and lives with her, and it happens that she does not find favour before him, because he has found in her some shameful thing,” and what follows, as far as “And you shall not defile the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance.” I ask, concerning what is in this law, whether one must seek nothing in it beyond the letter, since it was not God who gave it; or whether it was said of necessity to the Pharisees, who appealed to “Moses commanded to give a bill of divorce and to send her away,” that “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it was not so.” But if someone goes up to the Gospel of Christ Jesus, which teaches that the law is spiritual, he will seek a spiritual meaning of this law too. The one who wishes to interpret figuratively will also say this. Paul, confident in the grace he had, said, “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband falls asleep, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But she is more blessed if she remains as she is, in my judgment; and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” In these words, so that “in my judgment” might not be despised as empty of the Spirit of God, he rightly added, “And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” So too in the case of Moses, because of the authority given him to legislate, so that he even permitted certain things because of the hardness of heart of the people, among which was the divorcing of wives, one could be persuaded, concerning what he legislated according to his own judgment, that in these matters too the legislation was made with the Spirit of God. And he will say that, if it is not the case that one law is spiritual and another is not, but this too is law, then this too is spiritual, and its spiritual meaning must be sought …

Remembering what we said above on the saying of Isaiah about the bill of divorce, we shall say that the mother of the people removed herself from her husband, Christ, without receiving the bill of divorce; but later, when a shameful thing was found in her, and she did not find favour before him, a bill of divorce was written for her. For in effect the New Covenant, calling those from the nations into the house of him who had cast off his former wife, gave the bill of divorce to the one who had earlier departed from her husband, the Law and the Word. That is why he too, having departed from her, married, if I may say so, another, having given the bill of divorce into the hands of the former wife. And that is why they can no longer do the things commanded them in the law, because of the bill of divorce. A sign that she has received the bill of divorce is that Jerusalem has been pulled down, together with what they called the sanctuary, in which were the things believed to be holy, and the altar of burnt offerings, and all the worship connected with it. Another sign of the bill of divorce is that they cannot even keep the feasts, although, according to the letter, the intention of the law commanded them to keep the feasts in the place which the Lord God would choose; and that it is not possible for the whole congregation to stone those who have committed such and such sins. Countless other commandments too are a sign of the bill of divorce, and so is the fact that “there is no longer a prophet,” and that they say, “We no longer see signs.” For the Lord, he says, “has taken away from Judea and from Jerusalem,” according to the word of Isaiah, “the strong man and the strong woman, the mighty giant,” and the rest, as far as “the intelligent hearer.” It is possible that Christ took the synagogue as wife and lived with her, but that later she did not find favour before him; and the cause of her not finding favour before him was that a shameful thing was found in her. For what is more shameful than, when it was proposed to release one at the feast, to have said to release Barabbas the robber, and to condemn Jesus? What is more shameful than that they all said of him, “Crucify, crucify him, and away from the earth with such a one,” and “His blood be on us and on our children”? Therefore, when he was avenged, Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, and her desolation came upon her, and “their house was left” to them, and the daughter of Zion was left “like a booth in a vineyard, and like a lodge in a cucumber field, and like a besieged city.” At the same time the husband wrote for his former wife a bill of divorce and gave it into her hands, while for those from the nations the record of debt was wiped out, of which the Apostle says, “having wiped out the record of debt that stood against us in its decrees, he took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” For Paul too, and others, became proselytes of Israel for the bride from the nations. The former wife, then, who did not find favour before her husband because a shameful thing was found in her, went out from her husband's house, and having gone away she has become another man's, to whom she has subjected herself: whether one should say that this husband is Barabbas the robber, who is figuratively the devil, or some evil power. And in the case of some of that synagogue what is written first in the law has happened, in the case of others the second; for the last husband hated the wife, and at some time, at the end of things, he writes her a bill of divorce (God arranging this) and will give it into her hands and send her out of his house. For just as “the good God will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between his seed and her seed,” so he will arrange that the last husband hate her.

There are some with whom it has happened that the husband lives with them without having hated them, because they remained in the house of the last husband, who took their synagogue as his wife; but in their case too the last husband dies, perhaps when “the last enemy” of Christ, “death, is destroyed.” Whichever of these happens to the wife, the first or the last, “the former husband,” it says, “who sent her away, will not be able to return and take her to be his wife after she has been defiled, since it is an abomination,” it says, “before the Lord your God.” But this will seem not to agree with “When the fullness of the nations has come in, all Israel will be saved.” Consider whether this too can be said in reply: that if she is saved, she will certainly be saved by her former husband returning and taking her to be his wife after she has been defiled. A priest, it is true, will not take for himself a prostitute or a woman who has been cast out; but someone else, as being lower than the priest, is not prevented from doing such a thing. And if you look for the prostitute in connection with the calling of the nations, you will use “Take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of prostitution,” and what follows. For as “the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless,” so the one who casts out his former wife and in due season takes a wife of prostitution is also guiltless, having done it at the command of the one who said, when it was necessary and for as long as it was needed, “He shall not take a prostitute as wife,” and, when it was reasonable, says, “Take for yourself a wife of prostitution.” For as the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath, and not a slave of the Sabbath as the people are, so the one who gives the law is lord to give it “until the time of reformation,” and to change the law; and when the time of reformation has come, to give, after the former way and after the former heart, another way and another heart, “in an acceptable time and in a day of salvation.” Let this be said, according to one interpretation, on the law about the bill of divorce.