Commentary on Matthew, Book 12

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

Book Twelve of Origen's Commentaries on the Gospel according to Matthew. "And the Sadducees and Pharisees came to him, and testing him, they requested that he display for them a sign out of heaven" (16:1-4). These Sadducees and Pharisees, who are at odds with each other over the most essential doctrines — the Pharisees, for their part, uphold the resurrection of the dead, in the hope that there is a coming age, while the

Sadducees know nothing laid up for a person after this life, whether one has advanced in virtue or has not even attempted from the outset to go beyond the bounds of vice — these two agree together in order to test Jesus. Something similar to this happened, as Luke recorded, when Herod and Pilate became friends with one another in order to kill Jesus; for perhaps the

hostility between them would have made Herod unwilling, for the sake of the people saying "crucify him, crucify him," to demand that he be put to death, and would have made Pilate, who had some inclination toward releasing Jesus, not condemn him, since his enmity toward Herod pre-existed as an inclination toward releasing Jesus. But their supposed friendship

made Herod's demand against Jesus stronger than Pilate's, since Pilate wished, perhaps also because of their recently formed friendship, to grant some favor to Herod and to the entire Jewish nation. And indeed, even now, one can often observe in life people who hold the most divergent doctrines, whether in Greek philosophy or among other schools of reasoning, seeming to think alike, in order that

they might mock and make war together against Jesus Christ, who is present in his disciples. From these examples, I think, one can pass in the argument to seeing that perhaps, just as opposing powers that are at variance with one another — as Pharaoh with Nebuchadnezzar, and Tharatha king of the Ethiopians with Sennacherib king of the Assyrians — sometimes come into agreement against Jesus and his people, so too perhaps

"the kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers gathered together," though by no means agreeing with one another before, so that, once they had plotted "against the Lord and against his Christ," they might kill "the Lord of glory." We have come to this point in our discussion because of the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to Jesus together, though they disagree on the subject of the resurrection, and as it were came into agreement

in order to put our Savior to the test and to demand that he display for them a sign issuing from heaven. They were, that is, unsatisfied with the wonders "among the people" in the healings of every disease and every infirmity, and with the other extraordinary things which our Savior had done to the knowledge of many; they also wanted him to display for them a sign issuing from heaven. My conjecture is that they suspected

the signs on earth, as things which could also not be from God — at any rate they did not hesitate to say that "it is by Beelzebul, ruler of the demons, that he casts out demons" — Jesus, that is — yet it seemed to them impossible that a sign out of heaven could arise from Beelzebul or from any evil power. But they were mistaken about both, both the signs on earth and those from heaven.

of signs, not being skilled money-changers, nor knowing how to distinguish spirits at work, which are from God and which are estranged from him. Yet they should have recognized that many of the wonders performed against Egypt in the days of Moses, though not from heaven, were plainly of God, and that the "fire that fell from heaven" onto Job's flocks was not

from God; that fire, in fact, belonged to the very one whose men also "took captive," and who made "three companies" of horsemen against the cattle of Job. And I think that in Isaiah too, since signs could be displayed from either the earth or the sky — genuine ones from God, but "in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood"

(from the evil one) — Ahaz was told: "ask yourself for a sign, from the LORD your God, whether down below or up above"; for if there had been no signs, none belonging "to the LORD God" among things below or above, the words "ask yourself for a sign from the LORD your God, whether down below or" would never have been uttered

in the height." I am well aware that to someone this construal of "ask for yourself a sign from the LORD your God" will seem forced; but consider what is said by the apostle concerning the "man of sin," the son "of destruction," that "in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and in all deceit of unrighteousness, for those who are perishing"

that one will appear, imitating all the wonders of the truth. And just as the enchanters and sorcerers of the Egyptians, being lesser than that man of sin, that son of destruction, imitated certain powers and signs and wonders of the truth, performing the works of falsehood so that the true things would not be believed, so too, in my judgment, the man of sin is going to imitate the *** signs

and the powers as well. Now perhaps it was also because they suspected these things through the prophecies concerning him that the Pharisees — I ask whether the Sadducees did too — were testing him when they asked that a sign from heaven be shown to them by Jesus. But if we should say they did not suspect this, what shall we say they experienced in the face of the marvels performed by Jesus, remaining unyielding and unmoved by the

extraordinary things that were happening? But if someone should suppose that we have given the Pharisees and Sadducees grounds for a defense — in that at one point they say the demons were cast out by Jesus "by Beelzebul," and at another they ask, while testing Jesus, about a sign from heaven — let him know that we say they were led astray by a certain plausibility so as not to believe the extraordinary works of Jesus, yet not so as to be

excusable for failing to discern the words of the prophets being fulfilled in the deeds of Jesus — deeds which no evil power was in any way able to imitate. For to turn back a soul that had gone out, so that one already reeking and in his fourth day should come forth from the tomb, belonged to none other than the one who heard from the Father, "let us fashion man according to our own image and likeness." But also

to command the winds and by a word to halt the surge of the sea belonged to none other than him “through whom all things” came to be — the sea itself and the winds as well. And further, the teaching that calls people toward loving their Maker, agreeing as it does with the Law and the Prophets, restraining their impulses and shaping their characters according to piety — what else did it show to those able to see

than that he who was working such great deeds was “truly the Son of God”? In light of this he also said to the disciples of John: “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind see again,” and so on. After this let us examine in what manner, when questioned about a single sign, one he might display out of heaven for the Pharisees and Sadducees pressing him with their question, he answers and says:

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet,” whereupon he also left them and went away. Now the sign of Jonah, according to their question, was not simply a sign, but a sign from heaven as well; so that even to those who were testing him and demanding a sign from heaven he gave the sign no less, in keeping with his great goodness.

For if, just as Jonah spent “three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so the Son of Man” spent his time “in the heart of the earth,” and afterward rose up out of it again, on what grounds could we say that the sign of Jesus’ resurrection was anything other than from heaven? And especially since

at the time of the passion it occurred together with the thief who was benefited, taken into the paradise of God, and after this — I suppose — he descended into Hades to the dead as one “free among the dead.” And it seems to me that the Savior joins the sign given from himself to the account of the sign concerning Jonah, saying that not merely a sign like that one was given by him, but

that very sign itself. For attend to the phrase “yet no sign shall be given it, save the sign of the prophet Jonah.” This former sign, then, existed to point toward the latter, so that unraveling that sign—which by itself carries obscurity—would mean that the Savior suffered and “spent three days and three nights within the earth's depths.” And at the same time

we also learn something general: that, if a sign signifies something, each of the signs recorded — whether as occurring within a narrated history or as within a commandment — is indicative of something that is to be fulfilled. For example, the sign of Jonah, coming out after some days from the belly “of the sea monster,” was a sign of the resurrection of our Savior, who rose from the dead after “three days and three nights”;

and circumcision, called a “sign,” is a sign of what is indicated by Paul when he says: “for we are the circumcision.” Seek out, then, you too, everything in the old writings that is a sign—of what reality it is a type in the new covenant—and whatever bears the title of sign within the new covenant—of what it is indicative, whether in the age to come or

and in the later generations, after the sign had taken place. And he called them an "evil" generation because of the quality that had come to be in them from the evil one (for wickedness is voluntary wrongdoing), and "adulterous" for this reason: because the Pharisees and Sadducees abandoned the husband spoken of figuratively — the word of truth, or the law — and were made adulterous by falsehood, and

of the law "of sin." Since two laws exist—one "in our members" that wages war against "the law of the mind" opposing our limbs, and the one "of the mind" itself—it must be said that the one "of the mind" —that is, the "spiritual" law— is the husband, to whom the soul, the wife, was joined by God as to a husband, the law, according to what is written: "but the wife is joined to the husband by God,"

while the other is the adulterer of the soul that submits itself to him and, because of him, comes to be called adulterous. That the law is the husband of the soul, Paul plainly establishes in Romans, saying that "the law has lordship over a person for as long as he lives; for the married woman is bound by law to the living husband," and so on.

For observe in this that the law has lordship over a person for as long as he lives (the law being like a husband to a wife); for the married woman—the soul held fast beneath the law—is fastened to her living husband, that is, to the law. But if the husband—the law—dies, she is released from the law, that is, from the husband. And the law dies for the one

who has ascended to blessedness and no longer lives as a citizen under law, but acts as Christ acted, who, though he "came to be under law" on account of those bound by that law, "so as to win over those subject to law," neither remained under law nor left those set free by him under law; for he led them up together with himself to the divine citizenship that is above the law, which contains, as it

were with a view to the less perfect and those still sinning, offerings made for release from sins. As for the one who is without sin and no longer has need of the sacrifices of the law, that man — perfected, perhaps — has passed even beyond the spiritual law, and has come to be in the word that is above it, a word that for those living in the flesh had become "flesh," but for those no longer serving in the army "according to the flesh" at all, as it "was in the beginning with God,"

being God the Word, is contemplated and reveals the Father. Three things, then, must be understood in this passage: a married woman under a husband, the law; and an adulterous wife, who while "the husband" — the law — "is alive" becomes wife "to another husband," the law of the flesh, that is, the soul; and a wife given in marriage to the brother of her deceased husband, that is, to the word who lives and does not die, who, "having been raised from the dead, no longer"

dies," for "death no longer has lordship over him." And this follows from "if the husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband," and from "so then, while the husband lives, she will be called an adulteress if she comes to belong to another husband," and from "but should the husband die, she is set free from that law, and thus is no adulteress if she becomes another husband's."

We have taken up the very phrase ‘then, while her husband lives, will she be called an adulteress,’ wishing to make clear why Jesus said to the Pharisees and Sadducees who were testing him and seeking that a sign be shown them from heaven, not only ‘evil generation’ but also ‘adulterous.’ In general, then, the law in the members that wages war against ‘the law of the mind’ is, as an adulterer,

a husband, an adulterer of the soul; and indeed every opposing power that overpowers the human soul and mingles itself with it is an adulterer of her, since she has as bridegroom the Word given to her by God. Afterward it stands written that, leaving them behind, he went away; for how could the bridegroom Word do otherwise than abandon the adulterous generation and withdraw from it? Yet you might say

that the Word of God, having left the synagogue of the Jews as an adulteress, has departed from her, and has taken a ‘wife of fornication’ from the nations; since those, though being a ‘faithful city, Zion,’ have become harlots, while these, like Rahab the harlot who received the spies of Jesus, were saved with her whole household, and thereafter no longer played the harlot, but came to the

feet of Jesus and wet them with the tears of repentance, and anointed them with the fragrance of the ointments of a holy way of life, on account of which he, reproaching Simon the leper, who represents the former people, said all that is written. 'And when his disciples reached the far shore, they had forgotten to bring bread' (16:5[–12]). Since the loaves that had been before the crossing were not useful

to the disciples who had come to the other side (for they needed different things before the crossing and needed other things for the crossing), for this reason, neglecting to bring loaves with them as they set out for the other side, they forgot to take them along with themselves. Now the disciples of Jesus have become men ‘on the other side’ by having crossed over from bodily things to spiritual things and from things perceived by sense to

things perceived by the mind. And perhaps in order to turn back those who, through having arrived at the other side, were beginning in spirit to run back to the things of the flesh, Jesus said to those on the other side: ‘Watch and take heed.’ A mixture of doctrine existed, in truth an old kind of leaven, mixed with the bare letter and for that reason not free of the taint that comes from evil, which the Pharisees and

Sadducees supplied, from which Jesus no longer wants his own disciples to eat, since he fashioned for them instead a ‘new’ and spiritual ‘lump,’ giving himself over to those who had broken away from that leaven belonging to Pharisee and Sadducee alike and had come over to him, as ‘living bread come down from heaven and giving life to the world.’ Since there is a path for the one who will no longer make use of the leaven and lump and teaching belonging to the Pharisees and the Sadducees,

first to see and second to take heed, lest, through not seeing and through lack of attention, someone should partake of their forbidden leaven, for this reason he says to the disciples first ‘watch’ and second ‘take heed.’ It belongs, then, to those who see clearly and pay close attention to keep apart the leaven belonging to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and everything that is not unleavened, from ‘sincerity and truth,’

nourishment from the living bread that came down out of heaven, so that he might not accept the bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but that by eating the living and true bread one might be strengthened in soul. And this saying we might fittingly apply to those who, along with being Christians, choose to Judaize bodily; for these do not see or take heed of the leaven of the

Pharisees and Sadducees, but eat the bread of the Pharisees against the wishes of Jesus, who had forbidden it. And I think all who refuse to hold that the law, being spiritual, casts "a shadow of the good things that are coming" and "is itself that shadow of what is coming," and who never ask what coming good each precept prefigures as its shadow, neither see nor take heed

of the leaven of the Pharisees; while others, who reject the resurrection of the dead, take no precaution against the Sadducees' leaven, and indeed many among those of heterodox opinion, because of their disbelief regarding the resurrection of the dead, are found mixed into the Sadducees' leaven. While Jesus was speaking these words, the disciples were arguing among themselves, not aloud, but in

their own hearts, because they had not taken bread. And what they were saying was something like this: "If we had bread, we would not have received any of the Pharisees' and Sadducees' leaven; yet since for want of bread we risk receiving some of their leaven, and the Savior has no wish for us to retreat back into their teaching, that is why he told us, 'See and

beware of the Pharisees' and Sadducees' leaven.'" This is what they were reasoning; but Jesus, seeing what was in their hearts and hearing the words within them, as the true overseer of hearts, rebukes them for not understanding, nor remembering the loaves they had gotten from him, loaves on whose account, even though they appeared to lack bread, they had no need

of the Pharisees' and Sadducees' leaven. Next, clarifying and laying out more plainly (for those confused by the ambiguity of "bread" and "leaven") that his words to them were not about tangible bread but about the leaven found in teaching, he adds: "How is it you fail to grasp that I was not speaking to you concerning bread? Rather beware the Pharisees' and Sadducees' leaven." And yet, though

he had not stripped bare the interpretation but was still remaining within the figurative mode of speech, the disciples understood that the Savior's word concerned teaching, "leaven" being spoken figuratively, the teaching which the Pharisees and Sadducees taught. Now to the extent that Jesus remains among us, carrying out the promise stating, "Behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age," we cannot

"fast," nor be at a loss for food, so as, on account of that lack, to seek to take and eat even from the forbidden leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But there might come a time, even while he is present with us, when we go without food, as has been said above in the passage where it is written, "For three days now they have stayed by me, and they have nothing at all to eat." But even should this happen, since he does not want us

‘lest we release them fasting, lest they faint on the way,’ over the loaves set before the disciples he offers thanks, and makes the seven baskets overflow for us from the seven loaves (as we have already explained). But this too must be observed — for the sake of those who think the Godhead of the Savior is not fully set forth in the Gospel according to Matthew — that, the disciples reasoning among themselves

and saying that they had no loaves, that Jesus knew their reasonings and said, “Why do you reason among yourselves, you of little faith, that you have no loaves?” was not a human thing; for the Lord “alone” knows the hearts of men, as Solomon states in the third of the books of Kingdoms. But since, when Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven,” the disciples understood

that he had not instructed them to be wary of loaves, but rather of what the Pharisees and Sadducees taught, you will notice whether, in every place leaven is mentioned, it gets figuratively turned into a lesson about teaching, whether within the Law or also in the writings that came after the Law. In this way, then, leaven is perhaps never brought to the altar; for prayers ought not to bear the stamp of instruction, but to be

only requests for good things from God. Now one might ask, given what is recorded concerning the disciples' arrival on the far shore, whether a person, having reached that far shore, can still be reproached as one of feeble faith, as one who neither grasps nor calls to mind what Jesus had already accomplished. Yet it is, I think, no hard matter to answer this by saying that, measured against the standard of the perfect — which,

when it comes, “what exists only in part will be abolished” — all our faith here is littleness of faith, and in relation to that we, who know only “in part,” do not yet understand, nor do we remember; for we cannot lay hold of a memory sufficient and coextensive with the vastness of the nature of the things contemplated. Further, one can also learn from this that even for mere reasonings which we reason within ourselves,

we are sometimes accused and reproached as men of little faith. My own view is this: just as one “commits adultery in the heart” alone, without going so far as the act at all, so too the rest of the forbidden things a person does in the heart alone. As, then, the one who has committed adultery “in the heart” will be punished in proportion to such adultery, so also the one who does one of the forbidden things

in the heart — say, for instance, one who steals in the heart alone, or bears false witness in the heart alone — will not be punished as the one who has both stolen in deed or actually carried out the act of false witness, but will be punished only as one who has done such things in the heart alone, and this only if he did not go on, of his own accord, to the wicked act itself; for if,

in addition to having willed it, he undertook it but did not succeed, his penalty will not be that of one who sinned in the heart alone, but of one guilty also in the deed. Now one might ask, with regard to such cases, whether someone commits adultery “in the heart” alone even if he does not perform the act of adultery, yet is not chaste in the heart alone — and you will do the same regarding the rest.

...of praiseworthy things. But this passage has something in it capable of plausibly leading us astray, which I think must be cleared up in this way: adultery committed in the heart is a lesser sin than if one adds the act to it as well; yet it is impossible for there to be chastity in the heart that impedes the chaste act, unless indeed one also takes, with regard to this, the case of a virgin who is violated in the wilderness

according to the law, as an example. For let it be that someone's heart is utterly pure, but that her life has undergone, at the hands of a licentious man, the corruption of the body of a chaste woman — such a one, I think, is indeed altogether chaste in what is hidden, but her body is no longer as pure as it was before the violence; yet not so as to be, since it is impure, already

licentious as well. These things they were also reasoning among themselves on account of the fact that they had taken no loaves; to which is appended: but Jesus, knowing it, said, "O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves" and so on. For it was necessary that the word concerning the things in the hidden be examined, and, set alongside it, the praise given for what is in the hidden. But I am amazed if the disciples

thought, before the word had been made clear to them by Jesus, that the teacher and lord was forbidding them to guard against the perceptible *** leaven of the Pharisees or Sadducees as though it were not clean and for that reason forbidden — as if, because they had not taken loaves, they should not make use of that leaven of theirs. We might seek out something similar in other cases too, but for the sake of an example it suffices

to cite what concerns the Samaritan woman, in the passage: "everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst forever." For there too, so far as the wording goes, the Samaritan woman will seem to suppose that the Savior is promising, in saying, "whoever drinks of"

"the water that I will give him will never thirst forever," perceptible water. Those words too, then, must be read tropologically and examined together: the water of the well "of Jacob," from which the Samaritan woman was drawing, as against the water of Jesus; and here the same procedure is called for, since perhaps the loaves in question were not baked bread at all, but rather some leaven — namely, that the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees was itself only raw. Now when

Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, he questioned his disciples (16:13–19). It is his disciples whom Jesus asks what men say that he is, so that we might learn from the apostles' answer the various opinions concerning our Savior that then existed among the Jews. And perhaps also so that the imitators of Jesus might always be taught

to be diligent in inquiring about what is said by men concerning them — which will contribute to this: that if something base is said, its occasions be removed by every means, but if something admirable, its grounds be increased still further. Notice, however, the various stirrings among the Jews concerning Jesus, and the manner in which, from certain unsound opinions, some were saying that

John was the baptist, in the view of Herod the tetrarch as well, who told his own servants: "This man is John the Baptist; he was raised up from among the dead, and for that reason the powers work within him." But others say that he who is now called Jesus is Elijah, either having undergone a second birth, or having lived in the flesh from that time on and having appeared now in the present time.

And those who claimed that Jesus was in fact Jeremiah -- not that Jeremiah merely prefigured Christ -- were perhaps prompted by what stands written near the opening of Jeremiah concerning Christ, words unfulfilled then in the prophet but which began to reach fulfillment in Jesus, whom God appointed over "nations and kingdoms, to uproot and demolish and destroy,

and to build and to plant," making him a prophet to the nations to whom he proclaimed the word. But those, too, who held him to be one among the prophets took up such a view about him because of what was said in the prophets, words that, though addressed to those men themselves, went unfulfilled among them. The Jews, however, being worthy of the veil upon their heart,

held false opinions about Jesus. But Peter, as one who was a disciple not of flesh and blood but who had also been granted the unveiling of the Father who is in the heavens, *** acknowledged him to be the Christ. Now what Peter said to the Savior, "You are the Christ," was in itself a great thing, even granting that the Jews had no knowledge that he was the Christ; yet greater still was that he understood

him to be not only Christ, but also Son of the living God, who spoke also by the prophets, saying "I live," *** and *** "me they abandoned, the wellspring of living water." And he is also life, as flowing from the fountain of the Father's life, he who said, "I am the life." And observe carefully whether, just as a river's source is not the same as the river,

so too the fountain of life differs from life itself. And we have added these remarks on account of the addition made to "You are the Christ, the Son of God," namely the word "living"; for something distinctive had to be brought out in what is said about God, the Father of all, that he is living, in contrast to life-itself and to the things that share in it. Since we have said that it was not from any sound

doctrines that those spoke who asserted Jesus to be John the Baptist or one of the others put forward, let us establish this too, by saying that if they had been present at the baptism when Jesus had gone off to John, and John was baptizing Jesus, or had heard of it from someone, they would never have claimed Jesus to be John. And further, if they had understood the teaching from which

Jesus said, "If you are willing to accept it, this is Elijah who is to come," and, having "ears," had taken in what was spoken, no one would have claimed him to be Elijah. And those who said he was Jeremiah, had they seen that most of the prophets had taken up certain things about him in a symbolic way, would not have claimed him to be Jeremiah; and likewise neither would others have said he was any single one

...of the prophets. But perhaps that which Simon Peter, answering, said in the words "You are the Christ, Son of the living God" — provided we likewise utter it as Peter did, not because flesh and blood disclosed it to us but because light shone into our heart from the Father who is in the heavens — we ourselves also become what Peter became, called blessed just as he was, on account of

the causes of that blessing having reached to us as well: that it was not flesh and blood that disclosed to us that Jesus is Christ, Son of the living God, but rather the Father in the heavens, [revealing it] from the heavens themselves, so that we might hold our citizenship "in the heavens," having disclosed to us a revelation that draws us up into the heavens, the heavens that strip away every "veil" from

the heart, and having received the spirit of the "wisdom" of God and of "revelation." And if we too, saying as Peter said: "You are Christ, the living God's own Son" — not because it was flesh and blood that disclosed this to us, but because a light shone in our heart, sent from the Father who is in the heavens — we become Peter, and to us too it would be said, from

the word, "You are Peter," and what follows. For every imitator of Christ is a rock, from which drank those who "drank... from the spiritual rock that followed." And upon such a rock every word of the church and the way of life corresponding to it is built. For in each of the perfect, who possess the sum total of the words and

deeds and thoughts <all> that complete blessedness, there is the church built by him. But if you suppose that the whole church is built by God upon that one Peter alone, what then would you say concerning John, that "son of thunder," or concerning each of the apostles individually? Shall we then truly dare to say that for Peter alone the gates of Hades will not prevail, but for the rest

of the apostles and of the perfect *** they will prevail? Is it not rather the case that, over all of them, over each one of them, what was said before comes to pass — that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it, and likewise that "upon this rock my church shall be built by me"? And are the keys to the heavenly kingdom's realm given by Christ to Peter alone, and will none of the other blessed

receive them? But if "I will give you the keys to heaven's kingdom" belongs in common to others as well, how is it not also the case that everything said before and everything added afterward, as though spoken with reference to Peter, ***? For here indeed it seems to have been said with reference to Peter: "whatever things you bind upon the earth will be bound in the heavens," and

what follows; but in the Gospel according to John, the Savior, giving the Holy Spirit to the disciples by breathing on them, says: "Receive the Holy Spirit," and what follows. Many, then, will say to the Savior, "You are Christ, the living God's own Son," yet not everyone who declares this will be saying it to him in a case where flesh and blood have in no way disclosed it, but rather

...having learned this, once the Father who is in the heavens has taken away the "veil" that lies upon their heart, so that afterward, "beholding with unveiled face, as in a mirror, the glory of the Lord" in the Spirit of God, they may speak concerning him, "The Lord Jesus," and to him, "You are the Christ, God's living Son." And if anyone says this to

him — not because flesh and blood have revealed it to him, but the Father who is in the heavens — he will obtain what has been said, as the letter of the gospel says with reference to that particular Peter, but as his Spirit teaches with reference to everyone who has become of the same character as that Peter. For all imitators of Christ are named after "the rock," since the "spiritual rock" follows those who are being saved, so that

they may drink from it "the spiritual drink." These, then, are named after the rock, just as Christ is; but also, being "members of Christ," they have been named, after him, Christs, and, after the rock, Peters. And taking your cue from this you might say that the righteous are named after Christ's righteousness, and the wise after his wisdom; and you will do the same with the rest of his names, forming names derived from them and applied to the

saints. And to all such persons the saying spoken by the Savior might be applied: "You are Peter," and so on, down to "shall not prevail against it." Against it — meaning what? Is it against the rock on which Christ is building his church, or against the church (for the expression is ambiguous), or on the ground that the rock and the church are one and the same thing?

This, I think, happens to be the true view: Hades' gates will overpower neither the rock on which Christ builds his church, nor the church itself — just as, according to what stands written, no track of a serpent crossing a rock could ever be traced. But if someone is overpowered by Hades' gates, then that person would be neither a rock on which Christ is building his church, nor would the church built by Christ

upon Peter be present in him. For the rock cannot be traversed by the serpent and is stronger than the gates of Hades arrayed against it, with the result that its strength keeps those gates from prevailing over it; and the church, being Christ's building — his, who wisely "built his own house upon the rock" — cannot be overcome by the gates of Hades, which do prevail over every man who is

outside the rock and the church, but can do nothing against it. Now understanding that each of the sins by which it is possible to end up in Hades is one of Hades' gates, we shall grasp that a soul bearing "a spot or wrinkle or some such blemish," and, because of its wickedness, being neither "holy" nor "blameless," is not a rock on which Christ builds,

nor a church, nor part of the church which Christ builds upon the rock. And if anyone wishes to shame us on these points by pointing to the multitudes of those reputed to be believers belonging to the church, we must say to him not only "called are many, chosen are few," but also what was said by the Savior to those who came to him — as it stands thus in the Gospel according to Luke —

...reading: "Strive to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will seek to enter (through the narrow door) and will not be strong enough." And what is written in the Gospel according to Matthew must be stated in this manner: that the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and few are those who find it. Paying attention to the phrase "because many,

I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be strong enough," you will understand that this is said of those who are, so to speak, from the church, yet live weakly and contrary to the word. Now those among the seekers who are not strong enough to enter would not be strong enough, since Hades' gates prevail over them; but those over whom the gates of Hades hold no power — these, though seeking to enter, will be strong enough, being strong in "all things"

"in Christ Jesus who empowers" them. And this too one must know, that just as the gates of cities each have their own proper names, so too might the gates of Hades be named, each according to a kind of sin — so that one gate of Hades would be called fornication, through which those who fornicate travel, and another denial, through which those who deny God descend to Hades

[...] and already, too, each of the heterodox, who has begotten some falsely named knowledge, has built a gate of Hades — one gate Marcion, another Basilides, another Valentinus. And thus each of these fathers of a depraved opinion has become the architect of some gate of Hades; while those who assist the architect of such teaching are certain servants and stewards, enslaved to the depraved architectural

reasoning of impiety. Yet numerous and hardly countable as Hades' gates are, not one of them will prevail over the rock, or the church, upon which Christ builds. Still, these gates possess a certain strength, by which they overpower some who do not resist and struggle against them, while they are overcome by others, because these do not depart from the one who said, "I am

the door," having cast down all the gates of Hades from their own soul. Here, then, the gates of Hades have been discussed; but in the Psalms the prophet offers thanks, saying, "You who lift me up out of death's gates, that I may declare all your praises within the gates of Zion's daughter." And it is from this, too, that we learn that it is perhaps not possible

for anyone to be able to declare all "the praises" of God without first rising up out of "death's gates" and coming to stand at "the gates" of "Zion." And the gates of "Zion" might be understood as opposite to the gates "of death," so that the gate of death is licentiousness and the gate of Zion is self-control, and likewise the gate of death is injustice and the gate of Zion is righteousness, which

the prophet points out when he says: "Here is the gate belonging to the Lord; the righteous shall come in through it." And again, the gate of death is cowardice and the gate of Zion is courage; the gate of death is folly, and its opposite, the gate of Zion, is prudence. And to all the gates of "falsely named knowledge" there is one opposite gate, that of undeceiving knowledge [...]. Now consider whether

...you can, because of "our struggle is not against blood and flesh" and the rest, to call every authority and world-ruler "of this darkness" and spiritual host "of wickedness in the heavenly places" a gate belonging to Hades and likewise to death. The rulers and authorities, then, against which our struggle is, would be called gates of Hades; but the gates of righteousness would be "the ministering spirits."

Just as, on the side of the better things, many gates are named beforehand, and after the many, one, in "Unbar for me the gates of righteousness; entering through them I will give thanks to the Lord," and "Here is the gate belonging to the Lord; through it the righteous shall come in" — so too, on the side of the opposite things, there are many gates of Hades and of death, each authority being one, against which our struggle is, on behalf of

but above all these, this evil one is himself a gate of death; and let us be watchful, at each sin, that we are not descending as it were to some gate of Hades, if we sin; but rising up out of "death's gates," let us proclaim every one of "the praises" belonging to the Lord within "Zion's daughter's gates." Take, for instance, one gate of the daughter of Zion, the one called self-mastery — we shall proclaim, from

self-mastery, the praises of God; and in another, the one called righteousness, the praises of God from righteousness. And, quite simply, in all the things in which we become praiseworthy, in these we come to be in some gate of the daughter of Zion, proclaiming, according to that particular one, some praise of God. But we must examine how it is said in one of the Twelve: "They hated in the gates the one who reproves, and they abhorred the holy word."

Perhaps, then, the one who reproves "in the gates" is the one who, from the gates of the daughter of Zion, reproves those who have come to be in the sins opposite to this gate, and to the gates of Hades or of death. But if you do not understand "they hated in the gates the one who reproves" in this way, then either "in the gates" will have been said as a superfluous addition, or you must inquire how the saying could be worthy of a prophetic spirit. After this, let us see

how it has been said to Peter, and to a certain... Peter, "the keys to the kingdom of heaven I will give you." And first, I think, it follows in sequence that, after "against her the gates of Hades shall not prevail," the words "I will give you the keys to heaven's kingdom" were spoken; for he is worthy to receive, from that same discourse, the keys belonging to the kingdom of the heavens, having fortified himself against

the gates of Hades, so that they might not prevail against him — receiving, as though they were prizes for the fact that the gates of Hades had been powerless against him, the keys belonging to the kingdom of the heavens, so as to unlock for himself the gates that remain shut to those overcome by the gates of Hades. So he passes through, in his aspect as a man of self-mastery, through one gate of self-mastery opened for him by a key that unlocks self-mastery, and through

another, as a righteous man, through the gate of righteousness that is opened by the key of righteousness; likewise with the remaining virtues. For I think that, for each virtue, certain mysteries of the knowledge belonging to wisdom, matched to that particular form of virtue, are unlocked for the one who has lived according to virtue — the Savior granting to those not mastered by the gates of Hades a number of keys equal to the virtues themselves, each opening a corresponding

...gates, each one suited according to the revelation of the mysteries to each virtue. And perhaps each virtue is itself a kingdom of heaven, and all of them together form the kingdom of the heavens; so that in this sense, the one whose life follows the virtues already dwells within the kingdom of the heavens, and so in this sense the saying "Repent, for near at hand is the kingdom of the heavens" should be referred not to a span of time but to actions

and to a disposition; for Christ, who is virtue entire, has come and speaks. And on this account, "within" his disciples lies "the kingdom of God," not "over here" or "over there." Now observe how great an authority belongs to the rock, the one on which Christ builds his church, and to everyone who declares, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living

God," such that this one's judgments remain firm, since God judges in him, with the result that in this very exercise of judgment Hades' gates cannot overpower him. As for the one who judges unjustly, and does not bind on earth according to the reason of God, nor loose on earth according to his will, Hades' gates prevail against him. But the man against whom Hades' gates gain no mastery is the one who judges

justly; therefore he holds the keys belonging to heaven's kingdom, opening for those set free on earth, so that they may likewise stand free and released in the heavens, and shutting against those bound on earth by his righteous verdict, so that they may likewise be held bound and condemned in the heavens. But since those who lay claim to the office of bishop make use of this saying as if they were Peter, claiming to have received the keys

of the kingdom of the heavens from the Savior, and teach that what has been bound by them, that is, condemned, is bound also in the heavens, and that what they have released, that is, taken as loosed, is also loosed in the heavens, one must say that they speak soundly if they have the deed for the sake of which that word was spoken to Peter -- "You are Peter" -- and if they are of such a stature that upon them too

the church is built by Christ, and this could reasonably be referred to them as well. But the gates of Hades ought not prevail against the one who wishes to bind and loose. Yet if he "has been bound tight in the cords of his own sins"***, he binds and looses to no purpose. And perhaps one may say: in the heavens that are in the wise man (that is, in the virtues) the wicked man is bound, and again the earnest man is loosed in

them and has received amnesty for the sins committed by him before he attained virtue. But just as God would not bind the one who has no cords of sins, nor sins likened to "a long rope" or "the strap of a heifer's yoke," so too would no one else, whoever he may be who is Peter. But if someone who is not Peter, and does not have what has been said here, nevertheless supposes, as though he were Peter, that he

will bind on earth so that things bound are bound also in the heavens, and will loose on earth so that things loosed are loosed also in the heavens, this man "has been puffed up," not understanding the intent of the scriptures, and "having been puffed up" he has fallen "into the judgment of the devil." "Then he charged his disciples that they should tell no one that he was the Christ" (16:20 [-23]). Above it has been written

that "Jesus sent out these twelve, instructing them: do not set out on a road the Gentiles travel," and whatever else is recorded as having been said to them at the time he dispatched them on their mission. Did he then wish them, in already carrying out the apostles' task, also to announce that he was the Christ? For if that was his wish, it is worth asking why he now instructs the disciples that they should not say

that he was the Christ. But if he did not wish this, how can the terms of the mission be preserved? And one might also raise this question in connection with the passage: in sending out the twelve, did he not send them out thinking that he was the Christ? And if the twelve thought this, clearly Peter did too. How then is he now called blessed? For the wording shows through

these words that only now, for the first time, did Peter confess him as Christ, the Son of the living God. Now Matthew, according to some of the copies, has "then he charged the disciples to tell no one that he is the Christ," but Mark says "he rebuked them, that they should tell no one about him," while Luke says that "having rebuked them, he commanded them to tell no one

this" — and what is "this" but that, in his account too, Peter, when asked "who do you say that I am?", answered "the Christ of God"? One should know, however, that some manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel read "he rebuked" instead. Now this difficulty seems to me a very serious one; let an unassailable solution to it be sought, one which, whoever finds it, if it is more convincing

than what will be said by us as by ordinary men, let him bring it forward. Consider, then, whether you can say that being believed to be Jesus the Christ is less than the believed fact being known; and perhaps there is also a difference in knowing that Jesus is the Christ, not everyone who knows, knowing him in the same way. That being believed apart from knowledge is less

than being known is clear from the Gospel according to John: "*** if you remain in my word, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." And that there is also a difference in knowing that Jesus is the Christ, those who know him not knowing him equally — this very self-evidence, to anyone who gives it even a little attention, establishes the matter. For who

would not agree that (to give an example) Timothy, knowing that Jesus is the Christ, had not been enlightened to the same degree in the knowledge concerning him as the apostle Paul had been enlightened? And this too, in turn, who would not accept: that even if several who speak the truth say of God, "he has given me unerring knowledge of the things that are," they do not, since they do not equally clarify and grasp

the things known, nor know so many of them in number, say this in the same way? Those who know need not know alike simply because of a difference in the manner of knowing; rather, the difference also lies in what has furnished that knowledge — as, for instance, one who has come to know the Son through the Father's revealing him, as Peter is attested to have come to know him, has the highest beatitude. But if these things have been rightly said by us, you will observe

If the twelve at first believed but did not yet know, and then, in the process of believing, also had the beginnings of knowledge and knew fewer things about him, but later made progress in knowing, so as to be able to receive the knowledge that comes from the Father when he reveals the Son — we must ask in what condition Peter was when he was called blessed. For he is called blessed not for having said

only "You are the Christ," but with this addition: "the Son of the living God." Mark and Luke, at any rate, who recorded Peter as answering and saying, "You are the Christ," without adding what stands in Matthew — "the living God's Son" — for this reason did not record the blessing pronounced on what was said, nor

the blessing that follows the beatitude, which says "You are Peter" and so on. But first we must also examine this: that they proclaimed the other things about him as one great and marvelous, but did not yet proclaim that he himself was the Christ, so that the Savior might not seem to be taking away from them the authority to proclaim him as Christ, which he had earlier granted them. And

perhaps someone will support such a statement by claiming that the Jews were taught by the apostles, as in an introductory course, the glorious things concerning Jesus, so that upon these, at the proper time, the things concerning his being the Christ might also be built up. But perhaps many of the things said to them were in fact said, in effect, to all who believe; for it did not apply to the apostles alone, the saying about being brought

"before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them and to the nations" — and perhaps not to the apostles at all, but to all who were going to believe, the saying "brother will hand over brother to death" and what follows. And also "everyone, then, who acknowledges me" and what follows was spoken not to the apostles alone, but to every believer as well.

In this respect, then, what was said to the apostles is a preliminary sketch of teaching that would later come into use both for them and for every teacher. But if someone wishes that his being the Christ was already proclaimed earlier by the apostles who had heard, "What I tell you in the dark, say in the light; and what you hear whispered in the ear, proclaim upon

the housetops," he will say that Jesus wished, as it were, to catechize the apostles first, more dimly, with the name of Christ, and then to let this be, as it were, ripened in the minds of those who had heard it, so that, once there was a silence about proclaiming such a thing concerning him, it might be built up more opportunely, for those already catechized beforehand, that Jesus Christ was crucified and raised from the dead — something the apostles themselves did not yet know at the outset. For it is written

in the passage now under examination that from that time Jesus began to reveal to his disciples the necessity of his departure to Jerusalem and of suffering such and such things. But if the apostles are only now learning these things from Jesus as things that were going to happen to him — the plot from the elders, and that he would be put to death, and that afterward, on the third day, he would rise from the dead

"He will rise" -- what should we think the disciples who were being taught by the apostles had known about Jesus earlier, other than that, granting that they had received an announcement of the Christ, it came to them merely as a preliminary sketch, one not yet rendering plain the matters concerning him? For indeed our Savior wished, by charging the disciples that they tell no one that he was the Christ, to preserve the more complete teaching about him for a more fitting

time, when those disciples who had witnessed his crucifixion and resurrection would be in a position to testify concerning his rising, before people who had likewise witnessed the crucifixion. For if even the apostles — constant companions of his, eyewitnesses of every "marvel he performed," and witnesses to the fact that his sayings were "words of eternal life" — fell into confusion on the night of his betrayal, what do you suppose would have happened to those

who were learning, once they had learned, that he himself was the Christ? It was out of consideration for them (I think) that he gave this charge. But one who wishes what was said to the twelve to be referred to the times that came after, and holds that the apostles had not yet announced to their hearers that he himself was the Christ, will maintain that his desire was to keep the notion of Christ, bound up with the name Jesus, in reserve for the more complete and saving

proclamation -- of the kind Paul, understanding it, spoke of to the Corinthians: "But I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Hence at first they proclaimed Jesus as one who did certain things and taught certain things. But now, when Peter confesses him to be "Christ, Son of the living God," as one who did not wish him to be proclaimed as

Christ just yet, in order that at a fitter season he might be proclaimed as crucified as well, he charges the disciples to tell no one that he is the Christ. And this appears in some way to be his intention in forbidding him to be proclaimed as Christ: from the fact that "from that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and the

chief priests." For it is as though the disciples, having then at that moment recognized Jesus as the Christ, Son "of the living God" -- this the Father having revealed to them -- so he announces, rather than that they should believe in Jesus Christ "crucified," that they should believe in Jesus Christ, destined to be crucified; and moreover, rather than "in Jesus Christ, and him raised up out of the dead," he instructs them to believe in Jesus Christ and

him who was destined to be raised out of the dead. And since "stripping off the rulers and the authorities, he exposed them to open shame, leading them in triumph openly upon the wood," whoever feels shame at Christ's cross feels shame at the very dispensation by which those powers were led in triumph -- yet it is fitting for one who both believes and has recognized these truths to boast in the cross belonging to our Lord Jesus Christ, "through whom" Christ crucified to the world

for the one who believes, the rulers were made a public example of and triumphed over, among whom (I think) was also the ruler of this age. That is why, drawing near to his suffering, he declared, "the ruler of this world stands now condemned," and, "the ruler of this world shall now be driven out; and I, if I am lifted up (he says) from the earth, will draw all people to myself" -- no longer to the same degree as before.

the ruler being able to prevent those drawn by him from coming to Jesus. It is necessary, then, that when Jesus Christ is preached, he be preached as “crucified”; it is deficient to preach him while keeping silent about his cross. And it does not seem to me so deficient to say the name Jesus the Christ while some other of his marvels is passed over in silence, as it seems for it to be passed over in silence that he is crucified.

This is why, guarding the fact that the things concerning him should be preached more perfectly by the apostles, he directed his disciples to tell no one that he is the Christ, and was preparing them to say that he is the Christ who was crucified and rose from the dead — at the point when he began not merely to speak, nor merely to make progress as far as teaching, but also to show his

disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem, and so forth. For note carefully the word “show”: in the same way that things perceived by the senses are spoken of as being shown, so likewise the sayings of Jesus to his disciples are spoken of as having been “shown” by him. And I do not think it was shown in the same way to those who saw with bodily eyes him suffering many things at the hands of the elders of the people — each of the things seen — as it was shown to

the disciples by way of a rational demonstration concerning this. At that time, then, he was showing it, but it is likely that afterward, to those who had become more capable, he showed it more clearly, no longer as one beginning to show it to newcomers, but now progressing further in his manner of showing it. Should it be reasonable to suppose that whatever Jesus set out to do he assuredly carried through to the end, then he assuredly at some point brought to completion what he had begun to show his disciples concerning the

necessity that he must long for the things written. For when someone grasps the perfect knowledge that comes from reason concerning these mysteries, then it must be said that, the mind now beholding by rational demonstration the things shown, the showing has been brought to completion for the one who both wishes, and is able, and does behold. But since it was not possible for a prophet to perish outside Jerusalem — a destruction bearing an analogy to “whoever loses his soul for my sake

will find it” — for this reason it was necessary that he go away to Jerusalem, so that, after suffering many things in Jerusalem and being put to death among them, he might become, in the “upper” Jerusalem, the firstfruits of rising again out of death, thereby abolishing and doing away with the Jerusalem on earth together with all the worship in it. For to the degree that Christ

has not “been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep,” and those growing conformed to his death and to his rising again have not themselves been raised together with him, the city of God and the temple were sought below, along with the purifications and the rest; but once this took place, no longer these, but the things above. And so that these very things might come about, it was necessary for him to go away to the lower Jerusalem and suffer many things there

at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes belonging to the people there, so that he might be given glory by heavenly elders and by high priests more divine still — those able to receive his benefactions, arrayed under the one high priest — and be given glory as well by the people’s scribes, occupied with letters not written “in ink” but engraved instead “with the spirit of a living God,” and thereafter be put to death among those below

Jerusalem, but having risen he was to reign in "Mount Zion, city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem." And he rose out of death on the third day, in order that, having delivered us "from the evil one" and from his son, in whom was falsehood and injustice and war and all things opposed to what Christ is, and further from the spirit transforming itself into a holy spirit though profane,

he might secure for those thus delivered a baptism of spirit, soul, and body alike “in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” — realities that stand together as three days, abiding eternally for those who through them <became> sons of the age. Now since Peter considered the sufferings unfitting for Christ, God’s living Son, and thought less of

the Father too, who had revealed to him such great things about him (for it had not yet been revealed to him that he must suffer) — for this reason, having taken him aside and as though forgetting the dignity of Christ, and that he is "the Son of the living God," saying or doing nothing worthy of reproach, he began to rebuke him as one in need of atonement (for he did not yet know that "

God set forth a mercy seat through faith in his blood") — he said: "Be merciful to yourself, Lord." Accepting his intention but rebuking his ignorance, on account of the intention, which was right, he says to him: "Get behind me," as though to one who had abandoned the things through which he was ignorant and wrongly urged him not to follow the path; but on account of the ignorance, as to one holding something opposed to the things of

God, he said: "Satan," which in Hebrew signifies ADVERSARY. But had he spoken not from ignorance, and had he not reproved the Son "of the living God," telling him "Be merciful to yourself, Lord," this would never have befallen him — he would not have told him "Get behind me," as to one who, abandoning his place behind him, had ceased to follow, nor would he have called him "Satan" for having uttered things contrary to what had

been said by him. But as things stood, Satan prevailed over one who had followed Jesus and walked behind him, causing him to stop following and to fall away from his place behind the Son of God — because of what he said out of ignorance, deserving to hear himself called Satan, a stumbling block placed before God’s own Son, one not minding the things of God but

the things of men. And that Peter had previously (before he sinned in this) been behind the Son of God is clear from "Follow behind me, and I will turn you into fishers of men." At the same time you may compare that to Peter he said, "Get behind me, Satan," while to the devil (who had said to him, "All these I will give you, if you fall down and worship me") he said "Get away, Satan" without

the addition "behind me." For being behind Jesus is itself a good thing; thus it was said, "Come after me, and fishers of men I will make you." Similar also is this: "Whoever takes not up his cross and comes after me is not worthy of me." And in every instance mark the word "behind," that it is a good thing when it signifies being behind

...of the Lord God someone walks, and he becomes "behind Christ." But the opposite occurs when someone casts the words of God to the rear, or transgresses the commandment which says, "Go not behind your desires." Elijah too, in the third book of Kingdoms, says to the people: "How long will you go limping on both

knees? If the Lord is God, walk behind him; but if Baal is lord, walk behind him." Turning toward Peter, Jesus speaks these very words to him; <for> in doing so he confers a benefit on him. So then, you yourself, having gathered together more examples of "having turned" — especially those set down concerning Jesus — and having examined them alongside one another, would find that the expression is not placed there superfluously.

It is enough for the present purpose to cite from the Gospel according to John: "But Jesus, having turned and seen them" — clearly Peter and Andrew — "following, says to them: What are you seeking?" For observe that here too the word "having turned" occurs for the benefit of those toward whom he turned. After this we must inquire how he came to say to Peter, "You are a stumbling block to me," especially

since David says: "Great peace have those who love your law, and there is no stumbling block for them." For someone will say: if it is on account of the steadfastness of those who possess *** love and are incapable of being scandalized (for love "believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things; love never fails") that this is said through the prophet, how is it that

the Lord himself — who upholds "all who fall" and raises up "all who are broken" — said to Peter, "You are a stumbling block to me"? One ought to say that being scandalized is something not only the Savior but also <every> person made perfect in love cannot undergo; yet insofar as it depends on him, whoever speaks or acts in such a way becomes a stumbling block even to one who will not, in fact, be scandalized — unless, indeed,

Jesus calls every disciple who sins a stumbling block to himself as well, so that all the more, on account of love, one might say, in the manner of Paul: "Who is weak, without my sharing that weakness? Who is scandalized, without my burning within?" And beyond what he did say, it would be possible to say as well: "Who is scandalized, and I am not scandalized?" But if Peter, on that occasion, because of "Be merciful to yourself, Lord; this shall never happen to you," was called a stumbling block

by Jesus, on the ground that in saying this he was thinking not what belongs to God but what belongs to men, what must be said about all who profess to be disciples of Jesus, yet fail to think what belongs to God and fail to regard the unseen and eternal things, thinking instead what belongs to men and regarding the things that are seen and temporary? Is it not that such people

would all the more be called by Jesus a stumbling block to him, precisely because they are a stumbling block also to the brothers? Of these it is said, as in "I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat" and what follows; in the same way he might say also to those who run, "You have scandalized me." Let us not, then, suppose that thinking the things of men is some trivial sin, since it is necessary in all things

to think the things of God. And this saying will fit also anyone who has fallen away from God's doctrines and the church's teachings and true understanding, but thinks as true (for example) the doctrines of Basilides or Valentinus or Marcion or of any of those who teach human things as though divine. "Then Jesus said to his disciples: 'If anyone wishes to follow after me and...'"

and what follows (16:24-27). By these words it is shown that wishing to come behind Jesus and be his follower does not arise from some ordinary good deed, and no one could come behind Jesus without first having denied himself. And he denies himself who, by a notable change, wipes away the life he formerly lived in wickedness — as, for example (to speak by way of illustration), the one who was formerly

licentious denies himself as licentious, having become self-controlled, and so on. But it is likely that someone will object: whether, just as he denied himself, he likewise confesses himself — having denied himself as the unjust one, but confessing himself as the just one. But if Christ is righteousness, then the one who has taken up righteousness confesses not himself but Christ. So too the one who has found wisdom, by the very fact of possessing wisdom,

confesses Christ. And such a person indeed, believing "with the heart unto righteousness" and confessing "with the mouth unto salvation," and bearing witness to Christ by his works, having thus confessed Christ through all these things "before men," that same person will in turn be acknowledged by him "before the Father who is in the heavens." And so too the one who has not denied himself <confesses himself, indeed, but denies Christ; and as one who has>

denied Christ, he will suffer "and I too will deny him." For this reason let every reasoning of ours, and every thought, and every word, and every deed breathe of the denial of ourselves and of witness and confession concerning Christ and in Christ. My conviction, in fact, is that whatever the mature person does stands as testimony to Christ Jesus, and that holding oneself back from every sin amounts to a denial

of oneself that carries one after Jesus. And such a person has been crucified with Christ, and having taken up his own cross, follows the one who for our sake bears his own cross, according to what is said thus in John: "So they took him and laid it upon him," and what follows, down to "where they crucified him." But the one — if I may name him so — who according to John is Jesus, bears

"the cross" for himself and "went out carrying it," though in Matthew, Mark, and Luke he does not carry it alone; Simon of Cyrene is the one who bears it. This detail, perhaps, applies to us — we carry Jesus' cross on Jesus' behalf — whereas Jesus himself applies to himself; for the cross, one could say, carries two distinct meanings, one

which Simon of Cyrene bears, and another which Jesus himself bears "for himself." Further, for the phrase "let him deny himself," it seems to me useful to bring in what was said by Paul when he denied himself, which runs thus: "I live, yet no longer I, but Christ lives in me"; for "I live no longer I" gave voice to a man denying himself, as one who had set aside his

his own life, but having taken up Christ into himself, so that he himself might dwell in him as “righteousness,” as “wisdom,” as “sanctification,” as “our peace,” and as “God's power,” with Christ accomplishing everything within him. Note also this: that, although there are many ways of dying, the Son of God, having been hung “on a tree,” was crucified, so that all

who die “to sin” can die to it only by way of the cross. Hence they will proclaim, “With Christ have I been crucified,” and “may boasting never be mine, save in the cross of Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world.” For perhaps each one of those crucified together with Christ strips off “the rulers and the

authorities,” makes a public example of them, and triumphs over them by the tree — rather it is Christ who accomplishes these things in them. “For whoever wishes to save his soul will lose it.” The first phrase is ambiguous; for it is possible to understand it from itself in one way as follows: if someone, being a lover of life and supposing the present existence to be a good, cherishes his own soul

toward living in the flesh, fearing to die on the ground that through this death he will lose it, this person, in the very act of wishing to save his soul in this way, will lose it, putting it outside the bounds of blessedness. But if someone, despising the present life for the sake of my word, which has persuaded him concerning eternal life, strives to the point of death on behalf of the truth,

he loses his own soul *** handing it over for the sake of piety to what is more commonly called death; this person, having lost his soul for my sake, will rather save it and will preserve it ***. And in another way, too, we might understand the saying thus: if someone, having grasped what salvation actually is, wishes to obtain the salvation of his own soul, this person, having weaned himself from

this life, and having denied himself, and having taken up his cross, and following me, let him lose his soul to the world; for on my account, and on account of all my teaching, in losing it, at the end of such a loss *** he will obtain salvation. At the same time, also note that at the beginning “whoever wishes” is said, but next “whoever

loses it.” Since we wish it to be saved, let us instead lose it to the world, being crucified together with Christ, and holding as our boast that “the world” shall, through the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, “be crucified” to us, and we in turn to “the world,” so that we may obtain “the end, the salvation” of our souls, which begins from our destroying it for the sake of the word.

But if indeed we understand the saving of the soul to be blessed, referring to the salvation that is in God and the beatitudes that come from him, then there must also be a good loss of soul, one that is for Christ’s sake, which will be a prelude to that blessed salvation. It seems to me, then, that, in proportion to denying oneself as has been described, each person must lose his own soul. Let each one, then, lose

his own sinning soul, so that having lost the sinning soul he might take up the one that is saved by doing right. ‘A man will be profited nothing if he gains the whole world.’ And he gains it, I think, for whom the world is not crucified. But for whomever the world is not crucified, for that one there will be loss of his own soul. Given the two options before us, either through gaining the soul one loses the

world, or through gaining the world one loses the soul, it is far more preferable that we lose the world but gain the soul, by losing it for Christ’s sake. And the phrase ‘Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?’ would seem to me to be spoken as a rhetorical question, and it can indicate both the giving of an exchange for one’s soul after sins — namely the whole

substance handed over, so that he might feed the poor with his possessions, as one who will be saved through this; and I think it also indicates, declaratively, that there is nothing a man could give as an exchange for his own soul, held fast by death, by which he could ransom it from death’s hand. A man, then, could not give any exchange for his own soul, but God gave, as the exchange for the soul of

us all, the precious blood of Jesus, by which “we were bought at a price,” redeemed “not by corruptible things like silver or gold, but by the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.” And Isaiah says to Israel: “I gave as your exchange Ethiopia and Egypt and Syene, in your place, since you became precious before me, you were glorified.” For, so to speak, an exchange was made

in place of the firstborn of Israel: the firstborn of the Egyptians became the exchange; and in place of Israel, the Egyptians who perished in the other plagues visited upon Egypt, and in the drowning subsequent to the plagues. From these things let whoever is able examine whether, for the true Israel, an exchange is given by God who “delivers Israel from all his lawless deeds” — namely the

true Ethiopia, and (that I may so call it) Egypt, and the Syene of Egypt. But that I may inquire more boldly, perhaps Syene stands for Jerusalem, Egypt for Judea, and Ethiopia for those who fear God, a people separate from Israel, apart likewise from the house of Levi and from Aaron's household. “For the Son of Man is destined to come, arriving in the glory”

of his Father, with his angels. Now the Son of Man has come, but not in his own glory; for “him we beheld, and he possessed no form nor any beauty; rather his appearance was dishonored and diminished beyond the sons of men; a man in affliction and in pain, and knowing how to bear sickness, for his face has been turned away,

he was dishonored and not accounted of value.” And it was necessary for him to have come in such a way, so that he might “bear our sins and” be pained “on our behalf”; for it was not fitting for the one in glory to “bear our sins and” be pained “on our behalf.” But he also comes in glory, having beforehand prepared the disciples through his appearance that had neither “form nor beauty”; and having become like them, for the

that they might become like him, "conformed to the image" of his glory — he himself having first been made conformed "to the body of our lowliness," when "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant," and is restored to the form of God and makes them "conformed" to it. But if one considers the differences of the word in a figurative sense, in the foolishness of the "proclamation" announced to believers, and in the wisdom

spoken "to the perfect," you will see in what manner the word has, for those being introduced, the form of a servant, so that they might declare, “him we beheld, and he possessed no form nor any beauty,” whereas for the perfect his arrival is “clothed in his Father's glory,” and they would say instead, “and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only-begotten from the Father, brimming with grace and truth.” And indeed

to the perfect there appears the glory of the Word and his being only-begotten with God the Father, and likewise his being "full of grace" and of "truth" — which the one who still needs to believe on account of the foolishness "of the proclamation" is not able to receive. And the Son of Man is going to arrive clothed in his Father's glory, not alone, but with

his angels. And if you are able to understand all the fellow-workers of the glory of the Word and of the disclosure of the wisdom (which is Christ) as arriving together with him, you will see the manner in which the Son of Man arrives amid his Father's glory, together with his angels. And observe, if you are able, whether in these one may say the prophets who suffered beforehand bear an analogy

to the word that had no "form or beauty," in that they too have no "form or beauty" of words. And just as it is amid his Father's glory that the Son of Man arrives, so too the words that are in the prophets, becoming angels, come along with him, preserving the analogy of their own glory. And whenever the Word thus takes up residence with his angels

in the mind of the one who believes, he brings to each his own glory and the radiance belonging to his own angels, in keeping with each one's action. But we say these things without setting aside the more simply understood second coming of the Son of God. And when will these things come to pass, if not at the time that apostolic word finds its fulfillment, the one declaring: "for we must all appear before

the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive the things done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or evil"? And if he will repay each one in keeping with that one's action — not the good apart from the evil, nor the evil apart from the good — clearly his repayment to each will match every evil and every good deed done. Now in these matters I take it, being persuaded by

the apostle, and comparing also the words of Ezekiel, in which, for the one who has fully turned back, his sins are wiped away, and for the one who has utterly fallen away, his former righteous deeds are not reckoned — that for the one who has been made perfect and has entirely put away evil, his sins are wiped away, while for the one who has entirely apostatized from piety, whatever good he had previously done is not reckoned to him; but for us

Between the perfect person and the apostate, a presentation is given "before the judgment seat of Christ" of the things we have done, "whether it is good or whether it is bad." We have not, in fact, been cleansed so thoroughly that our bad deeds go entirely unreckoned, nor have we fallen so far that our better deeds are forgotten. "Amen I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death" (16:28). These words

some refer the ascent of the three apostles "after six days" — or, as Luke says, eight — with Jesus "up" a "mountain by themselves." And those who explain it this way say that Peter and the other two did not taste death until they beheld the Son of Man arriving within his kingdom and in his

glory. For having watched Jesus altered in form "before them," in such a way that "his countenance" gave off light, and so on, they have witnessed "the kingdom of God having arrived with power." For just as certain guards station themselves around a king, in the same way "Moses and Elijah were seen" by those who had climbed the mountain with Jesus, speaking with him. It is worth pausing to consider whether it is to these that the "sitting"

"at the right and at the left" of the Savior "in his kingdom" refers, such that "but for those for whom it has been prepared" was said on account of these men. And this account of the three apostles not tasting death until they should see Jesus transfigured suits those who have become, as Peter named them, "as newborn infants," longing for "the pure milk of the word." To these

Paul says: "I gave you milk to drink, not solid food," and so on. And I think every account that is capable of building up, by its plain sense, those who cannot receive something greater, might reasonably be called milk — the milk flowing from the holy land of the scriptures, which flows with "honey and milk." But he who, like Isaac, has been weaned is worthy of the gladness and the feast that

Abraham held at the weaning of his son, and would seek in these matters and in every scripture the <more solid food>, which I think is other than food that is not solid — that is, the food and the things figuratively called "vegetables," which are food for the one who has been weaned but is not strong but weak, according to "the weak person eats vegetables." Likewise the one who, like Samuel,

has been weaned and <brought forward from before God and> dedicated by his mother to God — this was Hannah, whose name is interpreted "GRACE" — such a one might be a son of grace, seeking, as one raised in the temple of God, meat, the holy food of the perfect and of priests alike. These, then, are the things that appear relevant to the passage before us, for the present.

There were some standing where Jesus was, having planted the footing of their soul firmly beside Jesus, and the posture of their feet resembled the posture of which Moses spoke when he said, "and there I remained upon the mountain, forty days and forty nights straight through," having been counted worthy also of the word spoken to him, "but you, stand here with me," said to him by

God deeming him worthy to stand beside him. Now these who stand beside Jesus, that is, beside the Word of God, are not all standing on equal footing. For even among those standing beside Jesus there is a difference from one another; hence it is not all who stand beside the Savior, but some of them, standing as it were closer, "who will not taste" death, until they

see the Word who has come to dwell among human beings, and who for this reason is styled Son of Man, coming in his kingdom. For it is not always the case that, when the Word comes, he comes in his kingdom; since to those being newly introduced to him he is of such a kind that, seeing him, they would say he is not glorious or great, but inferior to many discourses found among human beings: "we saw him, and he had no

form or beauty, but his form was without honor, deficient beyond all the sons of men." And this is what those who saw his glory will say concerning the earlier times of their own experience, when at the beginnings the Word, as understood in his introductory stage, had for them "neither form nor beauty." There is, then, a certain kingly dignity made manifest in the one who has most clearly assumed the rule over all discourses—

this Word—visible to some of those standing beside Jesus, whenever they are able to follow him as he leads them forward and ascends the high mountain of his own manifestation. Of these, some of those standing beside Jesus are deemed worthy—if they are, say, Peter, whom "the gates of Hades cannot overpower," or "sons of thunder," begotten of the mighty voice of God as he thunders and cries out

loudly out of heaven to the wise, to those possessing "ears." Persons of that sort, accordingly, never taste death. But if one must explain the matter still more plainly than what has been said, what does it mean that the Son of Man is seen coming in his kingdom and in his glory, and what is signified when one sees "the kingdom of God arrived in power"—whether these are things

shining forth in our hearts, or things sought and found, or things stealing into our reasonings (let each judge as he wishes)—we shall set this forth. Now he who sees and grasps the surpassing excellence of the Word, which dissolves and refutes all the plausibilities put forward by falsehoods that nonetheless profess truth, sees the Son of Man (that is, according to John's account, the Word of God) coming

in his own kingdom. And if such a one should see the Word not only dissolving *** the plausibility of the opposing arguments, but also setting forth his own teachings most clearly, he would then see, alongside the kingdom, his glory as well. And such a one indeed would see within himself "the kingdom of God having come in power"; and he would see this *** as

one no longer at all ruled by sin, that sin reigning within the mortal body of those who commit it, but as one set in order under the King who is God over all things, whose kingdom is present within us in potentiality, but in actuality—and as Mark named it—"in power" and in no way "in weakness," is present "within" only the perfect. These things, then, Jesus said to the disciples who stood by, not concerning

not these things, but was prophesying and making a promise concerning certain ones. Now what “tasting death” means must be considered. Life is he who said, “I am the life.” And this same life “lies hidden together with Christ in God”; and once Christ our life is made manifest, then, “together with him,” those deemed worthy of being manifested “together with him” will be manifested

“in glory.” And the enemy of this life—who also, as “the last enemy,” is abolished along with all his other enemies—“is death,” which the sinning soul dies, being disposed in a manner opposite to what happens to the soul that acts rightly and, from acting rightly, lives. And where the law states, “I have placed before you life and death,” it goes on, “choose

life,” scripture says this concerning him who declared, “I am the life,” and concerning his enemy, death, of which each of us, through the things he does, is always choosing one. And when, life being set “before our face,” we sin, there is fulfilled against us the curse that says, “and your life shall hang before you,” and so on, down to

“and from the visions of your eyes which you shall see.” Just as, then, the living bread — the one descending out of heaven who gives the world life — is itself life, so his enemy is dead bread, which is death. And every rational soul is nourished either by living bread or by dead, through the works or the doctrines—whether refined or base—that it takes in.

Then, just as with more ordinary foods it is possible at times merely to taste them, and at other times to eat of them more fully, so too with these breads: one person eats more sparingly, merely tasting of them, while another gorges himself—being good, or on the way to being good, in the case of the living bread that descended out of heaven, but wretched in the case of

the dead bread, which is death. And perhaps those who sin rarely and only slightly merely taste of death, while those who possess more perfect spiritual virtue do not even taste of it at all, but are always nourished by the living bread. It followed, then, for Peter, against whom “the gates of Hades shall not prevail,” that he should not even taste death, since a person tastes death and eats of death precisely when the gates of Hades

prevail against him, and in the same measure he eats or tastes death, according to whether they prevail against him more or less, and according to more or fewer gates of Hades. But for the sons of thunder, begotten from the great voice of heavenly thunder, it was impossible to taste death, since they are very far removed from their mother thunder. These things the word prophesies concerning those who are to be made perfect, and who, from having stood

beside the word, have advanced so far that they will not even taste death, until they see the manifestation, the glory, the kingdom, and the preeminence of the word of God—that preeminence by which he surpasses every word that pulls in the opposite direction and drags people about, deceiving with an appearance of truth those unable to break the bonds of that distraction and to ascend to the height of the

...of the superiority of the word of truth. But since someone might think that the Savior's promise limits to a period of time the not tasting of death — on the grounds that they will not taste death before they behold the Son of Man arriving in his kingdom, and that afterward they will taste it — let us establish, in accordance with a certain usage of Scripture, that "until" indicates the time that is urgently in view concerning the

matter being indicated, and is not itself limited, so that after the "until" the opposite of what is indicated should necessarily come about. When he had risen from the dead, the Savior speaks to his eleven disciples, among other things, saying also: "Behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age." Now did he, by saying this — that he would be with them "until the completion of the age" — mean

that he would be with them, but that after the completion of the age, when the other age, the one called "the age to come," had begun, he would no longer promise to be with them, as though on this account it were better for the disciples to have his presence with them "until the completion of the age" than to have the condition after the completion of the age? Yet I do not suppose anyone would venture to say that after the completion of the age the

Son of God will no longer be with his disciples, since the wording says only that his time with them extends only up to when the completion of the age arrives; for it is clear that the question at issue was whether, in advance of the coming age and of the reciprocal promises of God that are hoped for, the Son of God would already be with the disciples. And the question would have been raised, granted

that he was to be with them, whether perhaps at one time he was with them and at another time he was not with them. For this reason, releasing us from the suspicion of doubting, he declared that already, even for so many days, he was going to be with the disciples, not leaving behind those he had made his disciples "until the completion of the age" — though not, indeed, during the nights (if the sun had set for anyone) would he be with them. But if

this is what "until the completion of the age" means, it is clear that we shall not be compelled to accept that death is tasted by those who behold the Son of Man arriving in his kingdom, after having been deemed worthy to see him thus. But just as in the saying we cited it was urgent for us to learn that "until the completion of the age" he will not abandon us, but

will be with us “through all the days that are to come,” in this same way, I think, it is clear to those skilled in tracing the sequence of events that whoever has once beheld the Son of Man arriving in his kingdom, and has beheld him in his glory, and has beheld “the kingdom of God arrived in power,” would not, after gazing upon goods of such magnitude,

taste death. But apart from the reasoning of Jesus' promise, we might not unreasonably have suspected that we would taste death, insofar as we have not yet been deemed worthy to behold “the kingdom of God arrived in power” together with the Son of Man arriving amid his glory and within his kingdom. But since here it is written by the three evangelists, “they shall not

“taste death,” while in other places various things are said about death, it is not out of place to set those alongside it and examine them together with “taste.” In the Psalms it is said: “Who is the man who will live and never look upon death?” Elsewhere, in a different passage, it says: “Let death arrive against them, and let them descend to Hades while still living.” And in one of the prophets: “Death, having prevailed, swallowed them up.” And in

the Revelation, "death and Hades follow" certain people. Now in these passages it seems to me that "to taste death" is one thing, "to see" it another, and that "it comes upon" some is a third, and a fourth is signified besides those already mentioned, from "death, having prevailed, swallowed them up," and a fifth thing besides these, from "death and Hades

follow them." And you yourself, on reading further, would perhaps find still other distinctions besides these that we have noted; and by setting them alongside one another and inquiring rightly you would discover the things signified in each passage. And I inquire in these matters whether "to see death" is perhaps a lesser evil, and "to taste" it a greater one than this, and worse still than this, "for death to follow"

someone — and not only to follow, but already "to come upon" him and to overtake the one it had previously been following. And "to be swallowed up" by it seems to me heavier than all the things mentioned. And if you attend to what has been said and to the distinction among the sins committed, you will not hesitate, I think, to suppose that something of this sort was in the mind of the one who, moved by the Spirit, wrote these things in the oracles of God.

36. “And six days later” (according to Matthew and Mark) “he brings along with him Peter, and James, and his brother John, and leads them up onto a lofty mountain, apart from the rest. And he was transfigured before them” (17:1-2 [-9]). Let this be established in advance, both regarding the account that appears to us concerning these matters, and regarding the wording itself.

It seems to me that those whom Jesus brings up onto the lofty mountain, and who are deemed worthy to witness his transfiguration in private, are not brought up “six days later” without purpose, following the words spoken before this. For since the entire world came into being across six days, a perfect number — this being the perfect work of creation — for this reason, I think, he who surpasses all the affairs of the world,

in that he has set his gaze no longer on "the things that are seen" (for these are already "temporary"), but on "the things that are not seen" and on these alone (because they are "eternal") — it is after six days that Jesus takes certain persons with him. If, then, any of us wishes, on being taken by Jesus, to be led up by him onto the high mountain and to be deemed worthy to behold, privately,

his transfiguration, let him rise above the six days, by no longer looking to "the things that are seen," nor cherishing any longer the world, nor what belongs to the world, nor desiring any worldly desire — which is desire for bodies and for wealth possessed in the body and for glory according to the flesh, and for whatever things are apt to distract and drag the soul away from the things that are better and more divine.

and to bring down and press him firmly with the deceit of this age through Wealth and glory and the remaining desires that are enemies of truth. Once he has passed through the six (as we have said) <days>, a common sabbath, he rejoices on the high mountain from beholding Jesus transfigured before *** him; for that word takes on *** various shapes, appearing to each person as is beneficial to the one who sees,

and revealing itself to no one beyond what the one who sees can take in. You will ask, though, whether, when he was transfigured before those he had led up onto the high mountain, he was seen by them "in the form of God" which he possessed of old, in such a way that those below saw him having the "form of a slave," while those who had followed him after six days up the high mountain saw not that form but rather that of

God. But listen to this — if you can — in a spiritual sense, observing at once that it is not stated in a plain, unqualified way that he was transfigured, but with a necessary addition, which Matthew and Mark set down in writing: for according to both accounts he was transfigured in front of them. And from this you may conclude it possible for Jesus to have undergone this transfiguration in the sight of some, while in the sight of others, at that very same

time, he did not undergo transfiguration. Now if it is your wish to behold the transfiguration of Jesus in front of those who went up onto the high mountain apart with him, consider, I say, the Jesus found in the Gospels: understood in a simpler sense, and known, so to speak, "according to the flesh" by such as do not climb upward by way of the works and words that rise above them, toward the high mountain of wisdom,

but who is "no longer" known "in fleshly terms" by <those who do climb upward>; instead he is spoken of theologically throughout the Gospels, and seen, so far as their knowledge reaches, "in the form of God." For it is before these that Jesus is transfigured, and in none of the lower things ***. And when he is transfigured, his face will also shine like the sun, so that he may be revealed to the children "of light," who have stripped off "the

works of darkness" and put on "the weapons of light," and are no longer children "of darkness or of night," but have become sons "of day" and walk, as it were, "becomingly in the day," and once revealed will shine upon them, not simply as the sun does, but showing them that he is "the sun of righteousness." And he is not only transfigured before disciples of this kind, nor does he merely add to the

transfiguration the shining of his face like the sun, but his garments too appear white as light to those he had brought up privately onto the high mountain. And the garments of Jesus are the words and the writings of the Gospels with which he clothed himself. I think, moreover, that the things said about him among the apostles are also garments of Jesus,

which become white for those who go up onto the high mountain with Jesus. But since there are also differences among white things, his garments become *** white as the whitest and purest of all whites; and this is the light. Whenever, then, you see someone not only being precise about the theology concerning Jesus, but also clarifying the whole wording of the Gospels, do not

hesitates to say of such a person that Jesus' garments became white as light. But when the Son of God is understood and beheld in this way as transfigured, so that his face is like the sun and his garments white as light, then at once, to one who sees Jesus in this way, Moses would appear as the law, and Elijah -- synecdochically, not

one alone but all the prophets -- conversing together with Jesus; for that is the sort of thing signified by their speaking together with him, and according to Luke: "Moses and Elijah, seen in glory," and so on down to "in Jerusalem." But if someone has beheld Moses' glory, grasping the spiritual law as one discourse aimed toward Jesus,

and the wisdom hidden in mystery among the prophets, he has seen Moses and Elijah "in glory," when he saw them together with Jesus. Then, since according to Mark it will be necessary to expound the words "while he prayed he was changed in form before them," it must be said that it may perhaps chiefly be possible to behold the Word being transfigured in our presence, if we do what has been said and go up onto

the mountain and see the Word-in-himself conversing with the Father, offering to him such prayers as a true high priest would offer to the one true God alone. And that he might so speak with God and offer prayer to the Father, he ascends the mountain; then, as Mark tells it, "his garments turn white and shining like light, of a kind no fuller upon earth

is able to whiten in this way." And perhaps the fullers "on earth" are the wise men of this age who take pains over their diction, which they consider brilliant and pure, so that even shameful notions and false doctrines seem to be adorned by their -- if I may call it so -- fulling. But he who displays his garments "gleaming," and brighter than what their fulling can produce, to those who have gone up higher, is the Word,

setting forth, in the words of the scriptures despised by many, the gleam of their meanings -- at the time when Jesus' "clothing," according to Luke, becomes "white" and "flashing like lightning." Let us now consider what Peter meant when, replying to Jesus, he declared: "Master, it is a good thing for us to remain in this place; let us build three shelters," and

so on. This especially must be inquired into, because Mark added, as if speaking in his own voice, "for he did not know what he answered," while Luke says "not knowing what he says." You will then consider whether he was saying these things in a state of ecstasy, filled by the spirit that moved him to say them -- which cannot be the Holy Spirit;

for John taught in his gospel that before the resurrection of the Savior no one had yet received the Holy Spirit, saying: "the Spirit did not yet exist, because Jesus had not yet been glorified." But if it is true that "the Spirit did not yet exist," then he who, "not knowing" what he was saying, was speaking as moved by some spirit, it was one of the spirits that was at work producing these words -- one that had not yet been led in triumph in the

...'on the wood,' nor had he been made a public spectacle along with those about whom it is written: 'having stripped the rulers and the authorities, he made a public spectacle of them openly, triumphing over them on the wood.' This, perhaps, was what was called a 'stumbling-block' by Jesus, and it is what is meant by the 'Satan' spoken of in the saying 'Get behind me, you are a stumbling-block to me.' I know well that such statements will offend many of those who read them, since they suppose that it is

not reasonable for the one to be spoken ill of, who shortly beforehand had been called blessed by Jesus for the reason that 'not flesh and blood, but' the Father 'in the heavens' revealed to him the matters concerning the Savior—namely, that Jesus was both 'the Christ' and 'the Son of the living God.' But let such a person attend to the precision of Peter and of the rest of the apostles, and

to the fact that they, while still standing as it were outside, needed the one who would rescue them from the enemy and would purchase them with his 'precious blood.' Or else let those who wish the apostles to have already become perfect even before the Passion of Jesus tell us how it came about that 'Peter and those with him' were 'weighed down with sleep' at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus. But so that I may take up in advance something of what follows and apply it to

the matter before us, I would raise the following difficulty: is it possible for someone to be made to stumble with regard to Jesus, without the devil's activity causing that stumbling? And is it possible to deny Jesus—and that too before a mere servant-girl and a doorkeeper and the most contemptible of people—without a hostile spirit being present to the one who denies, set against the spirit and wisdom given to those who are helped by God, in some measure corresponding to their worth, so as to confess him?

But surely the one who has learned to trace the roots of sins back to the devil, the father of sin, will not say that the apostles stumbled, or that Peter denied him three times before the cock had crowed, apart from that devil's agency. And if this is so, perhaps the one who, in order to cause—so far as lay in his own power—Jesus to stumble, and to turn him away from the

saving dispensation for mankind that was accomplished through the passion with such great eagerness, himself working the things that seem to bring this about, here too wishes, as it were deceitfully, to draw Jesus aside, as though it were a good thing for him no longer to come down to human beings and come to them and undertake death on their behalf, but rather to remain up on that lofty mountain in the company of Moses and Elijah. And he was also promising to make three tents,

one for Jesus alone, another for Moses, and another for Elijah, on the ground that a single tent could not hold the three of them together, even granting that—if indeed they had to be in tents at all, even on the high mountain. And perhaps in this too the one working upon him who 'did not know what he was saying' was doing mischief, wishing that Jesus and Moses and Elijah should not be together, but

wished to separate them from one another, under the pretext of the three tents. And a lie it also was, the statement 'it is good for us to be here.' For if it had been good, they would indeed have remained there; but if it was a lie, you will ask who was at work in causing the lie to be spoken—especially since, according to John, 'whenever he speaks the lie, he speaks out of his own resources, because he is a liar, and so is his father,'

And just as there is no truth without the activity of the one who said, “I am the truth,” so too there is no falsehood without the enemy of truth. Both opposites, then, were still present within Peter—truth alongside falsehood. Speaking from truth he said, “You are the Christ, the Son of God,” yet speaking from falsehood he said, “God be merciful to you, Lord,

this shall never happen to you,” but also “it is a good thing for us to remain here.” But one who does not want Peter to have said this under the influence of some activity of a worse <spirit>, but holds that his words came from his bare intention, when pressed to explain how he would account for “not knowing what he was saying” and “for he did not know what he was answering,” will say that there too he considered it ill-omened

and unworthy of Jesus to accept that the Son of the living God should be killed — the Christ whom the Father had already revealed to him. And here too, as one who had seen the two forms of Jesus, the one at the transfiguration being very different, pleased with this he said it was good to make their stay on that mountain, so that both he

and those with him might rejoice in beholding the transfiguration of Jesus, his face gleaming like the sun and his garments white as light, and besides these, might always behold, in glory, those who had once been seen “in glory” — Moses and Elijah — and might rejoice at whatever they heard them saying to one another and conversing about, Moses and Elijah

speaking to Jesus, and Jesus to them. But since we have not yet troubled ourselves to give a tropological reading of the passage, having said these things by way of examining it according to the letter, let us next see whether, when raised to the height of the doctrines of truth and having seen the transfiguration of Jesus and those who were seen “in glory” with him, Moses and Elijah, the Peter here described

and the sons of thunder would wish to make within themselves tabernacles for the Word of God to take up residence among them, and for his law beheld with glory, and for the prophecy speaking of the “departure” of Jesus “which he was about to fulfill,” and how Peter, having loved the contemplative life and preferred the delight found in it to being among the many

with a certain amount of trouble, for the purpose of benefiting those who wish it, said, “it is a good thing for us to remain here.” But since love “does not seek its own,” Jesus did not do what seemed good to Peter; for this reason he came down “from the mountain” to those unable to climb up and behold his transfiguration, so that they might at least behold him in whatever form they could

see. It is right, then, for one who has that love which “does not seek its own” to be “free from all,” yet to enslave himself to all, so as to win over “the greater number” among them. Someone might say, in response to what has been stated about the ecstasy and the activity of a worse spirit upon Peter regarding “not knowing what he was saying,” not accepting that reading,

...narrative. That among Paul's readers certain people wishing to be teachers of the law “do not know the things about which they speak,” but because they fail to render clear what is meant by what is said, and do not “grasp” its intended sense, they “insist” about matters they do not know. Peter too had experienced something of this sort; for not having grasped what was good concerning the plan of salvation regarding Jesus and the things seen on the

mountain, with Moses and Elijah present, he declares, “it is good that we are here,” and so on, “not knowing what he was saying”; “for he did not know what he was speaking.” For indeed if a wise man “will grasp the sayings from his own mouth, while on his lips he bears discernment,” the one lacking such a disposition “does not grasp what comes from his own mouth,” nor does he comprehend the nature of the things

being spoken by him. Following upon this is: “while he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them,” and so on. I think that God, turning Peter away from making three tents under which they were, so far as his intention went, going to shelter, shows <one and> a better (if I may call it so) and far superior tent, the cloud. For if

a tent exists to cast shade over the one inside it and give him cover, and the luminous cloud cast its shadow over them, so God fashioned for them, as it were, a tent more divine, being as it was luminous too, as a pattern of the rest that was to come. A bright cloud, indeed, overshadows the righteous, who are thereby sheltered while also being illumined and made radiant by it. But who might the bright cloud be that overshadows the righteous,

if not perhaps the paternal power, from which the Father's voice comes, bearing witness that the Son is beloved and pleasing to him, and urging those overshadowed by it to listen to this one and no other? He speaks, as formerly so also always, through whatever means he wishes. But perhaps the Holy Spirit too is the bright cloud, overshadowing the righteous

and prophesying, God working in it and saying: “This one is my Son, the beloved, in whom I have found delight.” And I would even venture to say that our Savior too is a bright cloud. Peter, then, saying, “Let us make here three tents,” one for himself, one for the Son, and one for the Holy Spirit—for the bright

cloud belonging to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit casts its shadow over Jesus' true disciples; or else the gospel, the law, and the prophets are covered by a luminous cloud for whoever is able to see by its light in accordance with the gospel, the law, and the prophets. And the voice out of the cloud perhaps says to Moses and Elijah: “This is the”

“my beloved Son, in whom I take delight; hear him,” to those desiring to see the Son of God, hear his voice, and gaze upon him just as he was “in glory.” Perhaps he is teaching the disciples that the one who is Son of God in the proper sense, his beloved, in whom he took delight, whom above all others must be heeded, was the very one then being gazed upon, transformed in form and radiant with the

face like the sun and clothed in garments white as light. After this it is written that the three apostles, on hearing the voice from the cloud testifying to the Son, could not endure the glory of that voice and its accompanying power, so they fell upon their faces and implored God; for they were greatly terrified by the extraordinary nature of the vision and of the things

said as a result of the sight. But observe, if you can, whether one can also say this about the passage: that the disciples, understanding that the Son of God had spoken an oracle to Moses, and that he himself was the one who had said, "For no man shall see my face and live," and having seen the face of the Son of God become like the sun, receiving the testimony of God about him, were humbled, unable to bear the rays of the word, "under the mighty hand of God."

But once the Word had touched them, they raised their eyes and saw Jesus alone, no one else with him. For Moses the law and Elijah the prophecy became a single thing together with Jesus in the gospel, and they no longer remained as they had been before,

three, but the three became one. Take these things, for my part, as referring to the mystical realities. For as concerns the bare surface meaning of the text, Moses and Elijah, "seen in glory" and conversing with Jesus, went back to where they had originally come from, perhaps in order to convey to those who had hardly yet been benefited by him the words which Jesus had spoken in their presence,

for those on whom he was going to confer benefit at the moment of his suffering, when many bodies of the sleeping saints were about to go forth, once their tombs had been opened, into the truly "holy city" -- not the Jerusalem wept over by Jesus -- and there to appear "to many." After the arrangement on the mountain, the disciples were descending from the mountain so as to come to the crowd

to minister to the Son of God concerning their salvation, Jesus commanded the disciples, saying: "Tell no one the vision until the Son of Man has risen from the dead." Now "tell no one the vision" is similar to what was examined above, when he charged the disciples that they should tell no one that he is the Christ. Hence

the things said in that passage can also be useful to us in regard to what lies before us, since in accordance with these too Jesus wishes that the matters of his glory not be spoken before the glory he would have after suffering; for those who heard, and especially the crowds, would have been harmed by seeing one so glorified being crucified. Therefore, since it was akin to his transfiguration and to his face that appeared like the sun

that he should be glorified in the resurrection, for this reason he wishes these things to be spoken by the apostles then, when he has risen from the dead.

← All of Origen: Commentaries & Homilies