Commentary on Matthew 17.18–17.28

We, however, have a great abundance of examples about God from the Gospels, in which he is likened in some parables to a man. We shall use, then, the parables that name God a man in defence of the Scriptures which, as far as their words go, say that the Father of Christ has human feelings. And we shall say to those of other opinions, who, because they have not understood what is said in this way in the Old Writings, take offence at the God of the law and the prophets and of the creation of the world: “If, according to the parables of the Gospel, God is likened to a man, why do you not, in keeping with these parables, accept that the anger, the wrath, the repentance, the turning away of the face, the sitting, the standing, and the walking of God are parable?” For his sleep, recorded in the prophecies, they have either not noticed, or will admit to be parable. And we shall say further to them: “If you will not, in keeping with God’s being called a man in a parable, hear in a parable the Scriptures that speak of him as having human feelings, show how the God of the universe is called a man according to the Gospel, while being said, as you suppose, to have nothing human in himself.” And we shall refute them abundantly as people who have not even examined the writings of the New Testament, in which, according to the parable here, the man, the king who made a marriage feast for his son, was angry with those who would not come to the wedding at his call, and with those who made light of dining at the wedding and went off to their own farm or to their business; and he was angry also with those who seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. Let them tell us whether this one who was angry, being the one who made a marriage feast for his son, is the Father of Christ, or whether someone other than the one who, as far as the parable goes, was angry is his Father. Either way they will be hard pressed: either they will not want the one who was angry, who made a marriage feast for his son, to be the Father of Christ, because of the anger; or they will be compelled, because of the wedding and the son, to accept that he is the Father of Christ, and that he is angry. And if they try to offer an explanation of his being angry, we shall say to them: “Sirs, what arbitrary choice is this, not to flee from the one in the Gospel who makes a marriage feast for his son because of his anger, nor to look for another …, but in the law and the prophets, because of the same …

Since, then, we are human beings, and it is not to our advantage to look upon the riches of God’s kindness and the great abundance of his kindness hidden by him, lest we be harmed, the kingdom of heaven was necessarily likened to a man, a king, so that he might speak to human beings as a man, and manage human beings who are unable to receive being managed by God, while he remains God in every respect, both in speaking through prophets and in managing human beings. And the kingdom of heaven will cease to be likened to a man when, jealousy and strife and the other passions and sins and walking in a merely human way having ceased, we become worthy to hear from God, “I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High,” or from his Christ, no longer doing such things as would lead to the words, “But you die like men.” And I think that not only will the likening of the kingdom of heaven to a man, a king, cease, but also countless other things which a sinful human being needs, as it is written in Hosea, “I am like a panther to Ephraim, and like a lion to the house of Judah”; and in another place, “I will meet them,” he says, “like a bear robbed of her young.” He will then one day cease from being like a panther and a lion and like a bear robbed of her young, when, because those who have done such things no longer need him to be like a panther, like a lion, and like a bear, he himself, no longer having any who need him in such forms, will show himself as he is. So too I understand the words, “Our God is a consuming fire”: for as long as there are things fit to be consumed, so long is our God a fire consuming them; but when the things whose nature is to be consumed by the consuming fire have been consumed, then our God will no longer be a consuming fire, but only, as John said, light, when he says, “God is light.” These things having been raised, consider whether you can take in this way the words from the catholic Epistle of John that run thus: “Beloved, we are now children of God, and it has not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that, when it appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” For now, even if we are counted worthy to see God with the mind and heart, we do not see him as he is, but as he becomes for us because of the dispensation on our behalf; but at the end of things, and at the restoration of all things of which “he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,” we shall see him, not as now, what he is not, but as is fitting then, what he is.

Having said these things once and for all about “The kingdom of heaven is like a man, a king,” we can also find the reason why the Saviour continually named himself the Son of Man, or Son of man. He shows that, just as God, when managing human beings, is said in parables to be a man, and perhaps in some way even becomes one, so too the Saviour, being in the first place Son of God, is both God and the son of his love, and “the image of the invisible God”; yet he does not remain in what he is in the first place, but becomes, by dispensation, the Son of man — of the one who in parables is called a man but is God — by imitating, when he manages human beings, God, who is called a man in parables and in some way becomes one. And one must not look for some man and say that the Saviour is his son, but, referring everything to the conception of God and of the parables which say that he is a man, understand intelligently his calling himself the Son of Man. With us human beings, then, “the kingdom of heaven is like a man, a king”; but with those who according to the Scriptures are called gods, among whom “God stands in the congregation, judging gods in the midst,” the kingdom of heaven is like God, a king.

You will ask whether, just as among human beings, who by their own nature are lower than angels, thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities, the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man, a king, so among thrones the kingdom of heaven is likened to a throne, a king; among dominions, to a dominion, a king; among principalities, to a principality, a king; and among authorities, to an authority, a king. For someone will say: what arbitrary choice would it be that for the lesser beings the kingdom of heaven should be likened to a man, a king, while for those greater than man the corresponding thing should not happen? This one, then, likened to a man, a king, making a marriage feast for his son, sent his servants to call those invited to the wedding. And you will consider whether, just as the bride being married is other than the servants who call and those invited to the wedding, so also in mystical matters some are taken up into the body of the bride, others into the rank of the servants sent to call those invited to the wedding, and a third group besides these, those invited to the wedding. God would know the different orders of souls, or of powers too along with them, and the cause of some being taken up into the body of the bride, others among the servants who minister to the call, and others among those who are called. In spiritual marriages, understand the union of the Word, the bridegroom, who begets offspring in what is good, and of the bride, the soul, married to the Word and not corrupted by him, but at each union with him receiving a share of incorruption, and bearing such rational offspring as might come from such marriages.

In such marriages, understand the dinner prepared from solid food, consisting of spiritual and rational nourishment; and understand the solidity of the food expressed figuratively, as I take it, in the oxen; and the spiritual element of the same contemplation in the fatted animals that are slaughtered; and the other variety, the spiritual contemplation that corresponds to bodily things, in “and all things are ready.” For the king, with royal abundance, worthy of his kingdom and his wealth, makes such a dinner. It seems to me that the first call to the wedding was of certain noble Israelite souls. For in the first place God wishes, through those who call with the word of teaching, those who have the better natural aptitude for understanding to come to this blessed feast; and one can see that such people do not wish to come to the call. For this reason other servants are sent, inviting those who will not come, and promising that, if those invited come, they will share in the dinner prepared by the king, and in oxen — greater, as it were, among clean animals, than all the clean — fattened with the varied and abundant demonstration of the thoughts on each problem. For the one who brings an abundant and full demonstration of the problem in hand sets out, as it were, a fatted word, or one divided up, figuratively called slaughtered; whereas if, by hypothesis, only a few weak things were brought to the demonstration of problems, as seeming to establish them, the slaughtered animals would be thin and lean, and, to name them in the same manner, dry and fleshless. But not such are the things prepared at the king’s dinner, at which he says, “My oxen and fatted animals are slaughtered,” and so “all things are ready,” so that, with the servant boys standing by and the spiritual cupbearers ministering, each of the attendants may bring to the dinner, in due order, especially those things in which he has learned to serve. And urging those who, as I said, come second according to the parable, he said: “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted animals are slaughtered, and all things are ready; come to the wedding.”

But those called first, being poor and needy in mind, “made light of it and went off,” attending to their own things and delighting in them more than in what the king promised through the servants sent. And see that one of them, having his own farm, did not come to the wedding; while another has a business, wishing in a way to imitate what is said in the parable of the merchant of pearls, who sought fine pearls and, finding one of great value, sold the many to buy the one. But this business is not auspicious, for which the one invited went off, … not of the dinner prepared by the king and of the slaughtered oxen and fatted animals and all that was ready. All those, then, of the discerning who, when called, do not come to the call, yet do not insult and kill the servants sent to call them, are more moderate than those who have dared such things; and they take their rest, one on his own farm, another in his business. Let us see who the rest besides these are. It seems to me that these have fallen into the preparation of contentious and sophistical arguments, by which they overpower the servants who are sent, who are not prepared to resolve sophisms, or seem to overpower them, and so insult those who minister to the call. And one can see those devoted to the practice of the divine words, and wishing to champion it with the divine wisdom, insulted by people who are discerning but do not wish to believe the truth; and some of them even killed by those with whom the king is said to be angry, since the wrath so called has come upon them. The work of the wrath is that the king’s army is sent, either the multitude of the heavenly host, or the angels appointed over punishments. And they destroy the murderers of the ministers of the Word, and the king burns their whole city. For each of the systems of doctrines put together in the wisdom of the rulers of this age is like a city and a body, which the king burns and wipes out, as made up of wretched buildings. And whenever you observe the destruction of “knowledge falsely so called,” or of any doctrines whatever that profess the truth, and their noble overthrow, do not hesitate to say that this has been done by soldiers of God, burning the cities of the enemies of the truth. The city of Jewish teaching too was burned after Christ’s coming; and when it had been burned, the king said to his servants — the apostles of Christ, or the angels of God appointed over the calling of the Gentiles — “The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the outlets of the roads, and invite to the wedding as many as you find.” And one can see those who are called to the wedding by those commanded to do this, from every road, both of simple people and of doctrines that are not simple, according to the customs of the nations, cities, villages, and places. The servants went out — whether from Judaea and Jerusalem, the apostles of Christ, or from the inner regions where the blessed angels were — and came to the roads, and have gathered, and will gather, all the bad whom they find, so that, having put off their wickedness, the garment foreign to the wedding, and having put on, with those called good, the garment of the wedding, they may fill the wedding feast as they recline.

When, then, “the wedding is filled with guests reclining,” and resting on faith and godliness, then the king will come in to look over and judge those reclining, so that, having convicted the one who has no wedding garment, he may punish him, and may set before the rest the prepared dinner, and the slaughtered fatted animals with the oxen, and all the other things that he prepared. He knows one who has not put on a wedding garment, referring to one genus or species those who have kept the wickedness they had before faith and have not stripped it off. And he blames such a one as having done wrong in daring to enter such a wedding without taking up the garment of the wedding, the woven fabric of virtue, the bright garment about which Solomon gave a command in Ecclesiastes, saying, “At every season let your garments be white.” The one who dared to enter this bright wedding without a wedding garment is silenced and cannot speak; and he is condemned as deserving punishment and judgment by the one who told the attendants — others than the armies mentioned above — to bind his feet and hands, which he did not use as he ought (for he neither walked the course he should, nor performed the actions he ought), and to cast him out not only from the wedding feast but into the outer darkness, wholly unmixed with light; so that, thirsting for light after being in the outer darkness, he may weep … the one able to benefit him, and from there … God, and may gnash the teeth that through wickedness ate the unripe grape and so were set on edge: “For the teeth of the one who eats the unripe grape will be set on edge.” There too the unripe grape must be taken to mean the wickedness of the one who did not stretch forward to what lies ahead, but remained in it, when he ought to have gone on to ripeness and made the grape of virtue sweet. And he adds to the whole parable, on account of the many who were called and did not become worthy, “For many are called”; and on account of those who entered the wedding and were made to recline there, being few, “but few are chosen.” And if anyone considers the populous gatherings of what, to put it simply, are called the churches, and examines how many live more reasonably and “are transformed by the renewal of the mind,” and how many conduct themselves more carelessly “and are conformed to this age,” he would see that the Saviour’s saying is useful: “For many are called, but few are chosen.” And elsewhere it has been said, “Many will seek to enter and will not be able,” and, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for few find it.” [On those who questioned him about the census tax.]

“Then the Pharisees went and took counsel against him, how they might entrap him in talk,” and so on, down to: “And they left him and went away.” The meaning of the passage before us, according to the letter, seems to me to be this. The Jews, since they had their own teaching according to the law of Moses, and a way of life estranged from the conduct of the Gentiles, and held a precept that says, “Strive for the truth to the death, and the Lord will fight for you,” resisted the Gentiles who ruled them so as not to transgress the law of God. Often they ran the risk of being utterly destroyed when the Romans wished to bring a statue of Caesar into the temple of God, resisting and hindering those who had become stronger than they because the Jews had sinned. We have found in the histories of the time of Tiberius Caesar writings to the effect that under Pontius Pilate the people were in danger, when Pilate tried by force to set up a statue of Caesar in the temple and they resisted even beyond their strength. The like is recorded to have happened also in the times of Gaius Caesar. And we conjecture that, as long as the people was under God’s oversight, and “the vineyard of the Lord, the house of Israel, and the man of Judah, his beloved new planting,” was walled about with the hedge spoken of in the prophets, nothing so serious happened. And most remarkable of all, it was Pilate himself, to whom they handed over Jesus, who first dared to defile the temple of God. In the time of the Saviour, then, when the Jews had been ordered to pay tribute to the Romans, there was inquiry and debate among the Jews whether those dedicated to God, who were his portion, ought to give tribute to the rulers, or to fight for freedom, if they were not permitted to live as they wished, and not give tribute. And it is recorded that Judas the Galilean, whom Luke also mentions in the Acts of the Apostles, led a great number of Jews to revolt and taught that one should not give tribute to Caesar nor proclaim Caesar lord; while the tetrarch of that time wished to persuade the people to yield to the present situation and not to choose of their own accord a war against stronger men, but to pay the tributes. The present passage of the Gospel does not show such things plainly; but to one able to look closely at the text before us, it shows that things were so. For the Pharisees, wishing to entrap Jesus in talk, would have had no room to send their disciples with the Herodians to ask Jesus whether it is lawful to give the census tax to Caesar or not, if it had been agreed that one should not give it, or if it had been agreed that one should give it.

And see whether the facts of the history we have set out are not shown by the Pharisees, who wished to entrap Jesus in talk, sending their own disciples to ask about the census tax not alone but with the Herodians. For it is likely that among the people at that time those who taught that the tribute should be paid to Caesar were called Herodians by those who did not want this to be done, while those who, under a pretence of freedom, hindered the paying of tribute to Caesar were thought to be the Pharisees, who were exact in the teachings of the Jews. If someone does not want things to be so, let him explain how the Pharisees, wishing to entrap him in talk, send their own disciples, and send the Herodians too, to ask about the tribute. For what trap was there in Jesus’ answering whether he wished the census tax to be given to Caesar or not, unless, as we have explained, the Herodians would hand him over to the Romans as teaching revolt if he forbade giving the census tax to Caesar, while, if he permitted it, the Pharisees would accuse Jesus of regarding the person of men rather than teaching the way of God in truth? Test it for yourself: the disciples of the Pharisees, in saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God in truth, and you care for no one; for you do not regard the person of men,” were provoking him, as it were, by their praise not to show partiality to the Herodians and to those who took Caesar’s side, so that, declaring according to the Pharisees’ wish that tribute should not be given to Caesar, he might be handed over by them to the Herodians. See also the words: “But Jesus, perceiving their craftiness, said, Why do you test me, you hypocrites?” He knew, then, that he was being tested by the Pharisees, who came to him with craftiness so that, whatever he answered, they might plot against him on the strength of his answer. Let these things be said from the present Gospel on the passage, as regards the letter. With them the words of Mark and Luke on the same matters agree, as you can see by setting the Gospels side by side and examining them against one another; for no other meaning than this is stated by Matthew about the matters of the passage, and Mark’s is like Matthew’s. At the same time we are taught by our Saviour not to give heed, under the pretext of piety toward God, to what is said by the many and therefore seems reputable, but to what is established by examination and by the logic of reason. For notice that, when the question was whether one should give the census tax to Caesar or not, he did not simply declare his own opinion, but said, “Show me the coin of the census tax,” and asked whose image and inscription it bore; and when they said, “Caesar’s,” he answered that one must render to Caesar what is his when he asks for it, and not deprive him of his own under a pretence of piety. But surely it is not that one must render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, but not also to God the things that are God’s; and no one who renders to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s is prevented from rendering to God the things that are God’s.

One can interpret the passage figuratively as follows. We consist of soul and body (let it be put off for now to say that we consist also of spirit); and we owe certain things to be given, as a kind of tribute, to the ruler of bodies, who is called Caesar: the things necessary for the body, which bear the bodily image of the ruler of bodies. These are food, clothing, necessary rest, and sleep. And we owe other things, since the soul is by nature according to the image of God, to its king, God: the things that are beneficial and suited to the nature and substance of the soul. These are the ways that lead to virtue and the actions done in virtue. Those, then, who are taught the law of God do not hold the same opinions about the matters of the body and what is owed to it. Some do what corresponds to those who advise not giving the census tax to Caesar, afflicting the body as much as they can with fasts and vigils, and with complete abstinence from what serves the body and its necessary actions. Others besides these do not grasp the matters of the passage clearly, but imagine that the body too should be given its dues. But our Saviour, the Word of God, clearly separating the reasonable dues of the body from the dues of the soul, says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” For the tribute bears the image of Caesar and of bodily things, and this alone, and nothing more, we owe to the body.

I also know another interpretation of the passage that is current, of this kind. The ruler of this age is figuratively called Caesar, while the king of the ages, who is under no symbol, is everywhere named God. Since, then, we have certain things belonging to the ruler of this age, that is, the things of wickedness, and we cannot render to God the things that are God’s until we have put off all the things of wickedness and rendered to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, therefore the Saviour, when the coin and the image on it had been shown, says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Let us consider this too in connection with the passage: if ever we are tested by people who seek occasions against us, who put forward problems not to learn but to accuse us as far as they can, and we hear questions meant to test us, we ought neither to keep wholly silent nor to answer at random, but carefully and with circumspection, so as to cut off, as far as we can, the occasions sought by those who want occasions, and to teach blamelessly the things that save those who wish to be saved by listening. The Pharisees can be taken to stand for the teachers of the various Jewish traditions, and the Herodians for what among the many is considered the royal element of the Jews’ doctrines, as they are rather loosely called. From both, then, they ask the Saviour about the census tax; and he answers them, as we have explained. Yet since they wish not to learn by asking him, but to entrap him in talk and to test him, therefore, having heard his view on their question, and marvelling that he had given them no occasion to plot against him, they did not stay with him, as the disciples did; nor did they simply go away, as is written of others; but “they left him and went away.” And such are those who leave the Word, and disbelieve him, and depart from him after hearing him. One will not be wrong in saying of those who, after hearing, have turned away even from listening, that these “left Jesus and went away”; but we shall say the words of the bride: “I held him and did not let him go.” [On the Sadducees, who questioned Jesus about the woman who had had seven husbands.]