10. And behold one came to him and said, ‘Teacher, what good thing shall I do in order that I might attain eternal life?’, etc., up to, Many who are first will be last, and last first ^[147].

On the one hand, it is written in the Psalms, as though a man is capable of doing good, that, “The one who desires life, who loves to see good days? let your tongue cease from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit; turn away from evil, and do what is good” ^[148]. But here, to the one who says, What good thing shall I do in order that I might inherit eternal life?, the Savior says, Why do you ask me concerning what is good? There is one who is good ^[149], as though “good” is, properly speaking, applicable to no one other than God. We must understand that here [the term] “good” is used in its proper sense for God alone, but in other places by a misuse of language^[27] [is used] for good works, a good man, and a good tree. Indeed you will find that [the term] “good” is also used for many other things. One must not suppose that there is a conflict, therefore, between “Do what is good” and Why do you ask me concerning what is good? There is one who is good, which is said to the person who inquires and says, Teacher, what good thing shall I do? [For his part,] Matthew has recorded, What good thing shall I do?, as though the Savior was being asked concerning a good work, whereas Mark and Luke present the Savior as having said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God” ^[150] as though the term “good” applied to God may not be applied to any other thing. For God is not good in the same way that one might say that “a man [is] good” who brings forth good things “from the good treasure <of his heart>” ^[151].

The Savior indeed, since he is “the Image of the invisible God” ^[152], is thus also “the Image of his Goodness” ^[153]. But when it comes <to> any lesser thing, to which the term “good” is connected, this carries a different signification than when said about Him, since in relationship to the Father he is [the] “Image of goodness,” but in relationship to the remainder [of things], the reality of the Father’s goodness is [signified] in relationship to him. Or indeed, one can understand a certain appropriate analogy in the case of the goodness of God in relationship to the Savior who is “the Image of his goodness” rather than in the case of the Savior in relationship to a good man, a good work, and a good tree.^[28] For, insofar as he is “the Image of the goodness” of God himself, the supremacy [of goodness] in the Savior in relationship to those good things that are inferior is greater than the supremacy of God who is good in relationship to the Savior who says, “The Father who sent me is greater than me” ^[154], who is indeed [the] image of “the goodness” of God in relationship to other things. Perhaps it pertains to the intention of the things that have been spoken to [him who says], What good thing shall I do?, (to whom it was said, Why do you ask me concerning what is good? There is one who is good), that ^“Whenever you perform all the things appointed for you, you are obliged to say that we are unworthy servants; what we were obliged to do we have done” ^[155].^[29] For if we do everything appointed, we have not thus performed something good (in terms of the present passages). For, were we doing good things, it would not read that we must say upon the performance of the things appointed that “We are unworthy servants.” It involves a misuse of language to say that these things are good, in a way similar to, “Turn away from evil and do what is good” ^[156]. I think that the one who performs what is prescribed by, “Turn away from evil, and do what is good,” does good on the one hand as though in terms of the things accomplished by humans generally, but in terms of what is truly *** good.^[30] <And> just as “every living thing will not be justified before God” ^[157], with every human righteousness being reproved as not [truly] righteousness when the righteousness of God is contemplated, so in the same way everything which might be called “good” in relationship to inferior things by a comparison with these things, will in no way be termed “good” before the God who is good [τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θεοῦ].^^[31]

11. Someone might suggest that it is because the Savior knows that the state and free will of the person inquiring is completely deficient for performing the good attainable by humans that he responds to him (who inquires, What good shall I do?) with Why do you ask me concerning what is good?, saying in effect: You who are not equipped for the things communicated about the good would inquire about doing something good [that] you may inherit eternal life? Then he teaches that there is only One who is truly good, concerning whom the law indeed says, “Listen, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is <one>” ^[158], for He is properly Savior and properly Lord and properly good, Whom I am persuaded does all things as [One who is] good. You might inquire how even those things are redolent^[32] of his goodness which the people do not understand who, so far as it is up to them, slander the God of the law and bring accusation against him, which things it is not easy to speak about succinctly as regards humanity. For I am persuaded that God’s goodness is expressed through “I kill,” no less than through, “And I cause to live,” similarly also through “I will smite” no less than through “And I will heal” ^[159]. If indeed “he causes [one] to be in pain” ^[160], one must understand that a physician also works by causing pain in numerous ways. And after God causes pain, “he again restores” ^[161]. So also, those whom he strikes, “he strikes” from [his] goodness : “For God deals with” those whom he instructs “as with sons;^[33] for what son is there whose father does not instruct him?” ^[162]. But indeed, “all instruction in the present does not seem to be joyous but grievous; yet afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been exercised through it” ^[163]. Wherefore, as God strikes, so he also heals, for in truth, “He strikes, and his hands heal” ^[164]. Even if what is recorded is paradoxical, nevertheless it indicates: <What is itself> named <his> “anger” <is indeed> of a good God, (<who>^[34] while reproving, effects the work of salvation), and what is called his “wrath” instructs (since it is from a good God), <in order that he might set [things] aright>.^[35] One could say many things to those who are capable of not being harmed [by them] concerning [the] goodness of God and “the fullness of his kindness,” which with good reason “he hid for those who fear him” ^[165], in order that they might not store up for themselves a greater “wrath,” having despised “the wealth of his kindness, and forbearance, and longsuffering,” according to their own “hardness and unrepentant heart” ^[166], which [wrath] they would not have stored up with the “fullness of the kindness” of God hidden for them.^[36] On the one hand, let one consider what we have been able to understand about this passage, concerning who is the good one, and in relationship to, What good thing shall I do?

12. But next one might contemplate how it is said that, ^If you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments. You will take note in this [text] that he speaks to the one who inquires concerning the “good” as though he is still outside of life [when he says], If you desire to enter into life. At this point I could inquire as to how many ways there is to understand [what it means] to be outside of life and to enter into life. Perhaps, then, with respect to one figure, he is outside of life who exists outside of him who says, “I am the life” ^[167], being a foreigner to him. According to another [figure], everyone on earth (even though he be most righteous) is able to be in the shadow of life— saying, “The Spirit of our face is [the] Christ Lord,” “about whom we say, ‘In his shadow we will live among the nations’” ^[168]—but not in life itself seeing that he is surrounded by the “body of death” and says, “Who will deliver me from the body of death?” ^[169], and he is “sitting in the region and shadow of death” ^[170] and has not as yet come to the land of the living. For the life not only of those who are inferior, but also of Paul and of the apostles while still one earth, is hidden in God. Indeed he says, “Your life has been hidden with Christ in God;^^[37] whenever Christ may appear, [who is] our life, then indeed you will be revealed with him in glory” ^[171]. You should observe all the things [said in Scripture] concerning “inside” and “outside,” in order that you might gather up corresponding things for If you desire to enter into eternal life, as for example, “Beseech therefore the Lord of the harvest, in order that he might cast out workers into his harvest” ^[172]. For you should inquire: “he might cast out” from where? Since indeed the workers here are cast out into the harvest of the Lord, they are outside of the region from which they were cast out. After performing the works of the harvest effectively, they will enter into life, having been cleansed “from dead works” ^[173] and practicing the living works opposite to them, and who are no longer speaking dead things, but are saying <living> and active things in accordance with the living word “of God” ^[174]. In this way there is an equivalence between <dead> words and opposing <words> of eternal life *** [and the] thoughts which accuse, when “with thoughts accusing or even defending” ^[175] in the day of judgment, he will be saved by what the thoughts defend, but he will perish from what the thoughts accuse. If, then, we also desire to enter into life, we must listen to Jesus who says, If you desire to enter into life, keep the commandments ^[176], and we, according to the proportion of [our] keeping the commandments, might enter into life, whether coming into its most inward and blessed parts, or <to the middle parts, or> wherever the keeping of the more insignificant and more obscure commandments of life brings us.

13. Having heard [Jesus’ response], Keep the commandments ^[177], he replies, Which ones? ^[178], so that we might learn which ones are the more important commandments Jesus desires us to keep. For to [the question] Which ones?, [Jesus] replies, You will not commit adultery; You will not murder; You will not steal; You will not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother, and, You will love your neighbor as yourself ^[179]. ^Perhaps <these> [commandments] are in fact sufficient for someone to enter into the beginning of life (if I may name it such), while these [commandments] and others similar to them are not sufficient <to bring someone into> perfection, since the one who is guilty of one of these commandments is not even able to enter into the beginning of life. The person who desires to enter into the <beginning of> life must keep himself clean from adultery, murder, and all theft. For as an adulterer and murderer will not enter into life, nor also will the person who steals. There are many who are said to believe in Christ who are guilty of such sin, and are being put to shame in [their] dealings in life, for they are not innocent of theft with the material wealth they are entrusted or in the secular occupations^[38] in which they work.^^[39] But it is not only the thief who will not enter into life, but also his partner, and the one who goes together with him, for on the one hand it is written in Isaiah, “Partners of thieves, loving bribes” ^[180], but on the other hand, in the 49th Psalm he is hindered from recounting “the righteous deeds” of God and from taking up his “Covenant” on his own lips ^[181], being reproved in the passage, “If you observed a thief, you were running along with him” ^[182] (just as it was first said) and, “With adulterers you established your portion” ^[183]. <Note that> he calls this person neither a thief nor an adulterer, but one who runs together with the thief and who establishes his own “portion with adulterers.” The person who would enter into life must not bear false witness, and he who does not fulfill the commandment which says, Honor your father and mother, will be cast out of life. But, on the one hand, perhaps it is not at all difficult to master these commandments equally, yet <with all> that was introduced to him from the first <commandments> there is a work that is greater and more beneficial to fulfill [than the first], namely, You will love your neighbor as yourself, since also according to the Apostle, “You will not murder; You will not commit adultery; You will not steal; and if there is some other commandment, it is summed up in this word, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself’” ^[184]. <If indeed every commandment “is summed up in this word, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself,’”> and he is perfect who fulfills every commandment, then clearly he would be perfect who <indeed> fulfills the commandment, You will love your neighbor as yourself.

14. But if this person is perfect, someone might inquire how, after the young man says, All these things I have kept from my youth; what yet do I lack? ^[185], the Savior answers, If you desire to be perfect, go, sell your substance and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; also, come, follow me ^[186], as though [the young man] were not <yet> perfect in performing all these things, and as though agreeing with [the young man’s statement], “All these things I have done.” Consider, therefore, whether we could approach the present inquiry in one manner as follows, that perhaps [the text] You will love your neighbor as yourself may be suspected of not having been expressed^[41] here by the Savior, but has been added by someone42 who does not understand the precision of the things said. The text of similar things by Mark and Luke supports the suspicion that You will love your neighbor as yourself has been added here, since neither of them have added You will love your neighbor as yourself to the commandments expressed by Jesus in this passage. Indeed, the one who maintains that the commandment, You will love your neighbor as yourself, has been included inopportunely might say that, if the same things were recorded by the Three [Gospels] with different readings, Jesus would not then have said, “One thing is lacking for you” ^[187], or “One thing still remains for you” ^[188], to the person who was announced to have fulfilled the commandment, You will love your neighbor as yourself. Even more [is this the case], if according to the Apostle, “You will not murder,” and <following, “and> if there is another commandment, it is summed up in this word, ‘You will love your neighbor as yourself.’”^[43] But since also according to Mark’s account, “after observing” this wealthy person (who says, “All these things I have observed from my youth” ^[189]), [Mark says,] “he loved him” ^[190], [Jesus] seems to have agreed with him <who was announced> as having performed the things he announced to have fulfilled. For after looking intently to his mind, he saw a man who, in good conscience, announces of having fulfilled the present commandments. Mark and Luke would not have omitted the chief-most and excelling commandment, You will love your neighbor as yourself, from what was said in addition to the other commandments, unless someone might say that similar things have been recorded, but are not said concerning the same [person]. How indeed could Jesus say, If you desire to be perfect, go, sell your substance and give to the poor ^[191], etc., to him, as though he were not yet perfect, who is announced as having fulfilled the commandment, You will love your neighbor as yourself, in addition to the other [commandments]?

Indeed, except for the fact that there are disagreements in many other passages in the copies, such that all the [copies] for Matthew do not agree with one another—as is the case with the rest of the Gospels—one might seem to be impious in suspecting that here the commandment, You will love your neighbor as yourself, has been added incidentally [προσερρίφθαι] and that the Savior did not in fact say this to the rich man. Now it is clear that many differences in the copies have come about either from the lazy indifference of certain scribes, or the misguided daring of some, <or from those neglectful> of the correction of the things written, or even from those who, in [their] correction, <either> added or subtracted those things according to their own opinions. The disagreement, then, in the copies of the Old Testament, we found to be cured, with God’s help, when making use of the rest of the copies as a criterion. For, with the doubtful matters in the LXX arising from the disagreement of the copies, we made a judgment from the rest of the editions, [and] we preserved the agreement among them, and we marked with an obelus those [passages] <as> not found in the Hebrew (not daring to remove them completely), and we added other [passages] along with an asterisk, in order that it might be clear that we have added passages not found in the LXX from the rest of the editions in agreement with the Hebrew [text].^[44] Indeed, he who so wishes may ac<c>ept these things, but to one whom this matter causes offense he may do what he wishes (concerning their acceptance, or not). The person, then, who desires not to cast aside here the commandment, You will love your neighbor as yourself, but to [take it as] having truly been said by the Lord at that time after the first [commands], he might say that our Savior, desiring to gently and ungrudgingly reprove this rich person as not having truly kept the commandment that was spoken, You will love your neighbor as yourself, says to him, If you desire to be perfect, go, sell your substance, and give to the poor. For in this way the truth would appear concerning [his] having kept the commandment, You will love your neighbor as yourself.

15. If someone, looking with human weakness, as though it were difficult for someone to do such things for the sake of the perfection in God, might despise the [literal] text, but turns away from allegory [as well], he will be put to shame by certain Greek histories, in which certain ones, because of Greek wisdom, are recounted to have performed what the Savior here tells the rich man [to do]. For they say that when Crates of Thebes, who for the sake <of his soul’s> freedom and an example of the simple life, and (as he was supposing) desiring to present himself to the Greeks as blessed by making use of nothing <“of this world”>—undertook to commit all his substance to be given to the Theban people, upon which time he said, “Today Crates sets Crates free.”^[45] Now, if someone can do such a thing as freeing the soul of man through Greek wisdom and teaching, how is it not more possible that someone might <attain> the perfection <of Christ in> himself by being mindful of practicing these things? If someone also desires to be persuaded from the divine Scripture concerning what it is that makes this possible, let him listen to those things recorded by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles concerning those who were persuaded by the power in the Apostles to believe and to live perfectly according to the word of Jesus. He records the matter in this way: “And all those who believed [were] together [and] had all things in common” ^[192], etc. up to, “Praising God, and having favor towards all people” ^[193]. Again in the same book, it is written a little farther down that, “The whole group of those who believed was one in heart and soul” ^[194], etc., up to, “He brought [his] property and set [it] before the Apostles” ^[195]. Then there follows the [incident] concerning Ananias and Sapphira, who handed over their own “property,” but kept back “part of its value,” and set only part of it, not the whole thing before the feet of the Apostles, and the things they suffered because of this sin are recorded. For they were deserving to receive the divine visitation because of their sin of keeping back, in order that they might depart from <this> life in a purer state, having been purified by the discipline befalling them in [their] common death, because they had both believed and had set “some part at the feet of the Apostles.”

It seems to me that “Ananias hearing these words” is the reason “he fell and expired” ^[196], since he did not bear the reproof <of Peter,> but being examined to such a degree he was punished so as to expire, when the words of Peter came down upon his soul. Yet one must not suppose that Peter here kills Ananias, but that he could not endure the vehemence of what Peter says to him: “Why has Satan filled your heart?” ^[197], etc., up to, “And a great fear came upon all those who heard” ^[198]. It is likely that someone will object to [our] explanation of Ananias, about which we have spoken in defense concerning Peter, on account of Sapphira,^[47] since she “came in without knowing what had happened. Peter addressed her, saying, ‘Is such the price for which you sold the field?’ She replied, ‘Such it is.’ Peter then said to her, ‘Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of those who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” For, she also “immediately fell at his feet and expired” ^[199]. But one might say that this woman, being reproved and weighed down in soul (whether by the reproof because of [her] sin, or by the conspiracy with her husband and her grief concerning him, or her grief in relationship to God), “expired,” with Peter having foreseen the encounter^[48] with her by the Spirit. We have said all of these things in the desire to show that the ability does exist for those who desire it to become perfect, having been persuaded by what Jesus says, Go, sell your substance, and give to the poor. It seems to me, also, that those excellent men who have the characteristic marks of the bishop are to urge those who are able and are persuaded by [Jesus’] exhortation to this work, and to encourage others unto this because they hold the provisions from the community. For this happened as a kind of image of the harmonious life for those who believe in accordance with the apostles.

16. ^One might inquire <consequently>, since he is perfect who has all the virtues and no longer practices <anything> connected to vice, how it is that he might become perfect who sells his own substance and gives it to the poor. For should you present someone having done this, how might he become anger-free as a consequence, if he be easily susceptible to anger? How without grief, and better able to endure all such things which are able <to> evoke grief? How will he be beyond all fear, of that which concerns trials, or of death, or of those things such as are able to bring fear to the as-yet unperfected soul? Will the person who gives away [his] substance in such a fashion, and gives to the poor, be free from all desire?^[49] For one might say that the ability to give away all one’s substance by itself could produce a certain kind of human suffering from poverty leading one to, on the one hand, repent of having done such a daring thing, and on the other to desire possessions equivalent [to that which was given away]. And if indeed that which is called pleasure, being an irrational impulse of the soul, is a passion, how might one give away all substance and give to the poor at one time, and at the same time be released from being impelled irrationally? Someone may also add a question, as to how one is able by having given away one’s substance and given to the poor to become wise <and to receive> the wisdom of God, so as to offer a reason to each one who asks concerning the faith that is in him ^[200], concerning each of those things which have been believed, and concerning those things spoken in a hidden fashion in the holy Scriptures? Take note that this line of questioning is truly genuine and not easily resolved. For were we to say that someone has become perfect through this [act] alone, even if he be not connected to the things we have outlined [above], we would be confronted by a paradox in saying that someone is at the same time perfect and a sinner (for the irascible man is a sinner, as is the one who grieves the grief of the world, and the one who fears tribulations or death, and <who> desires things that are absent, and <who> irrationally impels the soul to things that are not good as though they were good). At the same time, were we to say that someone, by selling a substance [τὴν οὐσίαν] and giving it to the poor, assumes all the virtues even becoming inspired of God, as it were, and puts away all vice from himself, we would be speaking with credulity (if I may speak in a more common manner), but I do not know if truly. Perhaps indeed those who hear this explanation for the difficulty raised will mock us, as though we speak without prudence.

17. ^Someone, who keeps to the letter and in no way offers a figurative reading of the [contents] of the passage, might seem <to speak> more prudently, offering a rejoinder in this way, as though credulous, but if the things said are worthy or not of the thoughts according to the passage, indeed you yourself will judge. One may say therefore that, since he who distributes to the poor is assisted by their prayer for his own salvation, receiving for his own lack <of spiritual things> an abundance of spiritual things from those who are lacking bodily things (as the Apostle indicated in the second [letter] to the Corinthians ^[201]), might it be that someone else could experience the same thing and be assisted greatly by it, with God hearkening unto the prayers of those who have found rest in such poverty—[that] among such people there may perhaps be those who are similar to the Apostles though a little inferior to them, people who are poor in bodily things, as were [the Apostles], but who are wealthy in spiritual things?^[50] This person then who accepts poverty in exchange for wealth for the sake of becoming perfect (having been persuaded by the words of Jesus) might be assisted quickly, as indeed the Apostles of Christ [were], so as to become wise in Christ, and courageous, and righteous, and modest, and free of all passion. One who defends such an [interpretation] may say that one need not suppose that this [perfection] happened to him on the same day he sold [his] substance and gave [it] to the poor, but perhaps from that day God’s providential care would begin to direct him to such things, what I would call the praiseworthy impassibility [τὴν ἐπαινετὴν ἀπάθειαν] and every virtue. Advancing as did Isaac on account of the assistance from God given him in Christ, he will become “greater, until such time as” he has increased “greatly,” he may become “exceedingly abundant” in every virtue ^[202], with every shred of vice having been destroyed from his soul. And the person who would offer this explanation is not constrained to say that the man becomes perfect by this [act] itself <, [namely] that he gave his substance over to the poor,> while sinning in other matters.

18. Another person (I do not know if he is abounding in faith <and> in imagination so as to make the journey across with prudence, nor do I know if he has the stature to seek something and to find in these passages concepts worthy of God) will ascend to a figurative reading, leaving behind the literal level, and will say that there is a substance for each person which accrues to him after the departure [τὴν ἔξοδον],^[51] such that among the substances there is a good substance for the righteous, but for the bad the opposite [substance]. Here therefore one might say that the wealthy person who has many possessions is a symbol of the one who possesses many bad things, among which there may possibly be the love of wealth, vainglory, and other earthly matters which have filled his soul with blameworthy wealth. Since therefore it is possible that at that time the wealthy person, as it were, was containing certain bad things such as adultery, murder, theft, bearing false witness, but was also rendering the proper respect to his parents, and had a certain philanthropy toward [his] neighbor, even though not perfect, the Savior in symbolic fashion enjoins this person to distribute <all> the wretched substance, indeed as if to hand over these things to powers who put them to use, who are destitute of every good thing, and because of this do not submit to a threat, in accordance with what is written, “A poor person is not subjected to a threat” ^[203]. But I know well that such an interpretation seems to be exceedingly forced, suggesting on the one hand that those who are lacking concerning perfection are not sordid, and on the other hand in no way persuading [the reader] how <this one who st>ores up vice and distributes the substance from vice and gives to the poor is to be understood.

<I would add, as though> being preoccupied with this passage: he who sets forth this opinion might say that the sinner has been filled with spirits on analogy to [his] sins, in the manner that, if one is a fornicator, there is what is called in the prophets a “spirit of fornication” ^[204], and if one is irascible, there is a spirit of wrath ^[205], and just as if one is a slanderer, [there is] a spirit of slander. When someone bad acquires these substances, therefore, he also becomes “more complex than Typhon”^[52] by participation in bad spirits. Just as he acquired these things, after purchasing [them] with a free will yielded to inferior things, so also he might sell <them and give> to those whom this passage means by [the] poor because he has been persuaded by Jesus. For as “the peace” of the apostles comes back around to them, unless the one who hears “Peace to you” happen to be a “son of peace” ^[206], so also fornication, and the sins come back around to the poor who are responsible for the sins. And there is no doubt in the case of the person who <immediately> becomes perfect by selling all the substance which is distributed and gives to the poor. But if he distributes the substance over much time and requires much time to give that [substance] to those whom we are calling [the] poor, [then] the word would in no way be hindered (according to the analogy of the things he has distributed to the poor) which gives time to the one who does these things to become perfect. Clearly, the one who does these things will have treasure in heaven, even he himself becoming heavenly. For on the one hand, “as is the earthy one (clearly the evil one), so also are those who are earthy, and as is the heavenly one (that is, the Christ), so also are those who are heavenly” ^[207]. In his portion of heaven, therefore, he who desires to be perfect and sells all substance, and gives to the poor will have treasure. But do not suppose that such a person will be able to be found wealthy in the things of this life. For who stores up their love of wealth and (if I may put it in such a way) [their] love of the world? Does anyone store up the spirit of vainglory, in order that he might hold in his own heaven the treasure of God’s glory, and of the wealth of God in all speech and all wisdom ^[208]? Who stores up the spirit of concupiscence and of fear, of pleasure and of wrath? For beloved by the apostles <and those similar to them> is such a one who is careful to give an account of matters with a love for truth. This one indeed is able to follow Jesus, who (as we have discussed) distributes all things and has treasure in heaven, for he is not encumbered by some miserable possession such that he might not follow Jesus.

19. Following these things it is said that, <But> when the young man heard the word, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions ^[209]. You will indeed see (as relates to the anagogical sense), in what way we have become hard to tear away from thinking that the wealth, or the glory below, is good. But also, since we love desire, we rather want to attain those things that are even desired wrongly than to be delivered from desire, and [we want] not to fall into those fears we imagine rather than to lay aside the hostile fear for the fear of God.^[53] But he was not introduced as an elder in a mature state, nor [as] a man doing away with “the things of an infant” ^[210], but [as] a young man who heard the word and went away grieving. For such is [the state of his] soul, since indeed after leaving Jesus he went away (for it is said for blame that, he went away) and he went away grieving the grief that is “of the world,” which produces “death” ^[211]. For he had many possessions which he loved, loving to be angry and to grieve (since he went away grieving) and such things <having been begotten by him> from vice which had become master over his soul. If then one remains at the historical sense with regard to the explanation of things previously set forth, you would find half a measure of praise and half a measure of blame extended to this young man. For on the one hand in so far as he was not committing adultery, nor murdering, nor stealing, nor bearing false witness, but also, being yet a young man, he honored his father and mother,^[54] and was grieved at the teachings [λόγοις] Jesus set forth about perfection and which promised it [to him] if he would give away his substance, there was something honorable in him. On the other hand, insofar as he went away from Jesus grieving on account of possessions, he was blameworthy for he should have rejoiced that instead of these [possessions] he would have had treasure in heaven, even following Jesus so as to travel in the footsteps of [the] son of God.^[55]

20. After he went away, Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Truly, I say to you that a wealthy person will enter with difficulty into the kingdom of the heavens’ ^[212]. For this [passage] one must give close observation as to the Savior’s precise wording that has been recorded. For he did not say that a wealthy person will not enter into the kingdom of the heavens, since if he had said such a thing, he would have <completely> excluded the wealthy person from the kingdom of the heavens. Rather, he says that a wealthy person will enter with difficulty. On the one hand, after presenting the difficulty for the salvation of the wealthy person, not <the> impossibility ***, which the passage at hand has displayed on the literal level, with wealthy people being able with difficulty to resist the passions and the sins, and not to be completely caught by these things. On the other hand, if one might take up a figurative understanding of <the> wealthy person, you will inquire how it is that he will enter with difficulty into the kingdom of the heavens. The parable demonstrates the difficulty of the <wealthy person’s> entrance <into salvation> either way he is understood, with It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a wealthy person to enter into the kingdom of the heavens ^[213]. In this parable, on the one hand, the wealthy person is compared to a camel, not only on account of the uncleanness of the animal, as the law taught ^[214], but also <on account of> its complete crookedness. On the other hand, the kingdom of the heavens [is compared] to an eye^[57] of a needle, for an example of something that is exceedingly narrow and as a hyperbole of the constricted entrance [there is for] each wealthy person into the kingdom of the heavens. It indicates that, on the one hand, <as> it is impossible of itself for the camel to enter through the eye of a needle, <but such a thing is possible with God, in the same way also it is an impossible thing as such for a wealthy person to enter into the kingdom of the heavens>. But on the other hand, all things are possible for God, and this thing is possible for Him, <either> by an ineffable power reducing the thickness of the bad [wealthy person], or by making the narrowness of the entrance passable for him. For that he presents the eye and the camel as an example of the difficulty, but not of the impossibility, of entering into the kingdom of the heavens for the wealthy person is clear from what is said to the disciples (who say, Who then can be saved?): This is impossible for humans, but for God all things are possible ^[215]. Therefore, as it is certainly possible <with God> for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, but not possible with humans, in the same way also is [it the case with] the wealthy person [entering] into the kingdom of God. The methods of how God might make such things possible, His Christ himself knows and the one to whom His Son might reveal [it] ^[216].

He, therefore, who has progressed in wisdom and reason might dare [to add] something fuller to the explanation concerning the needle and its eye. Let us venture something of this sort: That there are certain things in the law which come into existence by the skill of an embroiderer who uses a needle, in order that <someone> might perform works according to the wisdom of God with the trade which he has taken up. So, therefore, this needle may be understood as the works of the embroiderer, and the things that have been said about it will also be understood [in this way]—which it is perhaps beyond us now to speak and to clarify, but even perhaps for one who would understand, it would involve a long and untimely digression. Of the two things at hand, the camel entering through the eye of a needle and the wealthy person [entering] into the kingdom of God, he says that the first is easier. And you might inquire among men as to whether it has ever <happened> that a camel enters through the eye of a needle, and whether a wealthy person (in a way impossible for men but possible for God) has entered into the kingdom of God. In the same way also for the camel and for the eye of the needle, [you might inquire] what sort of camel might be found and what sort of an eye of a needle might be understood, such that it will enter through it. For even this, while impossible for men, is possible with God. Whether or not it indicates these things and presents such supreme mysteries, which indeed lead to <some> end through certain ways which are possible for God alone, let the one who is able make careful inquiry.

21. Next there is [for us] to look into the things concerning, Then Peter answered and said to him, ‘Behold we have left everything behind, and have followed you. What then will there be for us?’ ^[217]. Someone might indeed keep these things according to the letter, but someone else who disparages the [level] of the letter, as though not noble-natured, will offer a figurative reading. The person, therefore, who sides with the letter will say such things: ^Just as with a gift, God justifies not what is given, but the free choice <of the one who gives>, and accepts <even more> the one who gave something smaller but with a more perfect free choice, than the one who [gave] something greater from greater things yet with a more inferior disposition—(as indicated from the things recorded previously concerning the <large> gift of the wealthy, and of the two copper coins, which the widow put into the treasury on account of poverty) ^[218]—in the same way also for those who, on account of the love for the Divinity, forsake what they have acquired, in order that they might follow the Christ of God without distraction, who put into practice all things in accordance with his word: it is most assuredly not the case that the person who forsakes a greater amount of things is more acceptable than [he who forsakes] fewer, and especially when someone happens to forsake fewer things with the whole soul, than the person who seems to have despised a greater number of things. Even if it was something small and paltry that Peter had forsaken along with his brother, Andrew, when they both heard, “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of humans; immediately, leaving their nets, they followed him” ^[219], yet God does not reckon this a small thing for He considers that they had done this from such a state, [such that it is] as if they indeed had many possessions and abundant substance, so that nothing was held back by them, nor was their inclination by which they desired to follow Jesus impeded.^^[58] And Peter, being confident (I think) on the basis of free decision rather than the material of the things he had forsaken, speaks out boldly and says to Jesus, Behold, we have left everything behind and have followed you. What then will be for us? ^[220]. We are probably to understand that he had forsaken not only his nets, but also house and wife, whose mother wished to be delivered from the fever when Jesus attended [to her] ^[221]. Someone might suppose that it is possible that he also had abandoned his children, and perhaps a certain amount of property as well.

Something great, therefore, is indicated about Peter and his brother, since after hearing, “Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of humans,” they in no way hesitated, [but] “immediately left their nets and followed him,” not imitating the person who said, “But first permit me to return to my house, and bid farewell to those in my house” ^[222], nor doing something similar to the person who said, “Permit me first to return and bury my father” ^[223]. Attend with care as well that those who were struck so remarkably by the command of Jesus and his promise, and who believed that, having forsaken a small fishing practice, they were about to hunt [as] fishers of men for salvation, and were wounded, as it were, by this [promise] unto Jesus and by the philanthropic ministry which he had promised to them [that] they were about to hunt humans, “immediately leaving their nets behind,” and as if forgetting domestic things, “they followed him,” such that Peter had become worthy by this very impulse <to> be held in high repute and to have said what was mentioned before. At the same time one must observe that Peter said this after he considered the statement Jesus made, “If you desire to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me” ^[224]. After observing the young man who heard [this] and went away with grief, since he had preferred the many earthly possessions than to becoming perfect in God, and after understanding also the difficulty for the wealthy person to enter into the kingdom of the heavens, [Peter] says the things at present, as if his having forsaken all things and having followed Jesus was also not an easy thing for him to do. Wherefore to Peter who spoke with boldness, the Savior answers by introducing the great promise concerning Peter, that in the future he would become one of the judges of Israel.

22. He who despises the literal text <as though> not sufficient to persuade a hearer with a more noble nature, as with other texts of Scripture which contain something revered in an anagogical sense, might say such things, that this [passage], Behold, we have left everything behind, and have followed you ^[225], with a little net having been abandoned, and a poor house, and a laborious life in poverty, <is> in no way something <great nor> is it worthy to be recounted of so great a disciple, to whom “flesh and blood did not reveal” that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” “but” his “Father in the heavens,” and to whom it is said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” ^[226]. But perhaps the things <pro>pounded before in [our] explanation of Go, sell your substance, etc., are beneficial <and true> for the passage at hand. For Peter left all the things behind about which he was a sinner and on account of which he said, “Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man” ^[227]. Great was the commendation of him who was so bold because he was no longer sinning to say, We have left everything behind, and not only have we forsaken inferior things, but also We have followed you. This we have followed you could be equivalent to: When the Father revealed to us <all together, as to Peter,> who you are, indeed that you are righteousness, we have followed you, inasmuch as you are righteousness, just as also holiness, wisdom, peace, truth, the way which brings one to God, and true life. Since, as a victo<rious ath>lete inquires of the contest judge after the contest, if he might not present the prizes for the contest, [Peter] inquires of the Savior, speaking with openness because of [his] manly deeds, What then will be for us? If indeed we also desire to apply to ourselves the things said in regard to Peter and his question, let us leave all things behind in a similar fashion, no longer clinging to vice and the operation in accordance with it, and let us follow the word of God, in order that he might say to us and to all who have followed him the following things which read in this way: Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, that you who have followed me’ ^[228], etc. In fact, this passage itself has a simpler, protreptic meaning with regards to forsaking substance, and another, deeper [meaning] beyond that. He, therefore, who interprets the passage of the Gospel according to the letter will say such things: the word is <not> speaking about all who follow Jesus, but it names <those who follow himself> the apostles at that time and <those> who follow him persistently in a manner similar to them. And he indicated those who come from a later time <by>, And everyone who has left behind brothers or sisters ^[229], etc. But since this is a forced explanation of what it means “to follow,” someone will refute [it] by mentioning all things that have been said about [what it means] “to follow” in, “The one who does not take up his cross, and follow behind me, he is not worthy to be my disciple” ^[230].

^*Those, then, who have followed the Savior will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Indeed they will receive this authority in the resurrection of the dead, for this is the regeneration, which is a certain new beginning, when a new heaven and a new earth ^[231] is created for those who renew themselves, and the New Covenant is handed over, and its cup.*^[59]

23.^[60] The introduction to this regeneration (παλιγγενεσίας)^[61] is what Paul calls the “washing of regeneration” ^[232], <which is a mystery> of that newness which comes after the washing of regeneration in the “renewal of spirit.” Perhaps in respect to birth (τὴν γένεσιν), on the one hand, “there is no one pure from uncleanness, even if his life be one day long” ^[233], on account of the mystery which concerns birth, about which [mystery] each of those who have come from the beginning may say what is said by David in the 50th Psalm, which reads that “in transgressions I was brought forth, and in sins my mother craved after me” ^[234]. But, on the other hand, everyone is “pure from uncleanness” who is begotten “from above” “from water and spirit,” according to the regeneration [that comes] from washing, so that I might dare to say, [he is] pure “through a mirror” and “in an enigma” ^[235]. But in accordance with the other regeneration, whenever the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory ^[236], each one who has come unto that regeneration in Christ is completely pure “from uncleanness” <and sees> “face to face” ^[237], and having himself come to that regeneration “through the washing of regeneration.” If one should wish to understand this washing, observe how John, who was baptizing “in water” “for repentance,” speaks concerning the Savior, “He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire” ^[238].

Therefore, on the one hand, in the regeneration through washing we have been buried together with Christ, “for (according to the Apostle) we have been buried together with him through baptism” ^[239]. On the other hand, in the regeneration of washing through fire and spirit we become conformed “to the body of the glory” of Christ ^[240][62] who is seated on the throne of his glory, and we ourselves are seated on twelve thrones, if indeed having left all things behind (either way this is understood *** but much more in the second case^[63]) we have followed Christ.^^[64] Then, whenever the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, the prophecy will be fulfilled which says, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’” ^[241]. And th<en>, ^“He must reign, until the time when he puts all enemies under his feet” ^[242], until “the last enemy death” is destroyed ^[243], which when destroyed, death will no longer be before the face of those who are being saved,^[65] but only the life that is confirmed. For when death is a reality before the face <of men>, life as a result is not confirmed for those who are seized by it. But when death is destroyed, life will be confirmed by all.^^[66] In the law you will find it says, “I have set life and death before your face” ^[244], and, “Your life will hang in suspense before your eyes,” and, “Do not trust in your life” ^[245]. The Son of Man will be seated on the throne of his glory, and no one dishonorable and ignoble to God will be ruled over by him. For at that time all those who are not receiving “glory from men,” nor are doing <anything> so as to be glorified “by men,” but rather seek after the glory which is from “[God] alone” ^[246], will be ruled over by the one seated on the throne of his glory. And at that time, the things for which the Savior prayed will come to fruition when he said in prayer, “Father, glorify me with the glory which I had with you before the cosmos existed” ^[247].

24. ^If you are able to understand the restoration the Logos effected (apokatastanta) after he became flesh and how many things he became to begotten ones, becoming to them what each of them needed <him> to become, in order that he might profit all ^[248], and effected restoration (apokatastanta), in order that he might become what he “was in the beginning with God” ^[249], (being God Logos) in his proper glory, as a glory [befitting] this Logos. [Then] you will see him who is seated on the throne of his glory, indeed none other than the Son of man, who is the human understood according to Jesus. For he becomes one with the Logos, even more completely than those who, because they are indissolubly bound “to the Lord,” become “one spirit” with him ^[250].^^[67] At that time, when these things happen in the restoration (apokatastasei) of the Savior, those who have left everything behind and have followed him will be seated, as having been conformed “to the body” ^[251] and to the throne of the glory of Christ, judging the twelve tribes of Israel on twelve thrones ^[252]. For the whole life of the righteous will judge the twelve tribes of Israel who have not believed, and the apostles and those who have emulated the apostolic life and have corrected those who (because they are Israelites) are of noble birth, will judge those who have not performed things worthy of this noble birth. Perhaps on the one hand what is said to the Corinthians, “the world will be judged by you” ^[253], is said to those from the nations, but You yourselves will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel ^[254], [is said] to the apostles and those who emulate the apostolic life, who judge those who, being Israel, are of more noble birth than the whole world. But in these [things] you should understand the Israel of noble birth which is indeed naturally superior, on the one hand, but has not believed, on the other, in a fashion that is worthy of the great meaning of the Gospel. But to ascend to the reason (logos) concerning Israel and concerning the twelve tribes (so that twelve ranks speaks of classes of souls, of which those of more noble birth are those which are surpassing in superiority, and the remaining eleven parts have been ordered <to> a second rank), it is beyond us to contemplate so great a thing, as though to be able to present how the twelve fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are twelve stars, just as the prophetic dream (if I may name it such) of Joseph indicated. And each of the Israelites, as it were, being judged will be judged by a certain apostle who is either synonymous with a star, or is similar to a star, and one who has lived the apostolic life.

25. If, therefore, someone has left all things behind and followed Jesus, he will be furnished with those things mentioned to Peter in accordance with his question; but if not all things, but the things [mentioned] next, this person will receive many times as much and will inherit eternal life. We must consider the things [mentioned here that are] not [included in] all things but are said specifically, from the [passage], And every one who has left behind brothers or sisters, etc. Now that this passage, even at the simple level of the text, contains no light and contemptible word in that it encourages [someone] to despise all fleshly relatives and every possession, everyone would confess that much. But if this [passage] also admits of anagogy, someone may hesitate, but also give an account of what that would involve. Indeed it is clear according to the letter that many of those who believed in our Savior were hated by [their] relatives, and they chose to forsake them and each possession for the sake of inheriting eternal life, having been persuaded that every one who has left behind brothers according to the flesh, sisters who are relatives only in body, parents of bodies, and children of flesh, and the fields in the accursed earth and the houses in it, and left behind [these things] for no other reason than for the sake of the name of Jesus, he will receive many times as much. For many times as much and (if it is necessary to name it as such) infinitely more times as much are spiritual things to somatic things, and so as to receive many times as much, not in the present time, but what happens in eternity, he will inherit it. For, on the one hand, it is easy to explain the many times as much brothers and sisters which someone has left behind on account of the word of God. For indeed in this world many times as much are the brothers-according-to-the-faith than those who have been forsaken on account of unbelief by those who have believed. So also someone receives [as] “parents” all bishops who are free from censure and presbyters who are without reproach, in place of the other two he has forsaken, and similarly also children [which are] all those having the stature of children. It is not reasonable [to attempt here], but someone who is not constrained by brevity might perhaps present how it is that someone might inherit many times more fields or houses than those he has forsaken, [since] it can no longer be interpreted in a similar fashion. But once one allegorizes fields and houses, he will have to offer [an interpretation] in accordance with the [passage’s] sequence and the things mentioned above.

There are, therefore, (I think) among the holy and blessed powers brothers who have arrived “unto the perfect man” with those who have accepted “the measure of the stature of Christ” ^[255], and sisters who are all those who are presented a pure virgin to Christ ^[256], not from men only (I think), but also from the rest of the powers. Parents may perhaps be those concerning whom it was said to Abraham, “You will depart to your fathers with peace, being nourished in good age” ^[257]. But if these [powers] became fathers of others at some time (on analogy to these fathers), they will indeed receive many times as much children in a fashion similar to Abraham. Also, I think, you should understand the fields and houses which are many times as much than those that are forsaken in terms of the rest of the divine paradise and the city of God, concerning which “glorious things have been spoken” ^[258], of which “God in the palaces is known, whenever he undertakes to help her” ^[259], so that one might say about those who inherit houses there, “Just as we have heard, so we have seen in the city of the Lord of powers, in the city of our God” ^[260], concerning which it is also said, “Divide up her palaces” ^[261]. ^Blessed are those who inherit eternal life for these things, who have for an inherita<nce fie>lds and trees such as are cultivated by God and houses of living stones ^[262], in which everyone who has left behind brothers or sisters, and the rest, will rest.^^[68]

26. After this there is the [passage], Many who are first will be last, and last first ^[263]. On the one hand, this too contains something even according to the simpler meaning which is able to encourage those who are still drawing near to the divine word to be eager through the things prescribed to ascend beyond the many who are considered as having grown old in the faith, to the life and word beyond them, as though those who believe later are impeded neither by time, nor do worthless parents [impede] those who prove themselves to be contending without reproach. But on the other hand, there is also a concern to condemn a conceit of those who are high-minded on account of having been raised by <Christian> fathers in Christianity, and especially when it comes to exalting in fathers and forefathers in the Church who have been deemed worthy of the privilege of the episcopal throne, or the presbyteral honor, or of [diaconal] service to the people of God. For after each of these has been instructed that, Many who are first will be last, and last first, they will be reminded that, though they are considered to be first, [they should] neither be high-minded, nor be abased and humiliated, as though having <something> inferior to those who came before because they are the last of these to receive the teachings of Christianity.

I think that the text has <also another> meaning which we are able to apply collectively to the many who were “first” before us who bear the name of Israel, who became “last” on account of their unbelief and betrayal of Jesus, and to understand us as “the last” who have been able [to become] the first, provided we remain in the faith, “not being high-minded, but accommodating ourselves to the lowly” ^[264]. How so? If, after becoming partakers in the root of the patriarchs and the fatness from the word of the fathers, we might become naturally united by the will of the spiritual law and of the prophets who are understood in relation to it, we who are last will be first, whereas those who were first have become last, having been cut off from the cultivated olive tree on account of unbelief ^[265]. For, indeed, on account of the appearing of Christ who appeared to the world “for judgment,” in order that (the nations) “who do not see might see, and those who see (Israel) might become blind” ^[266] on account of unbelief, we “the proselyte” people have become “higher and higher” and first, but the Israel before us who was first has become last and “lower and lower” ^[267]. It is possible to understand [this passage] in the same way, “If someone desires to be first, he will be last of all” ^[268], as though he were saying: Since now those who believe in me from the nations, while being deemed last by Israel, receive the first things, but the whole people of those who have not believed in Israel are judged last by God, even though they are deemed to be first “in terms of time” ^[269]. If someone <therefore> wishes to take up the truly first [position], let him be among those who have been deemed to be last by the Israel of today. For should he desire to be among those who seem to be first, he will fall away from those first [in rank] who have passed over to the nations, and he will be numbered among the last. For, indeed, those from the nations have become [the] head on account of faith, but faithless Israel [has become the] tail on account of unbelief. According to this passage, many (but not all) from the first will be last, and again, many from the last will be first. Without doubt, if someone who is last has approached,^[69] seeking to be numbered with those who believe from the nations, he will be reckoned among the first. For there are indeed <those who are> first <and remain no less> first, such as the apostles of Christ, who were Israelites and from the seed of Abraham. And there are the last <who remain no less> last, those who live in a much inferior way than those who get their name from the Church ***.

27. After these things, do consider if you could say that the race of angels is “first” inasmuch as it is mo<re hono>rable than the ra<ce> of men <who are de>emed “last.” For indeed, as it is written in Job, “When the stars were begotten, all his angels praised God” ^[270], as though [angels] are older and more honorable, not only than man, but also than the whole created realm after them (τῆς μετ' αὐτοὺς κοσμοποιίας). <Indeed, in the same way someone> might dare to suggest that, on the one hand, many of the angels who were first in regard to men, have become last in regard to certain men, but on the other hand as well, many of the men who were by nature last in regard to the angels, have on account of the life and the word of God become first in regard to certain angels (who were assigned to the first place, but became last because of certain causes). Using for this [interpretation] the passages from the first Epistle <of Peter> and the first [Epistle] of Paul to the Corinthians, you will be furnished with the word which is spoken [about this topic] in a sound fashion, as it were. For Peter says, “Upon whom you do not now see (indicating Jesus Christ) but believing you greatly rejoice” ^[271], etc., up to, “Into such things angels desire to look” ^[272], and Paul [says], “Or do you not know that we will judge angels, much less ordinary matters?” ^[273]. See, therefore, whether these [angels], insofar as they kept “their own rule” and did not abandon “their own abode” ^[274], were greatly surpassing humans and were first in regard to men whose “soul was humbled unto dust” ^[275] when they came to exist in the body of humility^[70] and were saying in toil at that time, “Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?” ^[276]. On the other hand, the humans, insofar as they were last in comparison to angels, become first in regard to the angels who did not keep “their own rule,” but abandoned “their own abode” ^[277], when [these humans] receive the rule in accordance with, “Be one who has authority over ten cities,” or, “Be one who has authority over five cities” ^[278]. And after those who existed in the abode of angels have abandoned <it, men become first,> when by the proclamation of the kingdom of the heavens to them they do the things that lead them up to it;^[71] for indeed they are last in earth in regard to the heavenly [beings], but those in heaven are first in regard to those in earth. And many of the heavenly and “first” ones become last, being kept “in eternal chains in deep gloom for the judgment of the great Day” ^[279]. But many of the “last” ones, who received birth on earth, <become first,> ascending, so as to say with great confidence, “Our citizenship is in the heavens” ^[280]. Indeed, he who fell as lightning “from heaven” used to be “first,” when he walked blameless “in all his ways,” until lawlessness was found in him, and he became “last” after descending to Hades, such that those who saw him marvel at him and say, “And you are taken just as us, and you have been reckoned among us. Your glory has descended into Hades, all your mirth” ^[281]. In the same way each one was “last” who was senseless and disobedient, serving “various desires and passions,” carrying on “in vice and envy,” hateful and hating ^[282],^[72] but became “first” “when the kindness and the philanthropy of God our Savior appeared” “through the washing of regeneration, and the renewal of the Holy Spirit” ^[283], and he received him who said, “The one who receives me receives the one who sent me” ^[284].

But with respect to the [present parable] we have rendered the “first” [as] those who will be saved, and the “last” [as] those who are not worthy of the rank of those who will be saved but [are instead worthy] of destruction and of being forsaken, either until “the fullness of the nations comes in” ^[285], or until they have filled up the things concerning their own sins. The parable, however, which follows [the verse], Many who are first will be last, and last first, announces that the <“last”> of the parable will also be saved, with the “first” doing the work, but the “last” receiving the reward, and for which cause those who are “first” will be reckoned as “last.” Differentiating between them it says that those who were called to the works “last” not only receive the payment “first” but also an equal [amount] to those who murmur against the Master of the house and say, “These who are last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat” ^[286]. Indeed the last ones who were summoned to the work are called first because they received payment “first” ^[287]. But beseeching God and calling on “the name of our Lord Jesus <Christ>” ^[288], let us set forth the parable and let us see what will be given to us to examine and to say about it, or rather to suggest. [The text] reads in this way.