Commentary on Matthew, Book 13

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

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book 13. "And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why is it, then, that the scribes claim Elijah has to come first?'" (17:10). The disciples who had gone up with Jesus recalled what had been handed down by the scribes concerning Elijah, that before the coming of Christ Elijah would come and prepare the souls of those who were to receive him.

But the vision on the mountain, in which Elijah appeared, seemed not to agree with what had been said, since it did not seem to them that Elijah had come before Jesus, but with him. This is why they say what they say, supposing that the scribes were speaking falsely. *** To this the Savior responds, not setting aside what has been handed down concerning Elijah, but declaring another coming of Elijah,

saying that it was a coming before the coming of Christ that went unrecognized by the scribes, and that, failing to recognize him in accordance with it, and becoming accomplices in his being thrown into prison by Herod and in his being killed by him, they did to him whatever they wished. Then he says that he himself will suffer at the hands of the same men things corresponding to what they did to Elijah. Let this suffice as to what the

disciples asked concerning Elijah and what the Savior answered; and those who heard understood that the statement, "Elijah has already come," and what the Savior said next, had their reference to John the Baptist. Let this be said for the sake of clarifying the passage before us; but now, as far as we are able, let us undertake an examination of the matters it contains as well. In these words, it does not seem to me that "Elijah" refers to

the soul of Elijah — lest I fall into the doctrine of reincarnation, a notion alien to God's church, neither handed down by the apostles nor appearing anywhere in the scriptures. For it is contrary both to the statement that "the things that are seen are temporary" and that this age is to undergo an end, and also to the fulfillment of the saying, "heaven and earth will pass away,"

and "for the form of this world is passing away," and "the heavens will perish," together with what follows these. For if, hypothetically, that same soul could occupy a body twice within the whole span running from the world's origin to its close, doing so for the reason on account of which it would come to be in it — namely a soul that has come to be in a body twice on account of sin —

why should it not also be in it a third time and more times, since the punishments due for this life and for the sins committed in it are, in this scheme, to be rendered to it only by this means, namely reincarnation? And if this is granted as a logical consequence, there will perhaps never be a time when a soul is not reincarnated; for it will always come to dwell in a body on account of its former sins, and thus there will not be

any room for the destruction of the world, in which "heaven and earth will pass away." But even if, on this hypothesis, it is granted that a soul wholly without sin will no longer come into a body through birth, after how many ages do you suppose a single soul will be found wholly purified and no longer in need of reincarnation? And even so, in this way there will always be, out of the fixed number of souls, some one soul...

the number shifting, and no soul any longer coming into a body, at some point the generation [of souls] will fail, as if after a kind of infinite span of time, the world having come down to one, or a second, or a few more, after whom, once they too have been perfected, the world will be destroyed, since those coming into a body will have failed. This does not please Scripture, for it knows sinners in great number at the very season when the

destruction of the world. This is clear when one examines together the saying, "Yet when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith upon the..." which we found stated thus in Matthew: "But as the days of Noah were, so will the appearing of the Son of Man likewise be. For just as they lived in the days prior to the flood" and so on. And for those living then there will be

an exaction of their sins that is not by way of reincarnation. For if they are taken away while still sinning, then either they will afterward be punished by some other mode of punishment — and accordingly there will be two generic modes of punishment, one in reincarnation, the other outside such a body (let them state the causes and how these differ from one another) — or, alternatively, no punishment will follow at all, as though those left behind at the consummation had all at once cast off their sins,

or — which is better — there is a single mode of punishment for those who sinned while in a body: to suffer, outside that body <and> outside this present arrangement of life, according to the worth of what they have sinned. Each of these, to one able to look closely into the matters, overturns reincarnation. And if the Greeks who introduce reincarnation, positing what follows consistently from it, do not

wish the world to be destroyed either, it is time for them too, on looking back at the scriptures that declare it, [to grant] that the world will be destroyed — either to disbelieve them, or to quibble over the account of what happens at the consummation, which, even should they wish it, lies beyond their power to achieve. And further we will say this too to those who venture to say the world will not be destroyed: that if the world is not destroyed but will go on into infinity, God will not

be one who "knows all things before their coming to be." But if he is to, he will know each part, or each thing, "before its coming to be," or some things, and after these again others — for it is not possible for things infinite by nature to be encompassed by a knowledge whose nature is to set bounds to the things known. And it follows from this that prophecy could not be given regarding every conceivable matter, seeing that the totality of things has no limit.

It was necessary, I think, to have lingered over the examination of the discourse on embodiment, on account of the suspicion of some who supposed that the soul in question was one and the same soul of Elijah and of John, called Elijah first and John second, and that it was not without divine action that he was called John, as is clear from the fact that the angel who appeared to Zechariah said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for

your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John," and because Zechariah, once the name John had been written on the tablet, then recovered his voice concerning the child so named. But if the soul was that of Elijah, then he ought also, being born a second time, to have been called Elijah, or some cause for the change of name ought to have appeared,

as happened with Abram becoming Abraham, and Sarah and Sarrah, and Jacob and Israel, and Simon and Peter. Yet even so the word was not preserved unchanged in them; for the changes of name occurred within one and the same life of those mentioned. But one might inquire whether the soul of Elijah was not first

in the Tishbite and second in John, what then would be that which was called by the Savior "Elijah" in both? And my answer is that Gabriel, addressing Zacharias, has hinted at what constitutes the shared essence of Elijah and John; for he declares: "Many among the sons of Israel he will turn back to the Lord their God, and he himself will go before him"

"in the spirit and power of Elijah." Notice this: he did not write "in" the "soul" "of Elijah" — which would leave room for the notion of transmigration — but rather "in the spirit and power of Elijah." Scripture plainly distinguishes spirit from soul, as when it says "and may the God of peace sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the"

coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," and "Bless, spirits and souls of the righteous," found in the Daniel current among the Seventy, establishes the difference between spirit and soul. John, then, is called Elijah not on account of the soul, but on account of the spirit and the power, and these things trouble the ecclesiastical account not at all, if it was first in Elijah, but

afterward came to be in John; and it says, "prophets' spirits yield to prophets" — not that the souls of prophets are subject to prophets — and "Elijah's spirit has come to rest on Elisha." One must ask whether that spirit of Elijah is the very spirit of God which was in Elijah, or whether these are, in fact, two distinct things, and whether something extraordinary marked the spirit of Elijah dwelling within him, beyond

the spirit of each individual man that is in him. For indeed the apostle clearly showed that the spirit of God, even though it is in us, is other than the spirit of each individual man that is in him, saying in one place: "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God," and in another place: "Among men, no one knows the things belonging to a man, except

the spirit of the man that is in him; so also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God." Do not be surprised, then, concerning Elijah, if — just as something strange befell him beyond the rest of the recorded saints, in that he was taken up "in a whirlwind into heaven" — so too his spirit possessed something exceptional, such that

it not only rested upon Elisha but also descended together into John's very birth, and John, in his own way, was "filled with the Holy Spirit" — "even while still in his mother's womb" — and, in his own way, went ahead of Christ, bearing "Elijah's spirit and might." A person can indeed carry more than one spirit at once, and not merely lesser ones but greater ones too; at any rate he asks

David was "established by a governing spirit," and "a right spirit was renewed within his inward parts." And if it is so that the Savior imparted to us a spirit of "wisdom and understanding," a spirit of "counsel and might," a spirit of "knowledge and piety," and was filled with a spirit of "the fear of God," it is possible to understand these too as several greater spirits existing in the same one. And we have cited this on account of

"in the spirit and power of Elijah" John went before Christ, so that Elijah has now come, since the spirit of Elijah is shown forth in him who is present in John — a thing the three disciples who accompanied him likewise grasped, that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. On Elisha alone, then, "the spirit of Elijah rested," but John, before Christ, was not

not merely in the "spirit," but in the "power of Elijah" as well; that is why Elisha could never have been styled Elijah, whereas John truly was Elijah. And if the passage of scripture must be produced from which the scribes drew their claim that Elijah has to come beforehand, listen to Malachi's words: "And behold, I send to you Elijah the Tishbite," and the rest, down to "lest

I come and strike the land utterly." And it seems indeed to be shown through these words that Elijah prepares the way beforehand for the glorious advent of Christ, on account of certain sacred words and dispositions in the souls of those who have become fit for this — a glory which those on earth would not have been able to bear, because of its surpassing excess, had they not been prepared beforehand by Elijah. But by "Elijah"

here too what I understand is not the soul of that particular prophet, but rather his spirit and his power; for it is through these that everything will be set right again, so that, once restored, and made able through that restoration to hold the splendor belonging to Christ, the Son of God — he who will appear in glory — may come and dwell among them. But if Elijah is also in some sense a "word," lesser than the Word

"in the beginning with God," of the Word of God, this word too could be able, as it were a preliminary exercise, to dwell among the people being made ready by him, so that it might become prepared for the reception of the perfect Word. One might raise the difficulty, however, whether the spirit and the power of Elijah suffered the things that happened in John, according to "they did to him whatever they wished." And to this it will be said, more simply,

first, that there is nothing absurd in the fact that, through love, the things that help suffer along with those they help — indeed Jesus says, on account of the sick, "I was sick," and on account of the hungry, "I was hungry," and on account of the thirsty, "I was thirsty" — but more deeply, that it is not said, "but they did to him whatever they wished," but rather "whatever they wished" was done to him; for the things that suffered were firmly grounded in the "spirit and power of Elijah,"

the soul of John was in no way Elijah — though perhaps his body was, differently. For in one sense, soul and spirit and power exist within a body, while in another sense the body of the righteous man depends upon the higher realities, as though grounded in them and suspended from them. "Now those who exist in flesh are unable to give God pleasure. But you exist not in flesh, but"

in spirit, "provided the Spirit of God truly dwells within you." For the sinner's soul dwells in flesh, whereas the righteous man's dwells in spirit. And this too deserves examination: to whom does "but they did to him as much as they pleased" refer? Does it point to the scribes, whom the disciples questioned when they asked, "Why is it, then, that the scribes claim that

Elijah has to come beforehand"? Yet John does not appear to have suffered anything much at the scribes' hands, unless it be that they simply refused to trust him, or (as noted earlier) that they shared responsibility for what Herod dared do against him. Someone else, though, might argue that "but they did to him as much as they pleased" points not to the scribes but to

Herodias and her daughter and Herod, referring to their having done to him whatever they wished. And what follows, "so the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands," would then refer, if the former part refers to the scribes, to this as well; but supposing instead that the former part points to Herod, Herodias, and her daughter,

then so does the latter. For Herod does indeed appear to have joined in the vote for Jesus to die, perhaps his wife too sharing with him in the plot against him. "And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him, kneeling before him and saying, 'Lord, have mercy on my son'" (17:14[-20]). Those who suffer, or the households of those who suffer, are among the crowds;

and therefore, whenever Jesus has finished arranging the matters that lie beyond the crowds, he comes down to them, so that those unable to go up, on account of the illnesses holding their soul fast, may be helped, he having come down to them from the loftier things of the discourse. And one must examine in the case of which diseases the sufferers themselves believe and deem themselves worthy of healing <by touching either him or "the fringe of his garment">

..., and in the case of which others do this on their behalf - such as the centurion concerning his servant, and the royal official concerning his son, and the synagogue ruler concerning his daughter, and the Canaanite woman concerning her demon-possessed daughter, and now the man kneeling before him concerning his moonstruck son. And along with these you will also examine when the Savior heals on his own initiative and without being asked by anyone, as in the case of the

paralytic at the pool of Bethesda. For these healings, set side by side and examined together, will present to one able to hear much of God's wisdom "hidden in mystery" - doctrines both about the various afflictions that affect souls and about the manner of their healing. But since our task at present is not to examine all of them, but the passage set before us,

let us see, reading it figuratively, whom we can say the moonstruck boy is, and his father who makes request on his behalf, and what it means that he falls - suffering not constantly but often, sometimes into fire and sometimes into water - and what it means that no disciple was able to cure him, only Jesus himself. And this is indeed reasonable; for if every disease and

every weakness that our savior healed then "among the people" is referred to the various symptoms occurring in souls, so that those who are paralyzed in soul and have it lying paralyzed upon the body are indicated through the paralytics; those who are blind with respect to the things visible to the soul alone are indicated through the blind and are indeed blind; and those who are deafened

toward the reception of the saving word are signified through the deaf. By analogy with these it will be necessary to examine the matter of the moonstruck person. Now this affliction attacks its sufferers at notable intervals, during which the one who has suffered it seems to differ in no way from a healthy person during the time when the seizure is not at work in him. You might find certain symptoms of this kind occurring around certain souls,

souls often thought to be healthy, healthy in self-control and the other virtues. Then there are times when, as if seized by a certain epilepsy arising from the passions, they are struck down and, though seeming to be standing firm, are convulsed around the deception of this age and the remaining desires. Perhaps, then, one would not be wrong to say that such people (if I may put it this way) are spiritually "moonstruck," being cast down by the

spiritual forces of wickedness dwelling "in the heavenly places," so that they are frequently unwell whenever the passions seizing their soul take hold of them; falling at one time into the fire of burnings, when they become — as it is said in Hosea — "adulterers, like an oven burning for the baking of a scorched mass from the flame"; while at other moments they sink into water instead, as when "the king

of all the things in the waters," the dragon, casts them down, so that instead of seeming to breathe freely they arrive at the deep swells where the sea of human existence surges. And to such an account of the moonstruck person there will contribute the words of the one who says in Wisdom, concerning the steadiness of the righteous, "the account of the pious is wisdom throughout," and concerning those

who are given over to folly, "but the fool changes like the moon." And impulses *** able to carry off toward praise those who have not taken a firm stand against their own instability, so that one might say there is, as it were, a full moon in them, or something close to a full moon. But turn back and you would observe that reputed light within them shrinking away — a nocturnal light, yes, but also a <lunar> nocturnal light — and

failing to such a degree that, in the end, not even what seemed to be light is found in them when looked at closely. Whether or not the first namers of things, in assigning names to things, called the affliction of epilepsy "moonstruck-ness" for some such reason, you yourself will consider. The father of the moonstruck person is perhaps the angel allotted to him — if indeed one must say that every human soul is placed under some angel, as

under a kind of father — who requests the physician of souls on his behalf, as one would for a son, that he might rescue him, since he was unable, because of the inferior teaching among the disciples, to be healed of the affliction. And the spirit "mute and deaf," if one must interpret it tropologically, is to be understood as the irrational impulses toward what merely seems good, being cast out by reason, so that the things a person formerly did by irrational impulse

things thought good by those who see them, but for the rest no longer acts irrationally, but according to the reasoning of Jesus' teaching. And this affliction is hard to heal and powerful, since what has not been done well seems to have been done well; and in such cases this force is so great that it may be compared to a mountain, needing to be moved away from the sufferer through the whole

faith of the one healing him. And all faith is comparable to a mustard seed. This is why Paul too, moved by it, declared: "were I to possess the whole of faith, in such measure that I could displace mountains." For the one who possesses the whole of faith displaces not one mountain only, but several proportionate to it — faith which is like a mustard seed. For faith is held in contempt by

men and appears to be something very small and cheap, yet when it finds good earth — that is, a soul able to receive such a seed well — "it becomes a great tree," so that not any of the wingless creatures, but those winged in a spiritual sense, are able to nest "in the branches" of such faith and find shelter "of the sky." Let us then turn to the wording itself and first inquire how someone is said to be moonstruck

— one who is darkened and cast down by a certain unclean, deaf, and mute spirit — and why the term "moonstruck" is derived from the great luminary in the sky, second after the sun, which "God" appointed "to rule the night." Let the physicians, then, give their account according to natural science, since they do not suppose there to be any unclean spirit at all involved in such a case, but rather some bodily

symptom, and in their natural-scientific account let them say that the fluids in the head are stirred through a certain sympathy toward the moon's light, which has a moist nature. But we, who also believe the gospel, hold that this illness is seen to be brought about, in those who suffer it, by an unclean spirit, mute and deaf; and observing that those who are accustomed, in the manner of the enchanters of the

Egyptians, to profess a cure for such people sometimes seem to succeed with them, we shall say that perhaps — in order to slander the creatures of God, so that "their mouth" too might set "unrighteousness against heaven" — this unclean spirit watches for certain configurations of the moon and acts accordingly, so that, from the observation that men suffer at such-and-such a configuration of the moon,

the blame for so great an evil may seem to fall not on the "mute and deaf" demon, but on the great luminary in the sky, appointed "to rule the night" and having no responsibility whatsoever for such a disease among men. And indeed all who say that the cause of everything that happens on

earth — whether of things in general — [attribute it to the stars]; and such people truly have "set their mouth against heaven," calling some of the stars malevolent and others benevolent, though no star was made by the God of the universe in order to do evil — in keeping, at any rate, with Jeremiah, as it is written in Lamentations: "from the Lord's own mouth neither evils nor good shall issue forth." It is likely, moreover, that

Just as this unclean spirit that produces what is called lunacy watches for those who, for certain reasons, are handed over to it and have not made themselves worthy of angelic guard, so also do other spirits and demons watch in accordance with certain configurations of the other stars, so that not only the moon but the rest of the stars as well may be reviled by those who speak “unrighteousness on high.” It is

possible, at any rate, to hear the astrologers attributing the cause of every madness and every case of demonic possession to the configurations of the moon. That those who suffer what is called lunacy sometimes fall into water is clear; that they also fall into fire is rarer, but this too happens. And this disease is so hard to cure that even those

who have the grace of healing the possessed sometimes give up in the face of it, and sometimes, with fastings and prayers and considerable labors, succeed. You will inquire whether, just as among human beings, so also among spirits there are such symptoms as these—that some of them speak while others are mute, and some hear while others have been made deaf. For it will be found that, just as among these [humans]

there is a cause for their being unclean, so also, on account of their own free will, these [spirits] have been condemned to be mute and deaf. For indeed some human beings too will undergo such a condemnation, if indeed the prophet's prayer, spoken as though by the Holy Spirit, is to be heeded, where it is declared, concerning certain sinners: “let the deceitful lips become mute.” So too, perhaps, those who

have made bad use of their hearing and have received a vain report will be made deaf by him who said: “Who made one hard of hearing, and deaf?”—so that they may no longer receive a vain report. Now since the Savior said, “O faithless and perverted generation,” he shows that evil has crept in through a perversion, having come about contrary to nature and having made us perverse. And I think the whole race of human beings

upon the earth, since the Savior was weighed down by their evil and by his time spent with them, is why he asked, “How much longer must I remain among you?” We have already spoken in part with a view to “should you possess faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain” and so on. Nonetheless, no less clearly, as it appears to us, these things too will be said with reference to that passage.

By “mountains” in this passage, I think, are meant the opposing powers that have become great, poured out in wickedness, powers that are, as it were, fixed firmly in the souls of human beings. Whenever, then, someone has “all faith,” so as no longer to disbelieve concerning anything set down in the sacred writings, and has faith of such a kind as was the faith of Abraham,

who believed God so completely that his faith was credited “as righteousness”—he possesses “all faith” like a grain of mustard seed. Then such a person will say to this mountain (and I am showing that the “mute and deaf” spirit is what is meant in the condition called being moonstruck): “Move from here” (namely, from the person who is suffering) “to there” (perhaps, to the abyss), “and it will move.” And the apostle

It was from this, I think, taking his starting point, that he spoke with apostolic authority the words, "and though I possess faith enough in its entirety to remove mountains." For it is not one mountain alone but several comparable to it that the one who has "all faith" moves — the faith that is like a grain of mustard seed; and nothing at all will be impossible for the one who believes to this degree. But let us also attend to the words,

"This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting," so that, if ever we should have occasion to concern ourselves with healing someone who has suffered such a thing, we should not put the unclean spirit under oath, nor question it, nor speak to it as though it could hear, but rather, "devoting ourselves to prayer and fasting," we should, by praying for the sufferer's <salvation that comes from God>, obtain it, and by our own fasting drive

the unclean spirit away from him. Now while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them: "The Son of Man is about to be handed over into the hands of men" (17:22[23]). And it will seem to some that this is equivalent to the statement that "he began to show his disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests." But it is not so.

For it is by no means identical to point out to “the disciples that he must go away to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes,” and after the suffering “be killed,” and then, following his death, “rise again on the third day,” as it is for it to have been said to them while they were still in Galilee (which we have not learned above) that the Son of Man was

about to be handed over. For the word "handed over" has not been used above, but now it is used, along with the fact that it is into the hands of men. On this point let us inquire by whom he is to be handed over into the hands of men, or of whom. For in the former passage we are told at whose hands and in what place he shall undergo suffering, while here, in addition to those, we learn that his "suffering many things" comes about at the hands of the aforementioned persons, though it is not

those persons who are the primary causes of his suffering "many things," but rather the one who hands him over, or those who hand him over, into the hands of men. Now one person will say that this is what the apostle relates concerning God: "he who did not spare his own Son but handed him over for us all"; and the Son also gave "himself for us" over to death,

so that he was handed over not merely by the Father, but by his own act as well. Another, however, will not stop at that but, gathering together also the passages set out to the same effect, will say that the Son was handed over first by God, then was to be tempted, then was to struggle, then was to suffer on behalf of human beings or even "the whole world," so that he might lift from it "the sin," being handed over to the ruler "of this age" and

to the other rulers under him, and then by these being handed over into the hands of the men who would kill him. As an illustration one may draw upon what happened to Job: "Behold, all that is his I give into your hand; only do not touch him himself" — as though he had been handed over by the devil to his rulers, the ones who take captive, the horsemen, the one who comes down as fire from heaven, the one who

coming from the wilderness, a great wind, and toppling the house. You will consider whether, just as he handed over Job's possessions to the captors and the horsemen, [...] so also to some one of the powers operating under "the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that even now works within the sons of disobedience," so that the fire descending from there upon the sheep

of Job from heaven might be seen descending upon the man reporting to Job, saying that "fire had fallen out of the sky, consuming his sheep, and had likewise devoured the shepherds." In a similar manner to these you will inquire whether also the "great wind suddenly from the wilderness" that came and struck "the four corners of the house" was one of the powers under the devil,

to whom the devil handed over that gathering of Job's sons, that feast "of the sons" "and daughters," so that "the house might fall upon the children" of the righteous man and they might die. Consider it, then, as in Job's case: the Father first hands the son over to the opposing powers, and these in turn deliver him into human hands, and among those men was Judas, into whom "after

the morsel Satan entered," handing him over in a more governing capacity than Judas. But observe whether, in setting side by side how the opposing powers received the Son handed over by the Father, and how those powers then handed the Savior into the hands of men, you might think the word "handed over" said in both cases means the same thing. For consider that the Father <not simply, but> handed him over "on behalf of

us all," out of love for humanity; whereas the opposing powers, in handing over the Savior into the hands of men, were not intending to hand him over for the salvation of anyone, but (so far as it depended on them, since not one of them had known God's wisdom, that which lies hidden in a mystery) were handing him over to die, so that his "enemy," "death," might take him under its power, like those who die

"in Adam." And the men who killed him, too, <not by the will of God already in place, but> shaped by the will of the powers that wished Jesus to come under the power of death, were doing this. I think it was necessary to examine these points as well, on account of the fact that Jesus, delivered into human hands, was consigned there not through men into the hands of men, but through the powers on whose account "on

behalf of us all" the Father handed over the Son — in the very act of being handed over and coming to be subject to those to whom he was handed over, destroying "the one who holds the power of death"; for it was "through death" that he rendered powerless "him who holds death's dominion" (namely, the devil), and released "those who through fear of death" were subject to slavery throughout their whole life. And one must think that the devil holds

"power" of death not in the neutral and indifferent sense, by which composite beings die when their soul is separated from their body, but in the sense belonging to the hostile and opposing one, to him who said, "I am the life," by which "the soul that sins shall die." This makes clear that it was not God who handed him over into the hands of men, but the

the Savior saying: "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have fought, so that I might not be handed over to the Jews." He was indeed given over into human hands when delivered to the Jews, yet not through his own servants, but through the "ruler of this age," who spoke concerning the kingdoms set up against men by invisible powers, saying: "All these things to you

I will give, if you fall down and worship me." For this reason one must suppose that it was said concerning those: "The kings of the earth stood arrayed, and the rulers assembled together, in opposition to the Lord and to his Anointed one." Those "kings" and "rulers" did indeed "stand arrayed" and "assemble together in opposition to the Lord and to his Anointed one." But we, having profited from the fact that he was handed over

by them into human hands and put to death, we say, having gained benefit: "Their bonds let us tear apart, and their yoke let us throw off from ourselves" ***. For at the moment we take on the "same form" as the death of Christ, we no longer lie beneath the bonds that the kings "of the earth" impose (as we have explained), nor under the yoke laid by the rulers "of this age" who massed together against the Lord.

And for this reason the Father "did not spare his own Son, but handed him over for us all," so that the rulers who took him and delivered him over to human hands might be an object of laughter to him who dwells "in the heavens," mocked by the Lord himself, having received him unexpectedly for the overthrow of their own kingdom and rule, from... he was raised

by having brought down his enemy, death, and having made us take the "same form," not only of "his death" but of "his resurrection" as well, through which we go about "in newness of life," seated no more "in the land and the shadow cast by death," since the "light" of God has risen upon us. And when the Savior said, "The Son of Man is about to be handed over into the hands of men, and

they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise," the disciples were greatly grieved, fixing their attention, as on things gloomy and worthy of grief, on his being about to be handed over into the hands of men and on his being killed, but not attending to his rising on the third day, since it required no great length of time, "so that through death he might bring to nothing him who holds the power of death." Now when they had come

to Capernaum, those who collect the two-drachma tax approached Peter (17:24[–27]). Among the kings of the earth there are some, and sons of theirs too, who pay no tolls or taxes, and others, apart from their sons, unrelated to earth's kings, from whom those same kings collect tolls or tax. And the sons of these are free among

the kings of the earth, as sons are with their fathers; but those who are foreigners to them are, in keeping with those who lord it over them and enslave them (as "the Egyptians oppressed the sons of Israel and embittered their life," and "enslaved them by force"), slaves. For the sake of these, who are enslaved in a manner corresponding to the slavery of the Hebrews, the Son of God has taken on only the "form" of a "slave,"

doing no earthly and servile work. Since, then, he has the “form” of that “slave,” he in the end also pays the census tax, no different from what his disciple pays; for one stater, the single coin, was enough, given on behalf of both Jesus and his disciple. This coin, however, was not in the house of Jesus

but was in the mouth of the sea fish—a fish which I think itself received a benefit by coming up caught on Peter's hook, since Peter had become a fisher “of men,” among whom was this fish, spoken of figuratively, so that from it might be taken the coin bearing the image of “Caesar,” and it might come to be among those caught by the men who had learned to fish for men. The one, then, who has

“the things of Caesar” should render them to “Caesar,” so that after this he may be able to render “the things of God to God.” But since Jesus, being the image “of the invisible God,” did not have the image of “Caesar” (for “the ruler of this age” had “nothing” in him), for this reason — not from what was properly his own, but — from a place fitting to him, the sea, he receives the image

of “Caesar,” so that he might give it, in place of himself and his disciple, to those who rule as kings over the earth, lest those receiving the two-drachma should suppose Jesus to be a debtor to them and to earth's kings. He discharged the debt without ever having taken it up, without possessing it, without procuring it, without at any point turning it into a possession of his own — so that the image of “Caesar” might never be found gentle

toward the image “of —.” And it could also be stated in another way: among the sons belonging to earth's rulers, some are truly their sons and some are not their sons at all; yet these latter, too, are sons, sons in an unqualified sense, while still others — being estranged from the sons of the kings who rule the earth — belong as sons to none of the earthly ones, yet are sons all the same: sons either of God, or sons of God's own Son.

If, then, the Savior questions Peter, saying: from whom do earth's kings collect tolls or tax — from their own sons, or from those outside their household? And when Peter answers that it is not from their own, Jesus speaks concerning these, who stand as outsiders to earth's rulers and

who, being free, turn out to be sons. It follows, then, that the sons in question are free — since the sons belonging to the kings who govern the earth are not themselves free, for “everyone practicing sin is sin's slave” — whereas free are those who remain steadfast in the truth carried by God's word, and who, having thereby come to know the truth, are set free by it as well.

If, then, someone is a son purely and simply, and not in every sense a son belonging to earth's rulers, that person is free. And nevertheless, free though he is, he has been careful not to give offense even to the kings who govern the earth and collect the two-drachma; hence he states: rather than trip them up, go and pull up the first fish that rises, and so forth. I would like to put a question to those who take pleasure in the study concerning

...by mythmaking about natures, as to what nature the kings of the earth were, or their sons, or those who collect the two-drachma tax, whom the Savior does not wish to cause to stumble. It appears, then (according to the premise), that they are not of a praiseworthy nature, and yet he took care lest they stumble, guarding against any occasion of offense arising for them, so that they might either not sin further,

or, if they are willing to be saved, come to accept the one who has spared them, in order that they not be caused to stumble. And as from the very "consolation" (for so Capernaum is interpreted), calling <him> the disciple and both making him free and proclaiming him a son, he gives him the power first to catch a fish, so that when it comes up Peter might be consoled over what has come up

and been caught, and that from its mouth, once opened, the stater would be taken, to be given to those responsible for the tax and who demand such a coin as their own. One might use this passage elegantly, moreover, against a lover of money, one who has nothing on his mouth except talk of silver, whenever you see him healed by some Peter, as he casts out not only from his

mouth and his words, but also entirely from his disposition, the stater, which is a symbol of all his love of money. For you will say that such a man was in the sea, that is, in the salty affairs of life and the waves of the anxieties and cares of avarice, having in his mouth the stater when he was unbelieving and money-loving, but that he went up from the

sea, having been caught by the rational hook and benefited (by someone, a Peter, who taught him the truth), no longer having the stater in his mouth, but instead of it, the oracles of God which bear his image. Further, as to those who came to Peter demanding the two-drachma tax, you may set alongside it a passage from Numbers, that on behalf of the holy ones, according to the law of God,

it is not simply a two-drachma that is given, but a holy two-drachma. For it is written: "and per head you shall take five shekels, reckoned by the holy two-drachma." And likewise, counted head by head, a holy two-drachma is given for every one of "the sons of Israel" -- that is, for Israel's sons entire. Since, then, one who belongs to the holy God cannot possibly hold, alongside the holy two-drachmas, also two-drachmas (so to call them) that are profane,

for this reason, to those who receive the not-holy two-drachmas and who asked Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" the Savior orders that a stater (in which there were two two-drachmas) be given, discovered in the mouth of the fish that rose up first, so that it might be given on behalf of both the teacher and the disciple. On that day the disciples came to Jesus

saying, "Who then is greater in the kingdom of the heavens?" (18:1[-6]). Although Matthew could, for our instruction, have related only this much -- that when the disciples approached Jesus they asked to learn from him such a thing, and how he answered their question -- he added, according to some of the copies,

In that hour the disciples came to Jesus — but according to other copies, in that day. And it is necessary not to leave the evangelist’s intention unexamined. So then, attending to what comes before "in that day" or "hour," let us consider whether it is possible from those words to find a path toward seeing the addition "in that day or hour" as necessary.

So then, Jesus had come to Capernaum together with the disciples, where "those who collected the two-drachma tax approached Peter" and asked, saying, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" Then, when Peter answered them and said "yes," Jesus, having first spoken on his own behalf about the payment of the two drachmas, sends Peter to draw up with a hook

a fish, in whose mouth he said a stater would be found, to be given for himself and for Peter. So it appears to me that the disciples, regarding this as the greatest honor -- since Jesus had judged him greater than the rest of his companions -- wanted, in line with what they suspected, to confirm it precisely by inquiring, so as to hear from Jesus himself whether, as they supposed, he had judged Peter greater

than they were. At the same time they also hoped to learn the reason why Peter had been preferred over the rest of the disciples. Wishing to make this clear (I think), Matthew, following the words "take that" (namely the stater, clearly) "and give it to them for me and you," added: in that day <or hour> the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who then is greater?" And perhaps

in the kingdom of heaven? And perhaps too they were in doubt because three had been preferred at the transfiguration, and their doubt concerned which of the three had been judged greater by the Lord. For John reclined "upon his breast" out of love, and it follows naturally that in the time leading up to the supper Jesus had shown John numerous marks of exceptional honor, which the others had witnessed.

But Peter had been called blessed at his confession, on account of "You are the Anointed One, the Son of the living God" -- repeated as "the Son of the living God"; yet again, on account of "Get behind me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to me, since your mind is set not on the matters of God but on those of men," they were pulled this way and that, wondering whether perhaps it was not he who was the greater, but rather the other

of the sons of Zebedee. So much, then, concerning "in that day or hour," in which the events concerning the stater had taken place. Next we must consider the phrase "the disciples came to him," as disciples putting a question to their teacher and examining it -- so who among them ranks as greater within the heavens' kingdom? And indeed we ought to imitate the disciples of Jesus in this: if

ever something we are seeking is not found among us, let us approach Jesus with complete unanimity concerning the matter sought, since he is present wherever "two or three are gathered" in his name, and is ready, according to the presence granted by his power, to illuminate the hearts of those who genuinely wish to be his disciples, so that they may grasp the things they seek. Nor is it out of place also, concerning one of the things ordained by God

of the teachers appointed in the church, that we should come forward and put forth some analogous problem to the question: who then is greater in the kingdom of heaven? What, then, did the disciples already know concerning this question? What equality among those deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven had they grasped, and that (there being no equality) there is one who is greater, and so on in order down to

the least. But what sort of thing the greater is, and how the least lived, and who are those in between, they were still seeking. Unless indeed one can say more precisely that they knew who the least was from "whoever loosens one of these least commandments and teaches men accordingly will be named least within the kingdom of the heavens," but who

is greatest of all remained unknown to them, even though they had grasped "but whoever does and teaches, this one shall be named great within the kingdom of the heavens." What is greater than the great (as among men) was not clear to them. And that there are many great ones, but the great are not equally great, the name "great" set upon Isaac will show, "who as he advanced became greater

until he became very, very great," a word said also of Moses, and of John the Baptist, and of the Savior. And everyone, indeed, will agree that even if all these were great according to Scripture, yet the Savior was greater than they. But whether, in the sequence, John was greater than Isaac and Moses, than whom "no one greater has arisen among those born of women,"

or whether, rather than being greater, he was equal to both, or to one of the two, it is unsafe to state. And from the fact that of Isaac it says "as he advanced he became greater, until he became great," not simply, but with the addition of "very," set down twice, we may grasp that greatness itself admits of degrees: one thing being great, another very great, and yet another very, very great.

The disciples, then, approached Jesus, seeking to learn who, then, is the greater one within the kingdom of the heavens. Perhaps, in hearing his answer, they hoped to learn something of this sort: so-and-so is the greater one in the kingdom of the heavens. But he raises the discussion to a more general level, showing of what quality the greater in the heavens is, which, to the extent of our ability, let us understand from what is written.

16. "For Jesus, calling a child to him," and so on. It is possible first to expound this simply. One expounding the Savior's word here according to the simple sense would say that if a man, being a man, puts to death the manly desires to such a degree, putting to death "the deeds of the body through the spirit" and at all times bearing about "the putting to death of Jesus

in the body," so as to have the condition of a child untouched by sexual matters and unaware of manly stirrings, such a one has been turned and has become like the children. And to the degree that he has added to the children's condition with regard to such stirrings, by that much more than others who practice self-discipline and yet have not attained self-control to that degree, is he greater in the kingdom of heaven.

What is said about children with regard to sexual matters could also be said concerning the other passions, and the maladies and diseases of the soul, into which children are not disposed by nature to fall -- namely, all those that have not yet brought reason to completion: for example, that one might turn and become such a man, with regard to anger, as a small child is; and such, with regard to

grief, as a child is (in that, at the moment when a father or mother or some friend has died, they laugh and play at that very time) -- such would be the one who has turned and become like children, having taken on a disposition from reason that admits no grief, so that he becomes toward grief what the small child is. And you will say the same about the so-called

pleasure, by which the base are irrationally elated, which children do not experience, nor do those who have turned and become like the children. So, then, with a view to precision, it has also been demonstrated by others that none of the passions befalls children who have not yet completed their reasoning powers; and if none does, clearly not fear either, but rather, if anything, something analogous to the

other passions, and these faint and very quickly done away with and cured, occur in children, so that it is a thing to be desired that the one who has turned and become like children should arrive at this point -- as much as belongs to what is, as it were, the underlying substrate of the passions in children. And concerning fear, then, you will understand things similar to what has been given: that children are not subject to the fear that the base experience, but something

else, which those who are not precise about the passions and their names call fear -- such indeed as also the forgetfulness of wrongs in children, who at the very moments of their tears are changed in an instant and laugh and play along with those thought to have grieved and frightened them, though these have not in truth wrought such effects in them. In this way too someone will humble himself as

the child whom Jesus called forward; for haughtiness and a conceit of noble birth or wealth or of any of the things thought to be goods but that are not, do not befall a child. That is why one can see that quite infant children, up to three and four years of age, are alike to those of no lineage, even if they seem to be of noble birth, and do not on the whole seem to love the rich children more than the poor.

If, then, the disciple of Jesus takes up from reason what children experience -- by reason of their age -- as opposed to the passions that elate the unintelligent, he has humbled himself as the child whom Jesus pointed to, not being elated over a little glory, nor puffed up over wealth, nor over rank, nor swollen with pride over noble birth. And such as these especially, whom the argument has shown to have

turned and become like the child Jesus took to himself, must be received and honored in the name of Jesus, since it is especially in these that Christ is. And for this reason it says, "and whoever receives one such child in my name receives me." What follows is laborious to expound in sequence with what has been given before; for one might ask, how does the

Having turned and become like the children — is such a person small among those who believe in Jesus, and susceptible to being scandalized? Let us try to clarify this point as well in due order. Everyone who assents to Jesus, God's own Son, in keeping with the true account concerning him, and who journeys through the deeds set out in the gospel toward living according to virtue, has turned and is journeying toward

becoming like the children — and it is impossible for such a person not to enter the kingdom of heaven. But the one who has not turned toward becoming like the children — it is impossible for him to enter the kingdom of heaven. Now there are many such people, but not all who have turned toward becoming like the children have yet arrived at being made fully like the children; rather, each one

falls short of likeness to the children by just as much as he falls short of the disposition the children have toward the passions. In the whole multitude of believers, then, there are also those who have, as it were, just now turned toward becoming like the children, who by that very turning — in order that they might become like the children — are reckoned as "little ones," and among these, those who have turned in order to become

like the children, but who fall far short of becoming exactly like the children, are "little ones" and are susceptible to being scandalized; and each of these falls short of likeness to the children by just as much as he falls short of the disposition the children have toward the passions. One ought not to furnish such people with occasions for being scandalized; but if one does, the one who caused the scandal will need — as being to his advantage for the healing

of his sin — to have a donkey's millstone hung around his neck and be plunged beneath the sea's waters. For in this way, having paid the sufficient penalty in the sea (where the "dragon" is, "which God formed to sport with it"), and having thus suffered, for his own advantage, the punishment aimed at his end, the one so chastised will afterward be outside those toils of the sea's depths — such were his sufferings

sufferings he endured while being dragged down by the donkey's millstone. For there are also differences among millstones, such that one of them (if I may call it so) is a "human" millstone and another a "donkey's"; and the human one is that concerning which it is written: "two will be grinding at one mill -- one is taken along, one is left behind," while the donkey's is the one that will be fastened on the one who caused the scandal. Someone might say --

though I do not know whether he speaks soundly or mistakenly — that the "donkey's" millstone is the heavy and downward-dragging body of the wicked person, which every sinner will take up again at the resurrection, so that he may be plunged into the abyss called the sea's depths, where the "dragon" is "which God formed to sport with." But another will apply the scandalizing of one of the little ones to those powers hidden from human sight; for many

scandals against those whom Jesus points out as "little ones" arise from these powers as well. And whenever they scandalize a believer among the little ones whom Jesus identifies as such, they will take up the donkey's millstone — the perishable body that weighs down the soul — hung from the neck of the one who is dragged down by it to the affairs of this world, so that through these things their arrogance may be brought down, and having paid

...that they might undergo a punishment to their advantage through the millstone turned by a donkey. But let another interpretation also be given, apart from the one stated more simply, whether for the sake of doctrine or for exercise. And let us inquire what child Jesus called to himself and placed among his disciples, standing there in their midst. See whether you are able to say that the Holy Spirit, which humbled itself, having been called by the Savior, was made to stand among them

of the ruling faculty of the disciples of Jesus, is the child whom Jesus called, whether he wishes us, having turned away from all other things, to turn toward the examples set before us by the Holy Spirit, so that we might become like the children <that is, the apostles>, who themselves also turned and were made like the Holy Spirit; and these are the children whom God gave to the Savior according to

what is declared in Isaiah, in these words: "Behold, I and the children whom God has given me." And indeed it is not possible to enter the kingdom of the heavens without having turned from worldly affairs and having been made like the children who have borne the Holy Spirit; and Jesus, having called this Holy Spirit, having descended from his own perfection to men, set it as a child in

the midst of his disciples, standing there among them. It is necessary, then, having turned from worldly desires, to humble oneself, not simply as the child does, but in the manner described in scripture, as this particular child does. And to humble oneself as that child means <to humble oneself for God's sake and> to imitate the Holy Spirit, which humbled itself for the salvation of men. That the Savior and the

Holy Spirit were sent forth by the Father so that men might be saved has been made clear in Isaiah, where it is said in the person of the Savior: "And now the Lord has sent me and his Spirit." One should know, however, that the wording is ambiguous; for either God sent him, and the Holy Spirit also sent the Savior, or (as we have understood it) it was the Father who sent both,

the Savior and the Holy Spirit. Greater, then, in the kingdom of heaven is the one who has humbled himself beyond all who humble themselves in imitation of that child. For many indeed are those who wish to humble themselves like that child, but whoever has become altogether like the child who humbled itself—he would be found greater than all who deal in such things, in the kingdom

of heaven. <One must, then, receive one such child> in the name of Jesus, especially since Jesus himself is present in him. And just as the one who receives one such child in his name receives Jesus, so too the one who is unwilling to receive one such child in the name of Jesus rejects and casts out Jesus. And if

there is also a difference among those deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit, since believers receive a greater or lesser share of the Holy Spirit; there might be some who are the "little ones" among those trusting in God who are capable of being made to stumble, on whose behalf, avenging those who have been made to stumble, the word speaks concerning those who cause the stumbling — that it is greater for them all <one must — such a one> being truly received, whoever receives one of the children, this one being capable *** of those who have caused them to stumble, it is better for him

...so that a millstone fit for a donkey be hung about his neck and he be plunged down into the sea's depths. Let this be said in accordance with the text set forth by Matthew. But let us also look at the parallel passages from the rest of the evangelists. Mark, then, says that the twelve “discussed on the road” which of them “was greater”; therefore also, “sitting down, he called” them and teaches

who is greater, saying that the one who becomes, through moderation and gentleness, “last of all” will attain the greater rank of being first, so that he does not take up the place of the one being served but that of the one serving—and this not toward some but not others, but toward absolutely everyone. For attend to the saying, “If anyone wishes to become first, that one shall be least of all, and”

servant of all.” And next after this he says that “taking a child” (namely, Jesus did) “he set it in the midst” of his disciples, “and taking it in his arms he said to them: Whoever receives one of such children in my name receives me.” But what child did Jesus take and embrace, according to the deeper sense of these passages, other than the Holy Spirit?

And to this child indeed some have been made like, concerning whom he said, “Whoever receives one of such children in my name receives me.” In Luke's account, however, no “reasoning” rose up among the disciples; rather it “entered into” them concerning “which of them might be greater.” And “Jesus, perceiving the reasoning within their heart” (inasmuch as he has eyes that see the reasonings

of hearts—for he perceives the reasoning within a person's heart—even without being asked)—according to Luke he took a child and “set it,” not only in their midst, as Matthew and Mark have said, but already also “beside himself, and said” to the disciples not only the saying “whoever receives one such child” or “whoever receives one of such children

in my name receives me,” but already also, going further, the saying “whoever receives this child in my name receives me.” It is necessary, then, according to Luke, to receive that child, whom Jesus took and “set beside himself,” “in the name” of Jesus. And I do not know whether anyone can avoid reading tropologically the saying “whoever

receives this child in my name.” For each of us must receive that child, whom Jesus then “set beside himself, taking hold of” it, “in the name” of Jesus. For it lives as something immortal, and it must be received—having been placed there by Jesus himself, beside Jesus—“in the name” of Jesus, from whom

Jesus, without being separated, comes to be present with the one who receives the child, so that it is on this account said, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me.” Then, given that the Son cannot be parted from the Father, the Father likewise comes to be present, along with him, with the one who receives the Son; therefore it is said: “And whoever receives me…”

...he receives him who sent me.» But the one who receives the child and the savior and him who sent him is »the least« among all the disciples of Jesus, making himself small; and by as much as he makes himself small, by that much he becomes »great« by him who commands him to be made small and who causes him to advance to greatness. For attend to »he who is the least among you all, this one is great.

is great.« And we have also read elsewhere »and he shall be great.« But according to Luke, unless one »receives the kingdom of God as a child, he shall not enter into it.« And the wording admits two senses: either that the receiving one, the person who receives the kingdom of God, should become as a child, or that he should receive

the kingdom of God as it has become to him, as a child. And it may be that here those receiving the kingdom of God take hold of it as it exists in the manner of a child, whereas in the coming age it is no longer as a child, since, matching the magnitude of perfection, it shows itself in the (if I may name it so) spiritual maturity to everyone who at present has accepted it as existing here in the manner of a child. Woe

to the world because of the stumbling blocks (18:7[–14]). Taken on its own, without qualification, the term “world” appears in <ἐν τῷ> »in the world he was, yet the world failed to know him.« But taken relationally, bound up with that of which it is the world, it has been named in »lest, looking up to heaven and

when you see the sun, moon, and all the ordered heavens, going astray you bow down to them and serve them.« And you will say something similar has been said of her in Esther, where it is written that she cast away »all her world«. For “world” taken plainly is simply not the same as “the heaven's world” or “the world

of Esther.” But what we are now inquiring into is something else. I think, then, that “the world” according to the divine writings is not the system composed of heaven and earth, but only the region beneath heaven, and this understood not with reference to the whole earth, but to our inhabited world; for »the true light was present in the world«, meaning the region beneath heaven understood with reference to

our inhabited world, »and the world did not know him«, that is, the people in the region beneath heaven, and perhaps also the powers proper to this place. For it is absurd to say, concerning the ordered whole made up of sky and earth together with what is within them, that the sun and moon and the chorus of the stars and the

angels within this entire world failed to recognize »the true light«, and, being ignorant of it, preserved the order God had assigned them. But also when the savior declares, within his address to the Father: »Father, glorify me now at your own side, with the glory I possessed alongside you before the world existed«, one must take “world” to mean

...the inhabited world upon earth, in our sense. But also when the Savior says, 'I am coming to you now, and I remain in the world no longer,' anyone who understands this of the earthly world would have him uttering contradictions: 'I am coming to you now, and I remain in the world no longer, yet I am in the world.' But also in the saying 'and these things I am speaking while in the world,' one must suppose that this earthly

place is meant. For it is out of this world that the Father gave to the Son the men on whose behalf alone the Savior petitions the Father, and 'not on behalf of' the entire 'world' of men. This point is also plainly shown by the saying, 'The world came to hate them, since they do not belong to the world'; for it came to hate us once we ceased fixing our gaze on 'the things

that are seen, but the things that are not seen,' on account of Jesus's teaching -- meaning not the entire cosmos formed out of sky and earth and what they contain, but the men upon earth who dwell with us. 'They do not belong to the world' amounts to saying: they do not belong to the earthly region. And so the disciples of Jesus likewise 'do not belong to the world,'

just as he himself was not 'of the world' either. Further, the saying 'that the world may believe that you sent me' (spoken twice within John's gospel) is not applied to the more excellent among men, but to those men who stand in need of believing that the Father dispatched the Son into this present world. And in the Apostle too, 'your faith'

'is proclaimed in the whole world.' Now if woe belongs to the men everywhere on earth because of the scandals -- the men whom the scandals also touch -- while the disciples, not looking at 'the things that are seen,' are not 'of the world,' just as the teacher too is not 'of the world,' then no woe from the scandals belongs to any of the disciples of Jesus, since 'there is great peace'

for those who love the law of God, and for them there is no scandal.' But if someone seems indeed to bear the name of disciple, but is still 'of the world' because he loves 'the world' and 'the things in it' (I mean the money, or possessions, or whatever kind of wealth is in it), so that the saying 'they are not of the world' does not fit him,

then truly, since he is 'of the world,' the woe that befalls the world because of the scandals will befall him as well. But the one wishing to escape this woe should not be a lover of life; rather, let him be a lover of God, and let him say, with Paul: 'The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.' For the saints, 'being in the tent,' groan, 'being weighed down' by the body of humiliation,

and they do all things so that they may be found worthy to be in the mystery of the resurrection, because God will 'transform' not everyone's 'body of humiliation,' but that of those who are genuinely discipled to Christ, so that it may become 'conformed to the body of glory' of Christ. For just as none of the woes befalls any of the disciples of Christ, so neither

The "woe to the world because of the offenses." For even if countless offenses occur, still it will not lay hold of those no longer counted 'of the world.' But if someone admits being scandalized because of the unballasted and unstable state of his faith and of his condescension toward the word of God, let him know that he is not yet reckoned a disciple in Jesus' company. So many offenses must be thought to be coming,

that the "woe" reaches not merely certain regions of the earth, but rather the whole world contained within it. And "it is necessary that the offenses come," which I think are things distinct from the human beings through whom they come. The offenses that come, then, are a kind of army belonging to the devil, his messengers together with a wretched chorus of unclean spirits, which, seeking instruments through which to work, find

often those who are wholly strangers to piety, but sometimes also some of those thought to hold faith in God's word, for whom the woe pronounced is graver than the woe upon the one who is scandalized, just as also "on judgment day it will go easier for Tyre and Sidon" than for the places where Jesus performed signs and wonders yet found no belief. One would

be able, as it were, to compile a treatise gathering those who are called blessed and the grounds on which they are called blessed, and likewise, from the things written, to gather the "woes" and the grounds on which the "woe" has been pronounced. Further, you will show that the woe from the one who scandalizes is worse than that of the one who is scandalized by the saying, "whoever scandalizes one of these little ones

who believe in me, it would be better for him" and what follows. For since the little one who was scandalized is avenged against the one who scandalized him, something so heavy and hard to bear as what is recorded concerning the one who scandalizes is fitting. If we consider these things more carefully in ... "against the brothers" and to strike "their weak conscience," so that we may not sin "against Christ," since often not only by our own

"knowledge" are destroyed, but also some others among the brothers around us, for whose sake "Christ died" — for these, since we sin "against Christ," we shall pay the penalty, the soul of those destroyed on our account being avenged from us. After this the term "necessity" must be examined, in the phrase "for it is necessary that the offenses come," and its equivalent in Luke: "it is impossible

for the offenses not to come" (in place of "impossible"). And just as it is necessary for the mortal to die, and it is impossible for it not to die, and it is necessary for the one in a body to be nourished — for it is impossible for the one not nourished to live — so it is necessary that the offenses come, and "it is impossible that the offenses not come," since it is also necessary that evil have pre-existed virtue among the heavenly beings, from which

evil the offenses come. For it is impossible for a human being to be found wholly without sin and to have taken up virtue apart from sin. For the evil among the wicked powers, being the source of the evil among human beings, altogether sets out to work through certain instruments against the people of the world. And perhaps the wicked powers grow even more savage as Jesus' word drives them out

And the demons, nourished by the blood of sacrifices, are enraged as their worship diminishes, since their customary sacrifices are no longer offered to them, and it is necessary that these things come, but not necessary that they come through this particular person. Therefore, since he has given a foothold to the evil working that chooses to give offense, the woe falls upon the person through whom the offense comes. But do not suppose that offenses exist by nature and

by design, seeking out people through whom they might come; for just as "God did not make death," so too he did not create offenses, but free will has, in some people, given birth to offense, when they were unwilling to endure the labors on behalf of virtue. It would be good, then, if the eye and the hand were praiseworthy, so that the eye could not reasonably say to the hand,

"I have no need of you." But if someone in the whole body of the assemblies of the church, having served as a hand for some practical purpose, should change and become an offending hand, let the eye say to that hand, "you are of no use to me," and having said it, let it cut it off and cast it from itself. So too it would be good if the head were blessed and

feet worthy of that blessed head, lest the head, guarding what suits it, be unable to tell the feet, "You I do not need." If, however, some foot should be found becoming an offense to the whole body, let the head declare to that foot, "I have no need of you," and having cut it off, let it cast it away from itself. For it is far better to enter into life

with the rest of the body (lacking the offending foot or the offending hand) than for the offense to be preserved and spread to the whole body, and the whole body be cast into the Gehenna of fire together with both feet or both hands. So too it would be good for the one who was able to become an eye of the whole body to be worthy of the head, Christ, and of the whole

body. If, however, such an eye should at some point change so as to become an offense to the whole body, it would be good, having removed it, to cast it outside the whole body and, apart from that eye, for the rest of the body to be saved, rather than, with the whole body harmed together with it, for the whole harmed body to be cast into the Gehenna of fire.

It is possible to apply these sayings also to those most closely bound to us, and, as it were, to our members, on account of the great closeness, whether of kinship or of some familiarity — soul-familiarity, if I may so call it — of persons regarded as our members, whom we ought not to spare when they harm our soul. Let us therefore cut away from ourselves, as a hand or foot or eye, a father or mother who

wish us to do things contrary to the reverence of God, and a son or daughter, insofar as it lies with us, if they separate us from the church and from the love of him who does not separate. But even if "the wife in one's bosom" or "the friend equal to one's soul" become offenses to us, we ought to show them no mercy; rather, having cut them off from ourselves, let us cast them out of the soul.

us as not our own, but as enemies of our salvation. For whoever “does not hate father and mother” and what follows, when it is time to hate these as hostile and treacherous, in order to be able to gain Christ, this person is not unworthy of the Son of God. And concerning these one may say that it is, as it were, out of necessity that

a lame person is saved, having lost a foot (say, for instance, the brother), and alone inherits the kingdom of God; and a maimed person is saved (his father <or mother> not being saved with him, but they perishing while he separates himself from them), so that he alone attains the blessings. So too a one-eyed person is saved, having cut out the eye of his own household

— his wife who has committed fornication — so that he may not, having two eyes <along with such an eye>, go away into the Gehenna of fire. For it is possible that what is sinfully active (so to call it) and ambulatory in the soul, and what is sinfully perceptive, is the offending hand and the offending foot and the offending eye; and since these are evil, one does better to throw them away, and once he has set them aside,

to enter into life without them *** as though lame or maimed or one-eyed, rather than lose the whole soul along with them. So too with the soul: it is a fine and blessed thing to spend its power on the best pursuits; but if, on account of some one thing, we are going to perish, it is preferable to cast away the use of that faculty <when it gives offense>, so that with the other faculties we may be

saved. “Take care that you hold none of these little ones in contempt.” It seems to me that, just as in human bodies there are different sizes, so that some of them are small, others large, and others in between, and again there are differences among the small themselves, some being more and some less small, and likewise among the large, and among those in between, so also in

the souls of human beings there are things characterizing their smallness, and others their (so to speak) greatness, and, simply put, <others> corresponding, by analogy with bodily things, to their in-betweenness. But in the case of bodies, this is due not to any cause belonging to the human being, but to the seminal principles — one person being short and small, another large, another in between. But in the case of souls,

it is what is up to us, and such-and-such actions, and such-and-such character, that is the cause of someone’s being great or small or falling in between; and it is possible, from what is up to us, either to progress, advancing in stature with age, or, not progressing, to remain small. And it is in this sense, indeed, that I understand, concerning the Savior, who also took up a human soul,

the saying “Jesus advanced.” For just as the advance “in wisdom” and in “favor” arose from what depended on his soul, the same holds for his growth “in years”; and the apostle writes: “until we all come at last to a full-grown man, matching the full stature that belongs to Christ.” For arriving at manhood — and a mature manhood at that — must, one should suppose, be understood “according to the inner man,” the one who has crossed over the

of the infant and arriving at the man, and having done away with “the things of the infant,” and, in short, having brought to completion the things of the man. In this way one must suppose that there is also a certain measure of spiritual maturity, a height that the soul, once brought to full perfection, is able to reach by magnifying the Lord and growing great. Thus, then, great were also those about whom this has been written: Isaac and Moses

and John, and above all the Savior himself; for it is thus that Gabriel said concerning him, “he will be great.” But small are the “newborn infants” <in Christ *** “newborn infants”>, who long for the “rational, unadulterated milk,” who also need the nurses and foster-mothers spoken of in Isaiah, who speaks concerning the calling from the nations: “and they will bring

the sons in the bosom, and they will lift the daughters upon their shoulders, and their kings will be your nurses, and their princesses your foster-mothers.” You will therefore pay attention, on account of these things, also to the saying “do not despise one of the little ones,” asking whether their angels are the ones who carry them “in the bosom” when they are sons, but also lift upon the “shoulders” those called “daughters,”

and from these are the “nurses,” namely those called “kings,” and the “foster-mothers,” namely those named “princesses.” And since those pointed out by our Savior as little ones are administered as though by foster-mothers and nurses, on account of this, I think, Moses too—believing himself to have already been placed in the rank of the great—said, in response to “my angel will go before you,” the words “if you yourself

do not go along with me, do not bring me up from here.” For if the little one, though indeed an “heir,” yet insofar as he is an “infant”—since he is in no way different from a “slave” when he is an infant—and insofar as he is little, has the spirit “of slavery unto fear,” while the one who is no longer any such thing no longer has that of “slavery,” but already that of “adoption,” when “perfect

love casts out fear,” it will be clear to you that on this basis the Lord's angel is described as encamping around those who fear him and as rescuing them. You will also pay attention, in accordance with this, to whether the angels of the little ones are those led by the spirit “of slavery unto fear” (since “the angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him and rescues them”), while the angel of the great ones is the

one greater than the angels, the Lord (who might say of each one of them, “I stand beside him in his affliction”). And insofar as we are imperfect and in need of one to help us so as to be rescued from evils, we need the angel of whom Jacob spoke: “the angel who rescues me from all evils.” But once we have been made perfect and have passed beyond being under “nurses”

and “foster-mothers” and “stewards” and “guardians,” we now advance to being administered already by the Lord himself. Then again, one might ask when the angels said to preside over the little ones pointed out by the Savior begin their office—whether they begin to manage the administration concerning them from the point at which, “through the washing of regeneration” (by which they were begotten), they long, “as newborn infants,” for the “rational and unadulterated milk,” and

no longer subject to some evil power; or, from birth, assigned according to God's foreknowledge and his predestination to those whom “he foreknew and predestined” God to be “conformed” to “the glory” of Christ. And with regard to having angels from birth, one might cite these texts: “he who set me apart from my mother's womb,” and “from

my mother's womb you are my protector,” and “you took hold of me from my mother's womb,” and “upon you I was cast from the womb,” and in the letter of Jude, “to those who are beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ, called ones” — certainly kept by the watching angels. But with regard to the point that, when they have become, “through the washing,” infants “in Christ,” a holy angel is not present to those who are

still in wickedness *** but during the time of unbelief they fall under the angels who belong to Satan; but after regeneration, he who redeemed us with his own blood hands us over to a holy angel who, because of his purity, sees the face of God. And there might also be a third such account on this point, saying that it is possible, just as a man changes

from unbelief to faith, and from licentiousness to self-control, and, simply put, from vice to virtue, so too the soul entrusted to someone at the very moment of birth may at first be base, but later, at some point, may come to believe in proportion to the one who believes, and may advance to such a degree that it becomes one of the angels who continually see the face of him who is our Father in heaven,

beginning from this time is joined to the one who is foreknown to believe at this time and predestined — the unspeakable and unsearchable judgments of God, resembling abysses, fittingly bringing together all such harmony between angels and men. It is also possible that, just as with a man and a woman who are both unbelievers, sometimes the husband, having believed first in time, saves the wife,

and sometimes the wife, having begun to believe later at some point, persuades the husband — so it happens also in the case of angels and men. Whether, then, this also occurs with other angels or not, you yourself may examine. But perhaps it is not fitting to say this about every angel, since he is so honored, according to the word of our Savior, that he is said to see continually

the countenance of the Father who dwells in the heavens. Now since, above, we were saying that the little ones belong to the small angels, while the great ones have passed beyond such a rank, someone will object to us, appealing to a passage from the Acts of the Apostles, namely that Rhoda, a certain maidservant, when Peter had “knocked at the door,” came forward to answer, “and upon recognizing the voice

of Peter,” ran in and “reported that Peter was standing before the gate.” And those gathered in the house, astonished, and supposing it impossible that Peter truly stood there, “said, ‘It is his angel.’” For he will say that they, having once learned that each of the believers has an angel, knew this, and knew also that there was a certain angel belonging to Peter. But the one who is set forth by what we have said before

He will say that the account concerning Rhoda is not a necessary doctrine, and perhaps also because they had not determined precisely when a person is governed by angels as one who is small and fearing God, and when already by the Lord himself. After this, in support of understanding “the small one” as we have taken it, it will be said that we do not need the commandment about not

despising in the case of great things ***, but we need it in the case of small things. Therefore it is not said simply, “Do not despise one of these,” with all the disciples being indicated, but “one of these little ones,” the “little ones” being indicated by one who discerns smallness and greatness of soul. But another might say that “small” is spoken here of the perfect one, making use of the saying, “For the one who is smaller among you all

is the one who is great,” and he will say that the one who humbles himself and becomes an imitator of him who humbled himself for the salvation of mankind, and becomes an infant in the midst of all who believe (regardless of whether he holds the office of apostle or that of bishop), and becomes such a one “as a nurse cherishes her own children,” this is the one shown by Jesus to be small, and worthy indeed

for such a one to have an angel who beholds the face of God. For to call the perfect ones “small” here, in accordance with “for the one who is smaller among you all is the one who is great,” and as Paul said, “to me, the very least of all the saints, this grace was given,” will seem not to harmonize with “whoever causes one of these little ones to be scandalized” and

with “my Father who dwells in the heavens has no wish that a single one of these little ones perish.” For the one who, as has just been granted, is called small would not be caused to stumble nor would he perish; “for those who love the name of God have great peace, and no stumbling-block belongs to them.” And the one who is smallest among the whole body of Christ's disciples would not perish,

being such a one, and for this very reason becoming great; and since he would not perish, he might say, “Who will separate us from the love…” and what follows. But the one who wishes to maintain this last account will say that the soul of the righteous person is also subject to change, as Ezekiel too testifies, saying that the righteous can turn away from the commandments of God, so that

his former righteousness would not be reckoned to him. For this reason it is said: "whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble" — together with this: "my Father in the heavens has no wish that even one of these little ones be lost." But the matters concerning the hundred sheep you have in the Homilies on Luke. "But if your brother sins, go and reprove

him between you and him alone” (18:15–18). The one who, leaning on the wording and presenting the surpassing kindness of Jesus, will say that, since the words do not suggest any distinction among sins, those who would supply this only in the case of lesser sins would be doing something excessive, going beyond even the goodness of Jesus, by saying that this has application only there. But someone else, also relying on the

...resting on the wording, and not wishing to supply anything from outside, will say that these things are not said about every sin, because the one who commits those great sins is not even a brother, but (if indeed) is called a brother, as the apostle says: "But if anyone called a brother is a fornicator, or a covetous person, or an idolater" (and so on), "not even to eat with such a person." For no one

who is an idolater is a brother, nor is a fornicator, nor a covetous person; for if he has any of these things, though seeming to bear the name of Christ, he would rightly be said to be a "so-called brother" but not a brother. Just as, then, the one who says that such things are said with reference to every sin, even if the sin be murder,

or sorcery, or the corruption of children, or something of that magnitude, gave occasion, by an illusion of Christ's excessive kindness, for the wearing away of that kindness — so, on the contrary, the one who has distinguished the brother from the so-called brother would teach that the person who, after being reproved for lesser human sins, does not turn back, should be reckoned as a Gentile and a tax collector for sins that are, in the phrase, "not leading to death," or, as Numbers termed them, not deadly —

which might seem to be rather harsh. For I do not think one would easily be persuaded that anyone who has not been reproved three times for the same kind of sin — say, for instance, for reviling (by which those who revile speak ill of their neighbors), or for arrogance, or for excessive drinking, or for false and idle speech, or for some other of those things common among the many — [should be so treated]. You will inquire, then, whether there is not lurking

in this passage some observation that escapes notice, both of those who, by an illusion of the kindness of the word, grant forgiveness even to those who have sinned the greatest sins, and of those who teach that, even over the smallest sins, one should — and readily so — reckon as a Gentile and a tax collector the person who, after being reproved twice or three times for lesser sins, they thereby make a stranger to the church.

The thing that escapes the notice of both seems to me to be this: the saying "you have gained your brother," which the text sets in the case of the one who listens only once, it no longer places in the case of the person who stumbles a second or third time and is reproved, but left hanging, as it were, the corresponding outcome that would be received, analogous to "you have gained your brother," concerning the one reproved a second or third time. Not in every case, then, is he gained, nor

in every case will he perish or receive blows. And attend carefully to the first saying, which says — attend carefully to the first saying, which says — "if he listens to you, you have gained your brother"; and to the second, which in that place of the text says: "but if he does not listen, take with you one or two more, so that every word may stand firm by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

What, then, will happen, after every word has been established on two or three witnesses, to the one admonished the second time, [Scripture] has left for us to consider. And again, "if he refuses to hear them" — clearly, the witnesses taken along — he says, "declare it to the assembly"; yet he did not state what would befall the man who refuses to hear the assembly, but taught instead that should he disregard the assembly,

he must be to the one who has admonished him three times and has not listened, from then on as the gentile and the tax collector. He does not gain everything, nor does he lose everything, but whatever he will experience — the one who did not listen at first but needed witnesses, or also the one who disregarded these but was brought before the church — God alone would know. For we

do not pronounce judgment, in accordance with "do not judge, so that you may not be judged" and "do not judge anything before the time," until the Lord comes, who will also illumine what darkness conceals, and will disclose the intentions hidden within hearts. But against what seems harsh toward those who have sinned in lesser matters, one might say: is it not permitted, when someone has not listened twice in succession, to listen the

third time, so that on this account he should no longer be as a gentile and tax collector and should no longer need the rebuke before the whole church? For one must remember, "such is not the will, before my Father who is in the heavens, that a single one of these little ones perish." And indeed, if it is necessary that "all of us" stand "before the judgment seat of Christ,

so that each may receive back the things done through the body in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad," it is necessary, as far as one is able, to do the things that are one's own concern, so that one may not receive back for more evil deeds accomplished by way of the body, even should he be destined to receive back worse things for everything he has done; and one ought to be ambitious to receive back a reward for more good deeds. "With what measure" we measure, "it will be measured back" to us also, and "according to the

works of our hands it will befall" us. And those who have sinned will not receive their sins back from the hand of the Lord multiplied without limit, but rather doubled or sevenfold — that is, whenever it is repaid to someone not "according to the works of the hands," but more than what he has done. For as Isaiah taught concerning Jerusalem, she "received double for her sins at the hand of the Lord," while the

neighbors of Israel, no matter who they turn out to be, are set to receive it sevenfold, in line with what the Psalms say: "repay our neighbors, into their bosom, sevenfold the reproach with which they reproached you, Lord." And other manners of repayment might be found as well, which, if we understand them, we will know that it is profitable to repent after whatever sins, so that, beyond escaping punishment for more of them,

some hope for good things might also be left to us later, after the things done, even if before them countless things have been sinned by someone. For it is absurd that the worse things should be reckoned against someone, while the better things after the worse ones profit him nothing at all — which one can also learn from Ezekiel, for those who carefully attend to the sayings concerning such matters. It seems to me well

joined to the case of the one who, after having been admonished three times, was judged to belong among the gentile and the tax collector, the "Amen I say to you" (namely, to those who have judged someone to belong among the gentile and the tax collector), "whatever you bind on earth" and so forth. For rightly did he who admonished three times and was not listened to bind the one thus judged to belong among gentile and tax collector. Therefore

Such a person, bound and condemned by such-and-such a one, remains bound, since none of those in heaven annuls the verdict of the one who bound him. So too the one who, having once been admonished, has acted in a way worthy of being won over is set free through the admonition of him who won him; freed at last from the “ropes of his own sins” about which he had been warned, he will be judged, rightly, as loosed, by those in the heavens as well.

However, the things given above to Peter alone seem to be shown to have been given also to all who bring the three admonitions to all who have sinned, so that, should these go unheeded, they may bind on earth the one deemed to be like a Gentile and a tax collector—such a one counted as bound in heaven. Yet since it was necessary, granting that something is common to Peter and to those who admonished

the brothers three times, as has been said, that Peter should have something distinctive beyond those who admonished three times, this has been set forth specifically and individually in the case of Peter: “To you I will give the keys belonging to heaven's kingdom, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in the heavens,” as against the mere “whatever

you bind on earth,” and so on. And yet, if we attend carefully to the gospel writings, we would find, even here, that the elements appearing shared between Peter and those who three times admonished the brothers reveal a considerable disparity and preeminence in what is said to Peter as against the others. For Peter differs from them by no small measure,

had received the “keys” belonging not to a single heaven but to many, so that whatever he binds “on earth” stands bound not in one heaven alone but in every heaven; whereas concerning the numerous others who tie things on earth and set them free on earth, it is stated in such a manner that these are fastened and released not “in heavens,” as with Peter, but

in one heaven; for they do not pass, by their power, as Peter does, so as to bind or loose in all the “heavens.” To the degree, then, that the one who binds is superior, to that degree the one bound is bound in more than one heaven; and to the degree that the one who looses is superior, to that degree the one loosed is more blessed, since his being loosed takes effect everywhere in the heavens.

← All of Origen: Commentaries & Homilies