Commentary on John, Book 1

Origen · a new plain-English translation from the Greek and Latin

VOLUME ONE. Just as, I think, the people of old called "God's people" was divided into twelve tribes, and had, set above the rest of the tribes, the Levitical order, which itself, arranged in several priestly and Levitical divisions, served the divine, so I think that the whole people of Christ, according to the hidden man of the heart, who is called in secret a Jew and circumcised in spirit, has

these same distinctive marks more mystically than the tribes did — as one can learn more plainly from John in the Apocalypse, nor have the other prophets kept silent about such things to those who know how to listen. This is how John puts it: "Then I beheld yet another angel rising up from where the sun comes forth, bearing the seal of the living God, and with a loud voice he called out to the four angels who had been given power to bring harm upon the earth and

the sea, saying: 'Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees, until we have marked the servants of our God upon their foreheads.' And I heard the number of the sealed: a hundred forty-four thousand had been sealed, drawn from every tribe of the sons of Israel — of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand sealed, of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand." And after

the rest of the tribes have been listed apart from Dan, he goes on next, after several more, to add: "Then I looked, and there stood the Lamb upon Mount Zion, and gathered with him were the hundred forty-four thousand, bearing his name and his Father's name inscribed upon their foreheads. Then I heard a sound out of heaven resembling the roar of many waters,

and like the sound of loud thunder; and the voice I caught was like harpers striking their harps. Before the throne, and in the presence of the four living creatures and the elders, they sing a song that is new; and no one was able to learn that song except the hundred forty-four thousand, who had been redeemed out of the earth. These are the ones who, together with

women were not defiled, for they are virgins; these follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these were purchased from among men as firstfruits for God and for the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless." Now that these things are said by John concerning those who have believed in Christ, and who are of the tribes even though

their bodily descent does not seem to trace back to the seed of the patriarchs, one may reason thus: "Do no harm," it says, "to the land, the sea, or the trees, until we have marked the servants of our God with a seal upon their brows." Then I heard how many were sealed — a hundred forty-four thousand marked with the seal, drawn from every tribe of Israel's sons."

Therefore those who are sealed on their foreheads out of every tribe of the sons of Israel number a hundred and forty-four thousand; and these same hundred and forty-four thousand are described further on, in John, as bearing the Lamb's name together with his Father's, inscribed upon their brows — these being virgins, undefiled by contact with women. Who

There would then be another seal on the foreheads, or rather the Lamb's name joined with his Father's, since in both passages the foreheads are said to bear, in one case, the seal, and in the other, letters spelling out the Lamb's name together with his Father's name. But we should also consider whether "those from the tribes" are the same

as "the virgins," as we have shown before, and rare is the one who believes from Israel according to the flesh, so that someone might even dare to say that the number of the hundred and forty-four thousand is not completed from those who believe from Israel according to the flesh, but it is clear that the hundred and forty-four thousand are made up of those who come to the divine word from the nations, together with

women who are not defiled - so that one who says that the virgins of each tribe are its firstfruits would not fall away from the truth. For indeed it is written: "These were purchased from among men as firstfruits for God and for the lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found; for they are blameless." But it must not be overlooked that the discourse concerning the hundred and forty-four thousand

virgins admits of an elevated interpretation. But it would now be superfluous, and not in keeping with the argument before us, to set out prophetic sayings that teach us the same thing concerning those from the nations. What then do all these things mean for us? You will say, as you read, O Ambrose, Ambrose, truly "man of God," and "man in Christ," and hastening to be "spiritual," no longer a man. Those from the tribes

bring up tithes and firstfruits to God through the Levites and priests, not having firstfruits or tithes for everything; but the Levites and priests, using tithes and firstfruits for everything, bring up tithes to God through the high priest, and I think firstfruits as well. Now among us who approach the teachings of Christ, most, occupying themselves greatly with life and

devoting few of their deeds to God, might perhaps be those from the tribes, having little fellowship with the priests and nourishing the service of God in a small measure; but those who are devoted to the divine word and become intent solely on the service of God, in genuine accord with the difference of the movements directed to this end, will not unfittingly be called Levites and priests. Perhaps

those who bear all things and, as it were, hold the first place of their own generation, will function as high priests in Aaron's order, not in Melchizedek's order. For if someone should raise an objection to this, thinking that we are being impious in assigning the name of high priest to men, since in many places Jesus is foretold as a great priest — for scripture tells us of one "who has passed through the heavens as a mighty high priest, Jesus

the Son of God" - it must be said to him that the apostle pointed out, saying that the prophet had spoken concerning Christ: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," rather than in Aaron's order. Taking our cue from this, we too say that according to the order of Aaron men can be high priests, but according to the order of Melchizedek, the Christ

of God. Since, then, every action of ours and our whole life is dedicated to God—for we press on toward the better things—and since we wish to have the whole of it as a single firstfruits of our many firstfruits (if indeed we are not mistaken in thinking so), what ought to be the activity that stands apart from all others, once we had been separated from one another in body, other than the inquiry into the gospel? For one must be bold enough to say that the gospel is the firstfruits

of all the scriptures. What else, then, ought to have been the firstfruits of our activity from the time we took up residence in Alexandria, than that which leads to the firstfruits of the scriptures? But we must know that firstfruits and first-produce are not the same thing: for the firstfruits is offered up after all the other fruits, while the first-produce comes before all of them. Among the scriptures, then, that are in circulation and believed by all the churches of God to be divine, one would not be wrong

to call the law of Moses the first-produce, and the gospel the firstfruits. For after all the fruits of the prophets, up to the Lord Jesus, the perfect Word sprang forth. III. But if someone should raise the counter-objection, on account of the notion of the unfolding of the firstfruits, saying that after the gospels come the Acts and the

epistles of the apostles in circulation, and that on this account what was stated earlier about the firstfruits—that the gospel is the firstfruits of every scripture—can no longer stand, one must reply that it is either the mind of wise men benefited in Christ, expressed in the epistles in circulation, requiring, in order to be believed, to be believed on the strength of testimonies laid down in the legal and prophetic writings; so that the apostolic writings, while wise and credible and altogether

successful, are nevertheless not comparable to “Thus says the Lord Almighty.” And in view of this, consider whether, when Paul says, “All scripture is God-breathed and profitable,” he includes his own writings as well; or whether “I say this, and not the Lord” and “I give this instruction in all the churches” and “What I suffered in Antioch, in

Iconium, in Lystra” and things similar to these, sometimes written by him, do not show * * * * apostolic * * * authority, yet not the unmixed purity of words that come from divine inspiration. 1 that 2 first-produce 10, 12 first-produce 22 credible: [variant readings] ... or not the [variant: or thus the],

or not the ... 28 the authority — indeed the whole apostolic — yet not the pure ... having been written and by authority ... not the unmixed purity — the authority granting the apostolic — not indeed the — presenting only — not indeed the — possessing firmly apostolic — appearing to have — apostolic all the — the whole

apostolic — presenting — not not the etc. Or this too must be shown: that the old covenant is not gospel, since it does not display “the one who is coming” but only proclaims him beforehand, whereas the whole of the new covenant is the gospel—not only because, echoing how the gospel opens, it declares, “See, the Lamb of God, who lifts away the world's sin,” but also because it contains various doxologies

containing also the teachings of him because of whom the gospel is called gospel at all. Further, if God set within the church apostles and prophets and evangelists, along with pastors and teachers, when we examine what the work of the evangelist is, we find it is not simply to narrate in what manner the savior healed one blind from birth, raised a stinking corpse, or performed any of his wonders,

we will not hesitate, since the evangelist is also characterized by an exhortatory discourse aimed at giving assurance concerning the things about Jesus, to call, in a sense, the writings of the apostles a gospel. But as far as concerns the second explanation, in reply to the objection that, because the letters are not entitled "gospel," it was not right for us to call the whole New Testament our gospel, it must be said that in many places of scripture

when two or more things are called by the same name, the name is applied more properly to one of the things so called. For instance, when the savior says, "Call no one teacher on earth," the apostle says that teachers too have been appointed in the church. These, then, will not be teachers so far as concerns the strict sense of the term. Likewise, that which is according to the letters will not be a gospel—

every piece of writing, that is, when it is set beside the narrative of the deeds and sufferings and words of Jesus. Nevertheless the gospel is the firstfruit of all scripture, and of all the acts we are to perform in accordance with prayer we make a firstfruit offering toward the firstfruit of the scriptures. Now I think that, there being four gospels, which serve, so to speak, as elements of the church's faith, out of

these as elements the whole world has been constituted, having been reconciled to God in Christ, as Paul states: “God, in Christ, was reconciling the world to himself”—not that Jesus took away the sin of the world in the ordinary sense; for the word that has been written concerns the world of the church: “See, the Lamb of God, who lifts away the world's sin.” The firstfruit of the gospels, I think,

is the one that has been assigned to us by you to investigate to the best of our ability, the Gospel according to John, who spoke of him whose genealogy is traced yet begins from him who has no genealogy. For Matthew, writing to the Hebrews who were expecting the one from Abraham and David, says, “The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham,” and Mark, who understood well what he was setting down, recounts the “beginning” of the

gospel," perhaps because we find its end in John * * * * the "Word who was in the beginning, God the Word." But Luke too * * * * * yet he reserves for the one who reclined on the breast of Jesus the greater and more perfect sayings about Jesus; for none of the others revealed

his divinity as undilutedly as John did, presenting him as saying: “I myself am the world's light,” “I myself am the road, the truth, and the life,” “I myself am the resurrection,” “I myself am the gate,” “I myself am the good shepherd”; and in the Revelation, “

‘I myself am the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end alike, first and last together.’ One must therefore dare to say that the firstfruits of all the scriptures are the gospels, and the firstfruits of the gospels is the Gospel according to John, whose meaning no one can grasp who has not leaned on the breast of Jesus, nor received from Jesus the Ma

ry who comes to be also his mother. And the one who is to become another John must become so great that John is shown, as it were, to be Jesus, by Jesus. For if, according to those who hold sound views about her, no one is the son of Mary except Jesus, yet it is Jesus who tells his mother, ‘Behold your son,’ and not ‘Behold, this one too is your son,’

he has said what is equal to ‘Behold, this is the Jesus whom you bore.’ For everyone who has been made perfect ‘lives no more’ himself, but instead ‘Christ lives’ in him, and since it is ‘Christ’ who ‘lives’ in him, this is what gets said to Mary about him: ‘Behold your son’ — the Christ. How great, then,

a mind we need, so that we may be able to take up, in a manner worthy of it, the word laid up in the cheap earthenware treasuries of ordinary language — the word that is a letter read by everyone who comes upon it, and a sense-perceptible thing heard through the voice by all who offer their bodily ears — what need is there even to speak of it? For the one who is going to grasp these things accurately, speaking with truth, must say: ‘But we

have the mind of Christ, so that we may know the things granted to us by God.’ It is also possible to bring this forward from what Paul says about the whole of the new dispensation being gospel, when he writes somewhere, ‘according to my gospel’; for in Paul’s writings we do not have a book customarily called ‘gospel,’ but everything that he proclaimed and

said, this was the gospel. And what he proclaimed and said, this he also wrote; and so what he wrote was gospel. And if Paul’s message was gospel, it follows to say that Peter’s too was gospel, and simply all the writings that establish Christ’s coming and prepare his arrival and bring it about in the souls of those who wish to receive the one who stands at

the door and knocks and wishes to enter into souls — the word of God. But what the name ‘gospel’ means to signify, and why these books bear this title, it is now time to examine. The gospel, then, is a discourse containing an announcement of matters that, being reasonable, gladden the hearer through their benefit, once he has accepted what is announced;

and such a discourse is no less a gospel even when it is examined in relation to the disposition of the hearer. Or: the gospel is a discourse containing the presence of a good thing for the one who believes, or a discourse announcing that the expected good thing is present. Now all the definitions we have stated apply to the writings entitled gospels. For each gospel, being a compilation of things beneficial to the one who believes and does not reject them,

producing benefit, in keeping with “it gladdens, it gladdens,” teaching, for the sake of human beings, the saving arrival of the “firstborn of all creation,” Christ Jesus. But also that each gospel is an account teaching the arrival of the good God the Father in the Son to those willing to accept it is clear to everyone who believes. And that it also announces, through these books, the good thing

that was expected is not unclear. For John the Baptist, taking up virtually the voice of the whole people, sends word to Jesus and says: “Are you the one who is coming, or should we expect another?” For the Christ was the good thing expected by the people, concerning whom, as the prophets proclaimed even down to ordinary people, everyone living beneath the law and the prophets had pinned their hopes on him,

as the Samaritan woman testifies, saying: “I know that a Messiah is coming—the one termed Christ; once that one arrives, he will report everything to us.” But also Simon and Cleopas, conversing with one another about all the things that had happened concerning Jesus, not yet knowing that the Christ himself had been raised, though he had already risen, say: “Are you the only one staying in Jerusalem who

does not know what has happened there during these days?” When he asked, “What sort of things?” they reply: “The matters concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who became a man, a prophet mighty in deed and speech in the sight of God and the whole people; and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to a sentence of death

and crucified him. But we were hoping that he is the one who is going to redeem Israel.” In addition to these, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, having found his own brother Simon, says: “We have found the Messiah,” which, translated, is Christ. And a little later Philip, having found Nathanael, says to him: “The one whom

Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also, we have found — Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.” Someone might seem to raise an objection to the first definition, since even the gospels that are not so entitled fall under it; for the law and the prophets are believed to be “words” containing an announcement that, by reasonable account, is beneficial by gladdening

those who hear it, whenever they receive what is said. To this one might respond that prior to Christ's arrival, the law and the prophets—inasmuch as the one who clarifies the mysteries within them had not yet come—did not carry the claim of the definition concerning the gospel; but the Savior, having arrived and having wished the gospel to take bodily form, made everything, as it were, gospel by means of the gospel. And it would not

be beside the point for me to use the example: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Because [...] the sons of men by his divinity, having removed the veil lying upon the law and the prophets, he demonstrated the divine element in all of them, plainly presenting to those willing to become disciples of his wisdom what the true things concerning Moses

of the law, of which the people of old were servants under «a pattern and a shadow,» and what the truth is of the matters recorded in the narratives, things that «occurred to them as a type, yet were written» for our sake, we upon whom the culmination of the ages has arrived. Everyone, then, to whom Christ has come, worships God neither in Jerusalem nor upon the Samaritans' mountain, but having learned that «God is

spirit,» worships him spiritually, «in spirit and truth,» and no longer worships the Father and maker of all things typologically. Therefore, before the gospel that came about through Christ's coming, none of the ancient things constituted a gospel. Yet the gospel—being the new covenant—having removed us from the oldness of the letter, shone out with the light of knowledge the never-aging newness of the spirit, which belongs properly to the new

covenant, and which lies stored up in all the scriptures. And it was fitting that the thing productive of what was reckoned a gospel even in the old covenant should be called, in a special sense, “gospel.” Yet one must not fail to recognize that Christ's coming — even before his coming in the body — took place intelligibly for the more perfect, who are not infants and are no longer under «tutors» and «guardians,» those for whom the

intelligible fullness of time had already arrived, as it had for the patriarchs and for Moses the attendant, and for the prophets to whom Christ's glory was revealed. And just as before his visible, bodily coming he had come to the perfect, so also, after the proclaimed presence, he comes to those still infants, inasmuch as they are «under guardians» and «stewards» and have not yet reached the fullness of time; for whom

the forerunners of Christ have come, words fitted to childlike souls, who might rightly be called “tutors.” The Son himself, however — God the Word in his glory — has not come to them yet, waiting for the necessary preparation to take place in the men of God who are to become capable of receiving his divinity. And this too one ought to know: that just as there is a «law holding a shadow of good things yet to arrive,» made clear by the law proclaimed in truth and by the things it

signifies, so too the gospel — the one that is thought by all who encounter it to be readily understood — sets forth a mere shadow of Christ's mysteries as teaching. And what John calls the “eternal gospel,” which might fittingly be called spiritual, plainly sets before those who understand «all things» concerning the Son of God himself, both the mysteries presented by his words and the realities of which his deeds were riddles.

From these things it follows that we should understand that, just as one is a Jew openly and circumcised . . . and another circumcision is in secret, so too there is a Christian and a baptism that are open, and another that is hidden. And Paul and Peter, who were formerly openly Jews and circumcised, later received from Jesus to be such also in secret — their being openly

Jews serving, by way of economy, the salvation of the many, confessing this not only in word but also demonstrating it through deeds. And the same must be said also concerning their Christianity. And just as it is not possible for Paul to benefit those who are Jews according to the flesh, unless — when reason so requires — he circumcises Timothy, and — when it is fitting — has his head shaved and makes an offering,

and altogether became, to the Jews, as a Jew, so as to win them over, so also, in the case of what is set forth for the benefit of many, it is not possible through the hidden Christianity alone to improve those being given their first instruction in the visible Christianity and to lead them forward to what is better and higher. For this reason it is necessary to practice Christianity both spiritually and bodily; and where it is necessary to proclaim the bodily gospel, saying,

"to know nothing" among fleshly things "but Jesus Christ, and him crucified," this must be done; but when they are found to have been fitted together in spirit and to be bearing fruit in it, and to be in love with heavenly wisdom, the word must be shared with them once it has returned, from having become flesh, to that state in which it "was in the beginning with God." In examining these matters concerning the gospel, we do not think we have spoken in vain, distinguishing in thought, as it were, a perceptible

gospel from an intelligible and spiritual one. For indeed our present task is to transpose the perceptible gospel into the spiritual. For what is the value of the narrative of the perceptible gospel, if it is not transposed into the spiritual? It is either none at all, or slight, and belongs only to ordinary people who have persuaded themselves to grasp what is signified from the bare wording. But the whole struggle before us lies in attempting to reach the depths

of the gospel's mind and to search out in it the truth stripped bare of its figures. Now among those who preach good news — good things being understood in the announcing — the apostles preach Jesus as good news; yet they are also said to preach the resurrection as a good thing, and this is in some way Jesus himself; for Jesus says, "I am the resurrection." And Jesus preaches as good news to the poor the things laid up for the saints, calling them

to the divine promises. And the divine scriptures bear witness to the good tidings proclaimed by the apostles and to that proclaimed by our savior, David speaking of the apostles — and perhaps also of the evangelists — when he says: "The Lord will give a word to those who preach good news with great power; the king of hosts, of the beloved," at the same time also teaching that it is not the composition of speech and the utterance of words and

practiced elegance of diction that achieves persuasion, but the supplying of divine power. This is why Paul too says somewhere: "I will come to know not the discourse of those who are puffed up, but their power; for God's reign consists not in talk but in power," and elsewhere: "And my word and my proclamation were not delivered in wisdom's persuasive phrases, but were shown forth in demonstration of

spirit and power." Bearing witness to this power, Simon and Cleopas declare: "Did our heart not burn within us while on the road, as he opened up the scriptures to us?" But the apostles, since there is also a quantity of the power supplied by God that differs among those who speak, possessed it according to what is said in David: "The Lord will give a word to those who preach good news with great power" —

meaning much power — while Isaiah, saying, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good things," understands the timely beauty as the preaching of the apostles as they traveled the road of the one who declared, "I am the way," and praises as "feet" those who walk by the intelligible road of Christ Jesus, and enter through the door to God as well. And these preach "good things" as good news, of which

feet, Jesus. And let no one be surprised that we have understood Jesus to be announced under the plural name of "good things." For if we grasp the realities to which the names belong that the Son of God is called by, we shall grasp just how many good things Jesus is, the one these announce, those whose feet are beautiful. For one good thing is life, and Jesus is life.

And here is a further good thing: “the light of the world,” shown to be genuinely “true” light and also “the light of men” — the Son of God is called each of these. Beyond life and light there is, conceptually, still another good, namely truth, and a fourth beyond these three, the road that carries one toward it — our Savior teaches that he is every one of these, declaring, “I am the

way; I am truth; I am life." And how could it not be a good thing to shake off dust and deadness and rise — something one obtains from the Lord precisely as he is resurrection, since he himself declares, “I am the resurrection”? So too the door, the passage by which someone enters supreme blessedness, counts as good; and it is Christ who says, “I am the door.”

But why must we say anything further about wisdom, whom "God founded as the origin of his ways, meant for his own works," in whom her father took delight, rejoicing in her richly varied intelligible beauty, seen only by intelligible eyes, and calling the one who contemplates the divine beauty on to a heavenly love? For the wisdom of God is a good thing, which is announced together with the aforementioned by those whose feet are

beautiful. But the power of God too is now counted for us as an eighth good thing, which is Christ. Nor should we pass over in silence that Word, who is God, ranked after the Father of all things; for this good thing too is inferior to none. Blessed, then, are those who have made room for these good things and have received them from the beautiful feet of those who announce them.

Yet even if someone, being a Corinthian, since Paul had resolved to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ, and him crucified, learns of and accepts the man who came to be for our sake, he comes to be "in the beginning" of the good things, becoming through the man Jesus a "man of God" and dying to sin by his death; for that one too, in that he "died, died to sin once for all." And from

his life, since Jesus, in that he "lives, lives to God," everyone who has come to share the form of his resurrection receives the living to God. And who doubts that righteousness-itself is a good thing, and sanctification-itself, and redemption-itself? These too the very ones who announce Jesus announce, saying that he became for us righteousness from God, and sanctification, and redemption. It will be possible from these things

that have been written about him, hard as they are to enumerate, to show how great a multitude of good things Jesus is — conjecturing, from the things hard to enumerate and written down, at those that exist in him, in whom "the whole fullness of deity was pleased" to dwell "bodily," though not in such a way as to be contained by writings. And why do I say "by writings," when even about the whole world John says, "I do not suppose even it"

The world could contain the "books" that are written. It is therefore the same thing to say that the apostles preach the good news of the savior and that they preach the good news of good things. For he is the one who received from the good Father the being of good things, so that each person, receiving through Jesus what he can contain, or as much as he can contain, may find himself among good things. But the apostles were not able to do this on their own—those whose "feet are beautiful"—

nor could their emulators preach the good news of good things, unless Jesus had first preached the good news of these things to them, as Isaiah says: "I myself am present, speaking; like a season upon the mountains, like the feet of one preaching the good news of a report of peace, like one preaching the good news of good things, because I will make your salvation heard, saying to Zion: Your God shall reign." For what are the mountains upon which

he himself, the one speaking, confesses to be present, if not those who are inferior to none of the highest and greatest things upon the earth? These are the ones who must be sought out by the competent ministers of the new covenant, so that they may keep the commandment that says: "Go up upon a high mountain, you who preach good news to Zion; lift up your voice with strength, you who preach good news to Jerusalem." It is not surprising that to those who are about to preach

the good news of good things, Jesus preaches the good news of good things, these being nothing other than himself; for it is himself that the Son of God announces as good news to those able to learn him not through others. Yet the one who goes up upon the mountains and preaches the good news of good things to them has been taught by the good Father, who causes "his sun to rise on both the wicked and the good" and who sends rain down "on both the righteous and the unrighteous," and does not disdain the poor in spirit.

For to these too he preaches the good news, as he himself testifies, taking up Isaiah and reading: "The Spirit of the Lord rests upon me, because he anointed me to announce good news to the poor; he has sent me to proclaim release to captives and recovery of sight to the blind." For having "rolled up" the book and "given it back to the attendant, he sat down," and while all were gazing intently at him, he said: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your

ears." It is necessary to know that within so great a gospel is comprised also every good deed done toward Jesus, just as also the fragrance of the woman who had done evil deeds and had repented, and who was able, through her genuine turning away from evil, to pour out upon Jesus and upon the whole house the breath of the ointment so as to be perceived by all who were in it—

for this reason it is also written: "Wherever this gospel is preached among all the nations, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." It is plain, moreover, that whatever is accomplished on behalf of those who have become his disciples happens on behalf of Jesus himself; for indeed, pointing out those who had been well treated, he says to those who had done it: "Whatever you did for these, you did for me"—so that every good deed

done by us toward our neighbor is referred back to the gospel that is written on the tablets of heaven and read by all who have been deemed worthy of the knowledge of all things. But conversely, it is also part of the gospel for the accusation of those who committed the sins done against Jesus. For instance, the betrayal of Judas and the outcry of the impious people saying, "Away

...from the earth such a one," and "Crucify, crucify" him, along with the mockery poured on him by those who wove the crown of thorns for his head, and other things of this kind are set down in the gospels. It follows from this to understand that everyone who betrays a disciple of Jesus is reckoned a betrayer of Jesus. At any rate, to Saul, who was still persecuting, he said: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" and "I am

Jesus, whom you persecute." But who are they that have the thorns with which they crown Jesus, dishonoring him? Those who, being smothered under the anxieties, wealth, and pleasures "of life," having taken in the word of God, "never bring it to maturity." We must therefore be on guard lest we too, crowning Jesus with our own thorns, be recorded as such and be read about by those who learn of the Jesus who is in all and among all

rational or holy beings, and learn in what manner he is anointed with myrrh and feasted and glorified, or, on the contrary, is dishonored and mocked and struck. These things have of necessity been said by us to show that our good deeds, and the sins of those who stumble against the gospel, are recorded either "unto eternal life or unto reproach and everlasting shame." But if

among human beings there are those honored with the ministry of evangelists, and Jesus himself brings good news, and brings good news to the poor, should not those who were made by God "spirits, angels," and those who exist as "a blazing fire," serving as "ministers" to the Father of all things, be deprived of also being evangelists themselves? For this reason too an angel, standing before the shepherds, speaks, having made glory shine around

them: "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy, which shall be for all the people, because there has been born to you today a savior, the Lord Christ himself, in David's city" — at a time when human beings did not yet understand the mystery of the gospel, those superior to them, being the heavenly army of God, praising God, said: "Glory in the highest to God, and on earth peace, among

human beings, good will." And having said these things the angels depart from the shepherds into heaven, leaving it for us to understand how the "joy" announced to us through the birth of Christ Jesus is "glory" "in the highest to God," while those who had been humbled to dust turn back "to their rest," and are about, "in the highest," to glorify God through Christ. But the angels also marvel

at the peace on earth that was to come through Jesus, in that region of warfare into which the "morning star, rising early," having fallen "from heaven," is crushed by Jesus. In addition to what has been said, this too must be known about the gospel: that the gospel belongs first to the head of the whole body of those being saved, Christ Jesus, exactly as Mark puts it: "The beginning of the gospel of Christ

Jesus." But it already belongs to the apostles as well; hence Paul says: "According to my gospel." Yet the beginning of the gospel — for it has magnitude, having a beginning and what follows, and a middle, and an end — is either the whole of the old covenant, of which John is a type, or, on account of the connection of the new with the old, the ends of the

...of the old testament, which we are presenting by means of John. For that same Mark writes: “Thus begins the gospel of Jesus Christ, exactly as the prophet Isaiah recorded it in writing: See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, and he will clear your road. A voice calling out in the desert: Get the Lord's way ready, straighten out the paths he will walk.” Hence it occurs to me to wonder how by two

gods the heterodox attach both testaments, being refuted no less by this very saying. For how can there be a “beginning of the gospel,” as they suppose, when John belongs to another god, being the man of the demiurge and, as they think, ignorant of the new deity? Nor is it a single and small evangelical ministry that is entrusted to angels, nor one directed only to

the shepherds alone; but rather, at the end, an angel suspended aloft and flying, holding a gospel, will preach the gospel to every nation, the good Father not wholly abandoning those who have fallen away from him. At any rate John the son of Zebedee writes in the Apocalypse: “Then I beheld a flying angel, up in mid-heaven, having an eternal gospel to proclaim to those seated on the earth, and to every nation and

tribe and tongue and people,” crying out in a mighty voice: “Stand in fear of God and render him glory, since his hour of judgment has arrived; bow down before the one who made heaven and earth and sea and springs of water.” Since, then, we have set forth, according to one interpretation, that the whole “beginning of the gospel” is the old testament, signified through the name

of John, in order that this interpretation not be without witness, we shall adduce what is said in Acts concerning that eunuch who served the queen of the Ethiopians, together with Philip: “For,” it says, “Philip, beginning from the scripture of Isaiah, ‘As a sheep he was brought to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer,’ preached to him the Lord Jesus.” For how, beginning from the prophet,

does he preach Jesus as good news, unless Isaiah was, in some sense, one piece of the gospel's opening? At the same time, what we said at the outset concerning the possibility that all divine scripture can be gospel can also be made clear from this. For if the one who brings good news “brings good things,” and all who lived before the bodily coming of Christ bring the good news of Christ, who is “the good things,” as we have shown, then in some way all of them

are somehow part of the words of the gospel. And this gospel, which is said to be spoken in the whole world, we understand to be announced in the whole world — not only in the earthly region, but in the whole system composed of heaven and earth, or of the heavens and earth. And what need is there to dwell any longer on the discussion of what the gospel is?

Since these things have been said sufficiently, and from them those who are not lacking in discernment are able to gather similar points from the scriptures and to see what the glory is of the good things that are in Christ Jesus, as it comes forth from the gospel through the service rendered by men and by angels, and, I think, likewise by rulers, powers, thrones, and dominions—together with every title that can be given a name, not only in

in this age but also in »the age to come«, if indeed by Christ himself — there, somewhere, we shall bring to a close the matters that precede our reading through together what has been written. And now let us ask God to work together with us, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit, toward the unfolding of the mystical sense stored up in the words. Not only do the Greeks say that there are many things signified by the term »beginning«; but

for if someone should take care to gather this word from every quarter and wish to examine precisely, understanding in each place of the scriptures what it is applied to, he will find, according to the divine word too, that the term has many senses. For one sense is that of a transition, and another is that of a road and a length; which is shown from »The beginning of a good road is to do

what is just.« For since »the good road« happens to be the greatest, one must understand that at the first stages it is the practical, which is set forth through »to do what is just«, and in what follows, the contemplative; at which, I think, its end also arrives, in what is called the restoration, because at that time no enemy is left, if indeed it is true that »he must reign, until

he puts all his enemies under his feet; and the last enemy to be abolished is death.« For then there will be one activity for those who have come, through the word directed toward him, into relation with God — that of contemplating God, so that they may thus become, in the knowledge of the Father, all shaped † precisely as the son, as now the Son alone has known the

Father. For if someone should carefully examine when they will come to know — those to whom the Son who has known the Father reveals the Father — and should observe that the one who now sees »through a mirror and in a riddle« sees, not yet having known even as »one ought not yet know«, he would not be wrong to say that no one has known the Father, whether he be apostle or prophet, but only when they become one, as

the Son and the Father are one. But someone might suppose that we have digressed, in clarifying one meaning of »beginning« and having said these things; we must show that the digression was necessary and useful for the matter before us. For if »beginning« is used in the sense of a transition and of a road and a length, and »the beginning of a good road is to do what is just«, one may know that every good road

in a certain way has »as its beginning« »to do what is just«, but after the beginning, contemplation, and in a certain manner, contemplation. There is also »beginning« in the sense of coming-into-being, which one might suppose applies to »At the outset God fashioned the sky and the earth«; but I think this meaning is proclaimed more clearly in Job, according to the text, »This

is the beginning of the Lord's creature, made to be mocked at by his angels.« For one might suppose that, among the things that came to be in the coming-into-being of the world, »in the beginning« »heaven« and »earth« had been made beforehand; but it is better, with reference to the second saying, since many bodily things had come to be, that the first of the things in a body is the one called the dragon, being also named somewhere

"the great sea monster," which the Lord subdued. And it is necessary to consider whether the one called the dragon, having fallen from the pure life—the utterly immaterial and incorporeal life which those who live in the blessedness of the saints live—became worthy, before all others, of being bound to matter and body, so that for this reason the Lord, speaking through the whirlwind and the clouds, might say: "This is the beginning of the Lord's creation, made to be mocked

by his angels." It is possible, though, that the dragon is not simply and without qualification "the beginning of the Lord's creation," but rather that, among the many made "to be mocked" in a body "by the angels," he stands as the beginning of such ones—for some are capable of existing in a body without being of this sort; indeed the soul of the sun exists in a body, and so does all creation, concerning which the apostle says: "All

creation groans and travails together until now." And perhaps it is concerning that creation that the saying applies: "Creation was subjected to futility, unwillingly, yet on account of the one who subjected it, in hope." so that the bodies are the futility, and the doing of bodily things—which is necessary [...] for the one in the body [...]—exists. The one who

is in a body does the things of the body not willingly; for this reason creation was subjected to futility, not willingly. And the one who does the things of the body unwillingly does whatever he does on account of hope, just as we might say that Paul wished "to abide still in the flesh" against his own preference but on account of hope; for although in himself he preferred "to depart and be with Christ," it is not unreasonable

that he willed to "remain in the flesh" for the benefit and advancement of others in the things hoped for, not only his own advancement but also that of those benefited by him. And in accordance with this meaning—"beginning" understood as of origin—we shall also be able to understand what is said by Wisdom in Proverbs: "For God," it says, "founded me as beginning of his ways, unto his works."

It can, however, also be referred to the first sense, that is, "beginning" as of a road, because it is said: "God founded me as beginning of his ways." And it would not be absurd, speaking plainly and going further, to call the God of all things "beginning" as well, since it is the Father who is beginning of the Son, and the Creator who is beginning of the things created, and, simply, God who is beginning of the things that exist. And he will find support through

the saying "In the beginning was the Word," understanding by "Word" the Son, since being in the Father is called being "in the beginning." A third sense is "that from which," as in "from underlying matter"—a "beginning" for those who hold matter to be ungenerated, but not for us who are persuaded that God made the things that exist out of things that did not exist, as the mother of the

seven martyrs in Maccabees taught, and the angel of repentance in the Shepherd. In addition to these, "beginning" is also used in the sense of "according to which," as, for instance, in this way: given that the firstborn of all creation is icon of the unseen God, it is the Father who is his beginning. And likewise Christ is beginning of those brought into being according to God's image. For if human beings exist "according to the image,"

But the image is patterned after the Father: in one respect the Father is the beginning of Christ, in another respect Christ is the beginning of human beings, who came into being not in accordance with the one whose image he is, but in accordance with the image itself. And the phrase ‘In the beginning was the Word’ will fit this same illustration. There is also a beginning in the sense of learning, according to which we say the elements

are the beginning of grammar. It is in this sense that the apostle says, ‘Though by this time you ought to be teachers, you again have need of someone to instruct you as to what the elements are of the beginning of the oracles of God.’ Now the beginning of learning is twofold: one by nature, the other in relation to us — as, for instance, if we should say concerning Christ, that by nature his beginning is

his divinity, but in relation to us — since we are not able to begin from his greatness toward the truth about him — it is his humanity, according to which Jesus Christ is proclaimed to infants, and him crucified; so that on this account one may say that the beginning of learning is, by nature, Christ inasmuch as he embodies God's wisdom and power, yet in relation to us it is the fact that 'the Word became flesh'

and ‘dwelt among us,’ since only in this way are we able to receive him at first. And perhaps for this reason he is not only ‘firstborn of all creation,’ but also Adam, which is interpreted ‘man.’ That he is Adam, Paul says: ‘The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’ There is also a beginning in the sense of an action, in which action there is some end after the beginning. And consider

whether wisdom, being the beginning of God’s actions, can likewise be understood as a beginning in this sense. Since so many meanings of ‘beginning’ have now occurred to us, we ask in which of them we ought to take the phrase ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ And it is clear that it is not in the sense of transition, or of a road and its length; and it is no less evident that it is not in the sense of coming-into-being.

Yet it is possible to take it in the sense of that under which the maker produces, given that God gave the command and so they came into being. For Christ is in a sense the craftsman, the one to whom the Father speaks: let light come to be, and let a firmament come to be. And Christ is craftsman as beginning, insofar as he is wisdom, being called beginning precisely by being wisdom. For wisdom, in Solomon, says: 'God

created me as a beginning of his ways, for the sake of his works,' so that the Word might exist as beginning, in wisdom — wisdom being understood with respect to the framing of the contemplation and concepts concerning the totality of things, while the Word is taken with respect to the communication, to rational beings, of the things contemplated. And it is not surprising if, as we said before, the Savior, being many good things conceived at once,

has within himself things first, second, and third. John, at any rate, went on to say concerning the Word: ‘What came to be in him was life.’ Life, then, came to be in the Word; and the Word is none other than Christ, the God-Word, who is with the Father, through whom all things came into being; nor is life other than the Son

of God, who declares: I myself am the way, the truth, and the life. Just as, then, the life came to be in the Word, so the Word was in the beginning. But consider whether it is possible for us to understand 'In the beginning was the Word' also according to this meaning, namely that in accordance with the wisdom and the types

of the arrangement of the thoughts contained within it, all things come to be. For I think that, just as according to the architect's plans a house or a ship is built or fashioned—the house and the ship having their beginning in the plans and rational principles present in the craftsman—so also all things came to be according to the rational principles of what was to be, made manifest beforehand by God in wisdom. «For he made all things in wisdom.»

And it must be said that God, having created—if I may put it this way—a living wisdom, entrusted to her, on the basis of the patterns within her, the task of providing to the things that exist, and to the whole, <both> their shaping and their forms; though I myself hesitate whether their substances as well. It is not difficult, then, to put it more crudely and say that the Son of God is the beginning of the things that exist, since he says: «I

am the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.» But it is necessary to know that he is not, in every sense in which «beginning» is spoken of, himself that beginning. For how, in respect of his being life, can he be the beginning—seeing that this life came to be in the Word, the Word evidently being its beginning? And still more clearly, in respect of his being «firstborn»

«from the dead,» he cannot be the beginning. And if we examine carefully how many his conceptions (epinoiai) are, it is only in respect of his being wisdom that he is beginning; not even in respect of his being Word is he beginning, if indeed «the Word was in the beginning»—so that one might say with confidence that wisdom is older than all the things conceived under the names «the firstborn of all creation.»

God, then, is altogether one and simple; but our Savior, on account of the many, since God «set him forth» as a means of atonement and as firstfruits of all creation, becomes many things—or perhaps even all these things—according to what all creation, capable of being set free, has need of him for. And for this reason he becomes the light of men, when men, darkened by wickedness,

have need of the light that shines in the darkness and is never overtaken by that darkness; yet without men having existed in darkness, he would never have come to be the light of mankind. And one may understand the like also concerning his being firstborn from the dead. For suppose, hypothetically, that no deception had been worked upon the woman and Adam had not lapsed into transgression, but man, having been created for incorruption, had held fast to incorruption,

he would neither have gone down «to the dust of death» nor would he have died, sin not existing, for whose sake, because of his love for mankind, it was necessary for him to die; and had these things not come to pass, he would not have become «firstborn from the dead.» It must also be examined whether he would not have become shepherd either, had man not been compared «to the senseless cattle» nor been made like

»...to them.« For if God saves both men and cattle, he saves as cattle those whom he saves, having granted them a shepherd — namely those who cannot make room for the king. We must therefore examine, by gathering together the names of the Son, which of them would not have come into being for those who began and remained in blessedness, being so many as they are. For perhaps only wisdom would have remained, or also word, or also life, but certainly

also truth; but not, however, the other things which he has taken on for our sake. And blessed indeed are as many as, having had need of the Son of God, have become such that they no longer need him as physician healing those who are unwell, nor as shepherd, nor as redemption, but rather as wisdom and word and righteousness, or whatever else there is for those who, through their perfection, are able to make room for what is most beautiful in him.

So much, then, concerning »In the beginning.« Let us look more carefully at what the word in it is. It often occurs to me to marvel, as I consider what is said about him by some who wish to believe in Christ, why on earth, though names hard to number are assigned to our Savior, they pass over most of them in silence, and even if ever mention is made of them, they take them up not properly but figuratively,

as though he were to be named by these only in a manner of speaking, while, standing fast on the title »Word« alone, they say that Christ of God is only »Word,« and do not, in keeping with the rest of the things he is named, search out the force of what is signified from the word »Word.« Now what I say I marvel at concerning the many — for I shall put it more clearly — is this. The Son of God says somewhere:

»I am the world's light«; and elsewhere, »I am the resurrection.« And again he says, »I am the way, I am the life.« And it is written also, »I am the door.« It is said too, »I am the good shepherd«; and to the Samaritan woman who said, »We know that a Messiah is coming, the one called Christ; when

he comes, he will announce to us all things,« he answers, »I am he who is speaking to you.« Besides this, when he washed the feet of the disciples, he confesses through these words that he is their Lord and Teacher: »You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you say well, for I am.« But he also plainly proclaims himself to be the Son of God, saying: »He whom the Father sanctified and sent

into the world — you say, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘Son of God’«; and: »Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son, that the Son may glorify you.« We find him also proclaiming himself king, as when, answering Pilate's question, »Are you the king of the Jews?« he says, »My kingdom is not of this

world; if my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would have fought so that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, my kingdom is not from here.« We have also read, »I am the true vine; my Father tends it as the vinedresser«; and again: »I am the vine, you

Let “the branches” also be numbered among these, and “I am the bread of life”; and again, “I am the bread that lives, having come down out of heaven, giving life to the world.” These, then, are the things that have occurred to us for the present and that we have set out from what is found in the Gospels—so many things does the Son of God say he himself is. But also

in the Revelation of John he declares: “I am first and last, the living one; I died, and see, I am alive for ages upon ages.” And again: “I have become Alpha and Omega, first and last, beginning and end.” There are no few things that one who reads through the other books with attention could gather similarly also from the prophets—

for instance, that he calls himself a “chosen arrow” and “servant of God” and “light of the nations.” So Isaiah says: “From my mother’s womb the Lord called my name, and made my mouth like a sharp sword, and hid me under the shelter of his hand; he set

me as a chosen arrow, and hid me in his quiver, and said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, and in you…’” And after a little: “My God will himself be my strength.” Thus he spoke to me: it is a great matter that you should be called my child, so as to raise up the tribes of Jacob and turn back Israel's dispersion;

behold, I have made you a light of the nations, that you may be for salvation as far as the end of the earth.” But also in Jeremiah he likens himself thus to a lamb: “I was like an innocent lamb led to be sacrificed.” These things, then, and things similar to these, he says of himself; and it is possible to gather countless further titles from the Gospels and from the apostles and through the

prophets by which the Son of God is called—whether it is the writers of the Gospels setting forth their own understanding concerning what he is, or the apostles, out of what they have learned, glorifying him, or the prophets proclaiming beforehand his coming sojourn and announcing the things concerning him under various names. For instance, John proclaims him

“lamb of God,” proclaiming: “Behold, God’s lamb, the one lifting away the world’s sin”; and “man,” through these words: “This is the one about whom I said, ‘Coming after me is a man who has come to exist ahead of me, since he ranked before me’; and I myself did not know him.” And in the catholic epistle John calls him “advocate” on our souls’ behalf

before the Father, saying: “And should anyone sin, an advocate stands with us before the Father — Jesus Christ, the righteous one.” He then adds that “he himself is propitiation concerning our sins.” In similar fashion Paul calls him a “propitiatory,” declaring: “whom God set forth as a mercy-seat, through faith, in his own blood, for the passing over

of the sins previously committed, "in the forbearance of God." And it has been proclaimed, according to Paul, that he is wisdom and power of God, as in the letter to the Corinthians, that Christ is power and God's wisdom; and besides these, that he is also "sanctification" and "redemption": "For he became for us, it says, wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption." But also that he is a

great high priest he teaches us he is, writing to the Hebrews: "Since, then, we possess a high priest of great rank who has passed clear through the heavens — Jesus, God’s own Son — let us hold fast to our confession." The prophets, besides these, call him by other names as well: Jacob, in the blessing of his sons, calls him Judah; for the words "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hands shall be

on the neck of your enemies; the sons of your father shall bow down to you; Judah is a lion's whelp; from the shoot, my son, you have gone up; you have lain down and slept like a lion, and like a lion's whelp; who will rouse him?" — it is not fitting for the present occasion to set forth word for word how the things said to Judah refer to Christ. But there is also

an objection that can reasonably be brought forward: "A ruler out of Judah shall not be lacking, nor one who leads, sprung from his loins," which will be treated more fittingly elsewhere. And Isaiah knows that the Christ is also named Jacob and Israel, saying: "Jacob my servant, I will lay hold of him; Israel my chosen, my soul has accepted him; he will announce judgment to the nations. He will not strive nor cry out, nor will anyone hear

his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings forth judgment to victory, and in his name the nations will hope." That he of whom these things are prophesied is the Christ, Matthew clearly shows in the Gospel, recalling part of the passage, saying: "that what was spoken might be fulfilled: He will not

strive nor cry out," and so on. And the Christ is also called David, as when Ezekiel, prophesying to the shepherds, adds, speaking in the person of God: "David my servant I will raise up, and he shall shepherd them as their guardian" — for it is not David the patriarch who will rise up to shepherd the saints, but Christ. Further, Isaiah calls the Christ "rod" and "flower" in the passage:

"A rod shall spring forth from Jesse's root, and a flower shall rise up from that root, and upon him the Spirit of God will rest, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and might, a spirit of knowledge and piety, and he shall fill him with the spirit of the fear of God." And our Lord is also called "stone" in the psalms, thus: "The stone which the builders rejected,

this became the head of the corner; this came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes." Both the Gospel and Luke's Acts make it clear that this stone is none other than the Christ himself: the Gospel puts it thus: "Have you not read this: The stone the builders rejected, this became the head of the corner? Everyone who falls

"whoever falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and on whomever it falls, it will crush him." But in the Acts Luke writes: "This is the stone rejected by you builders, that has become the head of the corner." One, then, of the names assigned to the Savior — though not spoken by him but recorded by John — is also:

"The Word, who in the beginning was with God, God the Word." And it merits attention that those who pass by so many of the names given to him instead make exclusive use of this one, and who, when it comes to those other names, look for an explanation if someone brings them forward, but when it comes to this one accept as self-evident what it even means for the Son of God to be called Word — especially since

they constantly make use of "My heart belched forth a good word," supposing that the Son of God is a kind of paternal utterance laid out, as it were, in syllables, and on this basis, if we inquire of them precisely, they do not grant him a subsistence of his own, nor do they clarify his substance — we are not yet saying of what particular kind, but simply that he has some substance at all. For to conceive of a word that is uttered as being a son is something impossible even for the ordinary person.

And such a word, living by itself — either not separated from the Father, and on this account, not having its own subsistence, not even being a son at all, or else separated and possessed of substance — let them declare to us as God the Word. It must be said, then, that just as with each of the aforementioned names one must unfold the concept of the one named starting from the naming itself, and fit it together with a demonstration of how

the Son of God is said to bear this name, so too must one proceed in the case of his being named Word. For what warrant is there for not standing still, in the case of each individual term, on the mere wording, but rather, for instance, inquiring how he is to be understood as "door" and in what way as "vine" and for what reason as "way," while in the case of "Word" alone, not doing the

same thing? So then, in order that we may accept what is about to be said concerning how the Son of God is Word in a more compelling way, we must begin from the names of his that were proposed to us at the outset. And we are not unaware that such a procedure will seem to some to be quite a digression; nevertheless, upon reflection it will also prove useful for the matter at hand, to examine thoroughly the concepts according to

which the names are set, and that beforehand there be an understanding of the things that follow. Once we have fallen into theology concerning the Savior, we must of necessity, insofar as we are able, discover through inquiry what pertains to him, so that we may understand him more fully not only as he is Word but also in the rest. He used to say, then, that he himself is "the light of the world"; and the things adjoining

this designation must be squeezed out together with it — things that might seem to some not merely adjoining but actually identical. Now there is "the light of men," "the true light," and "a light for the nations" — light of men appearing at the very opening of the Gospel before us: "That which came to be, he says, in him was life, and that life was the light for men; and the"

the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness “has not overcome it.” But “true light” is written a little further on in the same scripture: “It was the true light, which enlightens every man, coming into the world.” And “light of the nations” occurs in Isaiah, as we said before when we quoted, “Behold, I have set you as a light of the nations, that you might be for salvation

unto the uttermost part of the earth.” The sun is, in a perceptible sense, the light of the world, and it would not be inapt if the moon and the stars, coming after it, were called by that same name. But those things which Moses speaks of as having come into being on the fourth day, being merely perceptible light, since they give their light to things upon the earth, are not the true light; whereas the Savior, shining upon the rational and

governing beings, so that their mind may see what is properly its own to see, is the light of the intelligible world. I mean of the rational souls that are in the perceptible world, and if there is anything besides these that completes the world of which the Savior teaches that we are, perhaps that is its most sovereign and distinguished part, and, so to speak, the maker of a great day's

sun belonging to the Lord. On account of that day he says to those who share in his light: “Labor while it is day; night comes when no one is able to labor any more.” “While I remain in the world, I serve as its light.” He also tells the disciples, “You are this world's light,” and, “Let your light be seen before men.” The

corresponding role for the moon and stars we take to belong to the bride, the church, and the disciples, who possess a light of their own, or one acquired from the true sun, so that they might give light to those who have not been able to establish within themselves a source of light. For instance, we will call Paul and Peter “light of the world,” but those who happen to be among the disciples taught by them are themselves illumined, yet are not able to illumine others,

the world, of which world the apostles were the light. But the Savior, being “light” of “the world,” illumines not bodies but, by an incorporeal power, the incorporeal mind, so that each of us, illumined as if by the sun, might also be able to see other intelligible things. And just as, when the sun shines, the ability of the moon and stars to give light is dimmed, so those who are illumined by Christ and have received his

rays need nothing from any ministering apostles or prophets — for one must dare to speak the truth — nor from angels, and I will add, not even from the superior powers, being disciples directly of the first-begotten light itself. But for those who cannot receive the solar rays of Christ, the saints who minister supply an illumination far less than the one just described, since even this they can scarcely receive, and are

filled by it. XXVI. Now Christ, who is the world's light, stands as the true light in contrast to the perceptible light, since nothing perceptible is true. But it does not follow that, because the perceptible is not true, the perceptible is false; for the perceptible can have an analogy to the intelligible, yet “false” cannot soundly be predicated of everything that is not true. And I inquire whether this is the same as

"light of the world" with "light of men," and I think that a greater force is presented for the light when it is called "light of the world" rather than "light of men." For "world," on one understanding, is not only "human beings." And Paul will show that the world is something more, or other, than human beings, when he says in his First Letter to the Corinthians:

"We have become a spectacle to angels and men, and to the world." Now consider whether, on one understanding, the world is the creation that is being set free "from bondage to decay, into the liberty of the glory belonging to God's children," whose "eager expectation awaits the revealing of the sons of God." We added "consider" because of the passage that can be set alongside it, capable of being joined with "I am the light of the

world," said by Jesus about his disciples: "You are the light of the world." For there are those who suppose that the human beings who have genuinely become disciples of Jesus are lesser than the other created beings — some of these having become such by nature, others also in reason, through the harder struggle. For the toils are more numerous and life more precarious for those in

flesh and blood than for those in an ethereal body — since none of the luminaries in heaven, on taking on earthly bodies, would pass through life here without danger and altogether without sin. But those who advance this argument, standing by the words of Scripture that pronounce the greatest things concerning human beings, saying that the promise reaches man without delay, do not,

however, report this same thing about the creation, or, as we have understood it, about the world. For "I and you are one, so that they too may become one within us," and "My servant shall be wherever I am," are clearly written concerning human beings; but concerning the creation, it is written that it is set free from the bondage of corruption "into the

freedom of the glory belonging to God's children." And they will add that, if it is set free, it does not yet on that account share in the glory belonging to "God's children." Nor will these people pass over in silence the fact that the firstborn of all creation, because of the honor above all things given to man, became a man, not indeed some living being of the ones in heaven; but that a second one too,

a servant and slave of the knowledge of Jesus, the star that appeared in the east, was made — being either like the rest of the stars, or perhaps even greater, inasmuch as it became a sign of him who surpasses all things. And if the boasts of the saints are in afflictions, since they know that "affliction produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope, and hope

does not put to shame," then the creation that has not been afflicted will have neither endurance nor character nor hope — the same hope, but a different one — since "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of the one who subjected it, in hope." But whoever does not dare grant such great things to man will, in grappling directly with the problem, say that the creation, subjected to futility, is afflicted — groaning rather than

Those who are in the tent groan, since it is enslaved to vanity for a time that is very great indeed, many times over the human struggle. For why does it do this ‘not willingly,’ except because it is contrary to its nature to be subjected to vanity itself and not to have the prior condition of life, which it will receive back when it is set free, in the destruction of the world and the

of bodies, being released from vanity? But since we seem to be going on to more matters than the problem before us allows, we will return to where we began, recalling why the Savior is called ‘the light of the world’ and ‘the true light’ and ‘the light shining on humanity.’ For it has been shown that because of the sensible light of the world he is called ‘the true light,’ and whether it is the same

light of the world as the light of men, or whether it admits of examination as not the same. This has been investigated out of necessity, on account of those who have grasped nothing from the fact that the Savior is the Word, so that we may be persuaded not to settle by mere chance on the notion of ‘Word,’ †...† arriving at that which is without any participation in what is capable of being participated in, but rather to lead the expression ‘light of the world’ up to a higher sense and to allegorize it,

along with the rest of the many things we have set out. Just as, from illuminating and shining upon the ruling faculty of human beings, or simply of rational beings generally, he is called light shining on humanity, and called the genuine light, and called the light that fills the world, so too, from bringing about the putting away of all deadness and the life properly so called, as those who have genuinely received him rise from the dead,

he is called ‘the resurrection.’ And he works this not only in the present, for those able to say, ‘We were buried with Christ through baptism’ and ‘we rose with him,’ but much more when someone, having utterly put away all deadness, walks in newness of life of the Son himself: ‘we always carry about here in the body the dying of Jesus,’ when we have been notably benefited, ‘so that’

‘the life of Jesus may be manifested in our bodies.’ But also the progress made in wisdom and the practical conduct that comes about in those being saved in him, following the excursions concerning truth in the divine word and the outcries in accordance with true righteousness, bring us to understand how he himself is the way — a way on which one must carry nothing, neither bag nor cloak,

but must not even travel holding a staff, nor have sandals bound on the feet. For this way itself suffices in place of every provision, and everyone who walks upon it is in need of nothing, adorned with the garment with which it is fitting for the one going to the wedding invitation to be adorned, since nothing harsh can meet him along this way. For it is impossible to find the tracks of a serpent upon a rock,

according to Solomon — or, I would say, the tracks of any beast whatsoever. Hence a staff is not needed on a way that has no traces of adversaries and, being firm — for which reason it is also called a rock — admits nothing worse. And the truth is the Only-begotten, who has embraced within himself everything concerning the whole, according to the will of the Father, with all clarity

word, giving to each according to his worth, in which truth consists. But if someone asks whether our savior knows everything that has been known by the Father, reaching down into the depth of his wealth and wisdom and knowledge, or whether, out of a fancy for glorifying the Father, he declares that certain things known by the Father are unknown by the

Son -- as though it were sufficient for the truth to be equal to the comprehensions of the unbegotten God -- he must be shown, from the fact that the savior is truth, and it must be added that, if truth is whole and entire, it is ignorant of nothing true (so that truth does not limp, lacking the things it does not know, which on their view happen to be in the Father alone) -- or else let someone demonstrate that there are things known which do not attain to the name of truth but are above it.

It is clear, however, that the beginning of the sincere life, unmixed with anything else, properly belongs to the firstborn of all creation; from him those who share in Christ, receiving it, truly live the life -- while those thought to live apart from him, just as they do not have the true light, so too do not have the true life. And since

it is not possible to come to be in the Father, or to be with the Father, without first, ascending from below, arriving at the godhead belonging to the Son, the means by which one can be led by the hand also to the blessedness of the Father, the savior has been recorded as a door. And being a lover of humanity, and accepting the inclination, however it comes about, toward the better of the souls of those who do not hasten toward the Word but, like

sheep -- not examined but irrational -- possess the tame and gentle disposition, he becomes their shepherd, since it is written, "the Lord preserves both man and beast"; likewise Israel and Judah are sown as offspring not of men alone but of beasts too. In addition to these things, one must examine from the beginning the title "Christ" and take up alongside it "king," so that by the comparison the difference may be understood. It is said, then, in

the forty-fourth psalm that he who loved righteousness and hated lawlessness received, beyond those who share in him, the cause of being anointed by having thus approached righteousness and having hated lawlessness -- as though he did not receive the anointing coexisting with and co-created with his being from the outset, which anointing is a symbol of kingship over begotten beings, and sometimes also of priesthood. Is, then, the kingship of the

Son of God something acquired afterward, and not connatural with him? And how is it possible that the firstborn of all creation, not being a king, later became a king because he loved righteousness -- and this though he is righteousness itself? But perhaps it escapes us that the man who is his Christ is understood according to the soul, on account of the human element, having become troubled and deeply grieved in particular, while the

king is understood according to the divine. And I find support for this from the seventy-first psalm, which says: "O God, give your judgment to the king, and your righteousness to the king's son, to judge your people in righteousness and your poor in justice." For the psalm, clearly inscribed with reference to Solomon, is prophesied concerning Christ. And it is worth seeing by what

The prophecy prays that judgment be given by God to the king, and asks to which son of a king, and of what kind of king, righteousness belongs. I think, then, that "king" refers to the preeminent nature of the firstborn of all creation, to whom judgment is given because of its superiority; while the man he has assumed, formed by that nature and stamped according to righteousness, is called "the king's son." And I am led to

accept that this is so from the fact that the two are brought together into a single account, and what follows is no longer reported as concerning two beings but as concerning one. For the Savior has "made the two one," having made them, in the firstfruits of both, one in himself before all things. And by "both" I mean also in the case of human beings, in whom each one's soul has been mingled with the Holy Spirit,

and each of those being saved has become spiritual. Just as, then, there are some who are shepherded by Christ because of their own gentleness and steadiness, as we said before, though more lacking in reason, so too there are those ruled as king in the more rational way, through reverence for God. And there are differences among those ruled as king, some being ruled in a more mystical and ineffable and godly manner, others in a lesser way. And I would say that those who have contemplated the

things beyond bodies, which Paul calls "invisible" and "not seen," having come to be, in their reasoning, outside everything perceptible by sense, are ruled as king by the preeminent nature of the Only-begotten; while those who have advanced only as far as the account of things perceptible by sense, and through these glorify their Maker, are themselves also ruled by reason, being ruled as king by Christ. Let no one take offense that we distinguish the

conceptions applied to the Savior, supposing that we thereby make us the same as him in substance. It is quite clear even to ordinary people how our Lord is both teacher and interpreter of the things that tend toward reverence for God, and Lord of the servants who have "a spirit of servitude unto fear" — but of those who are advancing and hastening toward wisdom and being counted worthy of it — since "the servant does not

know what his lord wants" — he does not remain their lord, but becomes their "friend." And he himself teaches this: in one place, while those listening were still servants, saying, "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so"; but in another place: "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what the will of his lord is; but I have called

you friends," because you have remained "with me in all my trials." Those, then, who live in the fear which God demands from servants who are not good, as we find written in Malachi -- "if it is I who am Lord, where then is the fear owed me?" -- turn out to be servants of the Lord who is called their Savior. But through all these things the nobility

of the Son is not clearly set forth; whereas when it is said to him by God, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you" — by whom "today" always is (for there is no evening for him, and I think there is no morning either, but the time that extends alongside his unbegotten and eternal life is, so to speak, "today" for him) — in that "today,"

the Son has been begotten — the beginning of his generation being no more discoverable than that of "the day." To what has already been stated one must add an account of how the Son is "the true vine." This will be clear to those who understand, in a manner worthy of prophetic grace, the saying "Wine makes glad a man's heart." For if the heart is the seat of understanding, and what gladdens it is the most drinkable Word, setting it

outside of merely human things and making it inspired and causing it to be drunk with a drunkenness that is not irrational but divine — the drunkenness which I think he also caused Joseph's brothers to experience — then rightly he who brings the wine that gladdens the heart of man, the "vine," is "true." It is "true" for this reason: it has as its cluster the truth, and as its branches the disciples, who are themselves imitators of him and themselves bear the fruit of truth. But it is a task to set forth the difference

between bread and the vine, since he says he is not only the "vine" but also the "bread of life." Consider whether, just as bread nourishes and strengthens and is said to establish the heart of man, while wine gives pleasure and gladdens and diffuses, so too the moral teachings, which procure life for the one who learns and practices them, are the bread of life — and these would not be called the produce

of the vine — while the things that gladden and produce inspiration, the ineffable and mystical contemplations that arise in those who feast luxuriously on the Lord and desire not only to be nourished but also to revel in delight, are the things that come from the "true vine" and are called "wine." Beyond these matters, [there is the question] of how he is recorded in the Apocalypse as "first and last," being, on the one hand, other than the first insofar as he is the

Alpha and the beginning, and, on the other hand, as regards being last, he is not identical with the Omega, that is, the end. I hold, then, that among rational beings, who are characterized in many species, there is a first among them, and a second, and a third, and so on in order down to the last. And to state precisely what is first, and what the second is, and of whom the third is truly said,

and so on up to reaching the very last, is not altogether a human thing but lies beyond our nature. But we shall attempt to stand our ground and speak around the matter as far as we are able. There are certain gods of whom God is the God, as the prophecies say: "Confess to him who is God over the gods," and "The Lord, God over the gods, has spoken, and he has summoned the earth";

but God, according to the Gospel, "is not god of the dead, but rather of the living" — so those gods, too, of whom God is God, are living. And the apostle also, writing in the letter to the Corinthians, "just as there are many gods and many lords," has taken up the name "gods" from the prophetic writings, as though they really exist. And besides the gods of whom God

is God, there are certain other beings called "thrones," and yet others termed "principalities," together with "dominions" and "powers" beyond these, and still others beyond them. And on account of "[the name] named above every name, not in this age only but in the age to come as well," and other things besides these not very familiar to us in name, one must believe that there exist rational beings, of which he called one class

"Sabai" is Hebrew, from which "Sabaoth" is formed, he being their ruler and not other than God. And at the very bottom, man is a mortal rational being. The God of all, then, has made a first rational kind in point of honor, which I think are those called gods; and a second — for the present let them be called "thrones"; and a third, without drawing too sharp a distinction, "principalities." And thus, by degrees, one must descend by the rational

to the last rational being, which is perhaps nothing other than man. The savior, then, became "all things to all" far more divinely than Paul did, so that he might either "gain" or perfect "all," and he clearly became a man to men and an angel to angels. And concerning his having become man, none of the believers would doubt; but concerning his having become an angel, let us be persuaded, taking note of

the appearances and words of angels, whenever, in certain places of scripture, angels are seen speaking with the authority of angels — as in the case of, "An angel of the Lord was seen in a burning flame from within the bush," and he declared himself the God of Abraam, Isaac, and Iakob. But Isaiah too says: "His name shall be called Messenger of great counsel." The savior, then, is first and last,

not because the things in between do not exist, but he is named from the extremes, so that it might be shown that he himself became "all things." But weigh whether man constitutes the "last," or rather the beings called the netherworld, among whom the demons too are numbered, whether all or some. One must inquire into the things which the savior himself, having become them, speaks of through the prophet David, saying: "And I became like a man without help, free among"

the dead" — as though, just as he had something more than men in his birth from a virgin and in the rest of his life spent among wonders, so too among the dead, in that he alone there is free: "his soul was not abandoned to Hades." Thus, then, he is "first and last." But if there are letters of God, as indeed there are — which the saints, in reading, say they have read

the things on the tablets of heaven, those elements, so that through them the heavenly things might be read — the concepts in question turn out to be divided into Alpha and so on in order, up to Omega, that is, the Son of God. Again, he is himself both beginning and end, but not the same according to the various senses in which he is conceived. For "beginning," as we have learned in Proverbs, applies insofar as he happens to be

wisdom; for it is written: "God created me as a beginning of his ways, unto his works"; but insofar as he is Word, he is not beginning: "for in the beginning was the Word." Therefore the senses in which he is conceived have a beginning, then a further second beyond that beginning, then a third, continuing thus until the end; as though he were saying, I am beginning insofar as I am wisdom, and second,

should it so happen, insofar as I am invisible, and third insofar as I am life, since "that which was made in him was life." And if anyone is capable, by probing the mind of the scriptures, of seeing it, he will perhaps find much of this order, even down to the end — though I do not think he will find everything. But the beginning and the end seem clearer, according to ordinary usage

as said of something unified, just as the foundation is the beginning of a house and the coping is its end. And this must be fitted to the fact that Christ, being the "cornerstone," is the pattern for the whole united body of those being saved. For the only-begotten Christ is "all things and in all," as beginning in the human being he has taken up, but as end in the last of the saints,

manifestly, and also in those in between; or as beginning in Adam, but as end in his coming among us, according to what is said: "the last Adam became a life-giving spirit." This saying, however, will fit the account of "first and last," while we still hold to what has been said about "first and last" and about "beginning and end" — in one place we referred them to

the kinds of rational beings, in another to different conceptions of the reason of the Son of God, and we have the distinction between "first" and "beginning," and "last" and "end," and further also between "Alpha" and "Omega." Nor is it unclear about "living" and "dead," and, after being dead, living forever and ever. For since we were not helped

by his life that came before, we having come to be in sin, he came down to our deadness, so that, he having died to sin, we, carrying about the deadness of Jesus in the body, might in due order pass on to his life after that deadness, into the ages of ages. For those who always carry about the deadness of Jesus in the body will also have the

life of Jesus made manifest in their bodies. XXXII. These things, then, were said by him about himself from the books of the New Testament. Yet in Isaiah he declared that the Father had made his mouth like "a sharp sword," and had been hidden "under the shelter of his hand," being likened to a choice arrow, "and in the quiver" of the Father hidden away,

called by him a "servant" of the God of all, and "Israel," and "a light of the nations." A sharp sword, then, is what the mouth of God's Son amounts to, since "the word of God, being alive and at work, cuts more keenly than any blade sharpened on both edges, reaching through to where soul and spirit divide, joints and marrow alike, and discerning the thoughts and

intentions of the heart." Besides, he also came bringing not peace upon the earth — that is, upon bodily and perceptible things — but a sword, and cutting apart that harmful union binding body to soul, in order that, giving herself over to the spirit warring against the flesh, the soul might be made a friend of God; a sword, or, as a sharp sword according to the prophetic word, his mouth had —

but also seeing so many wounded by divine love, in like manner to her who confesses to have suffered this in the Song of Songs, through the words "For I am wounded with love" — the wounding arrow of the souls of so many toward love of God will find nothing else than him who said, "He made me as a choice arrow." And further, everyone who understands how, by those...

...being discipled, Jesus became not as the one reclining at table but as the one serving, the Son of God taking on a servant's shape so that those enslaved to sin might be set free. He will not be unaware in what manner the Father says to him, "You are my servant," and shortly after, "It is a great thing for you to be called my child." For one must dare to say greater and more divine things

and that truly, according to the image of the Father, the goodness of Christ is shown, when "he lowered himself, made obedient all the way to death, death indeed upon a cross," or if "he did not consider being equal to God a thing to be seized," and was unwilling, for the salvation of the world, to become a servant. Wishing therefore to teach us that he has received a great gift from the Father by having served in this way, he says: "And

my God will be my strength. And "he told me, 'It is a great thing for you to be called my child.'" Had he not taken on servanthood, he would never have set upright "the tribes of Jacob," nor gathered back "the dispersion of Israel," nor indeed would he have become "a light to the nations," so that "salvation might reach to the end of the earth." And it is indeed a modest thing for him

to have become a servant, even though this is said by the Father to be a great thing, by comparison with a harmless lamb and a sheep. For just as a harmless lamb is led to be slaughtered, so the Lamb of God became such, so that the world's sin might be lifted away by him — he who is the provider of the word to all — having been made like a lamb "silent before its shearer," so that by his death we might all be cleansed, being administered like a remedy against

the opposing powers, and against the sin of those who are willing to receive the truth. For the death of Christ has rendered powerless the powers warring against the human race, and [text corrupt] the life in each of those who believe to go forth from sin by unspeakable power. And since, until every enemy of his is abolished, and death last of all, he takes away sin, so that

the whole world may become one without sin, for this reason John, pointing him out, says: "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" — not one who is only about to take it away but is not yet taking it away, nor one who has taken it away but is no longer taking it away; for the taking away is at work upon each and every one of those in the world,

until sin is removed from the whole world and the Savior hands over the kingdom, made ready, to the Father — since not even the least sin has room to be present where the Father's rule holds, and since it again receives all things of God in its whole self and entirely, when that is fulfilled which says, "that God may be all in all." But he is also called "a man"

in addition to these things, he is said to be coming after John, though he had come into being before him and existed prior to him, so that we might be taught that the man belonging to the Son of God, blended together with his divinity, is older than his birth from Mary — a man of whom the Baptist says that he "did not know" him. But how did he not know him, he who leapt for joy while still an infant in the womb

...of Elizabeth, when "the sound of the greeting" of Mary "came into the ears" of Zachariah's wife? Consider, then, whether "I did not know him" can be said with reference to the time before his embodiment. But if he did not know him before that time, when he had come into a body — while he himself was still a body in his mother's womb — perhaps he learns something about

him beyond what he already knew: that "he on whom the Spirit descends and remains, this is the one who baptizes in Holy Spirit and fire." For even if he already knew him while still in his mother's womb, he certainly did not know everything about him; and perhaps he was also ignorant that "this is the one who baptizes in Holy Spirit," and again when

he had seen "the Spirit descending and remaining upon" him, except that he had not at first known him to be a "man" of fire. John did not know this at first. None of the names mentioned above makes clear his advocacy on our behalf before the Father, in his interceding on behalf of human nature and offering atonement, as do the terms "the Paraclete," "propitiation," and "the place of propitiation." "The Paraclete" is spoken of in John's

epistle: "For if anyone sins, Jesus Christ the righteous is the advocate we hold before the Father, and he himself stands as propitiation for our sins"; and "the propitiation" is spoken of in the same epistle as being a propitiation concerning our sins, and likewise also in the letter to the Romans, "the mercy-seat": "whom God set forth as a mercy-seat through faith, by his blood" — of which mercy-seat, into the innermost

part, even of the Holy of Holies, there existed a certain shadow: the golden place of propitiation, set upon the two cherubim. How could he have been able to be Paraclete and propitiation and place of propitiation apart from a power of God that annihilates our weakness, flowing in upon the souls of believers, ministered by Jesus, of whom it is the first, being itself the very power of God, on account of which one might say, "I am able for all things in him who empowers me, Christ Jesus"?

Christ Jesus? For this reason we know that Simon the magician, who proclaimed himself to be the great power of God, so named, went to destruction together with his silver; but we, confessing Christ to be truly "the power of God," believe that all things anywhere that are empowered participate in him, in respect of which he is "power." And let it not be passed over by us in silence that he is also fittingly called, and for

this reason said to be, "the wisdom of God." For the wisdom belonging to God, the Father of all, does not rest on bare fancies, on phantasms shaped after human conceptions. But if anyone is able to conceive of an incorporeal subsistence, living and as it were animate, comprising the various principles that embrace the rational structures of all things, he will know the wisdom that is above all creation,

the wisdom of God, speaking well concerning herself: "The Lord founded me as the beginning of his ways, unto his works." Because of this creation, all creation too has been empowered, not being incapable of the divine wisdom in accordance with which it came to be. For, as the prophet David says, God fashioned everything in wisdom. But many things have come to be by participation in wisdom without apprehending her, in accordance with whom they were created, though very much

few things, grasps not only the wisdom concerning themselves but also that concerning many other things, since Christ is the whole of wisdom. And each of the wise, to the extent that he has capacity for wisdom, to that extent shares in Christ, insofar as he is wisdom; just as each of those who possess greater power, to the extent that he has been allotted power, to that extent has had a share in Christ, insofar as he is power. And the same thing must be understood also concerning

sanctification and redemption. For Jesus himself has become for us sanctification, the source from which the holy are sanctified, and redemption; and each of us is sanctified by that sanctification and is redeemed according to that redemption. Consider whether the apostle has not idly added the word "for us" when he says, "who became for us wisdom from God, righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption";

and whether elsewhere, concerning Christ, insofar as he is "wisdom," this was said without qualification, and likewise insofar as he is "power," since Christ is both God's power and God's wisdom — in which case we would have supposed that he is not simply "wisdom" nor "power of God," but rather "for us"; whereas now, in the case of "wisdom" and "power," both the phrase "for us" and the unqualified statement have been recorded, while in the case of

"sanctification" and "redemption" the same unqualified statement has not been made. For this reason observe: since scripture says "the one who sanctifies and the ones sanctified all come from one source," we must ask whether the Father is, for our own sanctification, himself its sanctification, just as, Christ being our head, the Father is his head. And Christ is our redemption for those of us who, because we had been taken captive, stood in need of redemption; but for him

I do not seek redemption, since he has been tested in every respect according to likeness "apart from sin" and has never at any time been held captive by the enemies. But once the distinction has been drawn between "for us" and "absolutely," so that "sanctification" and "redemption" belong to him for us and not absolutely, while "wisdom" and "power" belong to him both for us and absolutely, the account concerning righteousness must not be left unexamined.

That Christ is righteousness for us is clear from the text, "who became for us wisdom from God, righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." But if we do not find that he is "righteousness" absolutely, as he is absolutely "wisdom" and "power of God," it must be examined whether, just as the Father is "sanctification" even for Christ himself, so too the Father is "righteousness" for him; for indeed there is no injustice

with God, and "the Lord is righteous and holy, and his verdicts are given in righteousness"; being righteous, he governs everything in a righteous manner. As for the fact that those from the heresies took a hint toward saying that the righteous one is other than the good one — a hint not clearly worked out by them, who supposed that the demiurge is the righteous one, and the Father of Christ the good one — I think

that, when examined and tested carefully, this can be said of the Father and the Son: it is the Son who is righteousness itself, he who received authority to render judgment, seeing that he is Son of Man and is destined to judge the inhabited world with righteousness; while the Father benefits those who have been instructed in the righteousness of the Son after the kingdom of Christ, and will show the title "good" in deeds, when there comes to be

"God [is] all in all." And perhaps by his own righteousness the Savior prepares all things at fitting times, both by word and by order and by chastisements and by his, if I may put it so, spiritual medicinal remedies, so that in the end they may make room for the goodness of the Father; and it was this that the Only-begotten had in mind when, to one who said to him, "Good Teacher," he replied, "Why do you call me good? No one

is good except one, God, the Father." We showed the like thing elsewhere too, concerning someone being greater than the Demiurge, understanding the Demiurge to be Christ, and the one greater than him to be the Father; he himself, then, who happens to be all these things — "the Paraclete," "the propitiation," "the mercy seat" — having sympathized "with our weaknesses" by having been tested "in every respect" as regards human things

"in the likeness [of us], without sin," is a "great high priest," having offered up himself as the sacrifice brought once for all, not on behalf of human beings only but of every rational being as well; for "apart from God he tasted death on behalf of everyone," which in some copies of the letter to the Hebrews reads "by the grace of God" instead. But whether it is "apart from God he tasted death on behalf of everyone" — meaning that he died not only on behalf of human beings, but also on behalf of

the rest of the rational beings; or "by God's grace he tasted the death owed on behalf of everyone," meaning that he died on behalf of all, apart from God — since "it was by the grace of God that he tasted death for the sake of everyone." Indeed it would make no sense to claim he tasted death only for human sins and not also for some other being, distinct from man, that had fallen into sin — for instance on behalf of the stars — the stars not being altogether pure

in God's sight either, as we have read in Job: "the stars are not pure in his sight" — unless indeed this is said by way of exaggeration. For this reason, he holds the office of "great high priest," for he brings all things back into the Father's kingdom, arranging for whatever is lacking in each created being to be made complete, so that they may make room for the Father's glory. This high priest, according to some other

notion besides those mentioned, is named "Judas," so that those who are Jews in secret may be styled Jews not on the basis of Jacob's son Judah, but on the basis of him — being his brothers and praising him, laying hold of the freedom into which they have been freed by him, having been rescued from their enemies, he having laid his hand on their neck and subjected them. But he has also tripped up the opposing power by the heel, and alone

sees the Father, and, when he became man, he is "Jacob" and "Israel"; from whom, just as we become light, since the world is light, so too, when Jacob is called, he is "Jacob," and when Israel is named, he is "Israel." Further, he receives the kingdom from a king, whom the sons of Israel made king over themselves, and †not through God, having set him to rule and not having made him known to God, and wars

of the Lord he prepares peace for his son, the people; and perhaps it is for this reason that he is called "David," and afterward "rod" for those who need a laborious and harsher discipline and who have not offered themselves to the love and gentleness of the Father. For this reason, if he is called "rod," it will go forth; for it does not remain in him, but seems to be outside the preceding condition. And having gone forth

And having become 'a rod,' he does not remain 'a rod,' but after 'the rod' he becomes 'a flower' springing up, and the flower is shown to be the end of his being 'a rod' for those who have obtained a visitation through his having become 'a rod'; for God will visit 'with a rod,' that is, with the Christ, 'their transgressions,' those whom he will visit. But his mercy he will not scatter away from him; for he shows mercy to him, whenever the Father shows mercy to those whom

the Son wishes to be shown mercy. It is possible also not to take it that he becomes 'rod' and 'flower' with reference to the same persons, but rather 'rod' for those who need chastisement, and 'flower' for those being saved; but I think the former is better. Except that this must be added at this point, that perhaps, on account of the end, if for someone he becomes 'a rod,' he will certainly also become 'a flower' for him — though it is not true that

if for someone he is 'a flower,' for that one he will certainly also be 'a rod' — unless indeed, since there is a flower more perfect than the flower, and 'flowering' is spoken of those not yet perfectly bearing fruit, the perfect advance beyond the flower of Christ, while those who have had experience of his rod will, together with the rod, partake not of his perfection but of the flower that comes before his fruits.

Finally, before ‘the Word,’ Christ was ‘a stone,’ rejected by the builders and set as the head of the corner; for since living stones are built upon a foundation laid together with other stones — namely those belonging to the apostles and to the prophets, with Jesus Christ our Lord serving as the cornerstone — he too is termed ‘a stone,’ inasmuch as he forms one piece of that structure, raised from living stones, standing ‘where the living dwell.’

All this has been said by us because we wish to refute the random and untested opinion of the many, that though so many names are referred to him, they stand only on the name 'Word,' without examining why in the world, although it is written that the Word was God in the beginning with the Father, through whom all things came to be, he is also recorded as '<the> Son of God.' Just as, then, alongside the activity of

illuminating the world, of which he is the light, he is called 'the light of the world,' and alongside causing those who genuinely come to him to lay aside deadness and, in rising, to take up newness of life, he is called 'resurrection,' and in accordance with another activity, 'shepherd' and 'teacher' and 'king,' 'a chosen arrow' and 'servant,' and besides these, 'advocate' and 'propitiation' and 'mercy seat' — so too 'Word,' stripping away every irrationality

from us and making us truly rational, so that we do all things for the glory of God, down to eating and drinking, accomplishing on account of the Word even the more ordinary and the more perfect works of life for the glory of God. For if by partaking of him we rise and are illumined, and perhaps are also shepherded or ruled as kings, it is clear that we also become divinely rational, since he

removes the irrational things within us and our deadness, in accordance with which he is 'Word' and 'resurrection.' Consider, though, whether all human beings somehow partake of him, insofar as he is Word. For this reason the apostle teaches us that he is not sought beyond the reach of those who choose to find him, saying: 'Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into ...?"' — that is, 'Christ'

to bring down; or, "Who will descend?" means to raise Christ up out of death. But what does scripture say? "The word is near you, very near, in your mouth and in your heart" — as though the Christ being sought and the word were one and the same. But also, on the occasion when the Lord himself declares: "Had I not arrived and spoken with them, no sin would have been theirs; but as things stand

they have no excuse for their sin," nothing else is to be understood except that the word, he says, is such that those in whom it has not yet been brought to completion do not have sin, while those are liable to it who, having already had a share in it, act against the thoughts by which it is brought to completion in us — and only thus does it hold true that "had I not arrived and spoken with them,

they would have had no sin." Consider, for let this be examined with reference to the visible Jesus, as most will suppose: how is it true that these have no sin, to whom he has not come? For all who lived before the sojourn of the Savior would be released from all sin, since the Jesus seen according to the flesh had not yet come. But also all those to whom nothing whatever was announced about him would not

have sin, and it is plain that those who do not have sin are not subject to judgment. But "word" among human beings — of which we have said our race has a share — is spoken of in two ways: either according to the completion of the thoughts, which occurs in everyone who has passed beyond infancy (setting aside prodigies), or according to its highest degree, which is found only in the perfect. According to

the former, then, the saying is to be understood: "Had I not arrived and spoken with them, no sin would have been theirs; but as things stand they have no excuse for their sin." But according to the second: "Everyone who came before me is a thief and a robber, and the sheep paid them no heed." For prior to the word reaching its completion, everything found in human beings deserves censure,

inasmuch as it is needy and deficient, to which the irrational elements within us — called "sheep" in a rather figurative sense — do not perfectly submit. And perhaps according to the former sense, "The Word became flesh," but according to the latter, "The Word was God." Following from this it is worth inquiring whether there is something between "The Word became flesh" and "The Word was God" to be observed among human

affairs — as it were the Word being resolved back, from the point of its having become flesh, and gradually refined, until it becomes what it was in the beginning: God the Word who is with the Father, whose glory John truly saw, as of an only-begotten from a father. But the Word can also be "the Son," by virtue of announcing the hidden things of that Father, in a manner analogous

to the one called son, since it is a "word" belonging to "mind." For just as the word within us serves as messenger of what the mind perceives, so likewise the Word of God, having come to know the Father — since nothing among created things is capable of drawing near him without a guide — discloses the Father he has known. "For no one has known the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son reveals him." And

Insofar as he is “Word,” it is he who is “the angel of great counsel,” “whose government came to be upon his shoulder”—for he reigned by having suffered the cross. And in the Apocalypse it is said that upon a white horse sits a word faithful and true, representing, as I think, the clarity of the utterance on which the Word of truth who has come to dwell among us is carried. It is not the task of the present

occasion to show that in many places of scripture—the scripture in which lie the passages before us, from which we derive benefit by receiving divine instruction—the term “horse” is used. Only one or two examples need be recalled: “A horse is a false hope of safety,” and “These trust in chariots and these in horses, but we will be made great in the name of the Lord who is our God.” As for “My heart belched forth

a good word; I speak of my works to the king,” written in the forty-fourth psalm—constantly repeated by the many as though its meaning were settled, it should not go unexamined by us. Let it be granted that it is the Father who says this. What, then, is his heart, such that the “good word” might appear in accordance with the heart? For if the “Word” needs no explanation, as

those people suppose, it is clear that neither does the “heart”—which is most absurd, to think that the heart, just as in our own body, is likewise a part of God. But they should be reminded that just as hand and arm and finger are said of God, without our fixing our understanding on the bare wording but instead examining how all these things must be understood soundly and in a manner worthy of God, so too

the heart of God must be taken to mean his intellective and purposive power concerning all things, and the word to mean the faculty within it that announces. And who announces the Father’s counsel to those among the created who are worthy of it, having himself come to be alongside them, if not the Savior? And perhaps it is not without purpose that it says “belched forth”; for countless other things could have been said instead of

“belched forth”—“my heart put forth a good word,” “my heart spoke a good word.” But perhaps, just as a belch is the coming forth into the open of some hidden breath, as it were the exhalation of the one belching, so too the Father, unable to contain the contemplations of truth, belches them forth and forms their impress in the Word, and for this reason the Word is called the image of the

invisible God. I say this so that, going along with the understanding held by most, we may accept that “My heart belched forth a good word” is spoken by the Father. Yet this should not be conceded to them altogether, as though it were agreed that God is the one announcing these things. For why should it not be the prophet who speaks, filled with the Spirit and uttering a good word concerning the prophecy about Christ, unable to contain

himself, saying, “My heart belched forth a good word; I speak of my works to the king; my tongue is the pen of a scribe who writes swiftly; you are beautiful in form beyond the sons of men”—and then, addressing Christ himself, “Grace has been poured out upon your lips”? For how, if the Father were saying these things, could it go on to say “Grace has been poured out upon your

’...your’ ‘For this reason God has blessed you forever,’ and shortly after, ‘For this reason God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’ But someone might object, wishing the words in the psalm to be reported as spoken by the Father: ‘Hear, daughter, and see, and incline your ear, and forget the...’

’...your people and your father’s house,’ for the prophet would not say to the church, ‘Hear, daughter.’ It is not hard to show also from other psalms that changes of speaker occur repeatedly, so that here too it would be possible for the Father to be speaking from ‘Hear, daughter.’ One must also set alongside the inquiry concerning the Word the verse: ‘By the’

’word of the Lord the heavens were made firm, and by his breath all their power,’ which some suppose to be set down concerning the Savior and the Holy Spirit, since it can indicate that by the word of God the heavens were made firm — just as if we were to say that a house came into being by architectural reason and a ship by shipbuilding reason, so likewise the heavens by the word of God, being possessed of a more divine body

and for this reason called solid, not having the extensive fluidity and easy dissolution of the remaining, lower things, were made firm, and this because they had, in a distinctive way, a special relation to the divine Word. Since, then, it is our aim to see clearly ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and ‘beginning’ has, with testimonies drawn from Proverbs, been shown to be said of Wisdom, and Wisdom is conceived of as prior to the

Word that declares her, one must understand that the Word always exists in the beginning—that is, always exists within Wisdom; and being within Wisdom, called ‘the beginning,’ he is not thereby prevented from being ‘with God,’ being himself God as well, and not being ‘with God’ nakedly, but being ‘in the beginning,’ that is Wisdom, he is ‘with God.’ Accordingly it goes on to say:

‘He was in the beginning, with God’; for it could have said, ‘He was with God,’ but just as he existed ‘in the beginning,’ so likewise ‘in the beginning’ he existed ‘with God,’ and ‘through him all things came into being,’ since he existed ‘in the beginning’; for according to David, God made ‘all things’ ‘in wisdom.’ And further, so that we may accept that the Word has its own particular

circumscription, as though he lived, so to speak, by himself, one must speak also of powers, not merely of a single power; for ‘What then does the Lord of powers say’ occurs in many places, certain rational divine living beings being called ‘powers,’ of whom Christ was the one set above and superior, being addressed not only as ‘wisdom of God’ but also as ‘power.’ Given, then, that God possesses multiple powers, each one marked off by its own circumscription, and among which

the Savior stands apart, so too the ‘Word’ — even though the word that is in us has no existence outside us marked off by its own circumscription — will, on the grounds already examined, be understood as Christ, having his subsistence ‘in the beginning,’ that is, in Wisdom. Let this suffice for us for the present concerning ‘In the beginning was the Word.’

← All of Origen: Commentaries & Homilies