CONVERSATION 1

The Works of Our Holy Father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople

Commentary on St. Matthew the Evangelist

DISCOURSE I.

IN FACT, we ought not to have need of the help of the Scriptures, but ought to lead a life so pure that instead of books the grace of the Spirit may serve our souls, and that as they are written with ink, so our hearts may be written with the Spirit. But since we have rejected such grace, we will use at least the second way. And that the first way was better, God showed this both in word and deed. In fact, with Noah, Abraham and his descendants, as well as with Job and Moses, God did not converse through writing, but directly, because He found their minds pure. When the entire Jewish people had fallen into the very depths of wickedness, then the writings, the tablets, and the instruction through them had already appeared. And so it was not only with the saints in the Old Testament, but, as we know, in the New Testament as well. In the same way, God did not give the Apostles anything written, but promised to give the grace of the Spirit instead of the Scriptures. "This," He said to them, "will bring all things to your remembrance (Jn. XIV, 26). And so that you may know that this way (of God's communion with the saints) was much better, listen to what He says through the prophet: "I command you a new covenant, giving my laws in their minds, and I will write in their hearts, and all will be taught by God" (Jer. XXXI, 31-34; John. VI, 45). And Paul, pointing to this superiority, said that he had received the law (written) not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of the heart of flesh (2 Cor. III, 3). But since in the course of time some deviated from the true teaching, others from the purity of life and morality, the need for written instruction arose again. Consider, then, what folly it would be if we, who ought to live in such purity as to have no need of the Scriptures, but to present our hearts to the Spirit instead of books, if, having lost this dignity and having need of the Scriptures, we did not make proper use of even this second medicine.

How, then, when, and where was the ancient law given? After the destruction of the Egyptians, in the wilderness, on Mount Sinai, in the fire and smoke that came out of the mountain, at the sound of the trumpet, in the midst of thunder and lightning, after the entry of Moses into the very darkness. But in the New Testament it is not so: not in the wilderness, not on the mountain, not in the midst of smoke and gloom, darkness and storm, but at the onset of day, in the house, when all were sitting together, everything took place in deep silence. For coarse and unbridled people, sensual and striking phenomena were needed, such as the desert, the mountain, smoke, the sound of trumpets, and the like; but for people who were more exalted, more submissive, and who had risen above sensual concepts, there was no need of anything of the kind. If there was a noise over the apostles, it was not for their sake, but for the sake of the Jews who were present, for whose sake the tongues of fire also appeared. For if the latter nevertheless said [of the apostles] that they were filled with wine (Acts 2:11). II, 13), how much more would they have said so, if they had not seen anything of the kind. Further, in the Old Testament, God descended when Moses went up (Exod. XIX, 3); here the Spirit descended when our nature ascended to heaven, or rather, to the royal throne. If the Spirit had been less, the apparitions [that accompanied His coming] would not have been more majestic and miraculous, and yet the New Testament tablets are far more excellent than those of the Old Testament, as well as the events more glorious. In fact, the apostles did not come down from the mountain with stone planks in their hands, like Moses, but carrying the Spirit in their souls, and went about everywhere, exuding the treasure and source of teachings, spiritual gifts, and all good things, becoming by grace animated books and laws. Thus they drew three thousand, so five thousand, so all the nations of the world, because through their mouth God spoke to all who came to them. II, 41 and IV, 4). So Matthew, being filled with the Spirit of God, wrote a book, Matthew the publican; I am not ashamed to name him or the other apostles after their occupation, because this most of all reveals both the grace of the Spirit and their own virtue.

2. Matthew rightly called his work the gospel. In fact, he proclaims to all, to enemies, to the ignorant who sit in darkness, the end of punishment, the absolution of sins, justification, sanctification, redemption, adoption, the inheritance of heaven, and kinship with the Son of God. What can be compared with such evangelism? God is on earth, man is in heaven; all are united: the angels have formed one face with men, men have been united with angels and other heavenly powers.

Wherefore Matthew called his history the gospel, as if [to imply that] all other things, such as rich possessions, the majesty of power, principality, glory, honors, and all the rest that men esteem as good, are nothing but empty words, and the promises made through fishermen are to be called gospel in the proper and predominant sense. And this is not only because they are durable and permanent goods and surpass our dignity, but also because they are given to us without any difficulty on our part. Not by labor and sweat, not by effort and suffering, have we received what we have, but solely out of God's love for us. But why, we ask, with such a large number of disciples, only two of the apostles and two of their companions write, since besides John and Matthew, one disciple of Paul wrote the Gospels, and the other a disciple of Peter. Because they did nothing out of ambition, but everything for good. What then? Could not one evangelist have written everything? Of course he could; but when four people wrote, they did not write at the same time, not in the same place, without communicating or conspiring with each other, and yet they wrote as if everything had been uttered by the same mouth, this is the greatest proof of the truth.

And yet, you will say, the opposite happened, since they are often convicted of disagreement. But this is the surest sign of the truth. For if they had been in exact agreement in all things, in the time, in the place, and in the words themselves, none of the enemies would have believed that they had written the Gospels without agreeing with each other, and not by ordinary agreement, and that such agreement was the result of their sincerity. Now the disagreement that appears in trifles frees them from all suspicion and speaks brilliantly in favor of the writers. If they wrote something differently in relation to place and time, this does not in the least harm the truth of their narratives, which we will try to prove, with God's help, hereafter. Now we ask you to note that in the main thing, which is the foundation of our life and constitutes the essence of preaching, they nowhere disagree with one another. In what exactly? In the fact that God became man, worked miracles, was crucified, buried, resurrected, ascended to heaven and will come to judge; that He gave saving commandments, introduced a law that was not contrary to the Old Testament; that He is the Son, only-begotten, true, consubstantial with the Father, and so on. In all this we find complete agreement among the Evangelists. If, however, not everyone has said everything about miracles, but one has described some, the other others, then you should not be confused. If one evangelist had said everything, then the others would have been superfluous; if each had written different and new in comparison with the others, then the proof of their agreement would not have been obvious. That is why they said many things and together, and each of them chose something special, so as not to be superfluous, on the one hand, and to write without purpose, and on the other hand, in order to present us with a sure proof of the truth of his words.

3. Thus Luke also indicates the reason why he begins to write the Gospel. "That thou mayest have," he says, "of whom thou hast learned words, a confirmation" (Luke 1:11). I, 4), that is, that you may be convinced of what you have often been taught, and that you may be firmly convinced. John himself kept silent about the reason (for writing the Gospel by him), but, as the tradition that has come down to us from the Fathers says, he did not begin to write without reason. Since the first three Evangelists mainly tried to tell the story of Christ's earthly life, and the teaching about His divinity was in danger of remaining unrevealed, John, prompted by Christ, finally began to write the Gospel. This is evident both from the story itself and from the beginning of the Gospel. He does not begin with earthly things, like the other Evangelists, but with heavenly things, which he had in mind primarily and for this purpose he compiled the whole book. However, not only in the beginning, but throughout the Gospel, he is more exalted than the others. In the same way, Matthew, as they say, at the request of the believing Jews who came to him, wrote to them what he spoke orally, and composed the Gospel in the Hebrew language. Mark did the same, at the request of his disciples, in Egypt. That is why Matthew, as a writer for the Jews, did not try to show anything more than the descent of Christ from Abraham and David; while Luke, who wrote for everyone in general, raises the genealogy higher, reaching Adam. Then, the first begins with the birth of Jesus Christ, since nothing could be more pleasant for a Jew than to tell him that Christ is a descendant of Abraham and David, and the second does not begin in this way, but mentions beforehand many other events and then proceeds to the genealogy. As for the agreement of the evangelists, we can prove it both by the testimony of the whole universe, which has accepted their writings, and by the testimony of even the enemies of the truth themselves. After the Evangelists, many heresies were born, teaching contrary to their writings; some of them accepted all that was said in the latter, while others accept only a part, separating it from the rest. If there were disagreement in the writings of the Evangelists, then neither the heresies that assert the contrary to them would accept everything, but only that part which would seem to them to be in agreement, nor those who accepted only a part would be exposed by this part, since even the smallest parts in the writings of the Evangelists clearly reveal their affinity with the whole. Just as if you take, for example, a part of a rib, and in this part you find everything that makes up the whole animal, the nerves, the sinews, the bones, the arteries, and the blood, in a word, all the essential parts of the bodily composition, so in the Scriptures you can see the same thing: here also every part of what is written clearly shows the affinity with the whole. If the Evangelists had disagreed, then there would have been no such affinity, and their very teaching would have collapsed long ago, since any kingdom divided against itself will not stand (Matt. XII, 25; Mrk. III, 24). Now, if they have any disagreements, this only clearly reveals the power of the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), which persuades people that, holding on to what is necessary and essential, they should not be in the least embarrassed by trivial disagreements.

4. Where each of the Evangelists wrote, there is no particular need for us to deal with this question; but that they did not contradict each other, we shall endeavour to prove in all our interpretations. If you accuse them of disagreement, you do nothing else than make them speak in the same words and use the same way of expression. Not to mention the fact that many of those who boast of knowledge of rhetoric and philosophy, having written many books on the same subjects, not only disagreed, but also contradicted each other - for it is one thing to disagree, and another thing to contradict. Of this I do not speak: I have no need to use their foolishness for the defense (of the evangelists), and I do not want to confirm the truths with lies. But this is what I would gladly ask: how did the dissenting writings deserve faith? How did they win? How could people who contradicted one another deserve wonder, faith, and glory throughout the universe? Many were witnesses to their preaching; moreover, many were enemies and adversaries. Having written the Gospels, they did not hide them in one corner of the world, but spread them everywhere, on land and sea, in the ears of all; as now, they were read in the presence of enemies, and nothing that was said in them offended anyone. And quite naturally, because everything in everyone was produced and accomplished by the divine power. Otherwise, how could a publican, a fisherman, an unlearned man be so wise? What the pagan sages once could not even imagine in their dreams, they preach with great confidence and persuasiveness, not only in life, but also in death, not to two, not to twenty men, not to hundreds, not to thousands, not to tens of thousands, but to cities, tribes, and peoples, to land and sea, to Greece and barbarian countries, to the inhabited land and to the desert, proclaiming a doctrine far beyond our nature. Leaving earthly things, they speak only of heavenly things, offer us another life and a new way of life, another wealth and another poverty, another freedom and another slavery, another life and death, another world, another rule of life - everything is different. (They teach the rules of life) not in the same way as Plato, who composed the notorious "Politeia", or Zeno, and others who wrote about the social structure and made laws. All of them proved by their very works that their souls were inspired by an evil spirit, a fierce demon that fights against our nature, an enemy of purity, an opponent of good morals, and a destroyer of all order. For what else can be said of them, when they enjoined all to have wives in common, to show naked maidens to men during the lists, to marry furtively, when they had overthrown and destroyed all order, and perverted the statutes of nature itself? That all this is the invention of demons and contrary to nature, nature itself can testify to this, which does not tolerate anything like this. And they wrote about it not in the midst of persecution, not in the midst of dangers, not in the midst of strife, but with complete security and freedom, often using many other embellishments. And yet the preaching of fishermen, persecuted, scourged, and living in the midst of dangers, was eagerly accepted by simpletons and sages, slaves and freemen, barbarians and Greeks.

5. And you cannot say that the teaching of these fishermen was acceptable to everyone because it is unimportant and low. No, it is even much higher than the teaching of the philosophers. For example, they could not even think of virginity, for example, even of such a name, as well as of non-acquisitiveness, or fasting, or any other higher virtue. Meanwhile, our teachers not only eradicate lust, not only punish (criminal) action, but condemn shameless looks, insulting words, and obscene laughter, and clothing, and stepping, and shouting, and extend severity even to the slightest. Throughout the universe, they planted the seeds of virginity. Of God and the things of heaven they inculcate such notions as no philosopher could ever have imagined. And how could people who idolized images of beasts, reptiles and other contemptible creatures have such concepts? And yet such a high teaching (of the apostles) was accepted and deserved faith, flourishes to this day and grows every day, while the teaching of the philosophers has become obsolete, perished, disappeared like a spider's web. And quite rightly, since it was preached by demons. That is why, in addition to shamelessness, it presents much that is obscure and difficult to understand. What can be more ridiculous, for example, than that doctrine in which a philosopher, after spending thousands of words to show what justice is, still tries to explain the subject in a long and extremely obscure speech? If he had indicated something useful, then even this would have been completely useless for human life.

And our teaching is not like that. In brief and clear words, Christ taught us what is just, and honest, and useful, and every virtue in general. Thus He said, for example, that in the two commandments the law and the prophets hang (Matt. XXII, 40), that is, in love for God and neighbor, or again: if you will, let men do to you, and you do to them; For this is the law and the prophets (Matt. VII, 12). All this is comprehensible and easily comprehensible for the farmer, and for the slave, and for the widow, and even for the lad and the most foolish. Such is the truth! The proof is experience. Everyone really learned what to do, and not only did they learn, but they also tried to fulfill (what they had learned), and not in the cities, not only in the marketplaces, but also on the tops of the mountains. And there you will see great wisdom, and there shine the faces of angels in human flesh, and heavenly life appears on earth. The fishermen have drawn the way of this life for us, commanding us to take up (to teach it) not from childhood, as the philosophers did, and not to legislate a certain number of years for the study of virtue, but to instruct every age without exception. The teaching of the philosophers is child's play, and the teaching of the apostles is the truth itself. They appointed heaven as the place for this life, and recognized God as its leader and lawgiver, as it should be. The rewards for this life are not a laurel wreath, nor an olive branch, nor a feast in the Prytaneum,[1] nor brass images, nor such empty and useless things, but eternal life, adoption as sons of God, rejoicing with the angels, standing before the royal throne, and constant abiding with Christ.