Jerome

He will have it that Mary bore other sons, and he quotes the passage, "And Joseph also went up to the city of David to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered, and she brought forth her first-born son." From this he endeavours to show that the term first-born is inapplicable except to a person who has brothers, just as he is called only begotten who is the only son of his parents.

Our position is this: Every only begotten son is a first-born son, but not every first-born is an only begotten. By first-born we understand not only one who is succeeded by others, but one who has had no predecessor. [Numbers 18:15] "Everything," says the Lord to Aaron, "that opens the womb of all flesh which they offer unto the Lord, both of man and beast, shall be yours: nevertheless the first born of man shall you surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shall you redeem." The word of God defines first-born as everything that opens the womb. Otherwise, if the title belongs to such only as have younger brothers, the priests cannot claim the firstlings until their successors have been begotten, lest, perchance, in case there were no subsequent delivery it should prove to be the first-born but not merely the only begotten. [Numbers 18:16] "And those that are to be redeemed of them from a month old shall you redeem, according to your estimation for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary (the same is twenty gerahs). But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy." The word of God compels me to dedicate to God everything that opens the womb if it be the firstling of clean beasts: if of unclean beasts, I must redeem it, and give the value to the priest. I might reply and say, Why do you tie me down to the short space of a month? Why do you speak of the first-born, when I cannot tell whether there are brothers to follow? Wait until the second is born. I owe nothing to the priest, unless the birth of a second should make the one I previously had the first-born. Will not the very points of the letters cry out against me and convict me of my folly, and declare that first-born is a title of him who opens the womb, and is not to be restricted to him who has brothers? And, then, to take the case of John: we are agreed that he was an only begotten son: I want to know if he was not also a first-born son, and whether he was not absolutely amenable to the law. There can be no doubt in the matter. At all events Scripture thus speaks of the Saviour, "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons." If this law relates only to the first-born, and there can be no first-born unless there are successors, no one ought to be bound by the law of the first-born who cannot tell whether there will be successors. But inasmuch as he who has no younger brothers is bound by the law of the first-born, we gather that he is called the first-born who opens the womb and who has been preceded by none, not he whose birth is followed by that of a younger brother. Moses writes in Exodus, [Exodus 12:29] "And it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon: And all the first-born of cattle." Tell me, were they who then perished by the destroyer, only your first-born, or, something more, did they include the only begotten? If only they who have brothers are called first-born, the only begotten were saved from death. And if it be the fact that the only begotten were slain, it was contrary to the sentence pronounced, for the only begotten to die as well as the first-born. You must either release the only begotten from the penalty, and in that case you become ridiculous: or, if you allow that they were slain, we gain our point, though we have not to thank you for it, that only begotten sons also are called first-born.

[Daniel 4:4] "I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace." The narrative is clear indeed and requires but little interpretation. Because he displeased God, Nebuchadnezzar was turned into a madman and dwelt for seven years amongst the brute beasts and was fed upon the roots of herbs, Afterwards by the mercy of God he was restored to his throne, and praised and glorified the King of heaven, on the ground that all His works are truth and His ways are justice and He is able to abase those who walk in pride. But there are some who claim to understand by the figure of Nebuchadnezzar the hostile power which the Lord speaks of in the Gospel, saying: "I beheld Satan falling from heaven like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Likewise John in Revelation, in the passage where the dragon falls upon the earth drawing a third of the stars with him (Revelation 12:4). Likewise Isaiah: "How hath the morning star fallen, which used to rise early in the morning" (Isaiah 14:12). These authorities assert that it was absolutely impossible for a man who was reared in luxury to subsist on hay for seven years and to dwell among wild beasts for seven years without being at all mangled by them. Also they ask how the imperial authority could have been kept waiting for a mere madman, and how so mighty a kingdom could have gone without a king for so long a period. If, on the other hand, anyone had succeeded him on the throne, how foolish he would have to be thought to surrender an imperial authority which he had possessed for so long. Such a thing would be especially incredible since the historical records of the Chaldeans contain no such record, and since they recorded matters of far less import, it is impossible that they should have left things of major importance unmentioned. And so they pose all of these questions and offer as their own reply the proposition that since the episode does not stand up as genuine history, the figure of Nebuchadnezzar represents the devil. To this position we make not the slightest concession; otherwise everything we read in Scripture may appear to be imperfect representations and mere fables. For once men have lost their reason, who would not perceive them to lead their existence like brutish animals in the open fields and forest regions? And to pass over all other considerations, since Greek and Roman history offer episodes far more incredible, such as Scylla and the Chimaera, the Hydra and the Centaurs, and the birds and wild beasts and flowers and trees, the stars and the stones into which men are related to have been transformed, what is so remarkable about the execution of such a divine judgment as this for the manifestation of God's power and the humbling of the pride of kings? Nebuchadnezzar says, "'I was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace...'" or as Theodo-tion renders it "upon my throne." Now those who follow the interpretation we are opposing understand by the devil's home this world of ours. Concerning the world Satan himself in the Gospel says to the Savior: "All these things have been given over to me" (Luke 4:6). Likewise the Apostle says: "The world lieth in the Wicked One" (1 John 5:19).

Why does John send his disciples to the Lord to ask him: Are you the one who is coming, or should we expect another? (Matthew 11:3 and Luke 7:20) When he had previously said about the same person: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. (John 1:29) We have spoken more fully on this question in the Commentaries of Matthew. Therefore, it is clear that you do not have these books yourself, since you ask such questions. However, we must briefly summarize so as not to seem completely silent. John sent his disciples while he was in prison, seeking to learn from them, and about to be beheaded, to teach them to follow the one whom he acknowledged as the master of all through his questioning. For he could not be unaware of him whom he had shown to those who were unaware, and of whom he had said, "He who has a bride is the bridegroom" (John 3:29); and "I am not worthy to bear his sandals" (Matthew 3:11); and "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 1:27). And he heard the Father thundering out: This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Ibid. 3:30). But what he says: Art Thou He that shall come, or look we for another? (Matth. 3: 17). This utterance too may have this meaning: I know that Thou art He Who hast come to take away the sins of the world; but because I am to descend into hell, I ask this also of Thee, whether Thou too wilt descend thither, or is it impious to believe this of the Son of God, and wilt Thou send another thither? This, however, I wish to know, that I who have proclaimed Thee among men on earth, may also in hell proclaim Thee, if Thou art perchance coming. For Thou it is Who hast come to loose the captives, and to set free them that were bound. The Lord, understanding the purport of his inquiry, answered rather through works than by word, and bade John be told that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, and (what is greater than these) the poor have the Gospel preached to them (Matth. 11; Luc. 7). The poor, however, are distinguished either by humility or by riches so that no difference in salvation exists between the poor man and the rich man, but all are called equally. And it is inferred: "Blessed is he who is not scandalized in me" (Matthew 11:6), he who strikes not John but his disciples who had first come to him, saying: "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?" (Mark 18; and Luke 5:33). And to John: "Master, you bear witness concerning him near Jordan. Behold, his disciples baptize, and many come to him" (John 3:26). With these words, he indicates jealousy about the size of the signs which comes from biting envy why should the one who was baptized by John dare to baptize? and a much larger crowd gathers to him than had previously come to John. And lest the people, unknowingly, think that John is being blackened because of what was said, he delivers a speech in his praise and begins to speak to the surrounding crowds about John: What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? But what did you go out into the wilderness to see? A man clothed in soft clothing (Matthew 11:7-8; Luke 7:24-25)? and so on. The sense of this statement is as follows: Did you come out into the wilderness to see a man, like a reed shaken by the wind, being bent in various directions? Let him doubt now about whom he had previously praised, and concerning whom he had previously said, Behold the Lamb of God, let him now ask whether he is the one himself, or whether another one will come or is coming. And because every false preaching seeks profit and strives for human glory, so that gains may be born through glory: he affirms, wearing clothing made of camel's hair, that no one can yield to flattery; and he who feeds on locusts and wild honey (Matt. 3: 4), does not seek riches or other earthly pleasures, avoids the rigid and austere life of the palace, which those who are clothed with purple and fine linen and silk and soft feathers seek. And he says that he is not only a prophet who is accustomed to predicting the future, but he is more than a prophet, because the one whom they had said would come, he has shown has come, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29) : especially since he has attained the privilege of the prophetic summit of John; that he who had said, I ought to be baptized by you (Matthew 3:14), himself has baptized him: not by the presumption of being greater, but by the obedience of the disciple and the fear of the servant. And although he affirms that among those born of women, no one greater has arisen than John (Matthew 11:11), he mentions himself, who was born of a virgin, as being greater: or he precedes all men on earth before every angel in heaven, who is least. For we progress into angels; and not angels into us, just as some snoring heavily dream. Nor is this enough in the praises of John, unless he who preached the baptism of repentance, is first reported to have said: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matthew 3:1) . From the days of his preaching, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence (Ibid. 11.12); such as that man is born. He desires to be an angel; and an earthly animal seeks a heavenly abode. For the Law and the Prophets prophesied up to John (Ibid. 13): not that John is the end of the Prophets and the Law, but he who was preached by the testimony of John. But according to the mystery which is written in Malachy (chapter 4, verse 5), John is Elijah who is coming (Matthew 11:14): not that the same soul (as the heretics suspect) was in Elijah and in John, but that he had the same grace of the Holy Spirit, girded with a belt like Elijah, living in the desert like Elijah, suffering persecution from Herodias as he endured from Jezebel: just as Elijah was the precursor of the second coming, so John welcomed the Lord Savior who was coming in the flesh, not only in the wilderness but even in his mother's womb, and announced it with the joy of his body.

What is the meaning of what is written in the Gospel according to Luke: "And they did not receive him: because his face was going to Jerusalem" (Luke 9:53). Hastening, the Lord went to Jerusalem to fulfill the days of his assumption and to celebrate the Passover, about which he had said: "With desire I have desired to eat this Pasch with you, before I suffer" (Ibid. 22:15), and drink the cup, of which he said: "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11). He confirmed all his doctrine on the gallows, according to what is written: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself." (Ibid. 12:32). He set his face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem. For it is necessary to have steadfastness and strength for one who is hurrying spontaneously toward passion. Hence to Ezekiel, to whom God had said: Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of scorpions, and art not afraid of them: I have made thy face strong against their face (Ezekiel 2:6 and 3:9); so that if perchance the hammer of the whole earth had risen up against him, he would be like a most enduring anvil and crush the hammer, of which it is written: "How is the hammer of the whole earth broken and shattered!" (Jeremiah 50:23) And he sent messengers, that is, Angels, before his sight (Luke 9:52). For it was fitting that the Angels should minister to the Son of God. Whether he calls the Apostles Angels, because even John, the precursor of the Lord, was called an Angel (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 11:10). And when they entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him, they did not receive him, because his face was going toward Jerusalem. The Samaritans and Jews are at odds with each other in enmity, and while all nations hate them, they are raging against each other with their own fury, while both contend for possession of the Law, and they persecute one another so much that after the Jews returned from Babylon, the Samaritans always obstructed the building of the Temple. And when even they wanted to build the Temple with them, the Jews replied: It is not lawful for us and you to build the Lord's house (1 Esdr. 4). Finally, for a great injury, the Pharisees reproached the Lord: Do you not have a demon, and are you not a Samaritan? (John 8.48). And in the parable of Jerusalem descending to Jericho, the Samaritan is placed as a sign and a miracle that he did good (Luke 10): and it is written to the Samaritan woman at the well: For Samaritans do not count themselves among the Jews (John 4.9). Therefore, the Samaritans seeing the Lord go towards Jerusalem, that is, to his enemies, as they had heard from his disciples who had come to prepare lodging, recognized him to be a Jew: and, as a Jew and a stranger, and one going to his enemies, they did not want to receive him. Although, with other understanding being submitted to us, it was the will of the Lord not to be received by the Samaritans, because he hastened to go to Jerusalem, where he was to suffer and shed his blood, so that, occupied with Samaritan hospitality and the teaching of that nation, he might not delay the day of suffering to which he had come. Hence he says in another place: "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). And he commanded the Apostles: "Do not enter the city of Samaria" (Ibid. 10:5), wishing to remove all occasion of Jewish persecution, so that they might not afterwards say, "We have crucified him," because he had joined himself to our enemies and adversaries. Therefore his face was set towards Jerusalem. And accordingly, by another interpretation, the Samaritans did not receive him: for he was hastening to enter Jerusalem. But that they did not receive him, was of the Lord's will. Finally, the Apostles, versed in the Law, in which they knew only justice- an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth- seek to avenge the injury, and to imitate Elijah, at whose word two captains of fifty soldiers were consumed by fire: and they say to the Lord: Wilt thou, we say, that fire should come down from heaven, and consume them? (Luke 9:51). Beautifully, they say, Wilt thou, we say: for even Elijah had said: If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven upon thee (2 Kings 1:10). Therefore, for the effectiveness of the speech of the Apostles, it is the will of the Lord. For if He had not commanded it, the Apostles would speak in vain, asking that fire descend upon them, and in other ways. If fire descended from heaven to the injury of Elijah's servants, and consumed the Jews and not the Samaritans, how much more should the flame rage against the impious Samaritans, to the contempt of the Son of God? The Lord, who had come not to judge but to save, not in power but in humility, not in the glory of the Father but in the lowliness of man, rebukes them because they have not remembered His doctrine and the goodness of the Gospel, in which He said: 'If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also' (Matt. 5:39) and 'Love your enemies' (Luke 6:35).

[Daniel 4:4] "I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace." The narrative is clear indeed and requires but little interpretation. Because he displeased God, Nebuchadnezzar was turned into a madman and dwelt for seven years amongst the brute beasts and was fed upon the roots of herbs, Afterwards by the mercy of God he was restored to his throne, and praised and glorified the King of heaven, on the ground that all His works are truth and His ways are justice and He is able to abase those who walk in pride. But there are some who claim to understand by the figure of Nebuchadnezzar the hostile power which the Lord speaks of in the Gospel, saying: "I beheld Satan falling from heaven like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Likewise John in Revelation, in the passage where the dragon falls upon the earth drawing a third of the stars with him (Revelation 12:4). Likewise Isaiah: "How hath the morning star fallen, which used to rise early in the morning" (Isaiah 14:12). These authorities assert that it was absolutely impossible for a man who was reared in luxury to subsist on hay for seven years and to dwell among wild beasts for seven years without being at all mangled by them. Also they ask how the imperial authority could have been kept waiting for a mere madman, and how so mighty a kingdom could have gone without a king for so long a period. If, on the other hand, anyone had succeeded him on the throne, how foolish he would have to be thought to surrender an imperial authority which he had possessed for so long. Such a thing would be especially incredible since the historical records of the Chaldeans contain no such record, and since they recorded matters of far less import, it is impossible that they should have left things of major importance unmentioned. And so they pose all of these questions and offer as their own reply the proposition that since the episode does not stand up as genuine history, the figure of Nebuchadnezzar represents the devil. To this position we make not the slightest concession; otherwise everything we read in Scripture may appear to be imperfect representations and mere fables. For once men have lost their reason, who would not perceive them to lead their existence like brutish animals in the open fields and forest regions? And to pass over all other considerations, since Greek and Roman history offer episodes far more incredible, such as Scylla and the Chimaera, the Hydra and the Centaurs, and the birds and wild beasts and flowers and trees, the stars and the stones into which men are related to have been transformed, what is so remarkable about the execution of such a divine judgment as this for the manifestation of God's power and the humbling of the pride of kings? Nebuchadnezzar says, "'I was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace...'" or as Theodo-tion renders it "upon my throne." Now those who follow the interpretation we are opposing understand by the devil's home this world of ours. Concerning the world Satan himself in the Gospel says to the Savior: "All these things have been given over to me" (Luke 4:6). Likewise the Apostle says: "The world lieth in the Wicked One" (1 John 5:19).

You proposed a little question about the Gospel of Luke (Chapter 16, verse 1 et seq.): Who is the steward of iniquity who is praised by the voice of the Lord? When I wanted to know the reason for this and from which source it came, I examined the volume of the Gospel, and I found among other things that, as the tax collectors and sinners approached the Saviour to hear him, the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, "Why does this one receive sinners and eat with them?" (Luke 15:2). He spoke to them the parable of one hundred sheep, and one that was lost, which was found and carried back on the shoulders of the shepherd. And when it was proposed, he immediately said: "I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner repenting than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need for repentance." He also proposed another parable about ten drachmas lost and found, and he completed it with a similar ending. So I tell you, there will be joy in the presence of the Angels of God over one sinner repenting. He also proposed a third parable about a man who had two sons, and who divided his wealth between them. And when the younger son had lost his faculties and began to eat the pods that the pigs ate, he returned to his father, who accepted him. The envious elder brother, too, was rebuked by his father's voice, and he should have rejoiced because his brother was dead and had come back to life; he was lost, and he has been found. He spoke three parables against the Pharisees and Scribes who did not want to receive the repentance of sinners and the salvation of Publicans. He said also, he said to his disciples (Ibid. 16.1), without doubt, that he used a parable, just as before to the Scribes and Pharisees: by which parable he would exhort the disciples to mercy and would say in other words: Forgive and you shall be forgiven (Luke 6:7), so that you may ask boldly in the Lord's Prayer, Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors (Matthew 6:12). Therefore, what is the parable that urges the disciples towards mercy? There was a certain rich man who had a steward (Luke 16:1), or a manager, for this is what οἰκονόμος means. The steward is properly the governor of the estate, from which he is also called a steward. The οἰκονόμος, however, is a dispenser of both money and fruits and all that the master possesses. Therefore, the most beautiful book of Xenophon's Oeconomica is not about the management of the estate but the management of the entire household (interpreted by Cicero). Therefore, this steward was accused before his master because he was squandering his master's property. When he was called, [the master] said: "What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, for you can no longer be steward." What did he say to himself? "What shall I do, since my master is taking the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig; I am ashamed to beg." I know what I will do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses." He called each one of his master's debtors to him and said to the first, "How much do you owe my master?" He said, "A hundred measures of oil. He said to him: take your bill, and sitting down quickly, write fifty. Then he said to another: And how much do you owe? Who answered: A hundred quarters of wheat. He said to him: take your bill, and write eighty. And the lord commended the unjust steward, forasmuch as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. And I say to you: make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity; that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings. He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in that which is greater: and he that is unjust in that which is little, is unjust also in that which is greater. If then you have not been faithful in the unjust mammon, who will trust you with that which is the true? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's; who will give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Now all these things were heard by the Pharisees, who were greedy, and they ridiculed him. I have put the entire text of this parable so that we do not seek understanding from elsewhere and strive to find certain persons in the parable, but we should interpret it as a parable, that is, a comparison, which is called "parabolē" because it is "thrown beside" or compared, and is like the shadow of the pre-existent truth. Therefore, if the steward of unjust mammon is praised by the voice of the Lord because he has prepared justice for himself from an unjust matter, and the Lord, having suffered losses, praises the prudence of the steward, when he has acted fraudulently towards the Lord but wisely for himself, how much more will Christ, who cannot suffer any loss and is inclined to mercy, praise his disciples if they are merciful towards those who will believe ((or have believed)) in them? Finally, after the parable, he said: And I tell you, make friends for yourselves with unjust mammon. Mammon, however, in the language of the Syriacs, not the Hebrews, means wealth, because it has been collected unjustly. If, therefore, well-dispensed iniquity turns into justice: how much more will divine speech, in which there is no iniquity, and which is entrusted to the apostles, if it is well-dispensed, raise its dispensers to heaven? Therefore it follows: "He who is faithful in the least, that is, in earthly things, will also be faithful in many, that is, in spiritual things. But whoever is unjust in small things, so as not to give to his brothers for their use what has been created by God for all, he will also be unjust in dividing spiritual wealth, so that he may divide the doctrine of the Lord not for necessity, but for persons." But if, he says, you do not manage well the perishable riches of the flesh, who will trust you with the true and eternal riches of the doctrine of God? And if you have been unfaithful in what belongs to someone else (but everything that belongs to this age is someone else’s), who will give you what is yours? That is why he criticizes avarice and says that those who love money cannot love God. Therefore, even the Apostles, if they wish to love God, must hold money in contempt. So the scribes and Pharisees, who were greedy, understanding that the parable was directed at themselves, mocked Him, preferring the carnal things, which are certain and present, to the spiritual and future things, which are uncertain. Theophilus, the seventh Bishop of the Church of Antioch after the Apostle Peter, who compiled the sayings of the four Evangelists into one work, has spoken about this parable in his Commentaries. 'The rich man who had a steward, or manager, is Almighty God, who is richer than anything else. His steward is Paul, who learned the sacred Scriptures at the feet of Gamaliel (Act. 22. 3), and had received the Law of God to be dispensed.' When he had begun to persecute the believers in Christ, to bind them, to kill them, and to plunder all the substance of his Lord, he was rebuked by the Lord: Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the pricks. (Acts 9:4-5). And he thought to himself: What should I do? Since I, who was a teacher and a steward, must become a disciple and a worker. I cannot dig. For I see that all the commandments of the Law, which were on the earth, are destroyed; and that the Law and the Prophets were fulfilled up to John the Baptist. I am ashamed to beg, that I, who was a teacher of the Jews, should be compelled to beg for instruction from a gentile and from the disciple Ananias. Therefore, I will do what I think is useful to me: so that after I am dismissed from my position, Christians will receive me into their homes. And those who formerly practiced the law, but had now believed in Christ, began to teach that the law was abolished, and that the prophets had foretold these things. And they taught that what had been done by those who kept the law, was worthy of nothing but contempt (Philippians 3:8). Then he called two of his debtors. The first owed him one hundred measures of oil, that is, those who had been gathered from the Gentiles and were in great need of God's mercy; and he made them write fifty in the document instead of one hundred, which was a special number for those who repented, and based on the Jubilee, and that parable in the Gospel in which one is forgiven five hundred denarii, and another fifty. However, he called the people of the Jews who were nourished on the wheat of God's commandments, and who owed him a hundred denarii, and he forced them to make eighty out of a hundred, that is, to believe in the resurrection of the Lord, which is contained in the number of the eighth day, and is completed in eight decades, so that he might pass from the Sabbath of the Law to the first Sabbath. For this reason, it is preached by the Lord that he did well, and that he was changed from the severity of the Law to the mercy of the Gospel for his salvation. And if you ask why he is called the steward of iniquity in the Law, which is from God, he was an unjust steward who indeed offered well, but did not divide well, believing in the Father, but persecuting the Son; having almighty God, but denying the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Apostle Paul was wiser in transgressing the Law than the once children of light who, engaged in the observation of the Law, lost Christ who is the true light of God the Father. You can read what Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, thought about this place in his comments. I could not find an explanation of this parable in Origen and Didymus, and I am uncertain whether it has been abolished by the antiquity of the times or whether they did not write it themselves. To me, it seems according to my previous interpretation, that we ought to make friends for ourselves from the unjust mammon, not just any poor person, but those who can receive us into their homes and eternal dwellings, so that when we offer them small things, we may receive great things from them, and giving them what belongs to others, we may receive what belongs to us, and sow in blessing, so that we may reap blessings. For he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly.