Commentary on Matthew 14.21–15.4

One might ask whether the human soul can be called figuratively a wife, and the angel set over her as her ruler, toward whom her conduct is directed as one who has lordship over her, a husband; so that in this sense each angel lawfully lives with the soul that is worthy of the protection of a divine angel. And at some time, after a long period of living together, there might arise in the soul a cause for her not finding favour before the angel who is lord and ruler over her, namely that a shameful thing is found in her; and, as records of debt are written, a bill of divorce might be written and given into the hands of the one who is cast out, so that the one who is sent out of his house no longer belongs to her former guardian. And the one who has gone out from the former house might become another man's, and might fare badly with him, not only, as with the former husband, not finding favour before him because a shameful thing is found in her, but also being hated by him; and a bill of divorce might be written for her by the second husband as well, and given into her hands by the last husband as he sends her out of his house. Whether there can be a change in the life of the angels who live with human beings, such that this is, as far as concerns our relation to them, their “death,” one might inquire, boldly indeed, but still inquire. However it may happen, the one who has once fallen away from her former husband will not return to him: “For the former husband who sent her away will not be able to return and take her to be his wife after she has been defiled.” And if one must dare to support such a view from a writing that is used in the church but not acknowledged by all to be divine, one might take the passage from the Shepherd about certain people who, when they believe, come under Michael, but through love of pleasure fall away from him and come under the angel of luxury, then under the angel of punishment, and after him under the angel of repentance. For you see that the wife, that is, the soul, that has once lived in luxury does not return to the first ruler, but, even after punishment, comes under one inferior to Michael; for the angel of repentance is inferior to him. We must take heed, then, lest a shameful thing be found in us and we do not find favour before our husband, Christ, or before the angel set over us. For if we do not take heed, perhaps we too shall receive the bill of divorce, and shall either be widowed of a guardian or come to another husband. And I think that it is not, if I may put it so, an auspicious thing for us to receive angels in marriage with our soul.

Having come to this passage, I would say that we shall perhaps now be able to understand something that is asked about the Apostle's legislation on church matters and that is hard to see. For Paul wishes that none of those in the church who have received some pre-eminence over the many, as if in symbols, should have experienced a second marriage. For, legislating about bishops in the first Epistle to Timothy, he says, “If anyone aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober, self-controlled,” and what follows; and about deacons, “Let deacons,” he says, “be husbands of one wife, managing their children and their own households well,” and the rest. And in appointing widows, he says, “Let a widow be enrolled who is not less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one husband”; and after this he gives what follows, as secondary and tertiary to this. And in the Epistle to Titus he says, “For this reason I left you in Crete, so that you might set right what remains and appoint presbyters in every city, as I directed you: if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children,” and what follows. We were puzzled, seeing that some who have been married twice can be much better than those married once, why Paul does not permit the twice-married to be appointed to the offices of the church. For such a question seemed to me worth inquiring into, since it is possible that someone who was unfortunate in two marriages, having lost the second wife while he was still young, has lived the rest of his life until old age with the greatest self-control and purity. Who, then, would not reasonably be puzzled as to why, when a ruler of the church is sought, we do not appoint such a twice-married man because of the words about marriage, but take the once-married man as ruler, even if he happens to have lived with his wife until old age, and sometimes has not even been trained in chastity and self-control? From what has been said on the law about the bill of divorce I consider whether perhaps, since the bishop, the presbyter, and the deacon are symbols of the true realities that correspond to these names, he wished to appoint them as once-married symbolically, so that one who is able to attend to the realities may find from the spiritual law that he is unworthy of church office whose soul did not find favour before her husband, because a shameful thing was found in her, and became worthy of the bill of divorce. For such a soul, having lived with a second husband and been hated by him, can no longer, after the second bill of divorce, return to her former husband. It is likely, then, that other reasons will be found by those much wiser than we, and better able to see such great matters, whether on the law about the bill of divorce or on the apostolic texts that prevent the twice-married from ruling the church or from presiding in it as men held in honour. But we, until better things are found which can, by the great superiority of the light of knowledge, eclipse what we have said, have said what occurred to us on these passages.

Even if we seem to have touched on matters deeper than our ability in these passages, nonetheless these things too must still be said, because of the letter: that some of the laws were written not as excellent in themselves, but as accommodating the weakness of those for whom they were made. Something like this is shown in “Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives”; while what is primary and excellent, beyond the law written because of hardness of heart, is shown in “But from the beginning it was not so.” In the New Covenant too some things have been legislated analogous to “Moses, because of your hardness of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives.” For it is as it were because of our hardness of heart, because of weakness, that it is written: “But because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and each woman her own husband,” and “Let the husband give to his wife what is due, and likewise the wife to her husband.” At any rate, there is added to these words: “This I say by way of concession, not of command.” And also “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” is said by Paul because of our hardness of heart or weakness, to those who do not wish to strive for the greater gifts and to become more blessed. But now, contrary to what is written, some of the leaders of the church have even permitted certain things, so that a woman is married while her husband is living. They act contrary to what is written, where it is said, “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives,” and “So then she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's while her husband is living”; yet not altogether without reason, for it is likely that this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was legislated and written from the beginning.

Perhaps one of the Jews, of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our Saviour, will say that Jesus too, in saying, “Whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery,” permitted divorcing a wife just as Moses did, who, he said, legislated because of the hardness of heart of the people; and he will say that “because he found in her a shameful thing” is the same as the ground of sexual immorality, for which a wife might reasonably be cast out by her husband. It must be said to him that, if a woman who commits adultery is to be stoned according to the law, clearly the “shameful thing” is not understood in this sense. For in the case of adultery, or of any shameful act of such gravity, one must not write a bill of divorce and give it into the hands of the wife. But perhaps Moses called every sin a “shameful thing”; if it is found by the husband in a wife who does not find favour before him, the bill of divorce is written, and the wife is sent out of her husband's house. “But from the beginning it was not so.” After this our Saviour, in no way permitting marriages to be dissolved for any other sin than sexual immorality alone, when it is found in the wife, says, “Whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery.” It might be asked whether he therefore forbids a man to divorce his wife if she is convicted not of sexual immorality but, say, of poisoning, or of killing the child born to them while the husband was away from home, or of any murder whatever. And if she is found pilfering and robbing her husband's house, but not committing sexual immorality, one might ask whether he would reasonably cast out such a woman, since the Saviour forbids anyone to divorce his own wife except on the ground of sexual immorality. For either way something seems absurd, though I do not know whether it is truly absurd. To bear with such great sins, which seem to be worse than adultery and sexual immorality, will seem unreasonable; and again, to act contrary to the intention of the Saviour's teaching everyone would admit to be impious. I consider, then, why he did not say, “Let no one divorce his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality,” but says, “Whoever divorces his wife except on the ground of sexual immorality makes her commit adultery.” For the one who divorces his wife when she has not committed sexual immorality admittedly makes her, as far as lies with him, commit adultery. For if “while her husband lives she will be called an adulteress if she becomes another man's,” and by divorcing her he gives her a pretext for a second marriage, clearly by this he makes her commit adultery. But whether there is a defence for dismissing a woman convicted of poisoning, or one who has committed murder, you too might inquire. For a husband can also make his own wife commit adultery through causes other than divorce: for example, by allowing her, beyond what is fitting, to do what she wishes and to enter into friendship with whatever men she wishes; for such falls often happen to wives through the simplicity of their husbands. But whether there is room for a defence or not for such husbands in such cases, you will declare after careful inquiry, as also on the questions we have raised on this passage. And the one who deprives his wife of himself often makes her commit adultery by not satisfying her desires, even if he does this under the appearance of greater dignity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more blameworthy, who, as far as lies with him, makes her commit adultery by not satisfying her desires, than the one who divorced her not on the ground of sexual immorality but for poisoning or murder or one of the gravest sins. And just as a woman is an adulteress, even if she seems to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also a man who seems to marry a divorced woman does not, according to our Saviour's pronouncement, so much marry her as commit adultery. After this, the disciples of Christ, considering how many misfortunes can occur in marriages which the husband must bear (and so fare very harshly in this respect), or else, not bearing them, transgress the words of Christ, say to him, taking refuge in celibacy as easier, and more profitable than marriage seems to be: “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not profitable to marry.” To this the Saviour said to them, teaching us that complete purity is a gift given by God, not only attained by discipline but given by God in answer to prayers: “Not all receive this word, but those to whom it is given.” Then, since some misrepresent “to whom it is given,” as though those who wished to remain pure in celibacy but were overcome by their desires had an excuse, it must be said: if we believe what is written, why do we seize on “but those to whom it is given,” and no longer attend to “Ask, and it will be given you,” and to what follows it, “For everyone who asks receives”? For if those to whom it is given receive the word about complete purity, let the one who wishes ask, persuaded by and believing him who says, “Ask, and it will be given you,” and not doubting “Everyone who asks receives.” At this point you will inquire who is the one who asks; for none of those who do not receive has asked, even if he seemed to have asked, since it is not permitted to say that “Everyone who asks receives” is false. Who, then, is the one who asks, if not the one who is persuaded by Jesus when he says, “Whenever you stand praying, believe that you receive, and you will receive”? The one who asks must do everything in his power, so that he prays with the spirit and prays also with the mind, and prays without ceasing, remembering also “He told them a parable, to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart, saying, There was a judge in a certain city,” and what follows. For knowing what asking is and what receiving is, and what “Everyone who asks receives” means, “I tell you, though he will not get up and give him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will rise and give him as much as he needs” is also useful; at any rate there follows, “And I tell you, Ask, and it will be given you,” and what follows. Further, because of “Not all receive this word, but those to whom it is given,” “Which of you, if his son asks his father for a fish, will give him a serpent instead of a fish?” and what follows, is also an encouragement to ask in a way worthy of receiving. God, then, will give the good gift, complete purity in celibacy and chastity, to those who ask him with their whole soul, and with faith, and without ceasing, in their prayers.

“For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb,” and so on, up to “Let the one who is able to receive it receive it.” Before the account of the passage that appears to us to be true, we will set out two misinterpretations that arise about this passage and then overturn them as far as we can, so that, guarding against every error so far as what is to be said is concerned, we may, if we can grasp the true intent of the passage, live the better life; and so we shall come to the matter before us. Some, thinking that the third eunuchism too was bodily, as following from the working of the two eunuchisms that are seen in the bodily realm, dared to submit themselves, out of fear of God but without understanding, to a eunuchism of the same kind as the first two; and they have exposed themselves to reproach, and perhaps also to shame, not only among those who are strangers to the faith but also among all who are rather indulgent toward human failings, because of what was only the appearance of fear of God and an immoderate love of chastity, which brought forth pains and mutilation of the body and whatever else one might suffer who gave himself over to so great an act. Others, and not many, have understood it thus, without testing the sequence of the words: the first two they took to have been said by the Saviour plainly and bodily, as indicating nothing beyond the things perceived by the senses; but the third they no longer thought was spoken according to the letter; rather they considered that in the third a eunuchism by reason is signified, when, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, having cut out with the cutting reason the desiring faculty for such things, people have despised the assaults of the body, which cannot overcome a soul that has cut out desire by reason. One must know that the former … having become friends of the letter of the gospel rather …, and having observed that Jesus spoke these things too in parables and that they were said in the Spirit, understood the passage more consistently, inasmuch as they agree that the first two eunuchisms are spoken bodily; for they made the third conform to the first two, not erring as regards consistency among the three, but necessarily erring in having overlooked the starting point of the passage; for if the two are spoken bodily, it follows that the third also is bodily. The latter rightly applied themselves to the third, thinking that it shows the cutting out of the passionate part from the soul by reason; but they did not see that it was fitting, with such an interpretation, to allegorize the first two eunuchisms in the same way as the third, or else to make the third conform likewise to the first two. If, then, in the case of certain other sayings, not only of the Old Testament but also of the New, it is fitting to say, “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life,” this must be acknowledged also in the present case; for one might say that the letter of the two eunuchisms, when kept, killed those who understood the third consistently with the first two and dared to say that, according to the word of the Lord, those who can receive it do this “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,” castrating themselves just as those castrated earlier were.

If anyone wishes to take other examples too of the New Testament having a letter that kills, let him hear, by way of example, how the Saviour said to the apostles: “When I sent you out without purse and bag and sandals, did you lack anything?” To which is added: “They said, Nothing. Then Jesus said to them, But now let the one who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag; and let the one who has none sell his cloak and buy a sword.” For if someone, because Jesus said this, not perceiving the intent of what was said, sells his perceptible cloak and buys a murderous sword, as though … a sword of that kind, and, acting against the intent of Jesus because he misunderstood his word, he will perish; and perhaps he will even perish by the sword. But what kind of sword it is, this is not the occasion to explain. And again, the saying “Greet no one on the road”: if anyone, without examining what Jesus intended in giving this command, were to greet no one on the road, as one emulating the apostolic life, he would seem inhuman to those who see him behave so; and when they trace the cause of his so understanding it back to the word on account of which he seemed to act so, they might be led to hate the word of God, as making those who believe it savage and inhuman; and the one who greets no one on the road, having taken his reason for it from that word, might suffer death on account of the letter, the letter killing him. And if someone should cut out his right eye as the cause of seeing wrongly, or the right hand of his body, or the right foot of his flesh, he would suffer with those who are killed through the letter, since he too stayed with the letter when he ought to have risen to the spirit of what is said. Now others before us did not shrink from giving occasion in their own writings for some to dare to undergo the third eunuchism on the pretext of the kingdom of heaven, as being like the first two.

But we, who once knew Christ of God, the Word of God, according to the flesh and according to the letter, but now know him so no longer, do not approve of those who, as though they had understood rightly, inflict the third eunuchism on themselves on the pretext of the kingdom of heaven. And we would not have spent longer in refuting the one who wishes to take the third bodily, like the first two, if we had not both seen those who dared it and come upon writings able to move a rather warm soul, faithful but not reasoning, to such a daring act. Sextus says in his Sentences, a book current among many as approved: “Every part of the body that persuades you not to be chaste, throw away; for it is better to live chastely without the part than ruinously with it.” And again, further on in the same book, giving occasion for something similar, he says: “You may see men cutting off and throwing away parts of themselves so that the rest of the body may be strong; how much better for the sake of chastity?” And Philo too, among his many treatises on the law of Moses, which are esteemed also among men of understanding, says in the one he entitled That the Worse Is Wont to Attack the Better that it is better to be made a eunuch than to rage after unlawful intercourse. But they must not be trusted, since they have not grasped the intent of the sacred writings about these things. For if among the fruits of the Spirit, together with love and joy and patience and the rest, self-control is also listed, one must rather bear the fruit of self-control and keep the male body given by God than dare anything else, so as even to transgress the saying that is useful even in its literal sense: “You shall not mar the appearance of your beard”—useful for turning away young men who are warm in faith, of whom one must acknowledge that they have a love of chastity, “but not according to knowledge”; and the saying: “If men fight together, a man with his brother,” and what follows, up to “Your eye shall not spare her.” For if the hand that seized a man’s private parts is cut off, how much more one who, through ignorance of the road that leads to chastity, has given himself over to such a plight? Let the one, then, who is about to dare such a thing reckon what he will suffer from those who reproach him and use against him the words, “One who is crushed or cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord,” counting him among those who have cut off their manhood. I do not yet speak of what one may suffer when there is untimely hindrance to the seeds which, as the sons of physicians say, descend from the head to the male parts, and which, descending through certain veins about the cheeks, by the natural warmth of what descends make men grow hair about the chin; of this hair are deprived also those who think they must make themselves eunuchs bodily for the kingdom of heaven. And what might they suffer—heaviness of the head and dizziness, at times reaching even the ruling faculty and disturbing the imagination, so that it forms strange images from such matter? But before I come to the explanation of the passage, it must be said that if Marcion had done anything consistent with himself in saying that Scripture must not be allegorized, he would have wished these passages also to be regarded as not spoken by the Saviour, since he would have had to choose either to accept, along with saying that the Saviour said these things, that the believer will be persuaded to dare to give himself over to such things, or, since no one would reasonably dare acts so great, which would bring the word into ill repute, not to believe that the words are the Saviour’s, unless they are allegorized.

But we, who wish to keep the consistency of the three eunuchisms and approve of the figurative reading of the third, will say something like this about the first two as well. Those who are inactive toward sexual pleasures, and do not give themselves over to the licentiousness and impurities belonging to them or the like, might now be called eunuchs figuratively. There are, I think, three kinds among those who are inactive in these things. Some are such by constitution, of whom it may be said: “There are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb.” Others, urged on by words, practise abstinence from sexual pleasures and from all intemperance in this area; yet what produced in them this purpose and discipline and, if I may call it so, achievement was not the word of God but human words, whether of those who have philosophized among the Greeks or of those in the heresies who “forbid marriage and abstinence from foods.” These, it seems to me, are indicated in the words: “There are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men.” But it is worthy of acceptance if someone, taking up the Word that is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and what the Apostle named the sword of the Spirit, should cut out the passionate part of the soul without touching the body; and should do this having understood the kingdom of heaven, and that cutting out by reason the passionate part of one’s own soul contributes very greatly to inheriting the kingdom of heaven. To such persons—and not in the way those think who have taken the passage bodily—the saying would fit: “There are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”