Commentary on John, Book 6

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

BOOK 6. Every house that is to be built as sturdily as possible is built in calm, still weather, so that it may not be hindered from acquiring the firmness it needs, so that it can become such as to withstand the onslaught of a flood and the battering of a river and whatever a storm, when it comes, tends to expose — the rotten parts of buildings — while showing which structures have kept their own proper strength.

But especially the structure that is receptive of the doctrines of truth — a rational structure, so to speak, in both delivery and writing — is then built well above all, when God joins in building it together with the one who has set out to accomplish this most excellent work, whenever the soul, enjoying the peace that surpasses all understanding, is calm, estranged from all disturbance, and in no way tossed by waves. These things, it seems to me, have been precisely understood by

the attendants of the spirit of prophecy and those who minister to the proclamation of the gospel, having shown themselves fit to obtain the peace hidden away, given by him who from ages past bestows it on those who are fit, who declared: "My own peace I give to you, peace I leave with you; not as the world gives peace do I give it to you." Consider whether the history concerning David and Solomon regarding the temple hints at something of this sort.

For David, fighting the wars of the Lord and standing against many enemies of himself and of Israel, though wishing to build a temple for God, is prevented by God through Nathan, who says to him: "You shall not build me a house, because you are a man of blood." But Solomon, having seen God in a dream and having received wisdom in a dream

(for what he saw waking was kept in reserve for him who says, "Behold, something greater than Solomon is here"), came to be in the deepest peace, so that at that time each man rested under his vine and under his fig tree. And being, in accordance with the times in which he lived, true to his name — for Solomon is interpreted as "peaceful" — because of this peace he had leisure to build the renowned temple for God. And in the days of Ezra

when truth overpowers wine, the enemy king, and the women alike, God's temple is raised up anew. These things have been said by us in our defense to you, holy Ambrose, since, wishing in accordance with your holy exhortation to build the evangelical tower in writing, we sat down and calculated the expense, whether we have what is needed to complete it, so that we might not be mocked

by those who observe us, condemned as men who lay a foundation but are unable to finish the work — having calculated, we did not find ready at hand for us the means to complete the building, but we have trusted in God, who enriches in every word and all knowledge, that as we strive to keep the spiritual laws, he will enrich us, and that, advancing through what is supplied by him,

in building we shall reach even the battlement of the structure, which prevents the one who has gone up onto the roof of the discourse from falling — since it is only those who lack the battlement who fall, those who fall because of the incompleteness of the buildings, causing deaths for those who happen to be in it, and collapses occurring. And up to the fifth volume, even though the storm at Alexandria

seemed to be working against us, we dictated what was given to us, even as Jesus rebuked the sea's waves and the winds; and having advanced some way into the sixth book, we were pulled out of the land of Egypt, rescued by the God who brought his people out from it. Then, since the enemy campaigned most bitterly against us through his new writings, truly hostile to the gospel, and stirred up all the

winds of wickedness in Egypt against us, reason urged me rather to stand firm for the contest and to guard my governing faculty, lest wicked reasonings should prevail as a storm and bring themselves upon my soul, rather than, out of season, before my mind had regained calm, join together what follows in the writing; and my usual shorthand-writers, not being present, prevented me from continuing the

dictations. But now that God, extinguishing the many fiery darts hurled against us, has blunted them, and our soul, having become accustomed by the heavenly word to bear what has happened, more easily forces itself to endure the plots that occurred, as though having laid hold of some measure of fair weather, we no longer wish to put off dictating what follows, praying that God our teacher be present, resounding in the inner sanctuary of our soul, so that an end

may be reached in the building of the exposition of the Gospel according to John. May God grant to hear our prayer, that we may be able to join together the body of the discourse, no circumstance any longer intervening to bring about any interruption whatsoever of the writing. Know that it is out of great eagerness that I am making this second beginning of the sixth volume, because what had previously been dictated by us

in Alexandria has, I do not know how, failed to reach me. For I judged it better, so that this time too might not pass by unproductively for me in this work, to begin now on what remains, rather than, waiting uncertainly for the previously dictated material to be found, lose no small part of the intervening days. Let this much serve sufficiently as a preface; and now let us

take hold of the text. Here is that second recorded witness John the Baptist gave concerning Christ, the first having begun from "This was he who said, He who comes after me," and ending at "God the only-begotten, who exists in the Father's bosom, that one has revealed him." Heracleon, however, does not soundly suppose that "No one has ever seen God," and what follows,

is said not by the one baptizing but rather by the disciple himself. For if, according to him too, it was the Baptist who spoke "Of his fullness we have all partaken, and grace in place of grace; because the law was given by way of Moses, whereas grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ," how is it not consistent that the one who from the

fullness of Christ has received, and who confesses a second grace in place of a former grace, acknowledging that the law was given through Moses, but that grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ, should have understood, from those things that came to him from the fullness, how "no one has ever seen God," and that it is the only-begotten, being in the bosom of the Father, who has made the exposition

to him and to all who had received from the fullness? For it was not now for the first time that he who dwells within the father's bosom expounded, as though no one had previously become fit to receive the things he related to the apostles - if indeed, teaching us that before Abraham came to be, Jesus is, he teaches us that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, and that he came to be in joy. And the saying 'From

his fullness we all received,' and 'grace upon grace,' as we have said in what preceded, shows that the prophets too received the gift from the fullness of Christ, and that they received the second grace in place of the first; for they too had already arrived, being led by the hand of the spirit, after the types, at the

vision of the truth. This is why not all the prophets but 'many' desired to see what the apostles were seeing. For had there existed some distinction among the prophets, those who were superior and brought to perfection would not have longed to behold what the apostles beheld, since they had already witnessed it themselves; but those who had not likewise managed to rise to that height of the word came to be in longing for the things known to the apostles through

Christ. For we have understood 'to see' as not spoken in a bodily sense, and we have grasped 'to hear' as declared spiritually, for it is only the person possessing ears who stands ready to hearken to Jesus' sayings - which does not happen altogether all at once. Further, concerning the fact that the saints before the bodily coming of Jesus had grasped something more of the mysteries of divinity than the many who believe,

since the word of God was teaching them even before it became flesh (for he was always at work, being an imitator of the father, concerning whom he says, 'My father is working until now'), one may reason this also from the following words. He says somewhere to the Sadducees who disbelieved the doctrine about the resurrection: 'Have you not read...' - and the saying spoken at the bush by God: 'I am the God

the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob'; for he is God, not of the dead, but of the living ones. So then, since God 'is not ashamed to be called' the God of these men, and they are numbered among the living by Christ, and all who believe are sons of Abraham, since in faithful Abraham, who was set by God as father of nations, all the nations are blessed - do we hesitate to accept

that the living have known the lessons of the living, having become disciples of Christ, who came to be before the morning star, before he became flesh? And they were alive for this reason, that they partook of him who said, 'I am the life'; and, as heirs of such great promises, they made room for the manifestation not only of angels but also of God in Christ, and perhaps, seeing the image of the invisible God, since the one who has seen

the son has seen the father, they are recorded as having known God and having heard the words of God in a manner befitting God, as having seen God and having heard him. But I think that those who are perfectly and genuinely sons of Abraham are sons of his spiritually understood deeds and of the knowledge revealed to him, the things known and done by that man coming to be present in those who are reckoned as sons of the patriarch, according to which

He teaches those who have ears, saying: "Were you children of Abraham, Abraham's works you would perform." And if "a wise man will grasp the words issuing from his own mouth, and upon his lips he shall bear understanding," it is necessary either rashly to declare that some of the prophets were not wise, if they failed to grasp "what came from their own mouth," or, accepting the reverent and true position, that

the prophets were wise, and to confess that they understood "the things" that came "from their own mouth" and wore discernment on their lips. And it is clear that Moses saw with his mind the truth of the law and the anagogical allegories of the histories recorded by him; and Joshua understood the true inheritance that came about after the destruction of the twenty-nine kings,

being able to discern, more than we can, of what realities the things accomplished through him were shadows. And plainly Isaiah also beheld the mystery of the one seated on the throne, together with the two Seraphim and their wings, and of the altar and the tongs, and of the covering of the face and of the feet that was done by the Seraphim; and Ezekiel saw the Cherubim

and their movement, and the firmament above them, and the one seated upon the throne. What could be more glorious and exalted than these things? And so that I not draw out my discussion at length by speaking of them one by one, wishing to establish that those who were made perfect in former generations knew no less than what was revealed to the apostles by Christ, since the one who also taught the apostles

the unspeakable mysteries of piety had revealed these things to them as well, I will add still a few more points and leave it to my readers to judge and to consider as they wish about these matters. For Paul says in his letter to the Romans: "Now to him who has power to make you stand firm, in accordance with my gospel and the unveiling of a mystery hushed through ages everlasting, yet now disclosed both by prophetic writings and through the manifestation of"

our Lord Jesus Christ." Now, if the mystery that had of old been kept silent has been disclosed to the apostles through prophetic writings, and the prophets understood "the things from their own mouth," inasmuch as they were "wise," then the prophets already knew what was later disclosed to the apostles. But since it was not revealed to the many, Paul therefore says: "To generations of old it was kept unknown among the sons of men, in a way it now"

it has been disclosed to his holy apostles and to prophets by the Spirit — namely, that the nations are joint heirs and joined into one body." Consider, however (if it be even possible in this way to forestall an objection that will be raised in reply by those who reject this argument, taking the expression "being revealed" in such a sense) — consider whether "being revealed" may perhaps be understood in two ways: in one sense, when it is grasped mentally; and in another, if this

is being prophesied, so that it comes to pass and reaches fulfillment; for it is disclosed at the moment it is brought to completion. As for the statement, then, that "the nations" are "joint heirs, joined into one body, and sharers together" of the promise in Christ — so far as concerns the foreknowledge that the nations would one day be joint heirs, joined into one body and sharers together, and when this would happen, and why, and what they were, and how they had been strangers to the covenants

And the prophets knew that those who were strangers to the promise would later become ‘fellow members of the body and fellow partakers,’ this having been revealed to them. But to those who understand yet do not see the things prophesied being fulfilled, the future has not been revealed in the same way as to those who behold their outcome before their eyes — which is what happened in the case of the apostles. For in this way, as I think, their understanding of these matters went no further than that of the fathers and prophets,

though what is truly said of them is: ‘what was not revealed to other generations as it now has been to the apostles and prophets — that the nations are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ’ — inasmuch as they, in addition to understanding the mysteries, also came to perceive their clarity through the matter being accomplished in fact. And it is also possible to relate ‘Many prophets and righteous people desired to see what

you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it’ to a similar account — as though they too had desired to see the mystery of the embodiment of the Son of God being administered, and his descent for the dispensation of the saving suffering he underwent for the sake of the many. As an example, let us also take up something else of this kind: suppose one of the apostles, who understood the

‘unutterable words which it is not permitted for a man to speak,’ yet who would not see the second bodily and glorious coming of Jesus proclaimed among believers, and desired to see it; and suppose another, who not only had not grasped and understood the same things as precisely as the apostle, but who also clung to the divine hope far less than he did, were to attain to the second coming of our Savior — which, following the

example, the apostle desired but did not behold. It would be no falsehood for us to say that these two have beheld what the apostle — indeed what the apostles themselves — longed to see; yet this by no means compels us to call them wiser in understanding or more blessed than the apostles were. So too the apostles are not to be reckoned wiser than the fathers, nor than Moses and the prophets, and above all than those who through

their virtue were deemed worthy of divine manifestations and appearances and revelations of great mysteries. We have spent rather a long time examining these matters, because, under the impression that the coming of Christ makes the apostles far wiser than the fathers and the prophets, some have gone so far as to fabricate another, greater god, while others, though not daring to do this, as far as their own reasoning goes, because of the unexamined character of their

doctrines, cheat the fathers and the prophets of the gift given to them by God through Christ, through whom ‘all things came into being’; and if all things, then clearly also the good things revealed to them, and the deeds accomplished as symbols of the holy mysteries of true worship of God. Since, then, the noble soldiers of Christ must be fortified on every side on behalf of the truth, allowing no opening, so far as possible, for

the plausibility that comes from falsehood to creep in — come, let us also examine these points. For perhaps they will say that the first testimony of John concerning Christ is: ‘He who comes after me has come to be before me, because he was before me’; but that the words ‘For from his fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace’ and what follows are spoken from the person of the disciple. And it is necessary also

...refuted as forced and inconsistent, this interpretation; for it is quite violent to suppose that the Baptist's discourse is suddenly and, as it were, untimely interrupted by the disciple's discourse, and to anyone who knows how to attend even to some degree to the context of what is said, the sequence of the wording is clear — the wording of him who said, "He who comes after me has come before me, because he was before

me." The Baptist teaches how Jesus came to be before him, in that he is first in relation to him (since he is "firstborn of all creation"), through the words "because from his fullness we have all received." For this is why, he says, ‘he came to be before me, since he was earlier than I.’ And this is why I understand him to be prior to me and held in greater honor by the Father, since from

his fullness both I and the prophets before me have received the grace that is more divine and greater and prophetic, in place of the grace received from him according to our own choice. And this is why also "he has come before me, because he was before me," since we have also come to understand, having received it from his fullness, that it was through Moses that the law was given, not by Moses,

and that the truth through Jesus Christ was not only given but also came to be, since God the Father gave the law by means of Moses, while producing grace and truth, which came upon mankind, through Jesus Christ. For if we hear more graciously the wording that says, "grace and

truth came to be through Jesus Christ," we will not be disturbed, as if this saying were opposed to the words, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." For Jesus is the one who declares, "I am the truth" — so how then does the truth come to be through Jesus Christ? For nothing comes to be through itself. But it must be understood that the truth itself, the

essential truth, and, if I may put it this way, the archetype of the truth that is in rational souls, from which truth images, as it were, of that truth have been imprinted upon those who are minded toward the truth — this did not come to be through Jesus Christ, nor at all through anyone, but was begotten by God; just as the Word too, who in the beginning was with God, did not come to be through anyone, nor did the Wisdom, which "God created as the beginning

of his ways" — did not come to be through anyone; so too the truth did not come to be through anyone. But the truth found among human beings came to be through Jesus Christ; for instance, the truth found in Paul and in the apostles likewise came to be through Jesus Christ. Nor is it strange, since truth is one, to say that many truths have, so to speak, flowed forth from it. At any rate the prophet David knows this, when he speaks of many truths:

"The Lord seeks out truths" — for the Father of truth seeks not a single truth, but the many truths through which those who hold them find salvation. And we find the same thing said about righteousness and righteousnesses as about truth and truths. For righteousness itself, the essential righteousness, is Christ: "who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification

"and redemption." From that righteousness the righteousness that is in each person is shaped, so that there come to be many righteousnesses among those who are being saved. That is why Scripture also states: "The Lord is righteous, and righteousnesses he has loved" — for this is how we found it in the accurate copies, and in the other editions besides the Seventy, and in the Hebrew. Consider whether the same thing may hold, in like manner, for the other cases as well,

whatever things Christ is called in the singular are likewise named, by a corresponding plural, when multiplied — thus "Christ is our life," as the Savior himself states, "I am the way, the truth, and the life"; and the apostle writes: "When Christ, your life, appears, then you too will appear with him" in glory; and once more in the psalms it stands written: "Your mercy is better"

than — for on account of the Christ who exists in each person, lives are multiplied. Perhaps this is also how one should inquire into "If you seek proof of the Christ speaking in me"; for as it were, Christ is found in each saint, and it is because of that single Christ that many | Christs come into being — those who imitate him and, being themselves an image of God, are formed according to him. Hence God,

through the prophet, says, "Touch not my Christs." What, then, we seemed to have passed by when expounding "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," this we have now unfolded as it happened to arise; and at the same time we have shown that it is still the voice of John the Baptist, testifying through these words too to the Son of God. Let us now, then, look at the second testimony of John.

testimony. The Jews from Jerusalem, being kin to the Baptist since he was of priestly lineage, send priests and Levites to ask who John might be. He, in saying "I am not the Christ," has by this very statement made a confession of the truth, and has not, as one might suppose, denied anything by saying "I am not the Christ" — for it is no denial

to say, for the glory of Christ, that one is not the Christ. Once the priests and Levites sent from Jerusalem heard that he was not the expected Christ, they inquire about the second honored name they hoped for, that of Elijah, whether he might be that one. He says that he is not Elijah, again confessing the truth through "I am not." Since

many prophets had arisen in Israel, one in particular was expected, the one prophesied by Moses according to the saying that declares: "The Lord our God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen. And every soul that will not give heed to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among his people" — a third question follows, not whether he is a prophet,

but whether he is "the prophet." And this name, since those asking did not assign it to Christ but supposed it to belong to someone other than the Christ himself, he — knowing that the one whose forerunner he is, is both the Christ and this prophet who was foretold — says "No." Perhaps he would have answered "Yes," had they asked without the article; for being a prophet, he was not ignorant of it.

And in all these answers, John's second testimony is not yet complete, until, to those who were asking for an answer to be reported back to those who had sent them, he proclaimed it from the prophetic voice of Isaiah, which runs thus: “A voice crying out in the desert: level the Lord's road.” It is worth inquiring whether the second testimony is completed here and a third begins with those sent from the Pharisees, and

who wished to learn why on earth he baptizes, since he is not the Christ, and not Elijah, nor even the prophet, in the words “I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, he who comes after me, of whom I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal”—or whether this too is part of the second testimony, namely what is reported to the Pharisees.

For my part, so far as one can conjecture from the wording, I would say that the discourse addressed to those sent from the Pharisees is a third testimony. It should be observed, however, that the first testimony establishes the savior's divine nature, the second removes the suspicion of those who doubted whether John might be the Christ, and the third proclaims the one who is present to human beings invisibly, inasmuch as he

has not yet come. But before the testimonies that follow, according to which he is testified to as he is pointed out, let us examine each phrase of the second and third testimonies, first noting this: that two delegations are sent to the Baptist—one from Jerusalem, the Jews sending “priests and Levites, that they might ask him, Who are you?”; the other sent by the Pharisees, also in response to the answer that had been given to the

priests and Levites, who were perplexed by it. Observe, then, how, in keeping with the priestly and levitical character, the words are spoken with gentleness and eagerness to learn: “Who are you?” and “What then? Are you Elijah?” and “Are you then the prophet?” and, besides these, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” For there is nothing

self-willed or brash in their questioning, but everything befits scrupulous servants of God. But those sent from the Pharisees, taking no trouble at all over what had been said by the Levites and priests, bring to the Baptist words that are, so to speak, insolent and rather foolish, in the question “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, and not Elijah, and not the prophet?” and

almost as if not wishing to learn, as the aforementioned priests and Levites had been sent to do, but rather, perhaps, thinking to prevent him from baptizing, supposing that baptizing was the task of none other than the Christ, Elijah, and the prophet. And everywhere the one who intends to engage the scripture accurately must exercise care, since it is necessary to observe by whom and when the things said are said, so that we may find what

words are fittingly assigned to each character throughout the whole of the holy books. And whom ought elders to have been sent to John by the Jews, and from where, but those reputed by God's choice to be preeminent, from Jerusalem, the place chosen out of the whole of what is called the good land, where the temple of God was? They inquire of John, then, with such great honor; but concerning the Christ, nothing

No such thing is recorded as having happened at the hands of the Jews; but what the Jews do toward John, this John does toward Christ, inquiring through his own disciples: "Are you the one who is coming, or should we look for another?" And John, having confessed to those who had come to him and not denied it, later states, "A voice of one crying out in the wilderness — that is what I am"; but Christ makes his answer as having a greater testimony

than John's, in words and deeds, saying: "Go and report to John what you see and hear: the blind recover their sight, the lame walk about, lepers are made clean, the deaf hear, the poor have the good news preached to them." Concerning these things, God granting it, we shall treat more fittingly in their proper places. But perhaps one might not unreasonably wonder why, when the priests and Levites were questioning John, they did not ask whether he himself was the Christ, but rather

"Who are you?" The Baptist answers not what would have been fitting in response to "Who are you?" — "I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness" — but what would properly have been said if they had asked, "Are you the Christ?" For "I am not the Christ" would have suited "Are you the Christ?"; whereas to "Who are you?" the fitting answer was "I am the voice of one crying out

in the wilderness." One must say in response to this that, as is likely, he perceived from their questioning the caution of the priests and Levites, who were betraying a suspicion — a hint that the one baptizing might perhaps be the Christ — while guarding against naming this more openly, so as not to appear rash. Hence it was reasonable that, in order that every false suspicion of theirs about him be removed first, and only then

the truth be set forth, he declares before all else that he is not the Christ. And that they had suspected something of this sort is shown by the second question, and further by the third. For since they also supposed that the one expected second in honor — honored among them after Christ — was Elijah, when John had declared that he was not the Christ they asked, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he said,

"I am not." The third thing they wish to learn is whether he himself is the prophet. When he answered "No," having no longer any specific name left for the one they were hoping would come to them, they say, "Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?" — meaning by this: you are not any of those figures expected to come to Israel, but who you are, that you baptize, we do not know. Therefore

teach us this, that we may have something to report to those who sent us to you for this purpose." And further, we shall add this too, which bears on the matter before us: that the time of Christ's coming was already stirring the people up somewhat, around the years from Jesus' birth and a little earlier, up to the manifestation of his preaching. Hence, as is likely, among the scribes

and lawyers, who had worked out from the divine scriptures the time of the one expected and were already anticipating him, there arose Theudas, who gathered, I suppose, no small multitude as though he were the Christ, and after him "Judas the Galilean, in the days of the census." Reasonably, then, since Christ's coming was expected and spoken of with heightened warmth, the Jews sent from Jerusalem the priests and Levites to John

through "Who are you?" wanting to learn whether he himself would confess to being the Christ. (1:21) "And they asked him: What then? Are you Elijah? He says: I am not." Who among those who hear Jesus saying about John, "If you are willing to accept it, he himself is Elijah who is to come," would not inquire how, when those who asked him "Are you Elijah?" John says, "I am not"?

And how must one understand that John himself is the Elijah who is to come, in accordance with what was said by Malachi, which runs thus: "And behold, before the great and glorious day of the Lord arrives, I am sending to you Elijah of Tishbe, who will turn back the heart of a father toward his son, and turn a man's heart toward the one who dwells beside him, lest I come and strike the

land utterly"? And the word of the angel of the Lord who appeared to Zechariah, positioned on the right-hand side of the incense altar, spoken to Zechariah, shows something similar to what was said by Malachi, through these words: And your wife Elizabeth "will bear you a son, and John is the name you shall give him"; and shortly after: "He himself shall go on before him, in the spirit"

and power of Elijah, so as to turn back the hearts of fathers toward their children, and the disobedient toward the good sense that belongs to the just, and to prepare for the Lord a people made ready." Now with regard to the first point, someone will say that John did not know himself to be Elijah; and perhaps those who advocate on this basis the doctrine concerning transmigration of souls will make use of this, on the ground that the soul changes bodies like garments and does not necessarily remember its former

lives. And these same people will also say that certain of the Jews, who assented to this doctrine, said concerning the Savior that he was one of the ancient prophets, risen not from the tombs but from birth. For how could they, given that his mother Mary was plainly known, and given that Joseph, a carpenter by trade, was reputed to be his father, think that he, being one of the

prophets, had been raised from the dead? And making use also of what is written in Genesis, "I will blot out every rising up," these same people will set up as a contest for one who has taken care to refute the deceptive plausibilities brought forward from the scriptures, standing in opposition to the doctrine. XI. But another person, an ecclesiastical man, spitting out the doctrine of transmigration of souls as false, and not admitting that the soul

of John had at some time been Elijah, will make use of the aforesaid word of the angel, who did not name the soul of Elijah at the birth of John but "spirit and power," through the words "And he himself shall go on before him, clothed in the might and spirit that were Elijah's, so as to turn back the hearts of fathers toward children," being able to demonstrate, through countless scriptures, that the spirit is one thing and the soul another, and that what is called a power of the

spirit is also distinct from the soul; concerning which it is not opportune to set forth at length at present, lest we distract the discussion too much. For the present it will be enough, to show that a power of the Spirit is distinct from the Spirit, to cite "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you"; and, as to the spirits that are in the prophets, since they have been granted to them by God as, so to speak, their own,

to be called possessions: "prophets' spirits yield to the prophets," and "Elijah's spirit has settled upon Elisha." For in this way, he says, there will be nothing strange about John, who, clothed in the might and spirit that were Elijah's, turns back the hearts of fathers toward their children, being for this reason said to be, in spirit, Elijah who is to come. And for the comfort of these people he will also use this argument: if

the God of all, having made the holy ones his own, becomes their God, being thus called God of Abraham, Isaac's God, and Jacob's God, how much more will the Holy Spirit, having made the prophets its own, be able to be styled their spirit, so that this same spirit is called now the spirit of Elijah and now the spirit of Isaiah? This same churchman will say that those who have supposed Jesus, once he was raised from the dead, to be one among the prophets, can be mistaken both according to the doctrine stated before and according to their taking him for one among the prophets; and that, besides erring in thinking him one among the prophets, they can also be mistaken and speak falsely both in their ignorance of the man said to be his father and of his actual mother, and in supposing him

to have been raised from among the tombs. And in reply to the passage in Genesis concerning "the raising up," the churchman will meet the objection by using the text: "for God has raised up for me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew," where "raising up" is used also with reference to "begetting." This man, then, in answering the first difficulty, will, unlike the one who supposes transmigration of bodies, say in reply, on account of what has just been established by a certain argument,

that John is the Elijah who is to come, by virtue of a certain reasoning, but that he answered the priests and Levites, "I am not he," having guessed at the intent of their question. For the prior inquiry made to John by the priests and Levites did not want this, namely to learn whether the same spirit happened to be in both, but rather whether John himself was the Elijah who had been taken up

and was now appearing again, in accordance with what the Jews expected, apart from a birth — a birth which perhaps even those sent from Jerusalem were unaware of. To this question he fittingly answers, "I am not he"; for it was not Elijah who had been taken up, having changed his body, who had come, being named John. XII. But the first man, whose reasoning we set forth as supposing that the transmigration of bodies is established from this passage, dwelling further on the scrutiny of the wording, will say to the second,

that it is not consistent that the son of so great a priest as Zacharias, born to both his parents in old age against all human expectation, should be unknown to so many Jews in Jerusalem and to the Levites and priests sent by them, who did not know that he had been born in this way — especially since Luke testifies that "fear came upon all those who dwelt around them" (and it is clear that this refers to

Zacharias and Elizabeth), "and all these sayings were talked about throughout the whole hill country of Judea." But if the birth

of John from Zacharias was not unknown, and yet the Jews from Jerusalem sent, through the Levites and priests, to ask, "Are you Elijah?" — it is clear that they were saying this because they supposed the doctrine concerning the transmigration of bodies to be true, as being something traditional.

and not foreign to their teaching in secret matters. For this reason, then, John says, "I am not Elijah," since he is ignorant of his own former life. Now since these considerations carry no small plausibility, the churchman will in turn press a difficulty against the first speaker: whether he is, according to the prophet, <the one> illumined by the Spirit and prophesied by Isaiah, and by so great an angel

foretold, before he was begotten, to be born, having received from the fullness of Christ, having partaken of so great a grace, having understood that the truth came to be through Jesus Christ, having narrated such great things about God and the only-begotten one who dwells in the Father's bosom — that he did not know how to lie, and, if that were so, could not even hold his peace. For it was necessary to confess reserve about the more obscure matters, and neither... nor... nor... nor... the

proposition. And how was it not reasonable — since this was a doctrine held by many — for John to hold his peace about himself as to whether his soul had ever been in Elijah? And on the historical question too, the churchman will challenge the first speaker to inquire from those who profess to know the secret things among the Hebrews whether any such doctrine exists among them; for if it appears in no way to be so, it is clear that the first speaker's argument has been scattered to the winds.

None the less, the churchman will make use of the solution given beforehand, being himself also required to set forth the intention of those who asked the question. For if, as he has established, those who sent them knew that John was born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, and all the more those who were sent, being of priestly stock, to whom

the astonishing blessing of children granted to so illustrious a kinsman as Zechariah would not have gone unnoticed — with what thought in mind do they ask, "Are you Elijah?" — men who had read that he had been taken up as it were into heaven, and who were expecting his coming? Perhaps, then, since they expect Elijah before Christ at the consummation, and after him Christ, they appear to be asking, somewhat figuratively, "Are you the herald who announces in advance the figure destined to arrive, ahead of Christ, when the age reaches its close" —

that is the sense? And to this he answers knowingly, "I am not." Further, the churchman, standing firm against what has been examined by the other, who tries to demonstrate that the priests could not have failed to notice so conspicuous a birth as that of John, since "in the hill country of Judea all these matters were talked about" — will say that a similar deception befell many also concerning the Savior,

since "some declared him to be John the Baptist, while still others named him Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one among the prophets," just as the disciples too said when the Lord questioned them, having come into the region of Caesarea Philippi. And Herod, too, saying, "The one I beheaded, John — he has been raised from the dead," seems not to have known

the things said by those who declared, "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is his mother not named Mary, with brothers of his — James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? And are all his sisters not living here among us?" It is no wonder, then, that just as in the case of the Savior, many were aware that Mary had given him birth, yet others

...had been deceived, so too in the case of John, that some had not failed to notice his origin from Zechariah, while still others hesitated over whether the Elijah they awaited might have shown himself in the person of John (and indeed the perplexity about John — whether he might be Elijah — has more standing than that about the Savior, whether he might be John) — of these, [some derived] the character of Elijah from the wording alone, and not at all from perception...

...on account of "A hairy man, girded with a leather belt about his waist"; while the appearance of John, being perhaps foreknown, and by no means resembling the character of Jesus, nonetheless gave some occasion to certain people to suspect that John had risen from the dead, renamed Jesus. And concerning this change of name...

...for, as among secret matters — I do not know from what source they are moved to do so — the Hebrews hand down the tradition that Phinehas, son of Eleazar, whose life, by common consent, stretched onward through the era of numerous judges — a fact we found recorded in the book of Judges — was Elijah himself, and that in Numbers immortality had been pledged to him under the name of the covenant of peace; in return for which, stirred by a zeal for God, he pierced through the Midianite woman and the Israelite,

and stayed what is called the wrath of God, according to what is written: "Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron has turned back my wrath, because he was zealous with my zeal." It is no wonder, then, if those who supposed that Phinehas and Elijah were the same person (whether they spoke rightly or not — for it is not now our task to examine this) also thought that John and Jesus were the same person.

Or at least they were in doubt about this and wished to learn whether John and Elijah are the same. But this is a matter that must, in the first instance, be examined more carefully elsewhere, and the argument concerning the substance of the soul must be investigated more fully — concerning the origin of its constitution, its entry into the earthly body, the apportionments of each life, and its

departure from this life thereafter, and whether it is possible for it to enter a body a second time or not, and whether in the same cycle and the same ordering or not, and whether it enters the identical body or instead a different one — and supposing it is the identical body, whether it remains one and the same in substrate while undergoing change in quality, or whether it will turn out identical both in substrate and in quality, and whether

it will forever make use of that identical body, or will exchange it for another. In connection with these matters it will also be necessary to examine what reincarnation properly is, and how it differs from embodiment, and whether it follows for one who speaks of reincarnation that the world remains imperishable. In connection with these it will be necessary also to set forth the arguments of those who wish, in accordance with the scriptures, that the soul is sown together with the body, and the consequences that follow from their position. And in short,

the discussion concerning the soul, being extensive and difficult to expound, and having to be gathered from what lies scattered in the scriptures, requires its own separate treatise. For this reason, having now for the present examined the problem briefly on the basis of what has been inquired concerning Elijah and John, let us proceed to what follows. 1:21. "Are you the prophet?" To which he gave the reply, "No." "Supposing the law and the prophets [prophesied] until...

...of John — and what else could we say John is, but a prophet? As indeed his father Zechariah, filled with the Holy Spirit, says in prophecy: "And you, child, will be called a prophet of the Most High, for ahead of the Lord you shall go, making ready his paths" — unless perhaps someone will lay hold of the word "will be called," on the ground that "you will be" was not said, especially in view of what the Savior said to those who supposed

him to be a prophet: "But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet." Now it must be observed that by "Yes, I tell you" he establishes that John is a prophet, and does not deny that he is a prophet. But if, in addition to being a prophet, he is also said by the Savior to be "more than a prophet," how then, if

he is a prophet, did he answer "No" to the priests and Levites when they asked, "Are you the prophet?" To this it must be said that "Are you the prophet?" is not the same as "Are you a prophet?" We have observed similar things in examining how "the God" differs from "God," and "the Word" from "Word." Since, then, it is written in Deuteronomy, "The Lord your God will raise up for you

a prophet from among your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen; and every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among his people" — a certain prophet was expected in a special sense, one who would have something like Moses, namely, to mediate between God and men, and, having received a covenant from God, to give the new covenant to those being made disciples. And with regard to

each of the prophets, Israel's people recognized that none of them was the one prophesied by Moses. Just as, then, they were in doubt about John, wondering whether he might himself be the Christ, so too they wondered whether he might be "the prophet." And it is not surprising that, in their uncertainty about John, Israel's people failed to determine with precision whether he himself might be the Christ; for it follows

from this doubt about him that being the same person as "the Christ" and "the Elijah" — most people missed the distinction between "the prophet" and merely "a prophet," as did Heracleon, who, in these very words, [says] that John admitted he was neither the Christ nor even a prophet, nor Elijah. And though it was necessary for him, having so understood it, to examine the passages in question — whether he speaks truly in saying that he is neither

a prophet nor Elijah, or not — he, without attending to the passages, in the commentaries he has left behind, has passed over such important matters without examination, saying very few things about them, and those untested, in what follows, about which we shall speak presently. This is, in effect, what those who were sent say: "Since we suspected you to be [someone], we have come to learn; we have found you not to be [him]; it remains, then, that we hear from you

who you are, so that we may report your answer concerning yourself to those who sent us." Just as he who is properly the Son of God is not employing some word distinct from himself — for he himself was the Word in the beginning, the Word who was with God, the Word who was God — makes use of a word, so John, the servant of that Word, if we are to understand the scripture properly, being nothing apart from a voice, makes use of

by a voice that points to the Word. This man, understanding the prophecy spoken about himself in Isaiah, says that he is a voice — not crying out in the city, but ‘crying out in the wilderness,’ the one standing and shouting: ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink’; and saying also: ‘Straighten the road of the Lord, level his paths; every ravine shall be filled—

—with earth, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and all the crooked places shall become straight.’ For just as it is written in Exodus that God is said to have told Moses: ‘Behold, I have set you as a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet,’ so, in like manner, one must understand something analogous to this — even if not altogether the same — namely that the Word who was in the beginning is God, and John—

— well, John was a voice pointing to and representing that Word. That is why it is entirely fitting that Zechariah is subjected to no other punishment than this, having said to the angel: ‘By what shall I recognize this? For I am elderly, and my wife is far along in years’ — either as the deprivation of voice on account of his unbelief regarding the coming into being

of that voice, in keeping with what Gabriel said to him: ‘Behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day these things happen, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time.’ This same Zechariah, when he asked for a tablet, wrote, saying, ‘John is his name,’ and all marveled — and he received his voice back: ‘For his mouth—

—was opened at once, and his tongue, and he spoke, blessing God.’ Just as, in discussing in what manner the Son of God is to be understood as Word, we have set forth the things put before us, so too, in fitting sequence, since John ‘came for testimony,’ ‘a man sent from God, to testify concerning the light, that all might believe—

—through him,’ one must understand that only a voice was able to hold, in a manner worthy of it, the Word being proclaimed — and that voice was John. And we shall understand this all the better if we recall what we set out earlier in explaining ‘that all might believe through him,’ concerning ‘He it is about whom the writing says: Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of your face, who shall make ready your way before you.’ And it is rightly said

that he is not the voice ‘saying in the wilderness,’ but rather ‘crying out in the wilderness.’ For the one who cries out, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ is also speaking; but it is possible for this same one to speak without crying out. He cries out and shouts so that both those far from the speaker may hear, and the hard of hearing may grasp the greatness of

what is said, through the greatness of the voice proclaiming it, coming to the aid of both those who stand far off from God and those who have lost the sharpness of hearing. This is why ‘Jesus stood and cried out, saying: If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.’ This is why also ‘John testifies concerning him and cries out, saying.’ This is why also God commands Isaiah

...to cry with the voice of one who says, "Cry out"; and I said, "What shall I cry?" But if the intelligible voice of those who pray is not entirely great and not small, then God, who says to Moses, "Why do you cry out to me?", does not hear the crying and shouting of those who pray in this way even if they increase the cry and the shout — not having cried out perceptibly, for this is not recorded in the

Exodus — but having cried out greatly with the voice that is heard by God alone, through prayer. For this reason David likewise declares, "I cried aloud to the Lord with my own voice, and he listened to me." There is need of the voice of the one crying out in the wilderness, so that the soul that is deprived of God and desolate of truth as well (for what other desolation of soul is harsher than being left desolate of God and of all virtue?), because of

still walking crookedly and needing instruction, may be exhorted to straighten the way of the Lord. This way is straightened by the one who in no way imitates the crookedness of the serpent's course, while the one opposed to him distorts it. For this reason such a person, together with others like him, is also rebuked by the words, "Why do you pervert the straight ways of the Lord?" The way of the Lord is straightened in two ways,

both with respect to contemplation, being made clear in truth unmixed with falsehood, and with respect to action, when, after sound contemplation of what is to be done, action in harmony with it is rendered in accordance with the sound reasoning about what is to be done. And so that we may grasp with greater precision the phrase, "Make straight the road of the Lord," a fitting moment arrives to set beside it what is said in Proverbs: "Do not turn aside either to the right or to the left"; for the one

who turns aside to either side has lost the straight course, and is no longer worthy of oversight once he departs from the straightness of the path; "for the Lord is righteous and has loved righteous deeds, and his face has looked upon uprightness." And what he looks upon, he illumines; this is why the one under such watch, perceiving the good that flows from being watched over, declares: "the light of your countenance, O Lord, was set as a sign upon us." Let us stand, then,

at the ways, according to what was said by Jeremiah, and having seen, let us ask for the eternal paths of the Lord, and let us discern what the good way is, and let us walk in it, just as the apostles stood and asked the patriarchs and the prophets about the eternal paths of the Lord, whose writings, having inquired of them, they later saw, by coming to understand them, to be the good way,

Jesus Christ, the one who declared, “I am the way”; and in it they walked. For a good way indeed is that which leads toward the good Father, the good man who from his good store brings forth good things, and the good and faithful servant. But this way is narrow, since the many—including those of great bulk—find no room to travel it, but it is also pressed upon by

those who force their way through it — for it is a way, since it is not said to be "pressing" but "pressed"; the one who does not loosen the sandals from his feet, nor genuinely accepts that "the place" in which he stands, or even which he walks, "is holy ground," presses upon the way, which is living and perceives the peculiarities of the one who travels it. And it will lead to life the one who is

the one who said, “I am the life.” For the Savior, in whom is all virtue, is manifold in his conceptions; on this account he is, for the one who has not yet arrived at the end but is still progressing, a way, and for the one who has already put off all deadness, life. The one who journeys on this way is taught to carry nothing onto it, since it has bread and the things needed for life, because

the enemies can do nothing on it, and it needs not even a staff, and since it is holy, not even sandals. Now it is possible that “I am a voice crying out in the wilderness,” and what follows, is equivalent to “I am,” concerning whom it is written, a voice crying out, so that John is the one crying out, and it is his voice that cries out in the wilderness: “Make straight the way

of the Lord.” But Heracleon speaks more blasphemously concerning John and the prophets when he takes the matter up, saying that the Word is the Savior, while the voice is the one in the wilderness understood through John, and the sound is the whole prophetic order. One must say to him that just as “if the trumpet gives an indistinct sound, no one prepares for war,” and the one without love

who has knowledge of mysteries or prophecy has become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal, so too, if the prophetic voice is nothing other than a sound, how does the Savior send us up to it, saying, “Search the scriptures, for you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness”; and “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for concerning me

he wrote”; and “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you when he declared: This people honors me with their lips”—for it is not the case that anyone will reasonably accept that an indistinct sound is being praised by the Savior, or that it is possible to be prepared from the scriptures, as from the sound of a trumpet, for the war against the opposing powers to which we are sent up, if the sound of the voice happens to be indistinct. In what

way, if the prophets did not have love and for this reason were sounding brass or a clanging cymbal, does the Lord send us up, to be benefited, to their sound, as those men have taken it? I do not know how, without any proof, he declares that the voice, being more proper to the word, becomes word, just as a woman is transformed into a man. And as though having authority

to lay down doctrine and to be believed and to make progress, he says that the change into voice will belong to the sound, granting the rank of disciple to the voice that changes into word, and that of slave to the change from sound into voice. And if this in some way carried plausibility toward establishing these things, we too would have contended for their overthrow; but the unsupported assertion suffices for its own overthrow. But that which

we deferred examining in what preceded, namely how it has been set in motion, come now let us take up. For according to Heracleon, the Savior calls him both prophet and Elijah, but he himself denies each of these. And when the Savior calls him prophet and Elijah, he says, the Savior is teaching not about him himself but about the things concerning him; but whenever he speaks of one greater than the prophets and among those born

of women, he then characterizes John himself; but, he says, John, when asked about himself, answers about himself, not about the things concerning him. And how great a scrutiny we ourselves have made of these matters, as far as we have been able, leaving none of the stated terms without comment, in order to compare them with what was declared by Heracleon—since he does not have license to say whatever he wishes. For how is it that concerning the things about...

...him it is said that he is Elijah and a prophet, and concerning him that he is the voice crying in the wilderness, he does not even attempt to demonstrate this in any ordinary way; rather he uses an illustration: the things said about him are, as it were, garments that were other than himself, and one who was asked about the garments, whether he himself were the garments, would not have answered 'Yes.' For how...

...could the garments—that is, being Elijah who is to come—belong to John? I do not at all see this, following his reasoning; perhaps, according to our own explanation, insofar as we have been able to expound the phrase 'in the spirit and power of Elijah,' this spirit of Elijah can somehow be said to be the garment of John's soul. Still wishing to establish why the priests and Levites who questioned him were sent from the Jews...

...he does not say badly that it was fitting for these men, who were devoted to God, to busy themselves with such matters and to inquire about them; but he does not examine very carefully the fact that John himself was of the Levitical tribe—just as we, raising the difficulty beforehand, inquired: if those who were sent knew John and his lineage, how could they have had occasion to ask concerning...

...whether he was Elijah? And again, concerning the question 'Are you the prophet?', supposing that something distinctive is signified by the addition of the article, he says that they asked whether he was a prophet, wishing to learn the more general point. Moreover, not only Heracleon, but, as far as my inquiry has found, all the heterodox as well, being unable to distinguish a trivial ambiguity, have supposed John to be greater than Elijah...

...and greater than all the prophets, because of the saying, 'Among those born of women no one surpasses John'—not seeing that the statement 'No one born of women is greater than John' can be true in two ways: not only by his being greater than all, but also by there being some equal to him; for it can equally be true, if many prophets are equal to him, according to the...

...grace given to him, that none is greater than he. He supposes that his being 'greater' is established by his having been prophesied by Isaiah, as though none of those who ever prophesied had been deemed worthy of this honor by God. But in truth, as one who despises the covenant called the old one, and who did not observe that Elijah himself too was prophesied, he dared to say this; for indeed Elijah is prophesied by Malachi...

...saying: 'Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite, who will turn back the father's heart toward the son.' And Josiah too, as we have read in the third book of Kingdoms, is prophesied by name by the prophet who came from Judah, saying, with Jeroboam also present: 'Altar, altar, thus says the Lord: Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah is his name.' And some say also that...

Samson was prophesied by Jacob in his declaration, "Dan will judge his own people, just like one other tribe in Israel"—since Samson, being from the tribe of Dan, judged Israel. And let this too be said in refutation of the rashness of the one who declared that no one except John is prophesied—a declaration he made while wishing to explain what "I [am]

"a voice calling out in the desert" means. Those who were sent from Jerusalem to question John — the priests and Levites — having learned both who John was not and who indeed he was, fall into a most solemn silence, as though by that silence agreeing and showing that they accept what has been said, namely that it suits the one calling out in the desert to baptize, so as to smooth the way of the

Lord. The Pharisees, however, being — true to their name — a divided and factious sort, display their disagreement with the Jews of the capital city, as well as with those who minister to God's service, the priests and Levites, by sending, as it were reproachfully and, so far as it depended on them, so as to hinder the baptizing, men to ask him: "Why do you baptize if

you are not the Christ, nor even Elijah, nor the prophet?" And perhaps, if we were to draw together into one body the things written in the gospels, we might say that they said this at that time, but that later — I do not know how — having given themselves over to be baptized, they heard from John: "Brood of vipers, who showed you how to flee from the wrath to come? Produce, then,

fruit worthy of repentance." For these words were spoken by the Baptist, according to Matthew, on seeing that many Pharisees and Sadducees were coming to the baptism, plainly without fruits of repentance and boasting among themselves in Pharisaic fashion about having Abraham as their father. For this reason they are rebuked by John, who possessed the zeal of Elijah in communion with the Holy Spirit. For the saying is a rebuking

one: "Do not presume to say among yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'"; and it is an instructive one concerning how even those who, because of their heart of stone, being unbelievers are called stones, can by the power of God be changed from stones into children of Abraham — since they have come to be within the sight of the prophet, not fleeing the divine gaze. This is why the saying "I tell you that God is able

to raise up children for Abraham from these stones" is spoken by him. And since they come to the baptism without having produced fruit worthy of repentance, it is most fitting that this be said to them: "Already the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" — as though

he were saying to them directly: Since you have come to the baptism without having produced fruit of repentance, you are a tree not producing good fruit, about to be cut down by the sharpest and most powerful axe of the living word, an axe both effective and keener than every two-edged blade. XXIII. Luke, too, set forth the Pharisees' self-praise through the saying, "Two men went up into

the temple to offer prayer, one a Pharisee, the other a tax collector. Standing there, the Pharisee prayed thus within himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, greedy, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector' — since, on account of these words, the tax collector rather than he goes down to his house justified,

-fied, and it is added that everyone who exalts himself will be humbled. As hypocrites, then, in accordance with the Savior's reproachful words against them, they come to the baptism, not escaping the notice of the one baptizing that they still have the venom of vipers under their tongues, and that of asps: 'For the poison of asps is under their lips.' And truly 'wrath was upon them, according to the'

'likeness of the serpent,' was being made manifest, both through this bitter question, 'Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, not Elijah, not even the prophet?' To whom I would say: as though Christ and Elijah and the prophet baptize, while the voice of one crying out in the wilderness has not received this authority. O you people, you inquire harshly

of the angel dispatched ahead of Christ's presence to make ready his path before him, being entirely ignorant of all the mysteries pertaining to his role. For the Christ, being Jesus, even if you do not wish it, did not himself baptize, but his disciples did, he himself being 'the prophet.' Yet on what basis do you believe that Elijah, the one who is coming, will baptize — did he not also, in

the times of Ahab, baptize the wood on the altar that needed washing so that it might be kindled, when the Lord appeared in fire? For he commands the priests to do this not only once — for he says, 'Do it a second time,' and they did it a second time, and 'Do it a third time,' and they did it a third time. He, then, who did not himself baptize at that time, but yielded the task to others, how, according to what is said by Malachi, having come to dwell among us,

was going to baptize? Christ himself, then, baptizes not with water; rather his disciples do. He keeps for himself the baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Heracleon, having accepted the Pharisees' argument as soundly stated regarding baptizing being owed to Christ and Elijah and every prophet, says, in these very words, 'to whom alone baptizing is owed,' and from the

things we have just said, is refuted, especially in that he has understood 'the prophet' too generically; for he is not able to show that even one of the prophets performed baptism. He says, not implausibly, that the Pharisees were inquiring in accordance with their own cunning, not as wanting to learn. Since it seems necessary to us to set the similar wordings of the gospels alongside the passages at hand, and to do this for each

one, all the way through, so that things seeming to clash may be demonstrated as agreeing, while things stated similarly in each case are clarified on their own — come, let us do the same here too. For the words 'A voice shouting in the desert: Straighten the Lord's road' are spoken, in the disciple John, from the person of the Baptist; but in Mark, as the opening of Jesus Christ's gospel,

it stands recorded thus, following Isaiah's writing: "Jesus Christ's gospel begins, just as Isaiah the prophet set down in writing: Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who shall make ready your road; a voice shouting in the desert: Get the Lord's road ready, straighten his paths." Yet it does not stand in the prophet as "Make straight the

the Lord's road," which Mark cited. Perhaps, then, John, shortening "Get the Lord's road ready, straighten the paths of our God," put it as "Straighten the Lord's road" -- whereas Mark, drawing together into a single statement two prophecies uttered in different places by two prophets, rendered it: "Just as Isaiah the prophet wrote: Behold

I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who shall ready your way. A voice shouting in the desert: Get the Lord's road ready, make his paths straight." For the phrase "a voice shouting in the desert" is written immediately after the account concerning Hezekiah's rising up from his illness, while "Behold, I send my messenger before your

face" is from Malachi. But what John did in shortening the saying he quoted, Mark himself likewise showed, using different wording: for the prophet says, "Get the Lord's road ready, straighten the paths of our God," but Mark says, "Get the Lord's road ready, straighten his paths." He has

made a similar abbreviation also in the case of "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way." For he did not include the phrase before it, "before me." Further, on the words "They had been sent from the Pharisees, and they questioned him," when examining this we placed the question of the Pharisees first, since it is passed over in silence by Matthew, *

* of what is recorded as having happened in Matthew, that "John, upon seeing a great number of the Pharisees and Sadducees approaching for the baptism, said to them, Offspring of vipers," and so on -- for it follows that one should first inquire, and then come. And this too must be noted, that Matthew, of those going out to John, to Jerusalem and all Judea

and all the region around the Jordan, to be baptized in the river Jordan, confessing their sins, says he heard no word of rebuke or reproof from the Baptist, but only that he watched a great number of the Pharisees and Sadducees having come, and heard the words "Offspring of vipers" and so on addressed to them; but Mark says nothing rebuking was spoken by John

to those who had come, being all Judea and all the people of Jerusalem, and being baptized by him in the Jordan and confessing their sins -- consistent with his not even having named the Pharisees and Sadducees. And this too we must set forth as necessary, that both Matthew and Mark say that, confessing their sins, all Jerusalem was baptized

"and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan" -- or, "all the Judean country and all the people of Jerusalem." Matthew, for his part, brings on stage the Pharisees and Sadducees drawing near for the baptism, yet not confessing their sins; and so it is likely that this too is a reasonable cause for their having heard "Offspring of vipers." Do not suppose

that we have set forth the material from the other gospels out of season, examining what comes from those who were sent by the Pharisees and who questioned John. For if we have rightly matched the Pharisees' question, as recorded by the disciple John, to their baptism as it stands in Matthew, it was consistent to examine the corresponding passages and to set out the observations that were found. Likewise

Luke too, like Mark, recalls "a voice crying in the wilderness," speaking in his own voice as follows: "The word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness, and he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance unto release from sins, just as stands written in the scroll of the sayings of Isaiah the prophet: A voice of one crying in the wilderness, get ready the way of the

Lord, make his paths straight." And Luke added also what follows in the prophecy: "Every ravine will be filled, and every mountain and hill will be made low, and the crooked will become straight ways and the rough places smooth roads; and all flesh will see the salvation of God" -- writing, like Mark, "Make his paths straight,"

abridging, as we said before, "Level the paths of our God." And instead of "all the crooked things will become a straight way," he set down the wording without "all," while also turning the singular "into a straight way" into the plural "straight ways." Further, instead of "the rough place into a plain" he made it "and the rough places into smooth roads," and he also left out "And"

"the glory of the Lord will be seen," and set alongside it what follows, namely "and every creature of flesh will look upon the deliverance that comes from God." Such comparisons are helpful for showing that the evangelists condense the prophetic writings. And this too should be observed further: that "Offspring of vipers" and what follows Matthew records as directed at the Pharisees and Sadducees as they approached the baptism -- people distinct

from those who confess their sins, and who were hearing nothing of the kind; whereas Luke records these words as having been spoken to the crowds going out to be baptized by him, not making two classes of those being baptized, which we found to be the case in Matthew. And this is reasonable in his case as well, since the crowds are not ranked among those praised, as will be clear to those who attend carefully -- he introduces the baptist as having addressed to the crowds

"Offspring of vipers" and what follows. Further, to the Pharisees and Sadducees it is said in the singular, "Produce fruit worthy of repentance," but to the crowds in the plural, "fruits worthy of repentance." For perhaps the Pharisees are required to produce the singular, exceptional fruit of repentance, which is nothing other than trust placed in the Son himself, while the crowds are not required even at the outset

having good things, all are required to give the fruits of repentance; and that is why the plural is used in addressing them. It is said to these Pharisees in addition: «Do not think to say among yourselves, 'We have Abraham as father.'» For the crowds now are at a beginning, seeming to be introduced into the divine word, of approaching the truth; that is why they begin to say among themselves, «We have Abraham as father»; but the

Pharisees do not begin, but have held this opinion for a long time. Yet both hear that the aforementioned stones, when pointed out, are able to be raised up as children for Abraham, since they will be raised from insensibility and deadness. Observe that for the Pharisees, according to what is said in the prophet, «You ate false fruit,» they have fruit, but false fruit; it is said: «Every tree therefore not bearing good fruit is cut down»; but for the

crowds, who do not bear fruit at all, it is: «Every tree therefore not bearing fruit is cut down.» For that which has no fruit does not have good fruit either; hence it is worthy of being cut down. But that which has fruit does not altogether have good fruit; hence it too is reasonably felled by the axe. If we examine the matters concerning the fruits more precisely, we shall find that it is impossible

for that which has only just begun to be cultivated, even if it bears fruit, to bring forth good fruit at first. But the farmer is content, first, that the fruits befitting a plant just beginning cultivation be brought forth by it; later, proceeding by way of the purifications proper to farming, after whatever fruits it may be, he will then also receive good fruits. And the law bears witness to us in this understanding, saying that the one who plants must

leave what has been planted unpruned for three years, its fruits not being eaten: «For during three years, it says, the fruit shall remain uncircumcised for you and shall not be eaten; yet when the fourth year comes, every bit of the fruit shall be consecrated, worthy of praise before the Lord.» Reasonably, then, to the crowds, without the addition of “good,” it is said: «Every tree therefore not bearing fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire»;

and that which bears fruit for a longer time, similar to the beginning, being a tree not bearing good fruit, «is cut down and thrown into the fire,» whenever, upon the onset of the introduction that comes after the triad, occurring in the tetrad, it does not bear holy fruit, praiseworthy to the Lord. All these things, even if said by us with a digression while we set out also the material from the remaining Gospels,

do not seem to me untimely, nor foreign to the inquiry now before us. For it is the Pharisees who dispatch envoys to John, coming after the priests and Levites who had been sent from Jerusalem, to ask him who he might be, questioning him: «Why then do you baptize, if you yourself are neither the Christ nor Elijah nor that prophet?»; and having pressed him on this point, they next come forward to be baptized, as Matthew records, and indeed they hear the things

befitting their arrogance and hypocrisy. Since what was said to these was similar to what was said to the crowds, it was necessary to make a comparison and clarification of the sayings; and doing this required us, following the sequence, to consider more matters. But we shall also fittingly add these things to what has been said: it is recorded that two groups were sent to John, one of the Jews from Jerusalem

were sending priests and Levites, and, in a second case, Pharisees who were raising the difficulty why he baptizes. And we have shown that it was after the questioning that the Pharisees come to be baptized. Perhaps, then, before these, the Jews from Jerusalem who had sent these earlier ones had accepted John's words, since, having sent before the Pharisees did, they also come before them. For “Jerusalem,” that is all Judea, and consequently all the region around the Jordan,

were baptized by him in the Jordan river, making confession of their sins—or, as Luke says, “All the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem, and in the Jordan river they received baptism from him, making confession of their sins.” Yet Matthew does not say this of the crowds, nor Luke of the Pharisees and Sadducees, to whom it is said, “Brood of vipers,”

the same rebuke, representing them as confessing their sins. But it is worth raising the difficulty how, when the whole city of Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan were being baptized in the Jordan by John, the Savior says, “John the Baptist has come neither eating nor drinking, and you say, He has a demon”—and to those who asked, “By what authority

do you do these things?” he says, “I also will ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, I too will disclose to you the authority under which I act—these things I do. The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?”—at which point, reasoning among themselves, they say, “If we say, From heaven, he will say, Why then did you not believe him?” The difficulty raised is resolved thus: the Pharisees, as we have observed before, who

had heard, “Offspring of vipers,” and had not believed in him, come to the baptism—likely because, fearing the crowd and, in keeping with their hypocrisy toward the people, thinking it fitting to be washed so as not to appear to be opposing such people. Since, then, they held that he had his baptizing from men and not from heaven, they fear, on account of the crowd, lest they be stoned, saying what they suppose they must say. So the things

said by the Savior to the Pharisees are not in conflict with what is recorded in the Gospels concerning the great number of those baptized by John. And it was owing to the brazenness of the Pharisees that they said John had a demon, and also said that Jesus performed his mighty works by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons. Now Heracleon supposes that John answers those sent

from among the Pharisees not in accordance with what they were asking, but with what he himself wished to say—not noticing that in doing so he is accusing the prophet of ignorance, if indeed, being asked about one thing, he answers about another; for this too must be guarded against, since it is a fault even in ordinary conversation. But we say that the answer is very much to the point; for to the question, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the

Christ?” what else was fitting to say than what shows baptism to be a rather bodily matter? “For I,” he says, “baptize in water.” And having said this in answer to “Why then do you baptize?” he goes on, in answer to the second question, “If you are not the Christ,” to set forth a doxology concerning the pre-eminent being of Christ, namely that he possesses such power that he is even invisible in his divinity, while present to everyone

extending equally to every human being and to the whole world—which is shown through ‘He stands in your midst.’ And since the Pharisees who were expecting the coming of Christ saw nothing so great in him, supposing him to be only a perfect, holy man, he fittingly exposes the Pharisees’ ignorance concerning his preeminence, adding to ‘He stands in your midst’ the words ‘whom you do not know.’ And so that

no one should suppose that the invisible one who extends to every human being—or indeed to the whole world—is someone other than the one who became human, appeared on earth, and lived among human beings, he joins to ‘He stands in your midst, whom you do not know’ the words ‘the one coming after me’—that is, who will be made manifest after me. And understanding his surpassing preeminence

beyond his own nature—a preeminence some doubted, wondering whether he himself might be the Christ—wishing to show how far short he falls of the Christ’s majesty, so that no one should reckon of him more than what they see or hear from him, he also says, ‘of whom I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal,’ hinting that he is not able

to loose and make clear the account of his embodiment, bound and hidden, as it were, from those who do not understand, so as to say something worthy of so great a visitation compressed into so brief a space. It is not out of place, as we examine ‘I baptize with water,’ to set beside it the similar words of the evangelists on this matter and compare them with the passage before us. Matthew, then, says: ‘When he saw many of the Pharisees

and Sadducees coming to the baptism’—after the words of rebuke we examined—‘I baptize you with water for repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry; with the Holy Spirit and fire is how he himself will baptize you.’ In harmony with the account in John is this confession of the one who baptizes in water

before those sent from the Pharisees, when he speaks. Mark, however, says: ‘John proclaimed, saying: After me comes the one who is stronger than I, whose sandal strap I am not fit to stoop and untie. I baptized you with water, but with the Holy Spirit he himself will baptize you’—teaching that these things were proclaimed to more people, to all who were listening. Luke, however, says

that ‘as the people were waiting and, concerning John, all were turning over in their hearts whether he himself might be the Christ, John answered, saying to all: I baptize you with water, but one stronger than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not fit to untie; with the Holy Spirit and fire is how he himself will baptize you.’ Having, then, the

similar words of the four, come, let us see as far as we can the sense of each individually and their differences, beginning with Matthew, who is also handed down as the first of the rest to have issued the gospel to the Hebrews, to those who believe from the circumcision. ‘I,’ he says, ‘baptize you with water for repentance’—as it were cleansing them and turning them away from worse things and calling them to repentance.

For I have come “to prepare for the Lord a people made ready,” and to make room, through the baptism of repentance, for the one who is coming after me, and for this reason he will benefit you much more powerfully and effectively than I am able to; for his baptism is not bodily, filling the one who repents with the Holy Spirit and with a more divine fire, which makes every material thing vanish and consumes everything earthly, not only

from the one who has received it, but also from the one who hears it from those who have it. And the one coming after me is so much stronger than I am that I am not even sufficient to carry the very outermost fringe of the garments of the powers surrounding him — not the bare ones set forth, so that even ordinary people could perceive them — I cannot endure to bear even these. I do not know which of the two I should say,

whether it is my own great weakness, unable to bear even the humble things of Christ by comparison with the greater things around him, or rather his surpassing divinity, greater than the whole world; since I myself, who have received so great a grace as to have been deemed worthy even of prophecy, foretelling the things concerning my coming into the life of human beings, in “I am a voice crying out in the

wilderness”—and, “Lo, I dispatch my messenger ahead of your face”; I, whose birth was proclaimed to my father, marvelously and in his old age, by Gabriel, “the one who stands in the presence of God”; I, at whose very name Zechariah regained his voice at once, together with the power of prophecy exercised through it; I, to whom my Lord bears witness as being indeed greater

than anyone born of women, yet not fit even to carry his sandals — for if not even the sandals, what must be said about his garments? Who is this who will be able to keep his cloak whole? Who will grasp the tunic from above, seamless because woven throughout, so as to comprehend the meaning it holds? It should be observed that, although

all four evangelists have said that John came confessing that he baptized in water, Matthew alone added to this “for repentance,” teaching that the benefit from baptism depends on the intention of the one being baptized, coming to be present for the one who repents, but for one who does not approach in this way it will turn into a harsher judgment. One must know that just as the marvelous powers manifested in the healings performed by the Savior,

being symbols of those forever freed by the word of God from every disease and infirmity, nonetheless, even when they occurred bodily, benefited by summoning to faith those who were healed, so too the washing through water, being a symbol of the purification of the soul as it washes away every stain of wickedness, nonetheless, even in itself, benefits the one who presents himself to the divinity of the power of the

invocations of the worshipped Trinity, this being the source and origin of the divine gifts; for “gifts come in varieties.” My statement is confirmed by the narrative set down in the Acts of the Apostles concerning how plainly the Spirit came at that time to rest upon those being baptized, the water having already made ready the path for those approaching in sincerity—so much so that even Simon the magician, struck with amazement, wanted

to receive this favor from Peter, yet wanted, quite unjustly, to purchase it with the mammon of unrighteousness. This too deserves notice: that the baptism of John ranked lower than the baptism given by Jesus through his disciples. Those, then, in the Acts who had received only the baptism of John, not having so much as heard whether a Holy Spirit exists, are baptized once more by the

apostle. For regeneration did not come about through John but through Jesus, for his disciples, and it is called a washing of rebirth, coming about with a renewal of the Spirit — the same Spirit that even now is borne, since it is from God, upon the water, though it does not come upon everyone after the water. So much, then, for the examination of the matters in the Gospel according to Matthew.

Let us now also consider the matters in Mark, who recorded that John, in his preaching, said this according to: "There comes he who is stronger than I, after me" — for this is equivalent to "He who comes after me is stronger than I" — but no longer the same in: "I am not fit, stooping down, to loosen the strap of his sandals." For it is one thing to carry

the sandals — evidently already loosened from the feet of the one wearing them — and another thing to stoop down and loosen the strap of the sandals. And it follows, since none of the evangelists is mistaken nor lying, as the faithful would say, that the Baptist said both things at different times, moved according to one thought and then another. For it is not, as some suppose, about the same events that

those who record them were carried along differently, failing to be precise in memory about each of the things said or done. It is a great thing, then, to carry Jesus's sandals, but it is also a great thing to stoop down over his bodily acts that occurred somewhere below, in order to behold the image below, and to loosen each of the obscure matters concerning the mystery of the embodiment, which are, so to speak, the strap of the sandals. For

there is one bond of obscurity, just as there is one key of knowledge, which not even the greatest among those born of women is able by himself to loosen or open, since only the one who bound and closed it grants to whomever he wishes the loosening and opening of the strap of the sandals and of the things that are closed. XXXV. But if the topic of the sandals is a mystical one, this too must not

be passed over. I think, then, that the becoming man — when the Son of God takes on flesh and bones — is one of the sandals, while the descent into Hades, whatever Hades may be, and the journey to the prison with the spirit, is the remaining one. Concerning the descent into Hades it is said, "You will not abandon my soul to Hades," in

the fifteenth Psalm; and concerning the journey made in spirit to those in prison, Peter says in his catholic epistle: "For put to death indeed in flesh, yet made alive in spirit; in that spirit he journeyed also and proclaimed word to the spirits kept in prison, those who once had disobeyed, back when God's patience stood waiting through the days when Noah was building the ark." He, then, who worthily accomplished both these visitations

...able to set forth these words, is worthy to loose the strap of Jesus' sandals—he himself in understanding bowing low and going down together with the one who went down into Hades, descending too from heaven and from the mysteries surrounding Christ's deity to that visitation among us which had to occur, when he took on humanity as a sandal. And the one who put on humanity as a sandal also took up the dead man

as a sandal. »For Jesus died and rose to this very end, so that of both the dead and the living he might become sovereign«; and it was for this reason that he put on both the living and the dead as a sandal, that is, the one on earth and the one in Hades, »so that of both the dead and the living he might become sovereign.« Who then is capable of stooping down to untie the strap of such sandals, and, having untied it, not to let it go but, by a second capacity,

take it up again and carry it by bearing about in memory what has been thought? And let it not go unexamined that the phrase without »having stooped down« is likewise found in both Luke and John. And perhaps it is possible both to stoop down and to untie, according to what was said before; but it is also possible, while keeping the elevation that comes from the loftiness of the word, to find the solution of the sandals

bound up in the matter under inquiry, so that someone, having untied these, might see the word, bare of the lesser things, by itself, apart from the sandals — the Son of God. Now John's account records that not being »capable« is not the same as not being »worthy.« For it is possible for one who is not worthy to become capable; and it is also possible for one who is worthy not yet to be capable. For if indeed the gifts are given for what is beneficial, and not only »according to«

the proportion of faith, it would be the work of a God who loves mankind — foreseeing the harm that would follow from conceit or from being puffed up — not to give the capability to the one who is worthy, at some point; but it is proper to the goodness of God to prevail in doing good to the one benefited, anticipating the one who will be worthy, and, before he becomes worthy, adorning him with the

capability, so that after the capability he may come to becoming worthy, and not, starting altogether from being worthy, outstrip the giver and anticipate his graces before coming to becoming capable. John, then, says that in the case of the three evangelists he was not »capable,« but in the Gospel of John he was not »worthy.« But he is not excluded who indeed said

that, not yet being capable, he had become capable, even though he was not yet worthy; and again, he who said he was not worthy, not being worthy, had not yet arrived at having become worthy. Unless indeed someone will say that, with respect to the mortal nature not making room for a loosing and a bearing worthy of it, † it comes at some point to hold as true that it never becomes capable of untying

the strap of the sandals and worthy of the same. But however much we may make room for, there still remain things not yet thought of, since »When a man has finished, then he begins, and when he ceases, then he will be at a loss,« according to the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach. Let us further discuss the sandals as named in this way by the three evangelists, comparing those with the one named in the singular by the disciple John.

"For I am not worthy," he says, "to loose the strap of his sandal." Perhaps, then, overcome by the grace of God, he received this as a gift, not yet being worthy, so far as it depended on himself, to loose the strap of one of the two sandals, having understood his sojourn among men, concerning which he also bears witness; but since he still lacked the

comprehension of what would follow — not knowing whether it was Jesus who was also coming there, where he was about to be beheaded as a result of his imprisonment, or whether he ought to expect another — for this reason, hinting now as well at the perplexity that will later be shown to us more clearly, he says: "I am not worthy that I should loose the strap of his sandal." But whoever thinks this was said with excessive precision will bring together as one

"of the sandals" and "of the sandal," as though he were saying: In no way am I worthy to loose the strap, not even from the outset, of even one sandal. Or in this way too it is possible to bring what is said by the four evangelists together into one. For if John understood the matters concerning his sojourn here, but was in doubt about what followed, he speaks truly in saying

that he is not sufficient to loose the strap of the sandals — for in loosing that of one he does not loose both — and he also speaks truly in saying "the strap of the sandal," since, as has been said, he is still uncertain whether it is he himself who is coming, or another whom one must expect there as well. And concerning "There stands one among you whom you do not know," this must be understood in reference to the Son

of God — the Word, through whom all things came to be, subsisting substantially according to its underlying reality, being the same as Wisdom. For this one has passed through the whole of creation, so that whatever comes to be always comes to be through him, and so that concerning absolutely anything it may always be true that "All things came to be through him, and without him not one thing came to be," and also "All

things you made in wisdom." And if he has passed through the whole of creation, it is clear that also among those who were inquiring, "Why then do you baptize, seeing you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet?" this same Word, being firm, stands "in the midst," established everywhere by the Father. Or let "He stands in your midst" be understood as meaning: in the midst of you human beings,

because you are rational beings, he stands in your midst, just as the ruling faculty is shown to be in the middle of the whole body, being found, according to the scriptures, in the heart. Those, then, who have the Word in their midst but do not grasp anything about his nature, nor from what source and origin he has come, nor how he ever came to be established within them — these, though having him in their midst,

do not know him. But John knows him. For the statement "whom you do not know," spoken reproachfully to the Pharisees, shows that the Word had come to be accurately known by him, though unknown to them. For this reason too the Baptist, knowing him, knows the one standing in the midst as coming after him — that is, after him — and knows also the

...coming with teaching in baptism to those who have washed themselves in accordance with reason. But the word “after” does not signify the same thing here as when Jesus sends us after himself. For there, it is so that, walking in his footsteps, we may arrive at the Father, that we are commanded to come after him; but here, it is so that what comes after John's teaching may be made clear (since he came “so that all might believe through

him”) to those who had made themselves ready in advance, having been purified beforehand by lesser things, so that the perfect Word might also come to them. Primarily, then, the Father stands, being unchangeable and unalterable; and his Word also stands, always engaged in saving, even should he become flesh, even should he be in the midst of men, not grasped, and indeed not even seen. And he stands also teaching, calling all to drink from

his unbegrudging spring: “For Jesus stood and cried out, saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink.’” [On the text] But Heracleon says that “he stands in your midst” means: he is already present and is in the world and among men, and is already manifest to all of you. By this he does away with what has been established concerning his having passed through

the whole world. For to him one ought to say: at what moment is he absent? At what moment is he not within the world? And yet the Gospel declares, “Within the world he was, and through him the world came into being.” And for this reason those to whom the word “whom you do not know” is addressed do not know him, since they have not yet

gone out from the world, “and the world did not know him.” For what span of time did he ever cease being among men? Was he not present in Isaiah, who declares: “Upon me is the Spirit of the Lord, for he has anointed me,” and “To those not seeking me I became manifest”? Let them say whether he was not also in David, who speaks of his own accord: “I have been established king by

him upon Zion, his holy mountain,” and all that is written in the Psalms as spoken in the person of Christ. And why must I demonstrate this point by point, when the things able to show clearly that he was always among men are too numerous to count, in order to refute what has been unsoundly said by Heracleon in his explanation of “he stands in your

midst”? Yet it is not implausibly said by him that “the one coming after me” shows that John is the forerunner of Christ; for he is truly like a servant running ahead of his master. But far more simplistically he has taken “I am not worthy to loose the strap of his sandal” to mean that

by these words the Baptist admits that he is unworthy of even the most contemptible service toward Christ. Still, after this interpretation, he has not implausibly added: I am not sufficient for him to descend, for my sake, from the greatness and take on flesh as a sandal, concerning which I am unable to give an account, nor to relate or explain the dispensation regarding it. But more grandly and more nobly this same Heracleon interprets the sandal as the world

...having taken this up, he shifted to the more impious position that all these things must be understood also concerning the person meant through John. For he supposes that the demiurge of the world, being lesser than Christ, confesses this through these words — which is the most impious thing of all. For it is the Father who sent him, none other than the God under whom the living have their life, as Jesus himself bears witness, who is the God of Abraham and

of Isaac and of Jacob — he who is Lord of heaven and earth for this reason, that he made them — this one alone is good, and greater than the one sent. And even if, as we said before, it has been understood more crudely, and the whole world is, for Heracleon, a sandal of Jesus, still I do not think we should agree with this. For how, with such an interpretation, will the saying be preserved:

"My throne is heaven, and my footstool is the earth," which is attested as having been spoken by Jesus concerning the Father? For he says, "Swear not by heaven at all, since it belongs to God as a throne, nor swear by the earth, since it belongs to him as something on which his feet rest." And how, together with understanding the world as a sandal of Jesus, will it be able to establish the saying, "Do I not

fill heaven and earth? says the Lord"? Still, it is worth pausing to consider whether the sayings must be understood in the sense that the Word and Wisdom have passed through the whole world, while the Father is in the Son, as we have set forth — or whether the one who primarily girded himself about with the whole creation granted, beyond the Son's being in him, to the Savior — as being, after him, a second one and God the Word — to have reached through the whole

of creation. And especially for those able to observe the unceasing motion of so vast a heaven, sweeping round with itself, out of the rising toward the setting sun, that vast throng of stars, it will be worth inquiring what is the power dwelling in it, so great and so vast, for the whole world. For to dare say that this is something other than the Father and

the Son is perhaps not pious. That it stands in nearly all the copies, "These things happened in Bethany," we are not unaware, and it appears that this reading is even the earlier one; indeed, in Heracleon too we read "Bethany." But we were persuaded that one should not read "Bethany," but "Bethabara," having gone to the places to investigate the traces of Jesus and of his

disciples and of the prophets. For Bethany, as the evangelist says, the home city of Lazarus and Martha and Mary, is fifteen stadia from Jerusalem; from which the Jordan river is far off, at a rough estimate about a hundred and eighty stadia. But neither is there a place bearing the same name as Bethany near the Jordan; rather, they say that Bethabara is shown by the bank of the Jordan,

where they record that John baptized. And the interpretation of the name corresponds to the baptism of the one preparing for the Lord a people made ready; for it is translated as "house of" [preparation — word missing in source], while Bethany is translated as "house of" [obedience — word missing in source]. For where else ought that angel, dispatched ahead of Christ to make his path ready before him, to have carried out his baptizing, than at the place of preparation

What fatherland could be more fitting for Mary, who chose the good portion that will not be taken from her, and for Martha, distracted by her hospitality toward Jesus, and for their brother Lazarus, called "friend" by the Savior, than Bethany, "the house of obedience"? One who wishes to understand the holy scriptures without omission, then, must not disregard precision concerning names. However,

errors regarding names have occurred in many places in the Greek copies, and one could be persuaded of this from the gospels themselves. The account of the pigs cast down the cliff by the demons and drowned together in the sea is recorded as having happened in the region of the Gerasenes; but Gerasa is a city of Arabia, having neither sea nor lake nearby. And

the evangelists, men who knew the affairs of Judea with care, would not have stated so obvious and so easily refuted a falsehood. But since in some copies we have found, "into the region of the Gadarenes," something must be said about this too. For Gadara is indeed a city of Judea, near which are the famous hot springs, but in it there is by no means any lake bordered by cliffs, still less a sea. Rather, it is Gergesa,

from which comes the name of the ancient city situated by what is now called the lake of Tiberias, beside which lies a cliff bordering the lake, from which the pigs are shown to have been cast down by the demons. "Gergesa" is interpreted "the dwelling of those who cast out," being named, perhaps prophetically, for what the townsfolk who owned the pigs did concerning him, when they begged him to depart from their borders. A similar

error concerning names can be seen in many places across the Law and the Prophets — a fact we have established with precision by learning it from the Hebrews and setting our own copies side by side with theirs, confirmed by the still-uncorrupted editions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. We will therefore set out a few examples, so that those fond of learning may become more attentive to these matters. One of the sons of Levi, the firstborn, is called Geson in

most of the copies, instead of Gershon, sharing his name with the firstborn of Moses, since the name was readily given to both of them because they were born as sojourners in a foreign land. Again, in our copies the second son of Judah is said to be Aunan, but among the Hebrews he is Onan, meaning "labor." Further, in the departures of the sons of Israel recorded in Numbers, we found that

"they departed from Sochoth and encamped at Bouthan"; but the Hebrew, instead of Bouthan, says "Etham." And why should I linger to set out further examples, when it lies open to anyone who wishes to examine and learn the truth about the names? One must be especially wary of the passages of scripture where there is a list of many names together, as in Joshua concerning the

allotment of the inheritance, and, in Chronicles book one, running consecutively from the outset to somewhere near the passage touching Anan, and likewise also in Ezra. And the names must not be disregarded, since matters useful for the interpretation of places are signified through them. But it is not the fitting occasion now to examine the discourse concerning the theory of names, setting aside the matters before us. Let us look, then, at the

of the gospel wording. Jordan is interpreted “Descent.” Neighboring this, so to speak, is the name Jared, which is likewise interpreted this way, since he was born to Mahalaleel, as the book of Enoch records it — supposing one is willing to accept that book as holy — in the days of the descent of the sons of God upon the daughters of men; which descent some have supposed to intimate

the descent of souls into bodies, having supposed that “daughters of men” is said more figuratively of the earthly tent. But if this is so, what river could be “Descent,” upon coming to which one must be cleansed, having descended not his own individual descent but that of mankind, other than the one at which our Savior marks off those allotted their portions by Moses from those who receive their own

portions through Jesus? The courses of this river, then, that has descended through him, gladden — so the Psalter tells us, speaking of the city of God — not the perceptible Jerusalem (which has no river lying alongside it), but the unblemished church of God, raised on the footing laid by the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as cornerstone, our Lord. The Jordan, however,

one must understand as the Word of God who came to be and tabernacled among us, and Jesus as the one who allotted what he had taken up, namely the human nature — which is also the “cornerstone” — who, having himself come to be within the deity of the Son of God by being taken up by him, is washed, and then makes room for the dove of the Spirit, innocent and without guile, joined fast to him and no longer able to fly away,

for he says, “Upon whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining, this is the one who baptizes in Holy Spirit.” For this reason, having received the Spirit remaining upon him, it was so that, with the Spirit remaining in him, he might have the power to give baptism to those who approach him. “Beyond the Jordan,” in the regions inclining toward the areas outside Judea, in Bethabara, John baptizes,

being the forerunner of the one who had come to call not “the righteous but sinners,” teaching that those who are strong have no need of physicians, but those who are ill — for indeed the washing is given “for the forgiveness of sins.” It is likely that someone who has not grasped the different conceptions of the Savior will stumble at the interpretation given concerning the Jordan, because John says: “I baptize in water, but the

one coming after me is stronger than I; he will baptize you in Holy Spirit.” To such a person one must say that, just as the Word of God, being drink, is for some water, for others wine that gladdens the heart of man, and for others blood, because of “Unless you drink my blood, you have no life in yourselves” — and again, being called food,

is not understood in the same respect as living bread and as flesh; so likewise the same one is baptism of water and of Spirit and of fire, and for some also of blood. Concerning this last baptism, as some say, he speaks in the passage where he asks, “There is a baptism I must undergo — and how great is my constraint until it reaches its completion?” In agreement with this, in his epistle the disciple John speaks of the Spirit and

water, and he recorded the three becoming one. And in some sense, one who confesses that he is both way and door is clear that he is not yet a door for someone for whom he is a way, nor still a way for someone for whom he is already a door. All, then, who are being instructed in the beginning of the sayings of God, at the voice of the one who cries out in the desert — “Prepare ye the path of the Lord, make it straight” — come forward,

to the place "beyond the Jordan" that lies by the "house of..." so that through this preparation they may be able to make room for the spiritual word that comes to be through the illumination of the Spirit. Continuing then with what lies before us, let us gather the matters concerning the Jordan and understand the river more precisely. God, then, through Moses brings the people across the Red Sea, making the very water for them

a wall on the right and on the left, and through Jesus (Joshua) the Jordan. Paul, having read the scripture -- no longer campaigning according to the flesh, since he knew the law to be a spiritual thing -- teaches us spiritually to understand the matters of the crossing through the Red Sea, saying in the first letter to the Corinthians: "For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that

every one of our fathers dwelt beneath the cloud, and every one of them passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses within that cloud and within that sea, and all ate one and the same spiritual food, and all drank one and the same spiritual drink; for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

In keeping with these things, let us also ask to receive from God the ability to understand spiritually the crossing of the Jordan through Jesus (Joshua), saying that Paul would have said concerning this crossing too: "I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that our fathers all passed through the Jordan, and all received baptism into Jesus, within the spirit and within the river." A type, then,

was Jesus (Joshua), who succeeded Moses, of the one who succeeded the dispensation through the law with the evangelical proclamation of Jesus Christ. Therefore, even if all those were plunged into Moses within the cloud and within the sea, their baptism has something bitter and salty about it, since they were still afraid of their enemies and were crying out to the Lord and saying to

Moses: "Was it because there were no tombs in Egypt that you brought us out to die in the wilderness? Why have you done this to us, bringing us out of Egypt?" But the baptism into Jesus (Joshua), in the river that is truly sweet and drinkable, has many things distinguished beyond that other one, since the worship of God is now being made clear and taking on its fitting order; for the covenant-chest of the Lord God

God, and the priests and Levites, go before, while the people follow the ministers of God, and the people in turn follow those who are able to receive the commandment concerning purity. And Jesus (Joshua) says to the people: "Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow; the Lord will do wonders among us." And to the priests he gives instruction that, together with the chest of the covenant, they proceed ahead of the people, at the time when also the mystery of the

the Father's plan for the Son is displayed — the Son being highly exalted by him, who gives the gift, so that every knee should bend at the name of Jesus, of beings heavenly and earthly and beneath the earth, and every tongue should acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of the Father, God. For through these things it is shown, in what is written concerning Joshua: "And the Lord said to Joshua: On this day

I will begin to exalt you before the sons of Israel." And one must hear our Lord Jesus saying to the sons of Israel: "Come near here and hear the word of the Lord our God: by this you will know that a living God is among you." For in being baptized into Jesus we shall know that a living God is among us. And there, having kept the Passover in

Egypt, they made the beginning of the exodus, but with Joshua, after the crossing of the Jordan, on the tenth of the first month they encamped at Gilgal, when for the first time it was necessary, having taken the sheep, to designate those who would feast after Joshua's baptism. And by the sharp rock, under Joshua, the sons of Israel — as many of those who had come out of Egypt as were still uncircumcised — are circumcised; the

reproach of Egypt the Lord removed on the day of the baptism into Joshua, when Joshua purified the sons of Israel. As Scripture records: "And the Lord said to Joshua son of Nun: On this present day I have removed the reproach of Egypt from you." Then the sons of Israel observed the Passover on day fourteen of the month, far more joyfully than in Egypt, when also

they ate unleavened and new bread from the grain of the holy land, food better than the manna. For it is not when they had received the land according to the promise that God feasts them on lesser things, nor is it through so great a Joshua that they obtain inferior bread. This is clear to the one who has understood the true holy land and the Jerusalem above. For this reason also in the same Gospel it

stands written: "In the desert the fathers ate the manna, and they died; but whoever eats this bread shall live into the age." Even though it was given by God, the manna itself was a bread of advancement, bread furnished to those still under tutors, bread most fitting for those placed under guardians and stewards. But the new bread from the grain of the

land, reaped through Joshua's provision — others having labored, and his disciples reaping — was bread more life-giving than that one, given to those able, on account of maturity, to receive the paternal inheritance. Therefore the one still being trained by that former bread can, in respect of the word, receive death, while the one who has arrived at the bread after that one, having eaten it, will live forever.

All these things, I think, have not been set out inopportunely, since the baptism by the Jordan, taking place in Bethabara by John, is under examination. And this too must be observed: that Elijah, at the point when he was to be carried up as though into heaven amid a great shaking, took his mantle, rolled it together, and struck the water, which parted to one side and the other, and the two of them crossed over, namely he himself and Elisha.

For he became more suitable for being taken up by being baptized in the Jordan, since Paul, as we set forth earlier, called the more wondrous crossing through water “baptism.” Through this same Jordan, then, Elisha proceeds to receive the gift he wished to obtain through Elijah, saying: “Let there be, let there be a double portion of your spirit upon me.” And perhaps for this reason he received the gift double

in the spirit of Elijah resting upon himself, since he crossed the Jordan twice—once together with Elijah, and a second time when he took Elijah's mantle, struck the water, and cried out, "Where now is the God of Elijah?" and he struck the waters, and they parted to one side and the other. But if someone stumbles over the phrase "he struck the water" because of what has been handed down to us concerning

the Jordan, which was a type of the Word who descended to our descent, it must be said that in the apostle’s writing the rock was clearly Christ, which is struck twice by the rod, so that they might be able to drink from the “spiritual rock that followed” them. There is, then, also a kind of blow even for those who love, in their perplexity before learning what is sought, when things contrary to the conclusion of the argument are put forward—things from which

God, in freeing us, gives drink where they thirst, but where the matter is unattainable and incomprehensible to us because of its depth, he prepares it to be passed through by the division of the argument, since most things are made clear to us by the divisive method of reasoning. Furthermore, for the purpose of setting forth the interpretation concerning the most drinkable and most gracious Jordan, it is useful to adduce both Naaman the Syrian, who was cleansed of his leprosy, and

what is said concerning the rivers among the enemies of true worship. Concerning Naaman, then, it is written that he arrived by horse and chariot and took his stand before the doors of Elisha's house. Elisha then dispatched a messenger to tell him: go and bathe seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored to you and you shall be made clean. At which Naaman also became angry,

not understanding that it is our Jordan that releases those who are unclean because of leprosy from their uncleanness and heals them, and not the prophet; for it is the work of a prophet to send to that which heals. Not understanding, then, the great mystery of the Jordan, Naaman says: “Behold, I said that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon”

in the name of his Lord God, lay his hand over the spot, and so gather up the leprosy. For to lay the hand upon leprosy and cleanse it was a work belonging to my Lord Jesus alone, who not only said to the one who asked with faith, "If you are willing, you can cleanse me," the words "I am willing, be cleansed"; for besides the word he also touched him, and he was cleansed

of his leprosy. Yet still wandering, Naaman, not seeing how far the other rivers fall short of the Jordan in healing those who suffer, praises the rivers of Damascus, Abana and Pharpar, saying: “Are not Abana and Pharpar, Damascus’s own rivers, superior to every water Israel possesses? Should I not go and wash myself in them and so be made clean?” For just as no one

good except God the Father alone, so too among rivers none is good except the Jordan, which is able to change leprosy for the one who bathes his soul with faith into Jesus. And I think it is on account of this river that those remembering Shihor are recorded as weeping while seated beside Babylon’s rivers; for having tasted other waters after the holy Jordan, those who because of

wickedness had been taken captive come to remembrance and longing for their own saving river. That is why, concerning the rivers of Babylon, they say: "There we took our seat" — evidently because standing was not possible for them — "and wept." And Jeremiah too rebukes those who wish to drink Egyptian water and who abandon the water that comes down from heaven and bears the name of "This," the Jordan, saying: "What have you to do with

the road to Egypt, so as to drink the water of Geon, and so as to drink "river water"? Or, as the Hebrew has it, "so as to drink the water of Shihor"? — about which it is not our present purpose to speak. That the primary sense intended by the Spirit speaking in the God-inspired scriptures does not concern perceptible rivers can be seen also from what is prophesied in Ezekiel concerning Pharaoh, king of Egypt,

which runs thus: "Behold, I am against you, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great dragon crouching in the midst of his rivers, who says: The rivers are mine, since it was I who made them. I too will set hooks into your jaws, and I will fasten the fish of the river to your fins, and I will bring you up out of

the midst of your river, together with all the fish of ... and I will cast you down swiftly, and all the fish of the river; upon the face of your field you shall fall, and you shall not be gathered up, and you shall not be wrapped together." For what bodily dragon has ever been recorded as having been seen in the bodily river of Egypt? But perhaps this river of Egypt is a place belonging to our enemy the

dragon — the river of Egypt that was able to kill the infant Moses. And just as a dragon dwells in the Egyptian river, so God dwells in the river that gladdens God's city; for the Father is present in the Son. For this reason those who come to be in it in order to be washed set aside Egypt's reproach, and grow more suited to be taken up,

and are cleansed from the most defiling leprosy, and are made capable of a doubling of gifts, and grow prepared to welcome the Holy Spirit, since no other river has the spiritual dove alighting upon it. Therefore, having understood in a manner more befitting God the Jordan, the washing that takes place there, Jesus as he is washed within it, and that pertaining to its preparation, let us draw from the river as much of such benefit as we need. Earlier

the mother of Jesus, as soon as she had conceived him, went to visit the mother of John, who likewise happened to be pregnant, at the time when the one being formed grants the one being formed a more exact formation, making him become conformed to his own glory, so that, because of the commonality of form, John came to be suspected of actually being the Christ, and Jesus, having risen from the dead, was thought by those who did not dis-

They judge the image from what is according to the image. But here, after the testimonies of John about him already examined, Jesus himself is seen by the Baptist coming toward him. It should be noted that there, because of the sound of Mary's greeting that had come into the ears of Elizabeth, the infant John leaps in the womb of his mother; whereas here, as

from the voice, receiving the Holy Spirit: "It happened," it says, "when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the infant leaped within her womb, and the Holy Spirit filled Elizabeth, and she called out in a great voice and said" — here, by contrast: "John sees Jesus approaching him, and declares: Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the"

sin of the world." Now one is instructed first by hearing about the greater things, and only afterward becomes an eyewitness of them. That John indeed was aided toward his formation by the Lord — who was himself still being formed — having come, †...†, in the mother to Elizabeth, will be clear to one who has grasped what has been said about John's being a voice, and the

of Jesus being the Word will be evident; for a loud voice arises in Elizabeth when she is filled with the Holy Spirit because of Mary's greeting, as the very wording itself shows, running thus: "And she cried out with a loud voice" — namely, "and said." For the sound of Mary's greeting, occurring in the ears of Elizabeth, filled John from within her; and this is why John leaps, and

the mother becomes, so to speak, the son's own mouth, and turns prophetess, calling out in a loud cry and declaring: "Blessed are you among women, and the fruit of your womb is blessed." It can now become clear to us also why Mary makes her hurried journey into the hill country, her entrance thereafter into the house of Zechariah, and the greeting with which she greets Elizabeth;

for all this happens so that Mary, from the power she possesses by what she has conceived, might impart it to John, who is still in the womb of his mother, in order that he in turn might impart to his own mother the grace of prophecy which he had received from her. And it is most fitting that such dispensations are accomplished in the hill country, since nothing great can be contained by what, on account of their lowliness, will be called "valleys." And

here, after John's testimonies — the first delivered while crying out and speaking of God, the second spoken to the Levites and priests whom the Jews had sent from Jerusalem, and the third to those of the Pharisees who questioned more bitterly — Jesus is now seen by the one who testified, coming toward him, still advancing and becoming better; and of this advancement and betterment

the word "tomorrow" is the symbol; for it is as though, in a subsequent illumination and on a second day beyond the former one, Jesus comes, not merely recognized as someone positioned between even those who do not know him, but now also actually seen coming to the one who had earlier declared these things. On the first day, then, the testimonies occur, and John's coming to Jesus happens on the second day; and on the third John is standing with

...of the two disciples, seeing Jesus walking and saying, "Behold the Lamb of God," urges those present to follow the Son of God. And on the fourth day, wishing to go out into Galilee — he who had gone out to seek what was lost — he comes upon Philip and tells him, "Come, follow me." Then, on the third day counting from that fourth one, which is the sixth of the days we have listed from the beginning, the wedding takes place

in Cana of Galilee, concerning which we shall learn more when we come to that place. But this too should be noted, that the greater Mary comes to the lesser Elizabeth, and the Son of God to the Baptist, through which examples we are benefited toward eagerness to help those who are lesser, and toward moderation. But since it is not said in the disciple John from where the Savior comes to the

Baptist, we learn this from what Matthew has written: "Then Jesus arrives from Galilee at the Jordan, coming to John so as to be baptized by him." Mark also added the place, Galilee, saying: "In those days it happened that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized"

in the Jordan by John. Luke, however, passed over in silence the place from which Jesus comes, leaving that account to those who had already told it, but what we have not learned from them he himself teaches us, namely that after his baptism, as he was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form as a dove. Again, that John had tried to prevent the Lord, saying

to the Savior, "I have need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" — no one added anything to what Matthew had said, so as not to repeat the same words. And what was said by the Lord to him, "Permit it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness," Matthew alone recorded. Of five living creatures offered at the altar, three of them land animals

and two of them birds, it seems worthwhile to me to ask why the Savior is called by John "a lamb" and by none of the other names, even though, among the land animals too, when each was brought forward at three ages, he named the lamb from the class of sheep. These are the five creatures: calf, sheep, goat, turtledove, dove. And these are the three ages of each of the land animals: calf,

ox, young calf; ram, lamb, young lamb; he-goat, goat, kid. Of the birds, a pair of doves only as nestlings, a pair of turtledoves full-grown. One must therefore inquire, for anyone wishing to grasp accurately the spiritual account concerning the sacrifices, of what heavenly things these were a pattern and a shadow, and for what reason the law ordains that each of the animals be sacrificed; and separately one must gather together what concerns the lamb. And that

the account concerning the sacrifices ought to be understood as concerning certain heavenly mysteries, the apostle says somewhere: "who render service as a copy and shadow of the heavenly realities"; and again: "It is necessary, then, that the copies of what exists in the heavens be cleansed by these means, while the heavenly realities themselves require sacrifices better than these." But to be able, taking up each of these individually, to grasp the

...of Jesus Christ, being far greater than human nature, is the work of none other than the perfect one, who has “the faculties of perception trained” by habit for the discernment of good and evil, who is able from a truthful disposition to say, “But we speak wisdom among the perfect.” And truly one can say this of these things, and of

things similar to these: “which none of the rulers of this age has known.” Yet we find the lamb offered among the sacrifices of the continual offering. For it is written thus: And these are “the things you shall do at the altar: two unblemished yearling lambs daily at the altar continually, an offering of the continual sacrifice. The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the second lamb you shall offer”

“in the evening. And a tenth measure of fine flour mingled with a quarter hin of pressed oil; and a libation, a quarter hin of wine, for the one lamb. As for the second lamb, you shall prepare it in the evening, following the pattern of the first sacrifice and its accompanying libation; you shall present it as a fragrant aroma, an offering made by fire to the Lord, a perpetual sacrifice for your generations, upon”

“the doors of the tabernacle of testimony, before the Lord, in which I shall become known to you there so as to speak with you. And there I will set in order the sons of Israel, and I shall be hallowed in my glory, and I will consecrate the tent of testimony.” What other sacrifice could there be for the rational being that is an intelligible sacrifice of the continual offering, other than the flourishing word, the word symbolically called “lamb,”

sent down together with the soul's being illuminated (for this would be the morning sacrifice of the continual offering), and again offered up at the close of the mind's engagement with the more divine things? For it is not possible for being among the better things to endure without interruption, to the extent that the soul has been allotted to be yoked to the earthly and burdensome body. But should anyone ask what he ought to do during the interval between dawn and dusk,

let the holy one transfer the account from the matters pertaining to worship, and then follow the same order in these matters too. For there too the priests offer, first among the sacrifices, that of the continual offering, and next, before the evening sacrifice of the continual offering, the remaining offerings prescribed by the law, such as those concerning trespass, or involuntary sins, or the peace offering, or the vow offering, or jealousy, or the sabbath, or the new moon,

and the rest, which it would take too long to speak of at present. So then, we too, having made the beginning of our offering from the discourse concerning the image, who is Christ, will be able to discuss many most beneficial matters. And again, having brought our discussion of Christ to a close, we will arrive at what is, so to speak, evening and night, coming also to bodily matters.

But if we examine the discourse concerning the Jesus pointed out by John according to what is said: “Behold the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” standing firm upon the very economy whereby the Son of God bodily sojourned into human life, we shall take the lamb to be none other than the man. For this one, as

He was led as a sheep to slaughter, and like a lamb before its shearer he was silent, as it says, "I was like an innocent lamb led to be sacrificed for me." On this account also, within the Apocalypse, a lamb appears "standing as if it had been slain." This lamb, then, having been slaughtered, became a purification, according to certain ineffable principles, for the whole world, on whose behalf, in keeping with the Father's love for humanity, he also undertook the slaughter,

buying us with his own blood back from the one who had been buying us while we were being sold into sin. And the one who brought forward this lamb for the sacrifice was the God who was in the man, the great high priest, who indicates this through the words: "No one takes away my life from me, but I myself lay it down. I possess authority to lay it down, *, and again I possess authority

to take it up." And akin to this sacrifice are the rest; the sacrifices of the law are a symbol of it. And the remaining sacrifices akin to this sacrifice appear to me to be the outpourings of the blood of the noble martyrs, who are seen, not without purpose, standing according to the disciple John beside the heavenly altar: "Who is wise, that he may understand these things, or discerning, that he may know them?"

But so as to touch even to some degree, in a more contemplative way, upon the account concerning such sacrifices, which purify those on whose behalf they are offered, we must consider the case of the daughter of Jephthah who was offered as a whole burnt offering, on account of that vow, against the sons of Ammon, to which she herself also agreed when she was offered as a whole burnt offering, saying to her father, who had said, "I have opened my mouth against you to the Lord," "And if you have opened your

mouth against me to the Lord, do your vow." Now through these words an impression of great cruelty is introduced, in that such sacrifices are carried out on behalf of the salvation of human beings. But we need a more noble mind, one that looks toward resolving what is said against providence, and we must offer, all at once, a single defense concerning all such things, on the ground that they are more ineffable and beyond human nature. For great are the

judgments of God, and hard to explain; for this reason uninstructed souls have gone astray. It is attested also among the nations that many people, when plague diseases had broken out, handed themselves over as sacrificial victims on behalf of the community. And the faithful Clement, who is attested by Paul, accepts that these things happened thus, not unreasonably trusting the accounts, since Paul says: "together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are

in the book of life." A similar incongruity is found also in the case of one who wishes to bring an accusation against the mysteries hidden from most people, and likewise in what has been ordained concerning the martyrs, since God is better pleased that we should undergo all the harshest torments in confessing his divinity than that we should be freed for a short time from so many supposed evils, being swept along in speech to what the enemies of truth wanted.

We must therefore suppose that a destruction of evil-working powers comes about through the death of the holy martyrs, in that, for instance, their endurance and their confession even unto death and their eagerness for piety blunt the sharpness of those powers' plot against the one who suffers, so that, their power being blunted and weakened, many others besides those who had been overcome are also released, being set free from the burden, the burden.

which the evil powers, pressing in upon them, weighed down and injured. But even those who suffered, if the powers that worked the worse things against others had not been weakened, would no longer fall into the same suffering, since the one who offered such a sacrifice has conquered this opposing power — as if I were using, in part, an image useful for the matters before us, such as this: that one who kills a venomous creature, or puts it to sleep by an incantation or some power,

emptying it of its venom, benefits many of those who would later suffer something from it, had it not been killed or put to sleep or emptied of its venom. And if it should also become clear to some of those who were bitten, concerning release from the harm of the bite, that if one should gaze intently upon the thing that harmed him now dead, or step upon its corpse, or touch the dead creature, or taste a part of it, healing and

benefit might come to the one who had previously suffered, from the one who had killed what harmed him. Something of this sort, then, must be understood to occur through the death of the most pious martyrs, many being benefited by some ineffable power from their death. We have lingered over this in order to see what is distinctive about the one led as a sheep to slaughter and as a lamb silent before its shearer, both in the discourse concerning the martyrs and

in the account concerning those who died on account of pestilential conditions. For if these things have not been recorded to no purpose by the Greeks, and it has been well said concerning those who become the purifications of the world — and for this reason all the apostles are called "the refuse of all" — what then must be supposed, and how great a thing, concerning the lamb of God who is for this reason sacrificed, so as to lift the sin of not a few but rather of the whole

world, on whose behalf he has also suffered? For "if anyone sins, an advocate stands with us before the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous man, and he himself is the propitiation for our sins — and this holds true not for our sins alone, but likewise for the whole world" — since he is the savior of all people, especially of the faithful — he who "blotted out the record of debt that stood against us" with his own blood, and

taken it out of the way, so that it might not even be found, though the sins have been erased, and "nailed it to the cross." He who, "having stripped off the rulers and the authorities, made a display of them in the open, triumphing over them" by the wood. And so we are taught to take courage when we are afflicted in the world, learning that the reason for our courage lies in this — the world has been overcome, and stands plainly subject to the one who overcame

it. For this reason all the nations, released from those who formerly held them in subjection, serve him, because "he delivered the poor from the one in power" through his own suffering, "and the needy man who had no helper." This same savior, having humbled the slanderer by having humbled himself, remains continually with the intelligible sun before the most radiant church, called, more figuratively, the moon, existing for generation upon generation. Having destroyed, through

his suffering, the enemies — the Lord mighty and strong in war — needing the purification that can be given him by the Father alone upon his acts of valor, he prevents Mary from touching him, saying: "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go and tell my brothers: I am ascending to my Father and your Father,

'and my God and your God.' But when he goes forth victorious and bearing trophies together with the body that rose from the dead — for how else must one understand 'I have not yet ascended to my Father' and 'I am going to my Father'? — then certain of the powers say, 'Who is this who comes from Edom, the redness of garments, from Bosor,

so beautiful?' And those escorting him say to those stationed at the gates of heaven, 'Lift up the gates, you rulers, and be lifted up, you everlasting gates, and the king of glory shall enter.' And they inquire further, as it were — if one must speak this way — seeing his right hand bloodied and filled with the deeds of his valor: 'Why is your

clothing red, and your garments like the trodden residue of a full winepress?' at which point he also answers, 'I have trodden them out.' For truly it was on account of these things that he needed to wash, washing his garment in wine, and his robe in the blood of the grape. For having taken up our weaknesses and borne our diseases, and having taken away the sin of the whole world, and having done good to

so many, perhaps it was then that he received the baptism that surpasses everything supposed by men, concerning which I think he spoke when he said, 'There is a baptism I must undergo, and how constrained I am until it is completed!' For in order that, examining the matter more boldly, I may take a stand against what most people suppose, let those who hold that the greatest baptism, beyond which no other baptism can be conceived,

is his martyrdom tell us why, then, after this he says to Mary, 'Do not touch me'? For it would rather have been fitting for him to offer himself to be touched, since he had received the perfect baptism through the mystery of the passion. But since, as we said before, having performed valorous deeds against the adversaries he needed to wash 'his robe in wine, and

his cloak in the blood of the grape,' he went up to the father, the farmer of the true vine, so that, having washed there, after ascending on high, having led captivity captive, he might come down bearing the various gifts — the tongues as of fire distributed to the apostles, and the holy angels who would be present in every action and would deliver them. For before these dispensations, since they were not yet cleansed,

they could not contain the arrival of angels among them — nor perhaps were the angels themselves yet willing to be present with those not made ready and cleansed by Jesus. For it belonged to the love for humankind of Jesus alone to eat and drink with sinners and tax collectors, and to offer his own feet to the tears of the repentant sinful woman, and to go down even to death on behalf of the ungodly, not considering it robbery to be equal

to God, but emptying himself, taking on the shape of a servant instead. And in accomplishing all these things he was carrying out rather the will of the father who handed him over for the sake of the ungodly, more than his own will; for the father is good, while the savior stands as the likeness of that goodness of his. Doing good to the whole world in turn, since God in Christ reconciles the world to himself, first because of the wickedness

having become an enemy, he benefits those who are benefited in an orderly and sequential manner, not taking all his enemies at once as a footstool for his feet. For the Father says to the Lord of each of us: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." And this continues until the last enemy, death, is abolished by him. But if we

are to understand what it means to be subjected to Christ, especially from the words "But when all things have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected all things to him," let us think worthily of the goodness of the God of all and understand the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. But the sin of not all is taken away by the Lamb without their suffering

or being tormented until it is taken away. For thorns not only sown but also deeply rooted in the hands of everyone intoxicated by wickedness and having lost sobriety — as Proverbs puts it, "In the drunkard's hand thorns spring up" — need I even say how much pain they will produce for the one who has received such plants into the body of his own soul? For

it is necessary that the one who has let wickedness advance to such a depth of his own soul as to become thorn-bearing ground be cut by the word of the living God, which is sharper than any two-edged sword, and effective, and more scorching than any fire. And it will be necessary for the fire that finds the thorns to be sent upon such a soul, and to stop at them because of its own divinity, and not

to go on to burn the threshing floors or the standing grain of the fields. For the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world, beginning through slaughter, has several roads, of which some can be clear to the many, while others escape the notice of so many, being known only to those who are deemed worthy of divine wisdom. For why should I say by how many roads a person comes to believing among men,

while it is still possible, while present in such a body, for each to examine this for himself? Yet one of the roads to believing and having sin taken away is through scourges and evil spirits and the most severe illnesses and the most laborious infirmities. Who, then, knows what comes after these things? But it was necessary, so that the one who seems to be following the examination of the discourse of the one who says,

"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," might not be destroyed, to discuss these matters more fully, so that, knowing that one can be reproved by the wrath of God and disciplined by the anger of God — because, being exceedingly benevolent, he allows no one to go entirely unreproved and undisciplined — we may do everything so as not to need reproofs and the discipline that comes through the most laborious means. And the reader must examine

what we have said in the earlier parts, with the addition of more examples, concerning what is signified in Scripture by the word "world." For I did not think it reasonable to repeat what has been said. And we are not unaware that some have taken "world" to mean the church alone, a world of the world, since it too is called the light of the world: "It is you," he declares, "who are the light of the world." But "world"

...of the world, the church, the world becoming hers, Christ being the first light of the world. One must consider whether Christ and his disciples are said to be light of the same world; but at the moment Christ functions as the world's light, it may be that this same light belongs to the church; yet at the moment his disciples serve as the world's light, it may be that they are instead a light for those summoned to belief, these being others

...than the church, just as Paul said concerning these things in the preface of his first letter to the Corinthians, writing: "To the church of God, together with all who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." If, then, someone should assert that the church bears the name light of the world, as it were of the rest of the human race and of the unbelievers, then if

he takes this prophetically, on account of the discourse concerning the end, perhaps the statement has room; but if he takes it as something already happening, then, since the light of a thing illuminates that of which it is the light, let them show how the rest of the human race is illuminated by the church that sojourns in the world. And if they cannot show this, let them consider whether we have not soundly understood the church to be the light,

and the world to be those who are called. The saying found in the Gospel according to Matthew will make the exposition plain to the one who searches the scriptures most carefully: "For you," he says, "are the salt of the earth" - the earth being understood, perhaps, as the rest of mankind, of whom the believers are the salt, being the cause of the world's being preserved through their believing; for the end will come

"if the salt should become tasteless" and no longer be that which salts and preserves the earth, given how plain it is that once lawlessness multiplies, love too will grow cold upon the earth - so much so that even the Savior himself uttered a doubtful word concerning those present at his own coming, saying: "Yet when the Son of Man comes, will he indeed find faith upon the earth?"

then will be the end of the age. Let the church, then, be called "world" when it is illuminated by the Savior; but we are asking whether, according to "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world," "world" is to be soundly understood as the church, the taking away of sin being confined to the church alone. For how shall we explain what is said by the same disciple in his epistle concerning the Savior, that he is the propitiation for sins, which runs thus:

"And should anyone sin, an advocate stands ready for us before the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous one; he himself serves as atonement for our sins, not ours alone, but also for the whole world"? And what is said by Paul I think is similar to this, running thus:

"who is the savior of all people, especially of believers." Again, Heracleon, at this point, without any argument or citation of testimonies, declares that John says "Lamb of God" as a prophet, but "who takes away the sin of the world" as more than a prophet. And he supposes that the first statement concerns his body,

...to be said, and the second concerning the one in the body, in that the lamb is imperfect within the class of sheep, and so too the body, by comparison with the one dwelling in it. But if he had wished, he says, to bear witness to the perfection of the body, he would have named a ram as the one to be sacrificed. I do not think it necessary, after such extensive examinations as have already been made, to dwell needlessly upon the passage,

striving against what has been said cheaply by Heracleon. But this alone should be noted: that just as the world scarcely made room for the one who emptied himself, so too a lamb was required, not a ram, so its offense could be lifted away. * * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * * * * *

** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * * * * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * *

← All of Origen: Commentaries & Homilies