4. Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, etc., up to, When the ten heard [this], they became angry at the two brothers. ^[147]. Mark has recorded something similar to this passage: “And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him and said to him,” etc., up to, “they began to be angry at James and John” ^[148].

Do seek out a worthy meaning in the present passage that is not contemptible and is truly befitting the gospel of Jesus Christ. <We have stated this at the outset,> since to those who are simpler and are completely without guile, who do not understand [how] to inquire even the depths of God and of his scriptures, the literal text exhibits a simple matter of a <certain> request and of Jesus’ reply to it. But should the meaning exhibited at first glance be quick and easy and having nothing <great> even to those who are able to whatever extent to closely examine difficult questions (προβλήματα), it is especially important that Jesus responds by agreeing with [the request’s] loftiness of meaning (τῇ μεγαλονοίᾳ). For just as in the case of a worldly kingdom those who are seated with the king who is seated in the royal vestment seem to be in an eminent position and they manage whatever is involved with the matters of the royalty, so also (according to the literal sense) the mother of the sons of Zebedee (or “James and John” as Mark recorded) will seem deluded to request from the Savior that one [son] be seated on his right when he came into the kingdom, and the other on his left. Indeed, on the one hand, there is nothing extraordinary here, that a woman from the simplicity <of womanhood> and want of education would deem it <fitting> to request such things. But let it be conceded that the two apostles also, as men who were still imperfect and not understanding the deeper reality of the kingdom of Christ, had these notions concerning those who would be seated with Christ. When Jesus, as though agreeing that for someone to be seated on his right or left is a great thing, takes up the request and says, You do not know what you are asking and it is not for me to give, but to those it has been prepared by my Father, let someone who seems to be an intelligent hearer of scripture inquire ^[149], what it means to be seated on Jesus’ right or left in his kingdom.

And for those who suppose that we are over-curious in investigating these things, we must gather the things recorded concerning the sitting of God and of Christ, in order that by the testing of those things gathered about the subject and by the comparison of them to each other, a certain sublimity of dogma can be raised up from the simpler example that has been apprehended. For example, in the third [book] of Kingdoms it is written that “Micaiah said”: “I saw the God of Israel seated on his throne, and all the host of heaven stood around him on his right and on his left” ^[150], etc. Then in the second [book] of Paraleipomenon Micaiah himself says similar things as these, “hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord seated on the throne of his glory, and the whole power of heaven stood on his right and on his left” ^[151], etc. In Isaiah it is also written: “And it happened in the year that the king Uzziah died that I saw the Lord seated on a high and exalted throne” ^[152], etc. Yet again in Daniel these things are written: “I looked up to where thrones were placed. And the Ancient of days was seated” ^[153], etc. One may also find similar things to this in Ezekiel at the beginning of his prophecy, when he says: “Above the firmament which was above their head (indicating that of the cherubim) as a vision of sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne upon it, and on the likeness of the throne was a likeness as though the form of a man above” ^[154]. And in the 109th Psalm, “the Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right” ^[155], it shows the seat of the Father and the other [seat] of the Savior who is seated on his right. And again in another Psalm the prophet prays and says, “He who is seated on the cherubim, show forth!” ^[156], and again, “God is seated on his holy throne” ^[157]. If one also desires to entertain examples from the Gospels, listen to the passage in Matthew where he records that Jesus said to the disciples, “Truly I say to you that you who follow me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man is seated on the throne of his glory” ^[158], and Matthew <also> says these things: “whenever the Son of man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory” ^[159], etc., and “hereafter you will see the Son of man seated on the right of the power” ^[160]. Mark has recorded something of equivalent force to this, “and you will see the Son of man seated on the right of the power and coming with the clouds of heaven” ^[161]. Luke also says something similar, “For from now the Son of man will be seated on the right of the power of God” ^[162].

Now the reason I deemed it necessary to gather these passages to such an extent is that I desired <also> to present the more mystical [reading] concerning the sitting of Christ in the kingdom and of those who are seated on his right or left <after> the easy, simpler, and more humble reading, in order that those who are of such a sort as to ascend to the divine thoughts might be able reasonably to inquire and to find something worthy of the spiritual person who examines “all things” and is examined “by no one” ^[163], who, in a way commensurate with the expressions of Paul, searches out concerning spiritual things <and concerning> the things of the Gospel ^[164].^[21] For as Paul says, taking the things concerning the manna and the rock and the water that came from it in terms of the spiritual law ^[165], “And they all ate the same spiritual bread, and they all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from the spiritual rock that followed [them], and the rock was Christ” ^[166], so in the same way the spiritual person who stands on this rock and gives thanks to God upon it and says concerning himself, “He stood my feet upon a rock, and he directs my steps aright” ^[167], would say that the sitting of God is a spiritual reality, on a spiritual throne, and similarly with that of Christ, that Christ being seated “on the right of the power” is a spiritual reality. For nothing is being indicated here of a bodily sitting, (which one might define as a sitting down on the hips which are made to sit on a certain seat). For indeed it would be absurd to think that because these things are referred to in bodily terms that there are certain thrones that have been fabricated in a <bodily way>, of what sort of material I know not, that are receptive of the sitting of God or Christ or of those who are seated on the right or on the left of Christ, for whom the Father has prepared such a thing. I do not know if one can consider the host “of heaven” standing bodily “on the right or on the left” of God to be a pure bodily state, or again to think that those who are saved and commended are on the right of our King Jesus Christ in bodily terms, but those blameworthy people who are also being destroyed are correspondibly on the left in bodily terms.

5. But perhaps, on the one hand, the restoration to the kingdom after Christ receives his own rule, when the sin which rules in the mortal bodies of men ^[168] and all rule and authority and power which rules in the evil ones is destroyed ^[169], is what is involved with his being seated “on the throne of his glory” ^[170]. But on the other hand, the placing of all things on the right <and left> by God, in order that nothing that is still askew^[22] might be near him, this is what will happen with those who will be “on the right of the power” ^[171], for an example to those who would eagerly hope to be seated “on the right of the power” on the right and on his left in the kingdom of Christ the Word; whom God is restoring, cooperating with them and preparing [them] to draw near to the supremacy of Christ, in order that he who is preeminent among those <others> drawing near <to Christ> might be on the right and as if touching him and clinging to the right of the Word, but the one who is more inferior is near to those on his left. ^See, then, if those on the right of Christ may be understood as those created things described as “invisible,” whereas those on the left are those things that are visible and bodily. But, on the one hand, Christ rules over them all,^^[23] while on the other hand for those already drawing near to him they have been allotted the things that are on the “right,” i.e., noetic, and the others the things on the “left,” i.e., sensible. Indeed, perhaps the true mother of the sons of Zebedee (whom the Savior called Boanerges, “which is sons of thunder”), thunder <herself,> judging <great things> concerning her sons James and John (for they were indeed great) and supposing them to be able to have the first places beyond all created nature since they accepted her loud proclamation, she approached and requested of the Lord, in order that he might seat one of them on the right, but the other on the left. The Savior, reproving the quite vociferously voiced^[24] mother of James and John as being ignorant of both the fact that there are certain ones who are more prominent and that such a great gift is a favor <only> from God who gives breath and cooperates with all and seats in this superior place those whom he knows are suitable, said that you do not know what you are asking and to sit on my right and on the left is not for me to give, but to those whom it has been prepared by my Father. Let the one who is able attend to what things are given by the Savior and what [are given] by the Father, seeing that there is something which the Son might not give, but [only] the Father himself. If the Gospels indeed present something of this sort, where on the one hand they introduce the Savior praying concerning certain powers in order that [his] requests from the Father might come to pass for him, and on the other hand where he acts apart from prayer as though already having the things concerning which he requests, let one who is daring inquire, but likewise let the person who is able investigate these things with reverence.^[25] And I think it is because he wanted to demonstrate to the mother of the sons of Zebedee and to them, that indeed they were deficient to bring to completion those things that are not ordinarily within the capabilities of men, when, after you do not know what you ask, he answered and said, are you able to drink the cup which I am about to drink? (or as Mark recorded: “Are you able to drink the cup I will drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I will be baptized?” ^[172]).

6. Let someone also inquire about both the cup and the baptism in these passages, how things that are different from one other <are both named together in this way> and require no ordinary ability for one to drink or to be baptized, and whether drinking the cup Jesus was about to drink is nothing other than being baptized in a similar way with a baptism, with which the Lord himself was about to be baptized. Many, therefore, refer both to the economy according to martyrdom, not considering whether the two concepts indicated through the use of two names involve one thing in substance, or if it is possible that indeed two [separate] matters are indicated in these things. As for us, we do not reject this [first] reading out of hand, but let us attend if it is possible that something different is indicated by these names. And since there is too much to grasp in these matters in a precise way here, we will endeavor to present the few things that occur to us about this passage. So, as to the martyrdom being indicated in these passages one might use not only [the passage which says], “Father, if possible, take away this cup from me” ^[173], as though painfully being drunk by one taking upon himself the struggles in martyrdom, until one might drain [the cup] dry who undergoes all the things brought to him with regard to the trial of martyrdom, but [one might use] also what is said in the 115th Psalm, “What will I repay to the Lord concerning all the things which he has repaid me? I will take the cup of salvation, and I will call on the name of the Lord” ^[174]. “My vows to the Lord I will repay before all his people” ^[175]. “Precious before the Lord is the death of his saints” ^[176]. For [there is] no other way we can fully repay anything to Lord from those things which we have been shown kindness than to take up the cup of salvation willingly and to call on the name of the Lord so as to drink it; by draining [the cup] dry, someone repays all his vows “to the Lord before all of his people” ^[177]. That he was teaching in these passages that the cup is <martyrdom> is clear when he advances to the things involved with the cup, “Precious before the Lord is the death of his saints” ^[178]. But martyrdom is twofold in concept, of which one is called “cup of salvation,” and the other [is called] baptism. Indeed insofar as someone undergoes the travails [of martyrdom], it is just as if a cup is drunk by one who bears all the things brought to him, taking them up even as if drinking the sufferings and not rejecting them nor casting [them] away or vomiting [them up]. But insofar as one who undergoes [the travails of martyrdom] receives forgiveness of sins, it is a baptism, for if baptism offers forgiveness of sins, just as we have received of baptism,^[26] and he who undergoes the baptism of martyrdom receives forgiveness of sins, then one might reasonably say that martyrdom is a baptism.

And that forgiveness of sins comes to <all> who undergo martyrdom is indicated by, “All who confess me before men, I myself will confess him before my Father who is in heaven” ^[179]. Now, the Savior indeed confesses before the Father who is in heaven all those who confess [him], even though one might have sinned in whatever way before the confession; for if those who are confe<ssing are sin>ning in whatever way, he will not confess [them]. It will not truly be [the case, then,] that “All, therefore, who will confess me,” etc. I do not think that the Savior will confess before the Father in heaven a person who is in any way bound to^[27] sin; for when <the Son> makes bold proclamation before the Father the confession is upon the person who is confessed as worthy of <Christ’s> confession to the Father. Let us not be disturbed if, according to Mark, the Savior [both] drinks the cup and is baptized with the baptism ^[180], for indeed when John “came into all the region of the Jordan proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” ^[181], Jesus also “came to John to be baptized by him” ^[182], as if washing away our sins, in order that we might be cleansed by his washing. Our cleansing by him^[28] is shown forth all the more, inasmuch as he was baptized taking up our sins, in order that he might loose them from us and from himself, since “the [death] <he died,> he died to” our “sin” ^[183], since he died “to sin” that was not his own but ours, if at any rate it seems to some that the [passage] has this teaching.^[29] <In accordance with these things, as it seems to me,> the sons of Zebedee have drunk the cup and were baptized with the baptism, since Herod killed “James the <brother> of John with a sword” ^[184], and the Emperor of Rome (as the tradition teaches) condemned John who testified on account of the word of truth to the island of Patmos ^[185]. John teaches these things concerning his own martyrdom, not telling who it was that condemned him, saying these things in the Apocalypse: “I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the affliction and kingdom and perseverance in Jesus, was on the island which is called Patmos on account of the word of God” ^[186], etc. Indeed he seems to have seen the revelation on the island.^[30]

7. One who would add to the previous explanation offered for the cup and the baptism might say these things: Just as there is a certain food of the Savior, about which he says, “My food is in order that I might do the will of the One who sent me and that I might complete his work” ^[187], so in the same way the cup is comparable to this food. While it would be a daring thing to define [the cup] from the food and present [it] competently, nevertheless let the person who is able attend if perhaps the food is the practical [discipline] and the drink is the contemplative [discipline]. For inasmuch as one eats of Christ by doing “the will of the One who sent” him and completes “the work” of the Same, one is also to drink <of him by understanding> “the will of the One who sent” him and perfecting the knowledge of him. You yourself judge whether or not one may also appeal to this difference, “My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink” ^[188]. For one might say that the practice is “truly food,” and the contemplation is “truly drink,” and he who affirms this will say that it is for this reason that, “after blessing” and breaking “the bread,” he first gives [it] “to the disciples” — since the practice is first, and after this “he took the cup, after blessing he gave to them saying, ‘All [of you] drink from it’” ^[189] — since it is necessary that those who are training in the practices and setting right the practical [discipline^[31]] so also to proceed through [practical] matters unto their contemplation. For indeed according to the prophet it is said, “Sow for yourselves unto righteousness, harvest unto a fruit of life” ^[190], so that we first practice what is necessary; and after this, it says, “Shine for yourselves a light of knowledge” ^[191], for <as though> by a way someone may proceed, after the cleansing of the habits, unto the knowledge and might shine with it.^[32]

These things have indeed been said by way of digression for the sake of a deeper inquiry concerning the cup. Also in the 22nd Psalm it is first said that, “You prepared before me a table opposite those who are afflicting me,” and next, “Your cup intoxicates me as if the best [wine]” ^[192]. Let the person who reads this document^[33] not assume that we held that it was necessary somehow to explain the things recorded concerning the sitting of God and of Christ. For we would say in our defense that the [passages] concerning “sitting” were proposed only so that the reader is importuned from the letter and keeps away from the humbler reading. At some other time one should make some inquiry into the foregoing question concerning the sitting and standing and walking of God or of Christ, which the present discourse did not require, for the digression would be too inopportune.