Commentary on Matthew 17.33–17.35

Let these things, even if they seem to have been said by way of digression, stand as said for the clarification of the law given by Moses, which the Sadducees mentioned when they questioned the Saviour, saying, “Moses said, If a man dies having no children,” and so on. Come, then, after this let us examine the rest of the Gospel passage, from “Now there were seven brothers among us; and the first married and died,” and so on. Isaiah says in his prophecy: “Seven women will take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes; only let your name be called upon us; take away our reproach.” But the Sadducees who came to the Saviour speak, the reverse of the prophecy, of seven men who married one woman. Their problem seems to me to be a fiction: they proposed by means of the fiction to set aside the doctrine of the resurrection, thinking that it follows from the resurrection that each of those who rise has the same relation toward those to whom he was related in this life, so that the husband, on attaining the resurrection, also receives back his wife, the father remains in his relation to his son, and the brother to his brother. They did not know, then, that the Creator, who makes all things for usefulness, made such relations of necessity where there is birth and decay: so that a man, through a woman, may minister to the birth of children, and those who are born may have a certain kinship from their birth through the same parents, being brothers. Father and son, and mother and daughter, were the work of birth. If, then, those counted worthy of the prize because of the present age, in which they lived well, will be in that life of blessedness, and no one who has not contended here is counted worthy of the resurrection from the dead, plainly the things that were needed here because of birth will not be there; for God makes nothing superfluous, and nothing is done by him in vain. The Sadducees ought to have seen what follows from their supposition that each will receive back his own wife: that there would again be childbearing there, births of children, and deaths; and if these, diseases; and if births, then infancies, and progress from infancy to the completion of speech and later of reason, and with the completion of reason, wickedness, and virtue found again only rarely, among the few who seek it. What could be more vain than these things? Indeed it is better that there be no resurrection than that it be such as the Sadducees supposed, who took it that each person’s receiving back his wife follows from the resurrection from the dead, from which each of the things mentioned would also have followed. If, then, a new age is hoped for, and a new earth, and, as Isaiah named it, “a new heaven and a new earth,” and, as is written in the Gospel, “the cup of the new covenant,” from a new vine, I think, then all the things of the life there must be of another kind, and truly blessed. And just as, as reason has shown, it followed from there being wife and husband that there would also be children of fathers, and brothers of brothers, and mothers of those born; so perhaps it follows from there being no wife or husband that there will no longer be father and mother, nor some who are brothers of one another — perhaps not only regarding those to come, but also regarding those who have been? For there will no longer be any memory there of descent according to the flesh, among those who rightly hear the words, “Do not remember the former things, nor consider the things of old; behold, I make all things new.” Accordingly, in the age to come Terah will not be called father of Abraham, nor will Abraham be called father of Israel and of those born of Keturah, nor perhaps even of Isaac’s descendants; for … all things are new. But whether there is someone who is a brother in another way than according to the flesh, and a father and son otherwise than in the things of birth — no longer through a woman, nor through the unseemly parts of the body, but in a way analogous to the Saviour’s being the Son of God — the one able to inquire rightly into such great matters will consider, having received “the Spirit who searches all things, even the depths of God.” And I take this other kind, this sameness of name, as it were, not only in these cases — I mean brother, father, and son — but also concerning wife and husband. For in the resurrection of the dead it is true that “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven”; and true also is what is said as in a parable about a marriage of another kind than marriages on earth, in, “The kingdom of heaven is like a man, a king, who made a marriage feast for his son,” and so on; and in, “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins, who took their lamps,” and so on. The son of the king, then, in the resurrection of the dead, marries with a marriage beyond every marriage that eye has seen, and ear has heard, and that has entered the heart of man; and that venerable, divine, and spiritual marriage consists in unspeakable words, “which it is not lawful for a man to speak.” Someone will ask whether, corresponding to the bridegroom’s marriage in the resurrection of the dead, there are also other marriages, or whether in the resurrection of the dead the bridegroom alone, having abolished every marriage, marries with a marriage in which the two will not be one flesh, but in which it is more proper to say that the bridegroom and the bride are one spirit. But beware lest, on hearing such words, you slip into accepting the myth-making about the aeons, male and female, according to those who have fabricated their pairs, which are in no way shown by the sacred writings.

Since the Sadducees’ question about the seven brothers who had one wife needs no figurative interpretation, let us consider the Saviour’s words on these matters, in which he says: “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.” On this someone will ask questions such as these. In saying to the Sadducees, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God,” the Saviour indicates that it is established according to the Scriptures that in the resurrection of the dead there are no marriages, since those who will rise will be like the angels in heaven, among whom there is no marriage. What Scripture, then, shows that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage? And where in the law or the prophets do we learn of those who will rise that they will be like the angels in heaven? For we plainly do not find such things in the Old Scripture. According to Luke this question will not arise, since he recorded that the Saviour said, “The children of this age beget and are begotten, marry and are given in marriage,” and so on, and did not say anything to the Sadducees in this passage about these things being shown in the Scriptures; but according to Matthew it might be asked, and rightly also according to Mark. For according to him Jesus answered and said to the Sadducees, “Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.” Let each of those who have attended to our difficulty, then, seek from the Scriptures what establishes the Saviour’s words … about those after the resurrection. We, however, shall say this: that the Scriptures contain these things not word for word, nor so as to be understood by just anyone, but figuratively. “For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come,” though it legislated certain things about women and men and narrated righteous marriages, does not speak primarily about these things, as one might take it from the obvious wording, but about the things that we too set out before, when we adduced the passages about the Saviour’s marriage that will be in the age to come. For example, “Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman; and the one by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, the one by the free woman through the promise”: I need not in every respect stop at the sensible marriage of the free woman and the union with the slave woman, “for these things are allegorized.” But even if “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,” the saying is not to be heard as showing no mystery; “for this mystery is great,” and, as Paul says, refers to Christ and the church. And a little before, setting out the law about the woman married to the brother of her dead husband, we examined as well as we could the meaning of the law. There are also countless other laws about wife and husband, such as the law about the certificate of divorce, and about two wives belonging to one husband, one loved and the other hated, and about the captive woman married to the man who desired her, married after she has shaved her head and wept for her father and her mother in mourning clothes; each of these has its venerable and divine meaning in the true figurative interpretation that is found. If anyone, then, reading the law and going through what concerns the marriage of women and men, thinks that nothing more is shown than what is signified by the letter, “he is wrong, knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.”

One might ask whether “You are wrong, because you do not know the Scriptures,” said to the Sadducees, who accepted no Scripture other than the law, refers also to Scriptures other than the law of Moses. One person will say that the Sadducees are charged with precisely this, that by not accepting the Scriptures that come after the law they are wrong in not knowing them; another will say: to refute the Sadducees’ error it is enough that they did not know the Scriptures of Moses, in that they did not grasp the divine meaning in them. He says, however, that the Sadducees did not know two things: one, the Scriptures, and the other, the power of God, by which power the things of the resurrection come about, and the new life in it. One can also refer to the Saviour himself the saying that the Sadducees did not know the power of God either; since “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God,” and the Sadducees did not know him, as people who did not know the Scriptures about him, nor what he will minister to the resurrection from the dead of those who will be saved. But one who is not content to resolve by figurative interpretation the difficulty raised about “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God,” will do one of two things: either he will disbelieve the texts before us as not rightly recorded, on the ground that the Saviour would not have spoken of what is not written as written; or he will dare to disbelieve Jesus as not having spoken the truth. And a third might take refuge in the apocryphal writings, where the things about the blessed life seem to be written more clearly, and say that the words here, “You are wrong, because you do not know the Scriptures,” refer to them. See whether he will not fall into absurdities on every side by fleeing figurative interpretation. If he disbelieves the Scripture, he will act against the church’s teaching; if he disbelieves Jesus, he will be doing what a Jew according to the flesh would do; and if he takes refuge in the apocrypha, he will not come to anything agreed upon among believers. Therefore it seems to me that “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God; for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage” can be explained in no other way than through the corresponding allegory found in the Apostle in the Letter to the Galatians about the slave woman and the free woman, which will also be applied to the other Scriptures where something is said about husband and wife. And just as those err who, because they do not interpret the prophetic writings figuratively, think that after the resurrection we shall eat and drink bodily foods, since the words of the Scriptures contain such things, so also do those who keep to the letter what is written about marriages and husbands and wives, and think that we shall then too engage in sexual intercourse, on account of which it is not possible even to devote oneself to prayer, since those who engage in sexual relations are in a certain defilement and a kind of impurity. After this I ask whether “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” refers only to “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” or also to “but they are like the angels in heaven.” For I do not find where in Scripture those who will be saved are said to be like angels in heaven; unless someone will say that this too is shown in “But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age,” and “He was added to his people,” or in what is said in Deuteronomy about man as set by God in heaven and on earth; but you will find it if you examine the passage for yourself. Next one can look at the words, “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” To this too we shall say that, though the Saviour could have adduced countless passages from the prophets about the future life that awaits human beings, he did not do so, because the Sadducees accepted only the Scripture of Moses. From it he wished to put them to shame with a syllogism that shows something like this: God said to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” when he spoke to him at the bush. Either, then, God is God of those who are, or God of those who are not. But it is absurd to say that God, who said, “He who is: this is my name,” is God of those who in no way are. And if this is absurd, he is God of those who are, and live, and subsist, and perceive the grace that God gave them when he proclaimed himself their God and said, “This is my everlasting memorial.” Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob live, then, perceiving God and his grace, since he is called God of each of them individually. For it is not written, “I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob,” but, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”; and so Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded it, in order, I think, to show those who attend to the reading that God is God of each of them, granting them this as a special honour. For they were not like the Hebrews, so that God would be called their God collectively, as he is of the Hebrews; for of them it is written, “The God of the Hebrews has sent me,” but of these one by one, so that the Word may show that one Abraham is of equal honour with the whole nation of the Hebrews. For is not God equally God of Abraham and God of the Hebrews? And you will say the same about his being God of Isaac and God of Jacob as about his being God of the Hebrews. I think that Elijah too was counted worthy of such honour, which is why it is written in the fourth book of Kingdoms, “The God of Elijah.” Of Abraham, then, God was only God, and likewise of Isaac and of Jacob; but of our Saviour, who is greater than they, God is not only God but also Father. Therefore it is well said by the Apostle, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This Jesus Christ, whose God and Father is blessed, granted to his true disciples that the same one should be not only their God but also their Father; for, having risen from the dead, he says to Mary, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” And I think that he granted this also to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so that God should no longer be only their God, but now also their Father. Luke added to “He is not God of the dead, but of the living,” which stands also in Matthew and Mark, the words, “for all live to him.” This was no ordinary praise of the patriarchs, since our great Saviour bears witness to them not only that they live, but also that the life they live they live to God, and to no one else. This “for all live to him” it is good to practise in every way and for us to take up, so that we may all live to no one else but to God in Christ. Hearing this brief demonstration from the writings of Moses, given to those who accepted only those writings, that the patriarchs live, “the crowds were astonished,” receiving the Saviour’s teaching as most wise and able to turn to him even those who were slow to believe.