Commentary on Matthew 15.5–15.13

It is a great power to receive the eunuchism of the soul by reason, which not all receive, but those to whom it has been given; and it is given to all who ask God for the sword of reason and use it as they ought, so that they may make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. If we must also touch on the narratives in the Scriptures, together with the higher sense of them that appears to us, let us say that there are certain eunuchs of Pharaoh, barren of all good, made eunuchs so that they may pour wine for him and bake his bread; but there are also men of God who are eunuchs for this reason, that they may build up Jerusalem that has fallen. Of the former it is written in Genesis; of the latter an example is the one written of in Second Esdras, who says: “And I was a eunuch to the king. And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes,” and so on, up to “And it pleased the king, and he sent me.” And you too, reading Second Esdras, will find all that concerns the passage, and will notice why a holy man who had become a eunuch was the leader in rebuilding the temple of God. The sons of the Hebrews say that Daniel and the three with him, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, were made eunuchs in Babylon, in fulfilment of the prophecy spoken to Hezekiah by Isaiah: “From your seed they shall take, and they shall make eunuchs in the house of the king of Babylon.” And they say that Isaiah also prophesied about them, saying: “Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, Surely the Lord will separate me from his people,” and so on, up to “better than sons and daughters.” It is good, then, as regards the mystical sense, not to beget in Babylon but to be barren toward Babylon, like Daniel, so that we may beget, having conceived from the divine Spirit, as he and those with him did, visions and prophecies. One must know that whoever wished to support the view that the three eunuchisms are bodily, and to plead the cause of those mentioned before who taught this also in their writings, could find not a few plausible arguments for it. But we did not wish to set them out, lest, by stating the arguments as an exercise and giving the solution of each, we should become an occasion for those who do not receive the word about being a eunuch as Jesus intends to understand “receive” in another way and to take it bodily; whereas one who lives by the Spirit and walks by the Spirit ought to be persuaded that the three eunuchisms are spoken spiritually. [On the children brought to Jesus that he might lay his hands on them.]

“Then children were brought to him,” and so on, up to “And having laid his hands on them, he went away from there.” At that time the recorded event took place: children were brought to Jesus, those who brought them wishing him to lay his hands on them and pray. But one must know that there is no time when children in soul are not brought to Jesus; of these he might say, having received them from God as a trust: “Behold, I and the children whom God has given me.” And of these children let some be called infants, and let others be said to be nursing, as being below the infants; and let our Lord perfect praise from the mouth of both, so that, perceiving such kindness of his toward the children, we may say: “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have perfected praise.” By children we must understand those in Christ who are fleshly and infants, such as the apostle Paul knew the Corinthians to be when he said: “And I could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to fleshly, as to infants in Christ.” Such children were brought then, and are always brought, to Jesus. A sign of the bringing of infants is the many in the church who are infants in Christ and nursing, needing milk, not solid food; to them he might say, cherishing them as a nurse cherishes her own children: “I gave you milk to drink, not food; for you were not yet able.” Next: the evangelists who recorded this passage wrote that, as Matthew says, “children were brought to Jesus,” or, as Mark says, “they were bringing even babes to him”; but they have all passed over by whom they were brought, or who brought them, leaving us to examine what was omitted. It is worth seeing whether the three omitted this by chance, though they could have written, “they were brought to him by their parents,” or “by their mothers,” or “their mothers were bringing babes or children to him”; or whether they did this by a reasoning of knowledge and wisdom, to show that angels who came to Jesus and ministered to him, seeing with a more divine mind the differences between the children or babes, know which ought to be brought to Jesus, so that, being brought to him, they may have his hands laid on them, and when; and they know also which ought not, or that for some time they ought not. For I do not think that so many children come to Jesus without the ordering of angels. The intention of those who brought the children is, according to Matthew, “that Jesus might lay his hands on them and pray”; according to Mark, “that he might touch them”; and according to Luke, who said that they were babes, “that he might touch them.” For by the prayer of Jesus and by his touch, the children and babes, who cannot hear what those already spiritual hear, have enough for their help and for the benefit they can receive; for the power of Jesus touches them, when he simply lays on them the hands of his oversight, and none of the worse powers touches them any longer. And perhaps, as regards the literal sense too, the intention of those who brought babes and children to him was of this kind: they understood that, when Jesus had touched babes or children and through his touch instilled power into them, no misfortune or demon or anything else could touch those whom Jesus had touched first.

I think also that, since many evil powers have from the beginning busied themselves about the human soul, plotting against it in various ways, those who brought the babes to the Saviour, having already learned his power from earlier events, did this so that, through the laying on of his hands and his prayer for the children and babes, the worse powers might be driven away by the touch, and an excellent power, instilled in them, might last for what followed, as a hindrance to the touch of the opposing powers. And so the Saviour, knowing that such a thing was not something simple and of no account, but saving for those on whom he laid hands, since he touched them, says to the disciples who rebuked them, and by rebuking hindered the children from being brought: “Let the children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me.” If, then, what was said about by whom they were brought, or who brought them, is reasonable, consistently with it certain chosen disciples of Jesus might be understood, holy powers that have become disciples of the Son of God. For it is reasonable that the name of Jesus’ disciples should reach even to such, so that not only human beings are his disciples, but also the angels to whom he appeared, and whoever wishes to believe in him from “every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.” But if anyone thinks this forced, wishing the name of disciples—those who rebuked the ones bringing babes and children to Jesus—to be applied to none but human beings, then those who bring babes and children to Jesus would be the simpler among those who undertake to teach the word, whose word reaches only to children, being like milk, and who give drink to those who need milk; for they cannot persuade those more rational than their own level, as the one could who was able to say: “I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.” And while these bring babes and children to Jesus, those who think themselves more rational than these teachers, and are therefore called disciples of Jesus, before they have learned what concerns babes and children, rebuke those who teach more simply and bring the children. You will understand this clearly if you consider: “For consider your calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; but God chose the things of the world, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are.” Let someone, then, see one of those who profess the church’s catechesis and teaching bringing the foolish things of the world, the despised and the low-born, which for that reason might also be called children; and seeing it, let him rebuke, as acting without judgment, the one who brings babes and children to so great a Saviour and teacher. And consider whether it is not fitting to refer what is now being examined to such things: some bringing children that Jesus may lay his hands on them and pray, and the disciples rebuking them. And to those who rebuke over the children brought to Jesus, the Teacher and Saviour and Lord might say: “Let the children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me.” Then, urging the disciples, who are men, to stoop to the benefit of the children, so that they may become children to the children in order to gain the children, let the Saviour say: “For of such is the kingdom of heaven.” For he himself too, “being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” and became a child, so that Herod said of him to the Magi: “Go and search diligently for the child,” and Matthew: “The star which they had seen in the East went before them, until it came and stood over where the child was”; and a little later: “Coming into the house,” he says, “they saw the child with Mary his mother.” And the angel who appeared to Joseph called our so great Saviour a child, saying: “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt.” And again, when Herod had died, an angel of the Lord appears in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying: “Rise, take the child and his mother.” Jesus, then, not only according to the narrative but also according to the higher sense, humbled himself like a child, so that, just as he might say, “Learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart,” so also: Learn from me, who became like a child, how I say, “For of such is the kingdom of heaven”—of such as the children are, about whom he does not permit the disciples to rebuke those who bring them. And Paul too, as one who understood “For of such is the kingdom of heaven,” though he could have been a burden as an apostle of Christ, became gentle, like a nurse cherishing her own child and speaking words like a child for the child’s sake.

These things must be heard carefully, so that we may not, through an appearance of wisdom and of having advanced, despise as great persons the little ones and children in the church; but, knowing how it was said, “For of such is the kingdom of heaven,” let us become such, so that through us too the children may be saved. And not only letting the children be brought to Jesus, nor only not hindering them from being brought to him, but ourselves becoming children with the children, let us do the will of the Saviour, so that, as the children are saved also through us who have become such, we, as having humbled ourselves, may be exalted by God. For something of this kind can be understood in the saying, “Everyone who humbles himself will be exalted,” especially since it is written above: “Whoever, then, humbles himself like this child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven.” Let these things be useful against the disciples who rebuke those who bring children to Jesus. And let the children know—even if, being children, they cannot follow all that is said—that Jesus laid his hands on the children, and having laid them on, went away from there; and having instilled power into the children through his touch, he went away from the children, since they could not follow Jesus as the disciples could. If the sayings of the gospel too are “words of the Lord,” and “pure words,” and “silver tried by fire, proved, sent to the earth,” and “purified to the utmost, sevenfold,” there ought to be a reasonable cause why Matthew, in setting out the passage, stated two purposes for which the children were brought to Jesus, but then does not add what follows to match both. For the children were brought, not only that Jesus might lay his hands on them, but besides this that he might also pray.

It is written: “And having laid his hands on them, he went away from there”; for he did not add, “and having prayed,” though it could have been said: “And having laid his hands on them and prayed for them, he went away from there.” Consider, then, whether you can reserve the prayer of Jesus for those greater than children, who are able to receive both the laying on of his hands upon them and his prayer to the Father for them; while for the children, I would say, the laying on of his hands suffices. And if what has been said about the words “For of such is the kingdom of heaven” urges even the wisest not to be arrogant toward the little ones in the church, nor to despise the children and infants in Christ, it is useful to take this from the Gospel according to Luke: “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child”; this is done by one who is not a child, but a man who has put away the things of an infant, yet becomes a child to children and says to them: “I could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to fleshly, as to infants in Christ; I gave you milk to drink, not food.” The whole context in Luke is this: “And they were bringing even babes to him, that he might touch them,” and so on, up to “Whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter it.” And Mark set out almost the same words, especially the last ones, in the same way. [On the rich man who asked Jesus and said, “Good Teacher,” and so on.]

“And behold, one came up and said to him, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” and so on, up to “But many who are first will be last, and the last first.” In the Psalms it is written, as though man were able to do good: “Whoever desires life, loving to see good days, keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit; turn away from evil and do good.” But here the Saviour, to the one who said, “What good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?”, said—since the good in the proper sense is referred to none but God—“Why do you ask me about the good? One there is who is good.” One must know that here “good” is applied in the proper sense to God alone, but elsewhere in an extended sense, as to good works, to a good man, and to a good tree; and you too might find “good” applied to many other things. So one must not think that “Do good” conflicts with “Why do you ask me about the good? One is good,” which was said to the one inquiring, who said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do?” Matthew, then, recorded it as though the Saviour were asked about a good work in “What good thing shall I do?”; but Mark and Luke say that the Saviour said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, God,” as though the name “good,” as applied to God, could not be applied also to anyone else; for not in the sense in which God is good would “a good man, who out of the good treasure brings forth good things,” be so called. And the Saviour too, as he is the image of the invisible God, so is he also “the image of his goodness”; and whereas the word “good” is applied to everything inferior, what is said of him has another meaning, if in relation to the Father he is an image of goodness, but in relation to the rest … Or rather, one may see a closer correspondence in the goodness of God in relation to the Saviour, who is the image of his goodness, than in the Saviour in relation to a good man, a good work, and a good tree; for the superiority in the Saviour, insofar as he is the image of God’s goodness, over lesser goods is greater than the superiority of God, who is good, over the Saviour who said, “The Father who sent me is greater than I,” who is, in relation to others, also an image of the goodness of God. And perhaps connected with the intent of what was said to the one who asked, “What good thing shall I do?”, and of the answer given him, “Why do you ask me about the good? One is good,” is this: “When you have done all that was commanded you, you ought to say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we ought to have done.” For if we do all that was commanded, not even so, as far as the words here go, have we done anything good; for if what we do were good, it would not have been said that, when what was commanded has been done, one must say, “We are unprofitable servants.” But one may call these things good in an extended sense, as in “Turn away from evil and do good.” I think that the one who does what is commanded in “Turn away from evil and do good” does what is good in comparison with what others do, not what is truly good. Just as “no one living will be justified before God,” all human righteousness being shown not to be righteousness when the righteousness of God is beheld, so no one who might be called good by comparison with lesser things will be called good before the good God.

Someone might say that the Saviour, knowing the disposition and choice of the inquirer, which fell far short of doing the good attainable by a human being, said to him when he asked, “What good thing shall I do?”, the words, “Why do you ask me about the good?”—as if he said: Not being prepared for what might be said about the good, you ask by doing what good thing you will inherit eternal life. Then he teaches that one is truly good, of whom the law too says: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.” For he in the proper sense is Saviour, and in the proper sense Lord, and in the proper sense good, who, I am persuaded, does all things as good. You will inquire how his goodness breathes even in the things not understood by those who, so far as in them lies, slander the God of the law and accuse him of things that it is not easy to say lightly even about a man. For I am persuaded that “I will kill” breathes of the goodness of God no less than “and I will make alive”; and likewise “I will strike” no less than “and I will heal.” If he himself causes pain, one must know that a physician too often causes pain; and God, having caused pain, restores again; and so also it was out of goodness that he struck those whom he struck. “For God deals with those being disciplined as with sons; for what son is there whom the father does not discipline?” But also “all discipline for the present seems to be not of joy but of grief; but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” Therefore as God struck, so also he healed; for this is true: “He struck, and his hands healed.” Even if what is about to be said is paradoxical, it will nevertheless be said: what is called the wrath of the good God does a saving work by reproving, and his so-called anger, since it is the anger of a good God, disciplines. Much might be said, to those able to hear it without harm, about the goodness of God and “the multitude of his kindness,” which he reasonably “hid for those who fear him,” lest, despising the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, they should, according to their hardness and impenitent heart, store up for themselves more wrath—which they would not store up while the multitude of God’s kindness was hidden from them. Concerning “Who is the good one?” and “What good thing shall I do?”, let what we have been able to see in the passage suffice.

Next we must consider how it was said: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Notice in this that he says “If you wish to enter into life” to the one inquiring about the good as to one who is still outside life. Here, then, we must understand what it is to be outside life and what it is to enter into life. Perhaps, in one way, the one who is outside him who said “I am the life,” and is a stranger to him, is outside life; in another way, everyone on earth, even if most righteous, can be in the shadow of life, saying, “The breath of our face, Christ the Lord, of whom we said: In his shadow we shall live among the nations,” but not in life itself, since he is clothed with a body of death and says, “Who will deliver me from the body of this death?” and is “sitting in the region and shadow of death,” and has not yet come to the land of the living. For the life not only of the wicked but also of Paul on earth, and of the apostles, was hidden in God. He says at least: “Your life is hidden with Christ in God; when Christ, our life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” You will observe all that is said about “within” and “without,” to gather what corresponds to “If you wish to enter into life”; for example: “Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.” For you will ask: send them out from where? And if the workers here are sent out into the harvest of the Lord, they are outside the place from which they were sent out; and having done the works of the harvest well, they will enter into life, cleansed from dead works and doing living works, the opposite of those; no longer speaking dead things, but speaking according to the living and active word of God. In the same way there is a correspondence between words of eternal life and the thoughts that stand against accusing thoughts: since “the thoughts accuse or else excuse” on the day of judgment, the one whose thoughts excuse him will be saved, and the one whose thoughts become his accusers will perish. If, then, we too wish to enter into life, let us hear Jesus saying, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments,” and in proportion to our keeping of the commandments we shall enter into life, coming either into its innermost and most blessed parts, or into those which bring us … of life, of lesser …

And having heard “Keep the commandments,” he says, “Which?”—so that we may learn which commandments in particular Jesus wishes us to keep. For in answer to “Which?” he said: “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honour your father and mother”; and: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” And perhaps these, and things like them, suffice for entering, if I may so name it, into the beginning of life, though they do not suffice for perfection; so that one guilty of anything like a breach of one of these commandments cannot enter even into the beginning of life. One who wishes even to come into life must therefore be clean of adultery and murder and every theft; for as an adulterer and a murderer will not enter into life, so neither will one who steals. Of such a sin many of those said to believe in Christ are guilty, being shown, in the business affairs of life, in the money matters entrusted to them, and in the ordinary trades they practise, not to be clean of theft. And not only will the thief not enter into life, but also his partner and the one who runs with him; for in Isaiah it is written: “Partners of thieves, loving gifts”; and in the forty-ninth Psalm the one convicted by the words “If you saw a thief, you ran with him” is forbidden “to declare the ordinances of God and to take his covenant upon his lips”; and so it is said first: “You set your portion with adulterers.” He did not call such a person a thief or an adulterer, but one who runs with a thief and sets his portion with adulterers. The one who is to come into life must not bear false witness either; and the one who does not fulfil the commandment that says, “Honour your father and mother,” is cast out of life. But to keep these commandments is perhaps not very hard; the greater work, and one useful to those brought into life by the former commandments, is to fulfil “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” And since, according to the Apostle, “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, and any other commandment, is summed up in this word, in: You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” and he is perfect who has fulfilled every commandment, clearly he would be perfect who has fulfilled the commandment, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”