Commentary on John, Book 10

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

BOOK 10. "After this he went down to Capernaum, together with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples, and they stayed there just a few days. The Jewish Passover was approaching, so Jesus went up to Jerusalem, where he found people in the temple selling oxen, sheep, and doves, with money-changers seated there, and

making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple — both oxen and sheep — pouring out the money-changers' coins and overturning their tables; to those selling doves he said: Take these away from here; do not turn my Father's house into a marketplace. Then his disciples remembered that it is written, The zeal

of your house will consume me. The Jews then answered and said to him: What sign do you show us, that you do these things? Jesus answered and said: Tear down this sanctuary, and within three days I will restore it. The Jews then answered: This sanctuary took forty-six years to build, and you will restore it within three days? But he

was speaking about the sanctuary of his body. So once he had been raised from among the dead, his disciples recalled that he had said this, and they put faith in the scripture and in the word Jesus had spoken. Now during the feast of the Passover, while he was staying in Jerusalem, a great many put their trust in his name, as they observed the signs he

was doing; but Jesus himself did not entrust himself to them, because he knew them all, and had no need of anyone's testimony about mankind, for he himself understood what was within a person." * * * * in it numbers have been recorded, deemed worthy of writing according to a certain proportion fitting to each matter of scripture. But it must be examined whether one of the books

of Moses, entitled Numbers, teaches especially, to those capable of tracking down such things, the reasoning concerning numbers. Now I say these things to you at the beginning of the tenth book because I have often observed, in the course of scripture, the number seven obtaining a particular privilege, as you too are able to note carefully, and because I hope to receive from God something further for this book as well; and in order that this

might come to pass, let us try to present ourselves, to the extent of our power, to God, who wishes to grant the finest things. Let the book begin here: "After this, Capernaum received him going down, along with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples, and there he remained not many days"; and the other three, having written their gospels, say that after the contest with the devil the

Lord withdrew into Galilee. But Matthew and Luke say that, having first been in Nazareth, he afterward left that place and went and settled in Capernaum. Matthew and Mark, however, also give a certain reason for his having withdrawn from there, namely that he had heard that John had been handed over. And the words of Matthew run thus: "Then the devil leaves him, and

"Behold, angels came and ministered to him." "But when he heard that John had been handed over, he withdrew into Galilee, and leaving Nazareth, he went and settled in Capernaum by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, when he says: 'The land of Zebulun—'" and after the words found in Isaiah he says: "From that time Jesus began

to preach and say, 'Repent, since the reign of the heavens has drawn near.'" Mark, however, says: "And forty days in the wilderness he spent," being tempted by Satan, and he was among the wild beasts, and the angels ministered to him. And after John was handed over, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel

of God, saying, 'The season stands fulfilled, and God’s reign draws near; repent and believe in the gospel.'" Then, after relating also concerning Peter and Andrew, and likewise James and John, he records these things: "And entering into Capernaum, immediately on the sabbath he taught in the synagogue." Luke, on the other hand, says: "And when the devil had finished every temptation, he departed from

him until an opportune time. And Jesus, in the Spirit’s power, returned into Galilee, and a report went out through the whole surrounding region concerning him. In their synagogues he taught, and everyone glorified him for it. Then to Nazareth he came, the place where he had been raised, and, following his usual custom, he went in on the sabbath day into the

synagogue." And having set forth the words spoken to him at Nazareth, and the rage of those in the synagogue against him, who cast him out of the city and led him up toward the ridge of the hill their city was built upon, meaning to hurl him down from the cliff, and how the Lord, "passing through the midst of them, went on his way," he adds these words: "And he went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee,"

and was teaching them on the sabbaths." III. * * * <It must be shown> that the truth concerning these matters lies in their spiritual meaning, <because many people>, when the disagreement is not resolved, abandon their faith in the Gospels, on the ground that they are not true, nor written by a more divine spirit, nor even accurately remembered; for the writing of these accounts is said to have been composed in either of these ways. Let

those who receive the four Gospels, yet suppose the seeming disagreement is not resolved by recourse to the higher, anagogical sense, must tell us—in addition to the difficulties we have already raised—about the forty days of the temptation, which can by no means find a place in John, as to when the Lord came to be in Capernaum. For if it was after the six days from when he was baptized, the arrangement of the wedding at Cana of Galilee having taken place on the sixth day, it is clear that

he had neither been tempted, nor had he been at Nazareth, nor had John yet been handed over. After Capernaum, then, where he stayed not many days, since the Passover of the Jews was near, he went up to Jerusalem, where he casts out of the temple both the sheep and the oxen, and pours out the coins of the money-changers. It appears

...and in Jerusalem, Nicodemus, ruler of the Pharisees, is said to have come to him by night, and to have heard the things that one may gather from the Gospel. ‘After this Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea, and there he stayed with them and baptized; at which time John also was baptizing in Aenon near

Salim, since there was abundant water in that place, and people kept coming and being baptized; for John had not yet been thrown into prison; at which time a dispute also arose between the disciples of John and certain Jews concerning purification, and these came to John, saying concerning the Savior, 'Look, this man baptizes and everyone comes to him'; they have heard from the

Baptist words that one may take more precisely from the scripture itself. But if, when we inquire when the Christ first came to be in Capernaum, those who follow the wording of Matthew and the other two say it was after the temptation, when he left Nazareth and came to dwell in Capernaum by the sea, how will they say that both this and what is said in

Matthew and Mark are true at once — namely, that because he had heard about John's being handed over he withdrew into Galilee — and also what is stated in John, along with other events besides his stay at Capernaum: his going up to Jerusalem, and from there his coming down into Judea, at a time when John had not yet been thrown into prison but was baptizing in Aenon

near Salim? And in many other instances too, if anyone should carefully examine the Gospels regarding their disagreement as to the historical record — which we shall try, in each case, to set forth as far as possible — he will grow dizzy with confusion, and will either fall away from holding the Gospels to be truly reliable, and attach himself by mere chance to one of them, not daring altogether to reject the faith concerning our Lord, or else, while admitting all

four to be genuine, will say that their truth does not lie in their bodily, literal features. Now, in order that we may gain some conception of the intent of the Gospels concerning such matters, we must say this as well. Suppose it were set before certain people who see by the spirit God and his words to the saints, and the presence with which he is present to them at the special times of their advancement,

appearing to them, being many in number and in different places, and not all receiving benefits of exactly the same kind — suppose each of them were to report, individually, what he sees by the spirit concerning God and his words, and concerning his appearances to the saints, so that one would report certain things said and done by God to a certain righteous man in a certain place, while another

would report the things spoken as oracles and accomplished for another, and yet another would wish to teach us about some third person besides the two already mentioned; and let there be also a fourth doing the like concerning someone, corresponding to the three; and let these four agree with one another concerning certain things suggested to them by the spirit, while differing slightly in a few particulars, so that their narratives are of the following sort:

God appeared to so-and-so, at such-and-such a time, in such-and-such a place, and did such-and-such things for him, appearing to him in such-and-such a form, and led him by the hand to such-and-such a place, where he did such-and-such things. Let the one who reports these things as having happened, at the same time as what has been said, in an earlier period, in some city, declare that God appeared — to someone whom he himself also has in mind — to a certain

second person, who was in a place set well apart from where the first one stood, and let him record that other words were spoken at the same time to the one whom we have taken, in our hypothesis, as the second. The same must be understood concerning the third and the fourth. And let these, as we have said before, agree with one another, since they report the truth about God and his acts of kindness toward certain persons,

with respect to certain accounts related by them. Now to one who supposes their writing to be history — a history that by means of a historical image would purport to set forth the facts — and who assumes that God exists in a place by circumscription, unable to produce more than one appearance of himself, at the same time, in several places to several people, and to say several things at once, it will appear impossible that the four I have posited

are telling the truth, on the ground that it is impossible for God to be, at any given fixed time — since he is conceived of as existing in a place by circumscription — saying such-and-such things to so-and-so and to another such-and-such things to someone else, and doing such-and-such things and also their opposites, and, to give an example, sitting and standing at the same time, if one account should say that at such a time he was standing and had said

such-and-such things or done them in such-and-such a place, while another account said he was sitting. Just as, then, in these cases which I have posited, if the intention of the historians is grasped — men who wished, by a distinctive style, to teach us the things observed by their own understanding — no discord at all would be found in them, provided the four were wise; so must it also be understood to hold in the case of the four evangelists, who made great use of many of the

events accomplished according to the marvelous and most extraordinary character of the power of Jesus, and who, wherever it occurred, also wove into the writing, in wording as if perceptible to the senses, what had been made plain to them in a purely intelligible way. And I do not, in some cases, condemn them for having transposed a piece of history that happened one way, adapting it somewhat for the usefulness of their mystical purpose, so as to say that what happened in one place

occurred as though in another, or what happened at one time as though at another, and to have reported what was thus told with a certain alteration. For it was their aim, wherever it was possible to speak the truth both spiritually and bodily at once, to do so; but wherever both together were not possible, to prefer the spiritual to the bodily, the true spiritual sense often being preserved within the bodily, as one might say,

within a falsehood. As, for example, if we should say, taking it from the narrative, that Jacob, when he said to Isaac, “I am Esau your firstborn son,” was speaking the truth spiritually, in that he had already received the birthright which was in the process of being squandered by his brother, and, by means of the garment and the skins of the kids, had taken on the outward character of Esau, and had become — apart from the voice, which praised God —

...Esau, so that a place might later be made for Esau to be blessed. For perhaps if Jacob had not been blessed as though he were Esau, Esau himself would not have been able to receive the blessing on his own account either. Jesus, then, is many things in his conceptual aspects, and it is likely that the evangelists, taking up different aspects of these, sometimes even in agreement with one another about certain points, have written the

gospels in this way. For instance, one can truly say things that seem, as far as the wording goes, to be opposed to each other concerning our Lord: that "he was born of David" and "he was not born of David." For "he was born of David" is true, as the apostle likewise says, "descended, according to the flesh, from David's offspring," if we take this of his bodily nature; but this same statement is false if we understand "descended from David's offspring" of his more divine

power - for "he was appointed Son of God in power." And perhaps for this reason the holy prophecies proclaim him in one place a servant and in another a son: a servant because of the "form of a servant" and being "of the seed of David," but a son according to his firstborn power. In this way it is true to say that he is a human being and also not a human being -

a human being insofar as he was capable of death, but not a human being insofar as he is more divine than a human being. I think that even Marcion, having taken hold of sound arguments in a distorted way, rejecting his birth from Mary in respect of his divine nature, declared that he was not born of Mary, and for this reason dared to excise these passages from the gospel. Something similar seems to have happened to

those who do away with his humanity and accept only his divinity, as well as to their opposites, who excise his divinity and confess only the human being, as the holiest and most righteous of all human beings. And likewise those who introduce docetism, not understanding him who "humbled himself unto death" and became "obedient unto the cross," but imagining only that which is impassible and

greater than any such suffering - as far as it lies in them, they want to deprive us of the most righteous human being of all, and thus we are unable to be saved through him. For just as "through one man" came "death," so also through one man comes the justification of life; we would not be able to receive the benefit that comes from the Word apart from the human being, since the Word remains such as he was from the beginning

in relation to God the Father, without having taken on a human being - that human being who is capable of receiving him more fully than anyone else, being the first of all, the most honored of all, and the purest of all; and after him we too shall be able to receive him, each one to such an extent and in such a manner as the place we make for him in our own soul. Now all this has been said by me because I wanted to show that the seeming disagreements

among the gospels are in harmony, by way of a spiritual interpretation. And on this same point one must also make use of an example of this kind: that Paul says the carnal person has been sold under sin, and was not able to judge anything, "but the spiritual person judges all things" and "is judged by no one." And of the carnal person are the words: "For I do not do what I want, but what

...I hate, this I do'; but of the spiritual man: 'What I want, I do, and what I hate, I do not do.' But also the one who was caught up 'to the third heaven' and heard 'unspeakable words' was different from the one speaking: 'About such a one I will boast, but about myself I will not boast.' And if to the Jews he likewise becomes as a Jew, so as to win over the Jews, and to those governed by law as

under the law, that he may win them, and to those without law as one without law—'not being without God's law but within the law of Christ'—that he may win those without law, and to the weak, weak, that he may win the weak—it is clear that his words must be examined separately: separately the Jews, separately when he is as one under the law, and at other times when he is as one without law, and sometimes again when he becomes

weak. For instance, the things he says 'by way of concession, not by way of command,' he says while being weak; for he says, 'Who is weak, and I am not weak?' But when he shaves his head and offers a sacrifice, or circumcises Timothy, a Jew is what he becomes; yet to the Athenians he declares, 'I found an altar on which was written, To an unknown god; what therefore you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you'—and the saying, 'As indeed some'

of your own poets have said: 'For we are also his offspring'—he becomes to those without law as one without law, bearing witness to piety among the most impious, and making use, for his own purpose, of the one who said, 'Let us begin from Zeus; for we are also his offspring,' turning it to what he intended. And perhaps there is also a place where he becomes, to those who are not Jews, as one under the law. But these examples are useful to us not only for the matters concerning

the Savior, but also for the matters concerning the disciples, about whom too there is a certain disagreement according to the letter. For perhaps Simon, found in thought by his own brother Andrew and hearing 'You will be called Cephas,' is, in the underlying conception, different from the one seen together with his brother by him who was walking beside the sea of

Galilee, Jesus, and hearing along with that same Andrew, 'Follow me, and fishers of men I will make you.' For it was fitting for the theologian, who reports in a more rational manner concerning the Word who became flesh, and who for this reason did not record the origin of the Word who, in the beginning, was with God, not to speak of the one found beside the sea and called from there, but rather of the one found by his

brother, having remained with Jesus at the tenth hour, and, because he was found in this way, immediately receiving the name 'Cephas.' For the one seen by him who was walking beside the sea of Galilee only barely, and later, receives the saying, 'You are Peter, and on this very rock my church I will build.' And the Jesus in John is known among

the Pharisees as baptizing—baptizing among his disciples, and among other exceptional things doing this also; but the Jesus in the three other Gospels does not baptize at all. Further, John the Baptist, in the Gospel of his namesake evangelist, continues for a long time not yet cast into prison; but in Matthew, almost at the time Jesus is being tempted, he is handed over to prison; on account of whom

And Jesus withdraws into Galilee, avoiding being put in prison; but neither is the Baptist found, in John's account, being handed over to prison. Who is so wise and so capable as to learn the whole of Jesus from the four evangelists, and to grasp and understand each one individually, and to see all his sojournings in each place

and words and deeds? Now with regard to the passage before us, we think it follows that the Savior, on the sixth day, when the arrangement concerning the wedding took place in Cana of Galilee, went down together with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples into Capernaum, which is interpreted "field of consolation." For it was fitting that, after the feasting in wine, also into

the "field of consolation" the Savior should have come together with his mother and the disciples, in order to console, over the fruits that were to come in the multitude of the field, those under instruction and the soul that had conceived him from the Holy Spirit, or those who were benefited there. Yet one must inquire why it is that his brothers receive no invitation to the wedding, and indeed were not there — for it is not

said — but into Capernaum they go down with him and his mother and the disciples. One must further examine why now they do not enter into Capernaum, nor go up into it, but go down. See, then, whether here the brothers should be understood in place of the powers that went down together with him — powers not summoned to the wedding feast under the terms we have already described.

given above, but below, among the lesser disciples who bear the name of Christ and are benefited in a different manner; for if his mother is called, there are some who bear fruit, to whom the Lord himself goes down together with the servants of the word and the disciples, benefiting such as these, with his mother present alongside him. Now those called Capernaum seem not to accommodate a longer stay with them

of Jesus and of those who go down together with him; hence they remain with them, but not for many days; for the "field" of the lower consolation does not accommodate the illumination concerning the greater teachings, being capable of receiving only fewer. And to observe the differences between those who receive Jesus more fully and those who receive him less, one must set alongside "There they remained not many days" the passage in

the Gospel according to Matthew, said by him who rose from the dead to those who had been made his disciples and were being sent out to make disciples of all the nations, which runs thus: "Behold, I am with you all the days, until the end of the age." For to those who are going to know all that it is possible for human nature, while still existing here, to know, the words "Behold, I am with you" are spoken pointedly; and concerning the whole

span of the things to be beheld — the dawning that creates more days for the most blessed — the words "all the days, until the end of the age." But concerning those in Capernaum, to whom, as inferior, not only Jesus goes down, but his mother too, and his brothers, along with the disciples: "There they remained not many days." 10. And it is likely, not without reason,

Some will ask whether, after all the days of this age, the one who said, “Behold, I am with you” will no longer be with those who have received him “until the completion of the age”; for the word “until” indicates, as it were, a certain limitation of time. But one must say to this as well: “I am with you” carries a different sense than “in you.” Perhaps, then, it would be more proper

to say that the Savior is not “in” those being made disciples, but “with” them, insofar as they have not yet, in mind, arrived at the completion of the age. But when, the world having been crucified to them, they perceive its completion as having come, so far as depends on their own preparation, then Jesus will no longer be with them but will have come to be in them, and they will say, “I no longer live,

but Christ lives in me,” and “If you seek proof of the Christ speaking in me.” We say these things while also keeping, in its own particular way, the interpretation now before us — that “all the days” are said to mean those “until the completion of the age,” according to what it is possible for human nature, still situated here, to grasp. For it is also possible, while keeping that interpretation, to fix attention on the word “I,”

so that, until the completion, the one who is with those sent to make disciples of all the nations is the one who poured himself out and assumed a servant's form; but as though someone else, being in the state he was in before he poured himself out, comes to be with them after the completion of the age, until all “his enemies are placed by the Father as a footstool for his

feet” — after this, when the Son hands over the kingdom to God the Father, the Father will say to them, “Behold, I am with you”; whether this signifies every day right up to that point in time, or simply every day without qualification, or not "all the days" at all but rather "the whole day" — this remains open for whoever wishes to consider it further. For the matter before us does not now require us to digress from our discussion

to that extent. Heracleon, however, in expounding “After this he himself went down to Capernaum,” says that this indicates the beginning of yet another dispensation, the word “went down” not being used without purpose; and he says that Capernaum signifies these last things of the world, these material things into which he went down; and he says that, because the place is unsuited to him, he is not recorded as having done anything

or spoken there. Now had no other Gospel likewise recorded our Lord as doing or saying anything in Capernaum, perhaps we would have hesitated to accept his interpretation. But as it is, Matthew says that our Lord, having left Nazareth, came and settled in Capernaum by the sea, and that from then on he made the beginning

of his preaching, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.” Mark, on the other hand, tells us that after the temptation by the devil, and after John had been handed over, the Lord went into Galilee proclaiming God’s good news; and after choosing the four fishermen for apostleship, “they enter Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath he was teaching”

...into the synagogue, and they were astounded at his teaching. But he also records a deed of his that took place in Capernaum: ‘Immediately,’ he says, in their synagogue there was a man possessed by an unclean spirit, who cried out, saying: Ha! What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? We know who you are: you are God's own Son.’ Then Jesus rebuked him,

saying: ‘Be silenced and come out of him.’ When the unclean spirit had convulsed him and cried out with a loud voice, it departed from him, and amazement seized them all. And Simon’s mother-in-law is freed of her fever in Capernaum. In addition to this, Mark says that when evening had come in Capernaum, all who were sick and possessed by demons were healed. And Luke, for his part, reports

things similar to Mark’s concerning Capernaum, saying: ‘And he went down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching them on the Sabbaths, and they were astounded at his teaching, because his word was spoken with authority. In the synagogue was a man possessed by the spirit of an unclean demon, who shouted with a loud voice: Ha! What have we to do with’

you, Jesus of Nazareth? I know who you are — the Holy One of God.’ Jesus rebuked him with the words: ‘Be silenced, and come out of him.’ At that, the demon threw him down in their midst and departed from him without inflicting any harm on him.’ And after this he reports how the Lord, having risen up from the synagogue, entered the house of Simon. And having rebuked the

fever in his mother-in-law, he freed her from the illness. After she was healed, he says, ‘When the sun had set, all who had those sick with various diseases brought them to him; and laying his hands on each one of them, he healed them. And demons also came out from many, crying out and saying, You are the Son of God; and rebuking them, he did not

allow them to speak, since they had recognized that he was the Christ.’ Now all these things said and done by the Savior in Capernaum we have laid out in order to refute the interpretation given by Heracleon, who says: For this reason it is nowhere said that he did or spoke anything there. Either let him too supply two senses of Capernaum, and set them forth and persuade us which they are; or, if he is unable to do

this, let him cease saying that the Savior sojourned in some place in vain. And we too, God granting it, when we come in the course of our reading through such passages, where he might seem to have accomplished nothing in certain places, will attempt to make clear that his sojourn there was not in vain. Further, Matthew says that when the Lord had entered Capernaum, the centurion came up to him, saying:

‘My servant is lying paralyzed in the house, terribly tormented,’ and that after other things said, he heard from the Lord the word, ‘Go your way, and as you have believed, let it be done for you.’ And he too, in agreement with the other two, set forth the account concerning Peter’s mother-in-law. Now I think it is a labor of love and fitting for one who loves learning in Christ to gather together from the four Gospels everything

the things recorded about Capernaum, and the words and works of the Lord in it, and how many times he sojourned there, and when he is said to have gone down into it, and when to have entered it, and from where. For these things, set alongside one another, will not let us fall into a mistaken interpretation concerning Capernaum — except that also there the sick find healing and other displays of power occur there,

and the preaching “The kingdom of the heavens has drawn near” begins from there. This seems to be a symbol, as we indicated at the outset, of a certain lesser place, becoming, perhaps, exalted on account of Jesus, who called it to notice by what he taught and did there in that region. For we are aware that the names of places, too, are significant, corresponding to the events concerning Jesus — just as Gergesa,

where the citizens of the swine begged him to depart from their borders, is interpreted “sojourning.” We have also observed this further about Capernaum: that not only did he begin preaching there “The kingdom of heaven has drawn near,” but also, according to three evangelists, he performed his first works of power there. Yet none of the three, in the marvels he first recorded

as having occurred in Capernaum, has made note of it as the first work in the way the disciple John does, who says: “This beginning of signs Jesus made in Cana of Galilee.” For the sign performed at Capernaum was not, in fact, the first of the signs, since what stands foremost among the signs of the Son of God is joy; but on account of the circumstances that had befallen human beings, the Word does not

display its own beauty in healing, through the healing of those who suffered, to the same degree that it does in gladdening — with the sober drink — those who, because they are healthy, are able to devote themselves to festivity. Examining the precision of the most wise John, I asked myself what he means by the addition “of the Jews.” For of what other nation is the Passover a feast? It would therefore have been sufficient

had he simply said, “And the Passover was near.” But perhaps, since there is a Passover that is human — belonging to those who do not observe it according to the will of Scripture — and there is a Passover that is divine and true, wrought by those who bow before God in truth and spirit, energized through spirit and through truth, the one called “of the Jews” is set apart in contrast to the divine one. Let us then listen to the Lord

legislating the Passover, as to what he says when it was first named in Scripture: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, there in Egypt's land, saying: This month is to be your first among months, the opening one within your year's months. Speak to the whole gathered assembly of Israel's sons, saying: On this month's tenth day let each of them take a lamb according to their"

ancestral houses.” And shortly after, in a passage where the Passover had not yet been named by that name, he adds: “Thus shall you eat it: your loins girded, and your sandals on your feet, and your staffs in your hands, and you shall eat it in haste — it belongs to the Lord as Passover.” For rather than saying, “It is your Passover,” he speaks otherwise. And shortly after, a second time, thus—

He names the feast: "And it shall be, when your sons say to you, 'What is this service?' you shall say to them, 'It is the sacrifice of the Passover of the Lord, in that he covered the houses of the sons of Israel.'" And again a little later: "To Aaron and to Moses the Lord spoke, saying: here is the ordinance governing the Passover — no foreigner shall eat"

of it." And again a little later: "But if a proselyte comes to you and observes the Lord's own Passover, every male belonging to him must be circumcised." For it must be observed that nowhere in the legislation is it said "your Passover," but once, in the passage we set out above, without any addition, and three times it is called the Lord's own Passover. Now, in order to accept

that this is so concerning the difference between "the Passover belonging to the Lord" and "the Jews' Passover," let us also look at what is said in Isaiah to this effect: "Your new moons and the sabbaths and the great day I cannot endure; fasting and idleness, along with your new moons and your festivals—these my soul detests." For the Lord does not say that what is performed by sinners belongs to him,

nor that the things carried out by sinners—hated by his soul, if indeed there is such a thing—are the new moons, or the sabbaths, or the great day, or the fasting, or the feasts. In the legislation of Exodus, however, concerning the sabbath these things are said: "Moses spoke to them, saying: This is the utterance which the Lord declared: The sabbath is a holy rest to the

Lord." And a little later: "Moses said: Eat, for today is a sabbath to the Lord." And in Numbers, before these passages, concerning the sacrifices at each feast—since, according to the law of the continual offering, each day too is treated as a feast—these things are written: And the Lord spoke to Moses: Announce to the sons of Israel and say to them: My gifts, my presents,

my burnt offerings for a sweet-smelling savor you shall take care to offer to me at my feasts. And you shall say to them: These are the burnt offerings which you shall offer to the Lord." For he named them his own feasts, and not those legislated and set out in Scripture as belonging to the people, and his gifts and his presents. Something similar to this is also recorded concerning the people in Exodus,

which is called by God his very own when it does not sin; but disowning it at the making of the calf, he called it "the people of Moses." For to Pharaoh he says: "You shall say, Thus says the Lord: Send out my people, so that they may worship me in the desert. But if you are not willing to send out my people, behold, I am sending upon you

and upon your servants and upon your people and upon your houses the dog-fly, so that the homes of the Egyptians will be full of the dog-fly, and also the land on which they are. And on that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, on which my people stand, so that † there shall be no dog-fly there,

that you may know that I am 'the LORD, ruler of the whole earth. And between my people I will draw a distinction.' But the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 'Go, go down quickly, for your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, have broken the law.' Just as, then, the people, when not sinning, belongs to God, but when sinning is no longer

said to be his, so too the feasts: those that are hated by the soul of the Lord are the feasts of sinners, while those that the Lord ordains are called the Lord's own. Among the feasts, Passover too is one, which in the Gospel passage before us is said to belong not to the Lord but to the Jews. And elsewhere: 'These,'

he says, 'are the feasts of the LORD, which you shall call holy convocations.' Now from the Lord's own words it is impossible to contradict what we have set out. But someone might plausibly raise a question from the Apostle, who writes in the letter to the Corinthians: 'For indeed our Passover has been sacrificed, Christ.' For he does not say, 'The Passover of the Lord has been sacrificed, Christ.' To this too we must reply either that

he has spoken more simply of our Passover as sacrificed, meaning the one sacrificed on our behalf, or that every feast is truly the Lord's — of which the Passover is one — and that it will be accomplished not in this age nor on earth but in the age to come and in the heavens, once the kingdom of heaven has arrived. And regarding those very feasts, one of the twelve prophets asks, 'What

will you do in the days of festal gathering and in the days of the Lord's feast?' And Paul, writing to the Hebrews, states: 'But you have drawn near to Mount Zion, to the city of a living God, that heavenly Jerusalem, joined with countless angels in festive assembly, and with the congregation of the firstborn recorded in the heavens'; and in the letter to the Colossians: 'Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in matters of food or drink, or concerning a

feast, or a new moon, or sabbaths, all of which cast a shadow of what is coming.' In what manner, then, shall we keep festival among the heavenly things, of which there was a shadow among the bodily Jews, first being trained under the true law by guardians and stewards, until the fullness of time arrives there and we attain the perfection of the Son of God — a work of the wisdom hidden in a mystery which

it is possible to make manifest — and observe that the things legislated concerning foods are symbols of the things there that are going to nourish and strengthen our soul. It is likely that someone, dazed by the sea of so many thoughts, and wishing to grasp how the worship carried out in a particular place is a pattern and shadow of the heavenly things — wishing, that is, to understand the sacrificial offerings and the sheep — might stumble even against the apostle,

who wished indeed to raise our thinking above the earthly notions concerning the law, but did not fully explain how these things are to come about. But if the feasts too — of which the Passover is one — are referred to the age to come as well, we must all the more examine how even now 'our Passover has been sacrificed, Christ,' and will be sacrificed after these things as well. But let us say a few things about the

we should set out the difficulty of these doctrines, since they require their own special and voluminous treatment — both the whole mystical account concerning the law, and in particular the matters concerning the feasts, and still more particularly the matter of Passover. Now for the Jews, the Passover is a sheep that is sacrificed, taken by each household according to their ancestral families, and carried out with tens of thousands of lambs and kids being slaughtered, in greater numbers in proportion

to the number of the households of the people. But "Christ our Passover has been sacrificed." And again, theirs are the unleavened loaves, with all leaven cleared out of their dwellings; yet our festival is kept not in "stale leaven," nor in the leaven belonging to malice and evil, but "in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." But beyond the two things just mentioned there is a third, the Passover of the

Lord and the feast of unleavened breads, which must be examined more carefully, because those people served an example and a shadow of those heavenly realities, and not only foods and drinks and new moons and sabbaths, but the feasts as well stand as a shadow cast by what is yet to come. First then, since the apostle says, "Our Passover was sacrificed — Christ," someone might raise this difficulty against him: if the sheep among the Jews

is a type of Christ's sacrifice, then either it was necessary that one sheep, and not many, be sacrificed among them, just as Christ is one, or, since many sheep are sacrificed, we must accordingly inquire into the type as though many Christs were being sacrificed. But to let that pass for now — how does the sheep being sacrificed contain an image of Christ, since the sheep is sacrificed by those who keep the law, while Christ is put to death by those who

transgress it? And further, how does the statement "They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat unleavened breads with bitter herbs" apply to Christ? We must also interpret "You shall not eat any of it raw, nor boiled in water, but only fire-roasted — head, feet, and inward parts together. You shall leave none of it until morning, and you shall not break a bone

of it; and what is left of it until morning you shall burn with fire." It seems that John in the Gospel used the phrase "A bone of it you shall not break" as referring to the dispensation concerning the Savior, at the point where, in the law, those eating the sheep are commanded not to break its bone. He speaks as follows: "The soldiers therefore came, and"

"they broke the shins of the first man, and likewise of the second, the one crucified alongside him; yet coming to Jesus, once they saw he was by then dead, his shins they did not break. Instead one of the soldiers stabbed his side with a lance, and at once blood and water poured out. And the witness of the one who saw is true testimony; and that man knows that"

"he speaks the truth, so that you also may believe. For these things came to pass in fulfillment of the scripture: Not one of his bones shall be broken." And there are countless other things besides these that must be sought out concerning the apostle's statement, and examined concerning the Passover and the unleavened breads, but they require, as we said before, a preliminary treatise of their own. For now, having set these things forth summarily on account of the passage before us,

We will attempt to resolve the apparent difficulties as briefly as possible, recalling also the saying, "This is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," since also concerning the Passover it says, "You shall take it from the lambs and the goats." For the evangelist too will appear to be caught up, in agreement with Paul, in such perplexities as have been examined. But it must be said that if the word

has become flesh, and the Lord says, "If you do not partake of the Son of Man's flesh and take in his blood, you hold no life within you; whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood possesses life everlasting, and on the last day I myself will raise that one up; for my flesh truly is food, and my blood

is true drink; the one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him"— perhaps this is the flesh of the Lamb who takes up the world's sin upon himself, and this same blood is what must be put upon the two doorposts, and upon the lintel, in the houses where we eat

the Passover, and from the flesh of this lamb one must eat during the age of the world, that age being night; and the flesh is to be roasted over fire and eaten, together with bread made from unleavened things. For the word of God is not only flesh; indeed he says, "I am the bread "of life," and again, "Here is the bread come down from

heaven, so that whoever eats of it will not die. I am living bread, come down out of heaven; whoever eats from this bread shall live "forever." One must not fail to know, however, that all nourishment is called "bread" in a rather loose sense, as is written concerning Moses in Deuteronomy: "For forty days he ate no bread and

drank no water"— that is, he partook of neither dry nor liquid food. I have noted this because it is also said in the Gospel according to John: "And the bread I shall give, given for the life of the world, is my own flesh." Either, then, on account of the repentances for our sins, grieving with the grief that is according to God, which works in us a repentance unto

salvation not to be regretted, we consume the lamb's flesh together with bitter herbs and the unleavened bread; or on account of the trials, seeking and being nourished from the discoveries of the truth's contemplations. The flesh of the lamb, then, must not be eaten raw, as those do who are slaves to the letter, in the manner of irrational and brutalized animals, in contrast to those who are truly rational, through wishing to understand the

spiritual things of the word, partaking like wild beasts gone savage. But one who takes what is raw in Scripture over to boiling must take care not to render the things written more flabby and watery and enfeebled, as is done by those whose ears itch and who turn it away from the truth, while adopting for themselves, toward what is slack and more watery in their conduct, interpretations suited to themselves. But we, by the

...with a boiling spirit, and with the fiery words given by God, such as Jeremiah had received from the one who said to him, "Behold, I have given my words in your mouth as fire" — let us roast the meat of the lamb, with the result that its partakers may declare, as Christ speaks within us, "Our heart was burning within us on the road, as he opened to us the

scriptures." And to support our seeking to find that the meat of the lamb needs to be roasted with fire, we must adduce the confession of the suffering that Jeremiah underwent because of the words of God, when he says: "And it became like a burning fire, blazing in my bones, and I am weakened on every side and cannot bear it." One must begin eating from the head,

that is, from the most eminent and foremost dogmas concerning the heavenly things, and must finish at the feet, the last of the teachings, which inquire into the final nature among existing things, whether the more material beings, or the subterranean, or the evil spirits and unclean demons. For the account concerning them, being other than they are, and deposited in the mysteries of scripture, can more figuratively

be called the "feet" of the lamb. And one must not hold back from the entrails and the inward and hidden parts; and one must approach the whole of scripture as a single body, and must not shatter or cut apart the strongest and most solid joints in the harmony of its entire composition — which is exactly what those have done who, as far as it lay in them, have shattered the unity of the spirit that runs through all the scriptures.

Let this prophecy, then, spoken above concerning the lamb, nourish us only for the night of the darkness in this life; for until the dawn of the day of the things after this life, nothing will need to be left over for us of the food that is useful to us only for the present. For when the night has passed and the day that comes after it has arrived,

having nothing at all of leaven from the older things that ferment from below, we shall eat unleavened bread, which will be of use to us until the manna is given after the unleavened bread — the angelic and not the human food. Let each of us, then, sacrifice the sheep in every house of our family, and let it be possible for one person to transgress by not sacrificing the sheep, and another to keep the whole commandment

by sacrificing it and tending it carefully and not breaking its bone. And thus, in brief, in accordance with the apostolic teaching and with the lamb in the gospel, let the Passover that was sacrificed be rendered as Christ. For one must not suppose that historical realities serve as types for other historical realities and bodily things for other bodily things, but rather that the bodily things are types of spiritual things, and the historical of intelligible things. To ascend in our discussion also to the third

Passover, which will be accomplished in a festal gathering of myriads of angels, in a most complete and most blessed departure, is not necessary now, nor to say more and beyond what the reading before us required of us. But it must not be left unexamined, nor passed over, how it was "the Passover of the Jews" when the Lord was together with his mother and brothers and disciples in Capernaum.

In the Gospel according to Matthew, after he was left by the devil and angels had come and were ministering to him, having heard that John had been handed over "he withdrew into Galilee," and leaving Nazareth he went and settled in "Capernaum." Then, having begun to preach and having chosen the four fishermen as apostles, and having taught throughout every synagogue in all of Galilee, healing those brought to him, he goes up

up the mountain, where he pronounces the beatitudes together with what accompanies them; then, once that teaching was finished, he descends from the mountain and comes into Capernaum for a second time, and from there boards a boat and passes over into the region of the Gergesenes; and, being entreated to leave their territory, "he boarded a boat, made the crossing, and arrived in his own city." There, after completing certain healings,

he "went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues"; and a great many other things happen after this before Matthew notes the time of the Passover. And in the other evangelists as well, after the stay in Capernaum, it is nowhere found stated that the Passover is near. One can grasp the intent of these men if one considers

what has been said by us earlier concerning Capernaum. [the stay] happens to be close to the Passover of the Jews, being slightly better than it and superior to it, especially because, during the Jewish Passover, one finds inside the temple men trading in oxen, sheep, and doves; on account of whom it is set out all the more that it is not the Lord's

but the Jews' Passover: for just as the Father's house became a house of merchandise among those who do not sanctify it, so too the Lord's Passover becomes a human and Jewish passover among those who receive it in a more lowly and more bodily manner. It will be more fitting to consider elsewhere the matters concerning the time of the Passover, which occurs around the spring equinox,

and whatever else the problem requires working through. Heracleon, for his part, says: "This is the great feast, for it was a type of the Savior's suffering, in which not only was the sheep slaughtered, but it also provided rest when eaten; and being sacrificed it signified the suffering of the one in the world, while being eaten it signified the rest that is in the marriage."

We have set down his wording so that, seeing the man conducting himself in matters of such magnitude in a slipshod and watered-down way, with nothing to support it, we may rather hold him in contempt. It should be noted that John records as Jesus' second work the matter of the ones he discovered inside the temple trading oxen, sheep, and doves, while the rest of the evangelists place something similar near

the end, in the arrangement concerning the passion. Matthew does so as follows: "And when he had entered Jerusalem, the whole city was shaken, saying, 'Who is this?' And the crowds said, 'This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.' And Jesus entered the temple and cast out all those who were selling and

...those buying in the temple, and flung down the money-changers' tables and the benches of the dove-sellers. And he tells them: "Scripture says: 'A house of prayer is what my house shall be called,' yet you have turned it into a robbers' den." Mark, however: "And they come into Jerusalem. And upon entering the temple he set about driving out the sellers and the buyers there,

and he flung down the money-changers' tables and the benches of the dove-sellers, and he permitted no one to carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught them, saying: 'Is it not written, "my house shall be named a prayer-house for all the nations"? Yet you have turned it into a robbers' den.'" Luke, however: "And as he drew near, seeing the city he wept over it, saying that

'If you had known, even you, in this day, the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For days will come upon you, and your enemies will surround you and encircle you on every side, and they will raze you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave stone upon stone in you, because you did not know

the time of your visitation.' And upon entering the temple he set about driving out the sellers, telling them: 'Scripture says: "And a house of prayer is what my house shall be," yet you have turned it into a robbers' den.'" This too must further be observed: that to the things said by the three concerning the Lord's going up to Jerusalem, in the course of which he did these things in the

temple, John recorded similar things as having occurred after many events, belonging to another sojourn of his at Jerusalem distinct from this one. And the things said must be understood in this way — first, then, the things said by Matthew: "And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, Jesus at that point sent forth two disciples, telling them: 'Go into the village that lies

opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt beside her; untie them and lead them to me. And should anyone say something to you, tell him this: it is the master who needs them; and he will send them at once.' Now this took place so that what had been spoken through the prophet might come to fulfillment, when he said: 'Say to the daughter of Zion: Behold, your king is coming to you, gentle and

mounted on a donkey, even a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.' So the disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them, and brought the donkey and the colt, and placed their garments upon them, and he sat upon them. And the very great crowd spread their own garments on the road. [ * * * ] And the crowds going before him and

following cried out: 'Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in the Lord's name! Hosanna in the highest!'" Next after these is: "And when he had entered Jerusalem, the whole city was shaken" — which we have already set forth in what came before. Second are the words of Mark: "And when they draw near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount

of the Mount of Olives, he dispatches two of his disciples with these words: 'Go into the village opposite you, and as soon as you enter it you will find a colt tied, one on which no man has ever yet sat; untie it and bring it. And if anyone asks you, "Why are you doing this?" say that "His master has need of it," and he

sends it back here.' And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untie it. And some of those standing there said to them, 'What are you doing, untying the colt?' And they said to them just as Jesus had said, and they let them go. And they bring the colt to Jesus, and they throw their garments on it,

and others, cutting leafy branches from the fields, spread them on the road. And those going ahead and those following were crying out, 'Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; blessed is the coming reign of our father David—hosanna, high in the heavens.' He entered Jerusalem, into the temple, and having looked around at everything, since the hour was already late,

along with the twelve, he set out for Bethany. And on the following day, once they had left Bethany behind, hunger came upon him. Then, after the episode of the withering fig tree, 'They come to Jerusalem. And entering the temple he began to drive out those who were selling' and so on. * * In Luke it goes this way: 'And it happened that, as he approached Bethphage and Bethany, near the

mount called Olivet, he sent off two of his disciples with these words: "Go into the village opposite, in which, as you enter, you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever yet sat; untie it and lead it here. And if anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' you shall say this, that 'The Lord has need of it.'" So the disciples went off and found it just as he had told them. And as they

were untying the colt, its owners said to them, 'Why are you untying the colt?' And they said, 'The Lord has need of it.' And they led it to Jesus, and throwing their garments on the colt they set Jesus upon it; and as he went, they were spreading their garments on the road. And as he was now drawing near, at

the way down from the Mount of Olives, a great crowd of the disciples came out to meet him, glad and praising God aloud for every mighty deed they had witnessed, crying, 'Blessed is the king who comes bearing the Lord's name; peace resting in heaven, and glory reaching to the highest.' And some of the Pharisees from the crowd said to him, 'Teacher, rebuke your disciples.'

And he answered and said, 'I tell you: were these people to fall silent, the very stones would shout aloud.' And as he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it,' and so on, which we have already set out. John, however, after a great many things, says, 'And Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those selling oxen and sheep,' narrating a different ascent of the Lord.

into Jerusalem, he says these things after recounting the supper at Bethany, held six days ahead of the Passover, a meal at which Martha waited on the table and Lazarus reclined among the guests: "On the next day the great crowd that had come for the feast heard that Jesus was on his way to the city, so they took up palm branches and set out to meet him, crying out: Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,

the king of Israel. And Jesus, finding a young donkey, sat on it, just as it is written: Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, seated on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Now I think that in setting these things out, even though I have gone beyond the wording of the evangelists at greater length, I have done so out of necessity, in order to bring out the disagreement that exists at the level of the letter: the three, on the one hand, speaking as though

it were one and the same visit of the Lord to Jerusalem that they describe, in what most people suppose to be the same events as those written by John as well; while John, on the other hand, reports that the matters here set out occurred during two visits, separated by many deeds recounted in between and involving the Lord's journeys up to Jerusalem on different occasions to different places. I myself, then, suppose it to be impossible for those who understand these things as nothing more than

history to show that the apparent disagreement is in fact harmonious. But if someone thinks that we have not grasped this soundly, let him write a reasoned reply against this declaration of ours. XXIII. But as for the considerations that move us toward the agreement of these accounts, having asked him who gives to everyone who asks, and who strives to seek with keenness, and knocking so that the hidden things of

scripture may be opened to us by the keys of knowledge, we shall set them forth in the same manner, according to the power given to us. And first, let us look at John's wording, beginning from "And Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Jerusalem, then, is, as the Lord himself teaches in Matthew's Gospel, "city of the great king" — not lying in a hollow or situated somewhere low, but built upon a high

mountain, and "mountains are round about it," "whose fellowship is joined together"; and "There went up the tribes belonging to the Lord, as a witness unto Israel." This city is also called Jerusalem, into which no one on earth goes up or enters; and indeed every soul that has a natural loftiness and a sharpness that discerns intelligible realities is a citizen of this city.

And it is possible even for the person of Jerusalem to fall into sin; for even those most naturally gifted are capable of sinning, if they do not turn back after their sin quickly enough, thereby destroying their good nature, and end up not merely sojourning in but even being enrolled as a citizen of one of the cities foreign to Judea. Jesus, then, goes up to Jerusalem after helping those in Cana of Galilee and after

having gone down to Capernaum, so that he might do in Jerusalem the things that are written. He found, at any rate, in the temple — which is also said to be the house of the Savior's Father, that is to say, in the church, or in the profession of ecclesiastical and sound teaching — certain people making the Father's house a house of trade. And Jesus always finds certain people in the temple.

For when is it not the case that in the church so called — the household belonging to the living God, pillar and foundation of the truth — there are some money-changers sitting, needing blows from the whip of cords that Jesus made, and coin-dealers who need to have their coins poured out and their tables overturned? And when are there not those who sell in a mercantile fashion whom it was necessary to keep

as oxen at the plow, so that, having put their hands to it and not turning back to what lies behind, they might become fit for the kingdom of God? And is there ever a time without people setting unrighteous mammon above the sheep who furnish them the very material of their own adornment? And there are always many, too, who despise the guileless and innocent dove, stripped of all bitterness and gall,

and for the sake of wretched gain betray the care owed to the doves spoken of in the more figurative sense. Whenever, then, the Savior finds in the temple, the house of the Father, people selling oxen, sheep, and doves, along with the money-changers seated there, he drives them out, using the whip he had made of cords, together with their commercial sheep and oxen, and he pours out

the coins, as not worth keeping, showing their uselessness; and he overturns the tables in the souls of the money-lovers, saying also to those selling the doves, “Take these things away from here,” so that they may no longer trade in the temple of God. XXIV. But I think he has also, through what has been said, made a still deeper sign, so that we should understand that a symbol has come about

in this, that the worship pertaining to that temple was no longer going to be carried out by the priests through sense-perceptible sacrifices, nor could the law any longer be kept, even as the bodily Jews wished it to be. For once Jesus had cast out the oxen and the sheep, and had commanded the doves to be taken away from there, oxen and sheep and doves were no longer going to be sacrificed for long

according to the customs of the Jews. And it is also a token that the coins — the bodily coinage, being impressions that do not bear the marks of God — were to be poured out, since the legislation that seemed venerable according to the letter that kills was, once Jesus had come and used the whip against the people, going to be dissolved and poured out, the oversight being transferred to those from the nations

who believe in God through Christ, and the reign of God being lifted from those and given instead to a nation that produces its fruits. And a soul that is by nature well-suited for reason can also itself be a temple by nature, on account of the reason inborn with it, situated higher than the body, into which — from Capernaum, which lies somewhat lower — Jesus goes up more humbly, in

which are found, before the instruction that comes from Jesus, earthly and senseless and harsh movements, and things that are held to be good but are not, which are driven out by Jesus with the reasoning woven together out of demonstrative and refutative doctrines, so that the house of his Father might no longer serve as a marketplace, but might recover, in accordance with the heavenly and spiritual laws,

...service of God being carried out for its own salvation and that of the many. Now the ox is a symbol of earthly things, for it works the land; the sheep is a symbol of the unintelligent and brutish, since that animal is more slave-like than most of the irrational creatures; the dove is a symbol of thoughts that are light and easily tossed about; and the coins are a symbol of things reckoned to be good. But if someone stumbles at

such an interpretation, because the animals brought into the account are clean ones, it must be said that the narrative would be implausible if it were reported as having happened according to a possible historical event; for in the temple of God it would not have been possible to report that a herd of any animals other than the clean ones had entered, nor that anything other than sacrificial animals had entered for sale. For this reason, to what

was done by the merchants at the seasons of the Jewish feasts, when they brought these animals into the outer precinct of the temple, the evangelist made use of, as I think, employing an event that had actually happened as well. And yet, whoever cares for the more precise inquiry will examine whether, given the standing Jesus had in this life, being reckoned to be the son of a carpenter, he would have dared to do so great a thing as to drive out a crowd

of merchants who had come up for the feast, when sheep to be sacrificed in the households of their families, numbering in the many myriads, were being sold to so great a people, and oxen were being sold to the wealthier who had made such great vows, and doves, which many, as at a festival gathering, would have bought in order to feast on them; and that the money-changers... would not have accused Jesus of insolence when they saw their coins being poured out and their

tables overturned. And who, being struck with the whip of cords by one considered by them to be of no account, and being driven out, would not have seized him and cried out and taken justice into his own hand—especially having so great a crowd of those who thought themselves insulted along with him working together against Jesus? Let us consider whether the Son of God taking cords and plaiting for himself a whip for the purpose of driving people out of the

temple does not display, along with self-will and excessive boldness, also disorderliness. One refuge alone remains for the defense against these objections, for anyone wishing to preserve the historical account: the more divine power of Jesus, who was capable, whenever he wished, both of quenching the kindled wrath of enemies and of prevailing by divine grace over myriads and of scattering troubled reasonings. For "the Lord

scatters the counsels of nations, and brings to nothing the reasonings of peoples; but the counsel of the Lord remains forever"—so that none of the things done by him in a manner exceedingly bold, and which called those who had beheld them to faith through his divinity, should appear to display a lesser power at work than the account concerning that place, if indeed this too actually happened. And it is possible to declare it greater than the

event that occurred concerning the water changed into wine at Cana of Galilee, in that there the matter transformed was lifeless material, whereas here the ruling faculties of so many myriads were enslaved. It should be observed, however, that at the wedding Jesus's mother is described as present, while Jesus and his disciples are described as having been invited; but into Capernaum he is said to have gone down

no one is listed except Jesus. But the disciples too appear later as present, if indeed they remembered that “The zeal for your house will consume me.” And perhaps Jesus was present in each of the disciples as he went up to Jerusalem, and that is why Scripture does not say, “Jesus, together with his disciples, went up to Jerusalem,” whereas it does say, “He went down to Capernaum,

he himself, along with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples.” XXVI. Now that the matters proper to this place have been noted — that those who made the temple a house of merchandise were forgotten — we must examine what lies in the other evangelists. And first the passages in Matthew, who says that when the Lord entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken, saying, “Who is this?”

Before this he relates the matter of the donkey and the colt, taken at the Lord’s command by two disciples sent by him from Bethphage to the village opposite it, where they are also found; there the donkey, previously tied, is untied by the two disciples, who had been instructed, if anyone should say anything to them, to answer that “their master has need of them; and

he will send them back at once.” And he reports that a prophecy was fulfilled by these events, the one that says, “Behold, your king comes to you, gentle and mounted on a donkey and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden,” which we find in Zechariah. And when the disciples had gone and done as Jesus had instructed them, “they brought the donkey and the colt. They placed,” it says, “upon them their garments,

” their own, and he sat upon them — the Lord, that is, clearly upon both the donkey and the colt — when also “the very great crowd spread their garments on the road, while others lopped branches off the trees and spread them on the road,” while the crowds going ahead and following cried out, “Hosanna to the son of David — he who comes in the name of the Lord — hosanna

in the highest.” Moreover, as a result of this, “as soon as he had entered Jerusalem, the whole city trembled, saying, ‘Who is this?’” — the crowds, plainly those going ahead and those following, answered those who asked who he was with, “This is Jesus, the prophet hailing from Nazareth in Galilee.” Then Jesus went into the temple, and drove out all who were selling

and buying in the temple, and overturned the tables of those exchanging money, along with the seats of those selling doves. And he says to them, “Scripture has it written, ‘My house is to be called a house of prayer,’ yet you are turning it into a den of robbers.” Let us then ask those who suppose that Matthew, in writing the gospel, intends nothing beyond the bare narrative, what was so urgent as to require sending two of the

disciples to the village opposite Bethphage, so that, having found there a donkey tied and a colt with her, they might untie them and bring them to him? And what was worth recording in what happened to the donkey and colt that was sat upon and brought into the city? And what besides does Zechariah, prophesying about the Christ, say: “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; proclaim, daughter of Jerusalem;

Behold, your king comes to you, righteous and saving, himself meek and mounted on a beast of burden and a young colt. For if this prophecy foretells only the bodily event indicated by the evangelists, let those who stand upon the letter preserve for us the sequence of the prophecy, which runs thus: And he will wipe out the chariots that come from Ephraim and the horse out of Jerusalem,

and the bow of war will be destroyed, and a great number, even peace, shall come from the nations, and he shall have dominion from one sea unto the other, and from the rivers as far as the outer limits of the earth, and so on. One must know, however, that Matthew did not set out the wording as it appears in the prophet's text. Rather than "Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; proclaim, daughter of Jerusalem," he has made it: "Say to the daughter of Zion,"

abridging the prophetic text; and he also passed over in silence "righteous and himself saving," and although he wrote "meek and mounted" as it stands, instead of "on a beast of burden and a young colt" he recorded: "on a donkey and a colt, the foal of a beast of burden." And the Jews, too, comparing the sequence of the prophecy with what has been written about Jesus, press us with objections not easily dismissed, demanding how Jesus destroyed chariots

from Ephraim and horse from Jerusalem, and destroyed the bow of war, and did the things that follow. So much, then, concerning the prophecy. But if they fault the length of the road, finding nothing worthy of the dispensation of the Son of God in the account concerning the donkey and the colt, first, since they are dealing with fifteen stadia, a brief distance, they will not

bring any reasonable objection at all regarding the road; and second, let them tell us how he needed two animals for so short a road. For, it says, he sat upon them; and further, "If anyone says anything to you, you shall say that their master has need of them; and he sends them at once" — this too, I think, is not befitting the greatness of the Son of

God's divinity, that a nature so great should be said to acknowledge need of a donkey being loosed from its bonds, with a colt coming along with it; seeing that whatever the Son of God has need of must needs be great, and worthy of his goodness. In addition to these things, the very great crowd spreading their garments in the road, with Jesus permitting this and not

rebuking it, as is clear from what stands in the other evangelists: "If these are silent, the stones will cry out" — I am uncertain whether this does not betray a kind of foolishness on the part of one who takes delight in such things, if nothing else is indicated by them; and moreover, branches cut from the trees being strewn in the road where donkeys are passing through would seem more likely to be an obstacle to the one being crowded than a reasoned welcome.

As for the difficulties we raised concerning those cast out of the temple by him, these same things, and even greater ones, must be stated here. For in the Gospel according to John he casts out those who are buying; but Matthew says that "he cast out all who were selling and buying in the temple" — and the number of buyers was presumably much greater than that of sellers. And let us consider whether

It was not the case that all the sellers and buyers were being cast out of the temple in keeping with the dignity of the one supposed to be a carpenter's son — unless, indeed, as we said there as well, he was subduing them all by a more divine power, this sounding harsher, as far as the rest of the evangelists go, than in John. For John says it was said to them by Jesus: ‘Do not make the house’

‘of my Father a house of trade’; but by the rest they are shown to have made a robbers' hideout out of the house of prayer — not that the Father's house goes so far as to become filled with a den of robbers, but that it is so corrupted by sinners as to become a house of trade. But a mere house of prayer, not altogether being the Father's house, if neglected, will also admit robbers, becoming not

their house, but a den — a thing not produced by architectural and rational skill. Now to see how these things stand belongs to one who has the true mind given to those who declare, ‘Yet we ourselves possess the mind of Christ,’ so that we may see that what has been granted to us by God is greater than we are persuaded ourselves to be. For our ruling faculty is not unclouded, nor

are our eyes such as the eyes of the beautiful bride of Christ ought to be, of which the bridegroom says: ‘Your eyes are doves’ — perhaps hinting at the perceptive power of spiritual persons, because the Holy Spirit also came upon the Lord <Jesus>, and upon the Lord within each person, as a dove. But even so disposed, we will not shrink

from feeling after the aforementioned words of life, in an attempt to grasp the power that flows from them to one who touches them with faith. Jesus, then, is the Word of God, who enters into the soul called Jerusalem, riding upon the colt loosed from its bonds by the disciples — I mean the simple letters of the Old Testament, made clear by the disciples who loose them,

two of them: the one who leads what is written up to the healing of the soul and allegorizes it with that end in view, and the one who sets forth the coming true goods through the things that lie in the shadow. And he also rides upon the new colt, the New Testament; for in both it is possible to find the word that purifies us in truth and drives out all the reasonings that buy and sell

within us. But he does not come alone into the soul that is Jerusalem, nor even with a few; for many things must come to precede in us, leading the way for the Word of God who brings us to perfection, and very many others must follow after him — all of them, however, hymning and glorifying him, and laying down before him their own world and covering, so that

the mounts that carry him may not touch the ground, since they have resting upon them the one who has come down from heaven. And that the old and new words of the scriptures that carry him may be found still higher above the earth, branches must be cut from the trees, so that they may walk upon what has reasonably been laid out. And the crowds who go before him and follow him can also signify the cooperating angelic powers, some of whom

...preparing his way in our souls, through which they themselves are adorned, while others follow upon his presence in us -- concerning which, having spoken often, we now have no need of testimonies for this point. And perhaps it would not be unreasonable to liken to a donkey the surrounding voices, and the word that leads them into the soul; for the animal is a beast of burden, and great

is the load and heavy burden signified by the word, especially the older word, as is clear to one who attends to what is done by the Jews. But the colt is not so much a burden-bearer as the donkey. For even though the whole burden of the letter is heavy -- the upward-tending and lightest element of the spirit being something those unable to bear it cannot hold -- nevertheless it has less weight, namely the

new letter, compared with the older. I know that some have understood the bound donkey as those who believe from the circumcision, being released from many bonds by those who have been genuinely and spiritually taught by the word, and the colt as those of the nations, unrestrained before they received the word of Jesus and having become, outside of any yoke laid upon them, unruly and pleasure-loving in disposition. Even if not

have these spoken of the crowds going before and following, it is not implausible to apply those going before to Moses and the prophets, and those following after to the holy apostles -- all of whom enter into the city of Jerusalem, insofar as this discourse must be examined, a city that has many sellers and buyers whom the Son of God drives out. And it may be that the Jerusalem above -- into which

which the Lord will go up, driving those who believe from the circumcision and from the nations, while either the prophets and apostles walk ahead of him and accompany him, or the angels who minister to him -- for these too can be signified by those going before and following him -- is now spoken of, the Jerusalem which, before his ascent, held what are called "the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places," or

the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the rest of the enemies of the people, and, in short, the foreigners -- the prophecy being able, in that case too, to be fulfilled, which says: "Your land lies desolate, your cities have been consumed by fire; strangers devour your country before your very eyes." For these are the ones who defile the Father's heavenly house, the holy Jerusalem, the house of prayer,

making it "a den of robbers" -- robbers of none other than themselves -- holding counterfeit silver and giving small coins and change to those who approach, cheap and contemptible currencies. These are the ones who, in wrestling with souls, take from them the more precious things, and plunder the better things, in order to give what is worth nothing. In any case, the disciples, having gone, find the bound donkey and untie it,

because, on account of the veil lying upon the law, it does not have Jesus. And the colt too is found with her, since both were lost before Jesus -- I mean those from the circumcision and those from the nations who believed later. But how these are immediately sent away again after Jesus, having sat upon them, has gone up to Jerusalem, it is not without risk to say, for it involves a mystical matter

...of the transformation of the holy ones into angels, who are to be sent out in the age after this one, in a manner similar to the ministering spirits sent for service on account of those who, in keeping with these things, are about to inherit eternal life. If the donkey and the colt should be the old and the new writings, on which the word of God is carried, it will not be at all difficult

to show how they are sent out when the word has appeared in them, but do not remain once the word, entering Jerusalem, has cast out every reasoning that buys and sells among those it finds there. I think it is not without purpose that this place, where the bound donkey and colt were, is also a village, and this one unnamed; for a village, in relation to the whole world that is in

heaven, is the whole earth, where the bound donkey and colt are, and the village is called sufficiently, without the addition of any other name. Matthew says that those sent to receive the donkey and the colt were sent from Bethphage, which place, being a priestly place, is interpreted "house of jaws." And these things must be said as far as possible concerning what is in Matthew,

it being more timely to speak of the complete and, beyond this, more precise account when it is given to us to speak on the Gospel according to Matthew, which will be said there. Mark and Luke say that a bound colt, on which no man had yet sat, was found by the two disciples in accordance with the Lord's command, whom they untied and led to the Lord. And Mark adds that "they found

the colt bound at a door outside, on the street." But who are "outside"? Those from the nations, who were "strangers to the covenants" and alien to the promise of God, resting on the street and not under a roof or house, bound by their own sins and being loosed by the aforementioned twofold knowledge of Jesus' acquaintances. The bonds

of the bound colt, and the sins committed contrary to the sound word, being reproved by him who is the door of that life (I mean that door), were not inside but outside; for perhaps within the door a decree of wickedness cannot come to be. And some stand by the bound colt, as Mark says—I think these are the ones who bound it.

But as Luke records, "the owners of the colt said to the disciples, 'Why are you untying the colt?'" For the owners are the lawless ones who subjected and bound the one who had sinned, and who are not able to look the true Lord in the face as he draws the colt away from their bond. Since, then, the disciples say, "The Lord has need of it," the wicked owners being able to answer nothing, they lead

the colt naked to Jesus, and they throw their own garment on it, so that the Lord, seated upon the garments cast on it by the disciples, might rest. As for the rest, from what has been said concerning Matthew, it will not be at all unclear in what manner "they come to Jerusalem, and having gone into the temple, he set about driving out the sellers and buyers there," or "as </content>

"...drew near, and at the sight of the city, he was moved to tears over it. And going into the temple, he set about driving out the sellers." For in some accounts of those who possess the temple story he casts out all who are selling and buying in the temple; in others, which do not so strongly follow the word of God, he only makes the beginning of casting out those who are selling and buying.

And apart from these there are third accounts, in which he set about driving out only the sellers, not also the buyers. But in John all of them together, along with the sheep and the oxen, are cast out with the whip plaited out of cords. Consider carefully, if it is possible, how the variations and discrepancies of what has been written are resolved according to the manner of the anagogical interpretation,

each of the evangelists describing different workings of the word in different characters of souls, accomplishing not the same things but things somewhat alike. And the seeming interruption of Jesus's ascents to Jerusalem, in the one who wrote the Gospel now in hand, differently from the three, as we have set out their wordings, can be preserved as sound only in this way: that John has come upon similar matters,

instead of the boughs cut from the trees, having taken branches of palm from the fields and strewn in the way, and mentioning that a great crowd had gone out to the feast, and had gone out to meet him crying out: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the king of Israel." Except that this one says that the donkey colt was found by Jesus himself,

on which the Christ sits, presenting something further about the little donkey signified in a more figurative way, as one who has attained a greater benefaction — one that comes not from human beings nor through human beings, but through Jesus Christ. Nor does John set out the prophetic word verbatim either, but in its place: "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, seated" — * *

* in place of: "mounted * * upon the colt of a donkey * * upon a beast of burden and a young colt." But "Fear not, O daughter of Zion" is not spoken at all. Yet let us see, since the prophetic word has been set out by all of them, whether it is not necessary that the daughter of Zion rejoice greatly, while the daughter Jerusalem, who is better than she, must not only rejoice greatly but also proclaim,

since her king is coming, the just and saving and gentle one, by his having mounted the beast of burden and the young colt. Everyone, then, who receives him will no longer fear those of heterodox opinion armed with persuasive words — called by the Lord "the chariots of Ephraim," which are being utterly destroyed — nor the false horse for salvation, a desire mad for the female, made akin to the objects of sense, and doing harm to many

of those wishing to make their home in Jerusalem and give heed to the sound word. And it is fitting to rejoice that every "bow of war" is being utterly destroyed by him who is carried on the beast of burden and the young colt, the enemy's fiery arrows no longer prevailing over the one who has received Jesus into his own sanctuary. And afterward "a multitude" together with "peace" will also come from the nations in

to Jerusalem at the coming of the Savior, ruler of the waters, that he might crush the heads of the dragons upon the water, and that we might tread the waves of the sea, reaching as far as the outlets of all the rivers on earth. Mark, however, in writing about the donkey, that it was said by the Lord, “On which no one among men has yet sat,” seems to me to be hinting at the

fact that those who later came to believe had never yet subjected themselves to the word before Jesus’ coming among them. For perhaps no man had yet sat upon the colt, but some of the beasts, or of the powers foreign to the word, had sat upon it, since the wealth of the opposing powers is also said, in the prophet Isaiah, to be carried upon donkeys and camels, in these words:

“In the affliction and the distress, a lion and a lion’s cub, and from there also flying asps, who carried their wealth upon donkeys and camels.” But one must ask again, of those who attend only to the bare wording, whether on their reading “On which no one among men has yet sat” would not seem to have been written pointlessly. For who, apart from a man, sits upon a colt? These, then, are

our own remarks. Let us also look at those of Heracleon, who says that the going up to Jerusalem signifies the ascent from material things to the psychic place, which happens to be an image of Jerusalem — the Lord’s ascent. And he thinks that “he found in the temple” rather than “in the sanctuary” was said so that the calling might not be understood as only the one that is helped by the Lord without the Spirit; for

he holds that the Holy of Holies is “the temple,” into which the high priest alone used to enter, where I think he means the spiritual enter; while the area of the forecourt, where the Levites also were, is a symbol of those psychics who are found within salvation but outside the Fullness. Beyond this, he identified those discovered inside the temple selling cattle, sheep, and pigeons, and

those sitting as money-changers, to stand for those who give nothing out of grace, but who regard the entrance of strangers into the temple as trade and profit, and who, for the sake of their own profit and love of money, supply the sacrifices for the worship of God. And as for the whip having been made by Jesus out of cords, not received from anyone else, he reports it in his own peculiar way,

saying that the whip happens to be an image of the power and activity of the Holy Spirit, blowing out the worse ones; and he says that the whip and the linen and the linen cloth, and whatever else of this kind, are an image of the power and the activity of the Holy Spirit. Then he has added on his own something not written — that the whip was bound to a piece of wood; and taking this wood to be a type

of the cross, he says that by this wood the trafficking merchants and all evil were done away with and made to vanish. And I do not know how, in his idle talk, he says that the whip was fashioned out of these two things, when seeking to explain what Jesus did: for it was not, he says, out of dead hide that he made it, so that he might build the church no longer as a den of thieves and merchants, but a house of

...of his father. But it is necessary to say the most essential thing about his divinity from these very words as well, addressed to him. For if Jesus says that the temple in Jerusalem is the house of his own father, and this temple was built for the glory of the one who created heaven and earth, how are we not directly taught to consider the son of God to be the son of none other than the maker of heaven and earth?

Into this house of Jesus's father, then, as being a house of prayer, the apostles of Christ too (as we find in their Acts) are commanded by the angel to go and stand and speak "to the people all the sayings of this life." Yet they also went there to pray, through the Beautiful Gate.

as they approach it as a "house of prayer" — something they never would have done, had they not recognized this to be the very God worshiped by those who deified that temple. This is why Peter and the apostles, obeying God rather than men, declare: "The God of our fathers raised Jesus up, whom you murdered, hanging him upon a tree." For they know him to have been raised from the dead by no God other than the God of the fathers.

whom Christ himself also, glorifying him, calls the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying that they are not "dead but living." And how would the disciples too, unless the house belonged to the very God who is Christ's God, have recalled what is said in the sixty-eighth Psalm: "The zeal of your house

has consumed me"? For that is how it stands in the prophet, and not "will consume me." And Christ is especially zealous for the house of God within each one of us, not wanting it to be anything other than a house, nor the house of prayer to become a den of robbers, seeing that he is son to a God who is jealous — if we listen more attentively to such expressions from the scriptures, spoken metaphorically,

transferred from human things, to demonstrate that God wishes nothing foreign to his purpose to mingle with the soul of all human beings, and especially of those who wish to receive the most divine faith. Except that, as for the sixty-eighth Psalm, which contains "The zeal of your house has consumed me," and shortly after, "They gave gall for my food, and for my thirst

they gave me vinegar to drink" — both recorded in the Gospels — one must know that they are spoken in the person of Christ, without indicating any change of the speaking person. But Heracleon, quite unyieldingly, thinks that "The zeal of your house will consume me" is spoken in the person of the powers cast out and destroyed by the Savior, being unable to preserve the sequence of the

prophecy in the psalm, which is understood as spoken in the person of the powers cast out and destroyed. According to him it follows that "They gave gall for my food," recorded in the same psalm, is also spoken by them; but, as is likely, he was troubled by "will consume me," as though it could not be declared by Christ, not seeing the customary way scripture speaks of God in human terms.

and the words of Christ. The bodily people and those who are friends of the perceptible seem to me to be indicated now through the Jews, who, angered at the things being driven out by Jesus, make "a house of trade" of the house of the Father, being vexed at the affairs kept up by them, demand a sign, in accordance with which sign the word will appropriately appear — the word which those men do not accept, when he does these things. Now the Savior, joining

as one thing his statement about that temple and his statement about his own body, replies to "What sign do you show us, that you do these things?" with "Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will build it anew." For even if he was capable of showing countless other signs, still, not at any rate as bearing on the "that you do these things," the things concerning

the temple appropriately provided the answer, rather than signs unrelated to the temple. Both, however — the temple and the body of Jesus — according to one of the interpretations, appear to me to be a type of the church, in that it is built of living stones, becoming a spiritual house "for a holy priesthood," raised up on the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus

being the "cornerstone," making it function as a "temple." And through the saying "You are the body of Christ, and members individually," even though the harmony binding the temple's stones may appear undone and cast asunder — just as the [twenty-first] psalm records: "all the bones of the Christ" — through the schemes hatched amid persecution and hardship by those waging war upon the temple's oneness in times of persecution, the

temple will be raised and the body will rise on the third day, once the day of evil now standing in it has passed, and after this comes the day of the consummation. For a third day shall arise in the new heaven and new earth, when these bones — the entire house of Israel — shall be raised up on the great Lord's day, with death vanquished; so that the resurrection of the Christ that occurred, from

the suffering at the cross, holds within it the mystery whereby the whole body of Christ is raised. And just as that perceptible body of Jesus was crucified and buried and after this was raised, so too the whole body of the saints of Christ has been crucified with Christ and now no longer lives; for each one, like Paul, boasts in nothing else than "in the cross of our

Lord Jesus Christ," through which he himself has been nailed to the world, the world likewise nailed to him. It is not merely that he has been crucified alongside Christ and nailed to the world — he is buried with Christ as well: "for we were buried together," says Paul, "with the Christ." And as though having become in some sense a pledge of resurrection, he says "we were raised with him"; given that he now goes about in a life made new, as one who, in respect of the blessed and perfect

resurrection that is hoped for, has not yet risen. Either, then, he is now crucified, and afterward buried; or he is now buried, having been taken down from the cross, and at some point, insofar as he is now buried, he will rise. Great is the mystery of the resurrection, and hard to discern for most of us, which is spoken of also in many other places of the scriptures, not least in Ezekiel

This is declared through these words: 'And the hand of the Lord came upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit belonging to the Lord and set me down in the middle of the plain, and that place was crammed with human bones. And he took me around them on every side, in a full circle, and behold, exceedingly many were lying across that plain's surface, utterly dried out. And to me he said: Son of man, will’

these bones live?' And I said, 'Lord, Lord, you yourself know these things.' And he said to me: 'Prophesy over these bones, and say to them: You dry bones, hear the word of the Lord'; and after a little: 'And the Lord addressed me and said: Son of man, these bones — they are the whole house of Israel. And they themselves say: Our bones have grown dry

our bones, our hope has perished, we are cut off.' For to what sort of bones is it said, 'Hear the word of the Lord,' as to bones capable of perceiving the word of the Lord, inasmuch as they are the house of Israel or the body of Christ, concerning which the Lord said, 'All my bones were scattered' — though his bodily bones were not scattered, nor was any one of them broken? And when this

resurrection of Christ's true and more complete body takes place, then the members of Christ, which now, in comparison with what is to come, are dry bones, will be gathered together, bone to bone and joint to joint, with none of those lacking a joint arriving at the perfect man, 'at the measure of the stature of the fullness' of Christ's body. And then the members, many as they are

will become one body, the many members of the body becoming one body; and the judgment of hand and foot, of eye, of hearing, and of smell — of the parts which fill out, on the one hand, the head, and, on the other, the feet, along with the remaining members, both the weaker and lowlier ones and the unpresentable and presentable — belongs to God alone, who

will blend the body together, and then, even more than now, giving greater honor to the part that lacks it, so that there may be no division at all in the body, but the members may show one another that same concern,' and if one member has some good experience, all the members share the good experience with it, or if it is glorified, all rejoice together with it. These remarks are not out of keeping, in my judgment, with the temple and with those driven out

from it, concerning which the Savior says, 'The zeal of your house will consume me' — this has been said both with reference to the Jews who were asking for a sign to be shown to them, and to the Lord's answer to them, in which he joined together the statement about the temple and the statement about his own body, saying: 'Tear down this sanctuary, and within three days I will make it rise again.' For from this temple

which is the body of Christ, these irrational and mercantile things must be driven out, so that it will be a house of trade no longer. And this shrine has to be pulled down by those plotting against God's word, and once pulled down it must rise again on the third day, as we said above — at which time the disciples too will recall what the Word had said before the shrine of God was pulled down

...he was not saying] and they will believe, since their knowledge and their faith are then perfected, not by the scripture alone but also by the "hill" of which Jesus spoke. And each of those of this kind, once Jesus has purified him and he has put away the irrational animals and the sellers, will be dissolved on account of the zeal for the word within them, upon being raised up by Jesus, not on the

third day, so far as concerns the passage before us; for it is not written, "Destroy this temple and on the third day I will raise it up," but "In three days." For the raising of the temple gets underway on day one after its destruction and proceeds through day two, yet its rising reaches completion across the full span of three days. For this reason there has been a resurrection

and there will be a resurrection, if indeed we were buried together with Christ and rose together with him. And since "we rose together with him" does not suffice for the whole resurrection—"In Christ all will be made alive, but each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ at his coming, then the end"—for it belonged to the resurrection also that it took place on the

first day, in the paradise of God, but it belonged to the resurrection that when he appeared he says, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father"; and the completion of the resurrection was when he comes to be with the Father. Now since those who confuse the matter of Father and Son gather together the text "We are found even to be false witnesses of God, because we have testified

against God that he raised the Christ, whom he did not raise," and other such statements, which show that the one who raised is other than the one who was raised—and also "Tear down this sanctuary, and within three days I shall raise it up again"—they supposed that from these it is established that the Son does not differ numerically from the Father, but rather that the two are one not only in essence but in substrate as well, being called Father and Son

substrate, being called Father and Son according to certain different conceptions, not according to hypostasis. One must say to them, first, the sayings that are primarily constructive of the fact that the Son is distinct from the Father, and that the Son must necessarily be a father's son, and the Father a son's father. After this, it is not absurd for one who confesses that he can do nothing unless he

sees the Father doing it, and who says that whatever the Father does, these things likewise the Son also does, to have raised the dead man (that is, the body), the Father granting him this favor—of whom it must primarily be said that he raised the Christ from the dead. Heracleon, however, says that "in three" means "on the third," without investigating the matter, even though

he had focused on "in three," how the resurrection is effected in three days. Further, he says that the third day is the spiritual day, in which they suppose the resurrection of the church is signified. It follows from this to say that the first day is the earthly day and the second the psychic (soulish) day, since the resurrection of the church has not taken place in them. It seems...

Now then, the things recorded by the false witnesses in the Gospel as set down by Matthew and by Mark, near the end of the Gospel, who accuse our Lord Jesus Christ, have their reference to: "Tear down this sanctuary, and within three days I shall raise it up again." For he was speaking about the temple of his body, but they, supposing that

the things said here were said about the temple built of stones, kept saying in their accusation: “This fellow declared, ‘I have power to tear down God's sanctuary and raise it up again within three days,’” or, in Mark's version: “We heard him say, ‘This temple made by hands I will tear down, and within three days I will build another, not made by hands,’” at which point the high priest, standing up,

said to him, “Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify against you?” But Jesus was silent; or as Luke tells it: the high priest rose and stood in their midst, questioning Jesus, “saying, ‘Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify against you?’ But he was silent and answered nothing.” I think it necessary to have set these passages side by side as well, since they bear a reference to the saying now in

hand. How the Jews can say the temple was built in forty-six years, we are not able to say, if we are to follow the historical record. For the Third Book of Kingdoms records that “they prepared the stones and the timber for three years”; then, when the fourth year came, in its second month, while Solomon the king was reigning over Israel, the king commanded, and they take up

great, costly stones for the foundation of the house, together with unhewn stones. Solomon's sons together with Hiram's sons hewed them, and in the fourth year they set them in place, laying the foundation of the Lord's house that month, Nisan, the second month; and in the eleventh year, in the month Baal, which is the eighth month, the house was finished in every particular

of it and in every arrangement of it. So then, in order that we may also reckon the time of preparation together with the time of the building, eleven years in all are not completed for the building of the temple. How then do the Jews say that this sanctuary was raised up over a span of forty-six years? Unless someone, straining the matter, will make an effort to establish the period of forty-six years as reckoned from

the time when David, deliberating with Nathan the prophet about the building of the temple, says: “See, I am housed in cedar, while the ark of God sits in the midst of a tent.” For even if he was prevented from building it, as a man of blood, he nevertheless seems to have busied himself with gathering the material for the temple. At any rate he says in the First Book of

Chronicles, David the king, to the whole assembly: “Solomon my son, the one the Lord has chosen, is young and untried, yet the task before him is vast, since this building is not for a man but for the Lord God. To the utmost of my strength I have gathered, for my God's house: gold, silver, bronze and iron, timber, stones of shoham and of settings, and stones of great price and varied stones, and”

every precious stone, and much Parian marble. “Moreover, in my delighting in the house of my God, I have gold and silver that I have acquired for myself, and behold, I have given it to the house of my Lord for its height, apart from what I prepared for the house of the holy things: three thousand talents of gold from Sophir, and seven thousand talents of tested silver, for overlaying with them

the houses of God by the hand of craftsmen.” For David's reign lasted seven years at Hebron, then thirty-three more at Jerusalem. If, then, someone is able to demonstrate that the beginning of the construction concerning the temple occurred when he was gathering the suitable material, from the fifth year of his reign, he will be able, by forcing the matter, to speak of the forty-six years. But someone else will say

that the temple now pointed to is not the one built by Solomon — for that one was destroyed at the time of the captivity — but the one built under Ezra, concerning which we do not clearly have grounds to demonstrate that the account of the forty-six years is true. And it seems that in the time of the Maccabees too there was much disorder affecting both people and temple. Whether that disorder bears on our question, I cannot say for certain

the temple was rebuilt at that time over so many years. Heracleon, however, without paying any attention to the history, says that Solomon constructed the temple in forty-six years, the temple being a figure of the Savior, and he refers the number six to the matter, that is, to the molded form, while the forty — which, he says, is the tetrad “unentangled” — he refers to the inbreathing and the

seed in the inbreathing. But consider whether it is possible to take the forty as referring to the four elements of the world that are, so to speak, arrayed and marshaled into the temple, and the six because man came to be on the sixth day. Since the body of Jesus is said to be his temple, it is worth inquiring whether this ought to be understood in the simpler sense, or whether each

of the things recorded about the temple must be zealously referred to the account concerning the body of Jesus — either the body he received from the virgin, or the body said to be his church, just as we too are named members of his body by the apostle. Now one person, freeing himself from the difficulty by despairing that each of the details concerning the temple can be referred

to the body — whichever way it is — will take refuge in the simpler explanation, saying that for this reason the temple was so named because the body, understood in either sense, was called a temple, since the temple once held the indwelling glory of God resting within it, and in like manner the body or the church, bearing as its image the firstborn of all creation, who is the image and glory of God, is reasonably said to be a temple of God. But as for us, concerning each

of the things in the Third Book of Kingdoms about the temple, seeing that it is difficult to explain and far exceeds our capacity of speech, and besides is not the subject of the present writing, we defer discussion of it. Yet in such matters especially, being persuaded that, because it exceeds human nature, the distinctive character of the divinely inspired scripture is manifested according to the wisdom of God — wisdom in a mystery

the hidden wisdom, which none of the rulers of this age has known, and understanding that we ourselves need a special spirit of wisdom in order to think about matters of such magnitude in a manner befitting their sacredness, we shall attempt, as far as possible, to sketch in a few words the deeper meaning belonging to the passage, learning from Peter that the church is a body and a house of God, built from stones that live, a house of the Spirit set apart for sacred priestly service, coming from

Peter, so that he who built the temple, the son of David, is in this respect a type of Christ, building the temple to the glory of God in the earthly Jerusalem after the wars, once the deepest peace had come about, so that worship might no longer be carried out in a movable structure, the tabernacle. We shall attempt to refer each of the details concerning the temple to the church. For perhaps if

all the enemies become a footstool for the feet of Christ, and the last enemy, death, is done away with, the most perfect peace will exist, when Christ will be Solomon — which is translated 'Peaceable' — the prophecy concerning him being fulfilled, which says: 'With those who hated peace I was peaceable.' And at that time every one of the stones that live will become, in keeping with the value of his earthly life, a stone within the temple,

one, positioned in the foundation itself — an apostle or a prophet — supporting those resting above him, another, after those in the foundation, being borne by the apostles and himself, together with the apostles, jointly bearing up those beneath him; and one will be a stone of the innermost parts, where the ark and the cherubim and the mercy seat are; another of the enclosure, and another

still further out, beyond where Levites and priests stand, a stone belonging to the altar of whole burnt offerings. Holy powers — God's angels — will be given charge of the ordering and service pertaining to these matters, certain of them being dominions, thrones, principalities, or authorities, others ranked beneath them, and their types are the three thousand six hundred supervising officers set over Solomon's works,

and the seventy thousand bearers of burdens, and the eighty thousand quarriers in the mountain, who carried out the labor and made ready both stones and timber. It should be observed that those recorded as bearing burdens belong to the family of the number seven, while the quarriers, who cut the stones into shape so that they might be harmonious for the temple, are allied to the number eight; while the

overseers, being three thousand six hundred, are connected with the perfect number six, as it were multiplied by itself; while the matter of the preparation of the stones, as they were quarried and made ready for the building, being accomplished in three years, seems to me to signify the whole span of the interval that is akin to the Trinity in eternity. And this will come to pass when peace has been perfected, after the years of

the administration of the affairs connected with the exodus from Egypt — four hundred and thirty — and of what was administered in Egypt after the four hundred and thirty years from the covenant given by God to Abraham, so that, reckoning from Abraham up to the point where the temple's construction began, there are two sabbatical numbers, that of seven hundred and seventy, when also our king shall command the

Christ, that among the seventy thousand porters they should not take just any stones for the foundation of the house, but large, precious, unhewn stones, so that they might be hewn not by common workmen but by Solomon's own sons — for that detail we found set down in the Third Book of Kingdoms. At that time, because of the great peace, Hiram king of Tyre also

cooperated in the building of the temple, giving his sons over to work alongside Solomon's, jointly hewing the large and costly stones meant for the sanctuary, stones set in place during the fourth year for laying the foundation of the Lord's house. In the eighth year, however, the house is completed, in the eighth month counting from its foundation. It will be nothing strange, in the meantime,

for those who suppose that nothing beyond the historical account is signified by these things, to bring forward some challenging remarks, so as to make it worthwhile to seek, as of a spirit of letters, the mind of the spirit in these matters. For did the sons of kings really occupy themselves with the hewing of the large and precious stones, taking up a craft foreign to royal nobility? And has the number of the porters and the stonecutters and the overseers, and the

time of the preparing of the stones and the marking of similar ones, been recorded as it happened, at random? Yet it was fitting that the holy house, being built in peace for God, should be built without hammer and axe and any iron tool, so that nothing tumultuous might be heard in the temple of God. Again I am at a loss, faced with those enslaved to the letter, as to how it could be that, with eighty thousand stonecutters at work

cutting rough, unworked stones, the house of God is built, with hammer and axe and every iron tool not being heard in his house while it was being built? But perhaps the stones being quarried are quarried living, silently and without disturbance, outside in relation to the temple, so that they might come ready to the place fitting for them in the building. And there was also a certain ascent

around the house of God that was not loudly resounding, having bendings of straight lines. For thus it stands written: "A spiral ascent leads to the middle, and from the middle up to the third stories" — for it was fitting that the going-up in the temple of God be spiral-shaped, the ascent of the spiral imitating the most equal circle. And in order that this house might be as secure as possible, bindings are built into

it, the height of the whole house being five cubits to the cubit, so that the ascent from things perceptible by sense to what are called the divine senses might be signified, occurring in height for the understanding of intelligible things. But the place of the more blessed stones seems to be the one called the Debir, the place where the chest holding the Lord's covenant stood — so to speak, it was the handwritten document of God, God's, the

tablets written by his finger. And the whole house is gilded: for it says, "He overlaid the whole house with gold, until the completion of the whole house." The two Cherubim, moreover, were in the Debir, a term which those who translate the things of the Hebrews into Greek have not been able to render properly. Some, using the word rather loosely, have called it "the temple," though it is more honored than the temple. Yet all of it was gold —

the things concerning the house have taken place, as a symbol of the mind that is altogether being perfected with respect to the exact ... setting apart of the intelligible realities. But since they are not at all accessible and knowable, a veil of the court is built, the innermost things not being disclosed to the majority of the priests and Levites. It is worth inquiring how, on the one hand, king Solomon is said to build the temple, while on the other hand it is the

architect whom Solomon sent for and brought, "Hiram from Tyre, son of a widow woman; a man sprung from the tribe of Naphtali, whose father, a Tyrian by birth, was a worker in bronze, and filled with understanding and knowledge, to do every work in bronze, who was brought in to king Solomon, and made all the works." I am inclined to think that Solomon

can be taken as referring to the firstborn of all creation, while Hiram refers to the man whom he assumed, having his race by nature from the confinement of men (for "Tyrians" is interpreted as "those who confine"), who, filled with every skill and understanding and knowledge, was brought in, working together with the firstborn of all understanding, so that he might build the temple, in which hidden windows peering out are also constructed, for

the illuminations of the light of God to be able to be received unto salvation — and what need is there for me to speak of each detail? — so that the body of Christ, the church, might be found to possess the account of that spiritual dwelling and sanctuary belonging to God. For as I said before, we need the wisdom that is hidden in mystery, which is capable of being received only by the one who can declare: "Yet we ourselves possess the mind

of Christ," so that, according to the will of him who arranged for these things to be written spiritually, we might understand each of the things said in a spiritual sense. But otherwise, and not within the scope of the present reading, is it possible to unfold each of these matters in full. These remarks, then, are sufficient to see how "He was speaking about the temple of his body." It is worth seeing after this whether it is possible for the things recorded to have happened concerning

the temple to have ever occurred or to be going to occur with respect to the spiritual house. Now the argument will seem to be pressed from both sides: for whether we say that it is possible for some account to hold, or to have held, for the things concerning the temple according to the history, hearers will reluctantly accept a transposition of such great goods, first because they are unwilling, and second because it seems inconsistent for there to be

a turning of the good things. But if, wishing to keep unchanged those blessings granted once for all to the saints, we do not apply the details of the history, we will seem to be doing something similar to those from the heresies, not preserving the coherence of the narrative of the scriptures from beginning to end. If, however, we are not going to understand, in an old-womanish and Jewish manner, the promises recorded among the prophets, especially in Isaiah,

as though they were going to be fulfilled concerning the Jerusalem on earth, it is still necessary, if once the captivity had passed and the temple lay overthrown certain glorious things must be understood as bearing on raising up the sanctuary anew and bringing the people back from their captivity, for us to say that the temple has since been rebuilt and the people, having been carried off, will return to Judea and Jerusalem and

that Jerusalem will be built with precious stones. But I do not know whether, in long cycles of ages revolving again, it is possible for similar things to happen again for the worse. The promises are given in Isaiah as follows: ‘Behold, I will lay your stone as carbuncle, and your foundations as sapphire, and I will make your battlements jasper, and your gates

your stones of crystal, and your surrounding wall of choice stones, and all your sons taught of God, and your children in much peace, and you shall be built in righteousness.’ And a little further on, addressing Jerusalem: ‘To you shall come the glory of Lebanon, with cypress and pine and cedar together glorifying the place of my

holiness. And the sons of those who humbled you and provoked you shall come to you in fear; and you shall be called the city of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel, because you have become forsaken and hated, with no one to help; and I will make you an everlasting exultation, a joy of generation upon generation. And you shall suck the milk of nations, and eat the wealth of kings, and you shall know that I am the Lord who saves you and

delivers you, the God of Israel. And instead of bronze I will bring you gold, and in place of iron silver shall be brought to you, and instead of wood I will bring you bronze, and instead of stones, iron. And I will appoint your rulers in peace, and your overseers in righteousness. And injustice shall no longer be heard in your land, nor ruin

or wretchedness within your borders, but your walls shall be called salvation, and your gates, praise. No longer will the sun serve you as daylight, nor will moonrise light your night; but the Christ shall be for you an everlasting light, and God shall be your glory. For the sun shall not set for you, and the

moon shall not fail you; for the Lord shall be for you an everlasting light, and the days of your mourning shall be fulfilled.’ These things, then, are clearly prophesied concerning the age to come, to the sons of Israel who were in captivity, to whom he came, having been sent, who says: ‘My mission was only to Israel’s stray, perishing sheep.’ But if, while they were captives, they are to receive these things

in their homeland, at a time when proselytes too shall come to them through the Christ and shall take refuge with them, according to what is said: ‘Behold, proselytes shall come to you through me, and shall take refuge with you’ — it is clear that those who were taken captive, once belonging to the temple, shall again return there to be rebuilt, having become most precious stones; for indeed the one who conquers has, in John as well, in the

Revelation, the promise that he shall be in the temple of God, and shall not go out. But all this has been said by me so that we might arrive at least at a brief, general grasp of the matters touching the temple, God’s house together with it, the church, and Jerusalem, ‘about which it is not now possible to speak in detail.’ But the most precise account

and one must make a careful examination of these matters, even to whatever degree falls within reach, for those who do not grow weary of the labors involved in searching out the spiritual sense within the prophecies as one reads them. So much, then, for the temple of his body. But since "after his resurrection from among the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this, and they believed the

scripture, and the word that Jesus had spoken" — one must understand, taking it according to the letter, that the disciples, after the Lord had been raised from the dead, grasped that what had been said about the temple refers to his passion and resurrection, having been reminded that "In three days I will raise it" signified the resurrection, at which point "they also believed the scripture and the

word that Jesus had spoken, since they had not previously been attested as believing the scripture, nor this word that Jesus had spoken; for faith, properly speaking, belongs, in keeping with baptism, to the one who receives with the whole soul what is believed. Now as regards the anagogical sense, since we have already spoken above of how the Lord's whole body was raised up from among the dead, one must know that the disciples, having been reminded

through the outcomes of the scripture, which, while they were in this life, had not been accurately grasped by them, coming before their sight and being made manifest of which heavenly things it was in fact a pattern and shadow, believe things they did not believe before, and also the word of Jesus, which before the resurrection, as he who spoke it intended, they did not understand. For how can anyone properly believe that what is called scripture is scripture without perceiving in it

the mind of the Holy Spirit that is within it, which God wishes to be believed rather than the will of the letter? On this basis one must say that not one of those whose conduct follows the flesh puts faith in the spiritual things of the law, things they do not even picture to themselves in the first place. Yet they say that those who never saw yet came to trust are counted happier than the ones who saw and trusted, misappropriating what is said

at the end of the Gospel according to John to Thomas by the Lord: "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." For it is not so that those without sight who have believed surpass in blessedness those who saw and believed. At any rate, on their own interpretation, those who come after the apostles would be more blessed than the apostles themselves, which is the silliest thing of all. But the one who is to be blessed like the apostles must see with the mind the things

that are believed, being able to hear "Blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear," and "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." It is also welcome, however, to receive the lesser beatitude that says: "Blessed are those

who have not seen and have believed. For how are the eyes that are blessed by Jesus for the things they have beheld not more blessed than the eyes of those who have not yet arrived at the sight of such things? Simeon, at any rate, having taken the salvation of God into his arms, loved it, and having beheld it said: "Now you dismiss your servant, Master, according to your word, in peace,"

"for my eyes have seen your salvation." For this reason we must be zealous to open our eyes as Solomon says, that we may be filled with bread; for he says: "Open your eyes and be filled with bread." And let this much be said by me on account of "They believed the scripture and the word that Jesus spoke," so that we may grasp the perfection of faith from what has been examined concerning faith,

that we shall find it given to us in the great resurrection of the whole body of Jesus, his holy church, from the dead. For what is said concerning knowledge, "Now I know in part," this I think is right to say also of every good thing; and faith is one of these other things. Hence "now I believe in part; but when that which is perfect" of faith "comes, that which is in part"

"will be done away with" — faith through form differing greatly, if I may put it so, from faith "through a mirror and in a riddle," which is like the present knowledge belonging to faith. One might inquire how Jesus did not entrust himself to those who had believed on the testimonies given. To this it must be said that Jesus does not fail to entrust himself to those who believe in him, but to those who believe in his name;

for believing in him differs from believing in his name. At any rate, the one who is not to be judged on account of faith is not judged because he believes in him, not because he believes in his name; for the Lord says, "He who believes in me is not judged," and it is not "whoever puts faith in my name escapes judgment" that he says. Nor again does he say, "He who be-

"-lieves in me is already judged"; for perhaps the one trusting in his name does indeed believe, and therefore is not yet worthy of judgment, though he ranks below the one who trusts in him directly. For this reason Jesus withholds himself from the one who trusts in his name. It is to him, then, rather than to his name, that we ought to cling, so that, working wonders by his name,

we may not hear the things said to those who boasted in the name alone, but rather, becoming imitators of Paul, let us have the courage to say: "I am strong for all things in Christ Jesus who empowers me." This too should be noted: that above it says, "Now the Passover of the Jews was near," whereas here it was not "the Passover of the Jews" but "the Passover in Jerusalem" that

Jesus was at — for there it is called the Passover of the Jews, and no feast is mentioned there; here, however, Jesus is recorded as present "at the feast," since being in Jerusalem during the Passover, he was likewise present at the feast, many having come to belief, even if only in his name. One should further observe that many are described as believing, not in him, but "in his name."

But those who believe in him are the ones journeying the narrow, constricted path leading to life, a path discovered by only a few. Yet it may be that a great number among those trusting in his name shall be rekindled alongside Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob within the kingdom of the heavens, since "Many shall arrive from east and west, taking their place at table with Abradata and

Isaac, and Jacob within the kingdom of the heavens,' that house of the Father containing many dwelling places. This too deserves notice: many who put faith in his name do not come to that faith the way Andrew, Peter, Nathanael, and Philip believed, but instead are won over by John's testimony, 'Behold, the lamb of God,' or by the Christ whom Andrew discovered,

or by him who bid Philip, 'Follow me,' that is Jesus, or by Philip's declaration, 'We have found the one Moses and the prophets wrote of, Jesus, Joseph's son, from Nazareth.' These placed faith in his name upon seeing the signs he performed; and † it is the signs they trust, not him himself, but 'in his name' — and Jesus did not entrust

himself to them, since he knew all and had no need that anyone should testify concerning man, because he knew what was in each of the men. And the phrase ‘He had no need that anyone should testify concerning man’ must be used, at the fitting point, to show that the Son of God, from himself, is capable of discerning each of the men, and has no need whatsoever of testimony from any source.

But the phrase ‘He had no need that anyone should testify concerning man’ must be set against ‘He has no need that anyone should testify concerning anyone.’ For if we take ‘man’ to mean every being fashioned according to God’s image, or every rational creature, he will have no need that anyone testify concerning him — concerning any rational being whatsoever — since he knows all of them from himself

according to the power given to him by the Father. But if we keep ‘man’ restricted to the mortal rational animal alone, one person will say that he has need that someone testify concerning the things beyond man, since he does not likewise sufficiently know human matters together with the matters concerning those beings. But another will say that he who emptied himself has no need that

anyone should testify concerning man, but does have need concerning things greater than man. And this too must be inquired into: how many signs of his did the many see and, on that basis, believe in him? For nowhere is it written that he performed signs in Jerusalem — unless indeed signs did occur but were simply not recorded. Consider whether it is possible to count as a sign his having made a whip

out of cords, and having driven everyone out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen, and having poured out the coins of the money-changers, and having overturned the tables. Yet against those who might suppose that he had no need of witnesses only in the case of men, it must be said that the evangelist has testified two things of him: both that he knew all, and that he had no need that anyone

should testify concerning man. For if he knew all, he knew not only men but also the things beyond man, and all those beings outside such bodies; and he also knew what was in man, inasmuch as he was greater than those who, in prophesying, reprove and judge, and who bring into the open the hidden things of the heart of all those to whom this belongs—

the spirit suggests to them. But "He knew what was in the man" can also be taken of the powers at work in human beings, whether worse or better. For if someone gives "a place to the devil," Satan makes his way into that person, just as Judas allowed, the devil having already thrown it into his heart, that he should betray Jesus; therefore also after the morsel

Satan entered into him. But if a man instead makes room for God, blessedness is his — for blessed indeed is the one who receives help from God and an ascent within his heart that comes from God. So the Son of God, knowing all things, knows what was within the man. Now that the tenth volume has received an adequate scope,

we shall bring the book to a close here.

← All of Origen: Commentaries & Homilies