4. Origen's Commentary on Ephesians

4. Origen's Commentary on Ephesians

She suggested that in addition to Rufinus' translation of Origen's commentary on Romans one could also consider the prologues to Jerome's four Pauline commentaries 'since they are likely to be substantially based on Origen.' 154

154 Ibid. 498.

Jerome knew, of course, of the topics of commentary prologues for he had been a student of Donatus, and Donatus' commentary on Virgil is one of our sources of information concerning the topics treated in commentaries on poets. Given Jerome's demonstrable working methods, however, it is very unlikely that he would deviate from what Origen said in the prologue of the commentary if he was using Origen's commentary as his source. This is not to say that everything in the prologues comes from Origen. There are remarks that obviously come from Jerome himself. There may also be a few comments from the other commentators to whom Jerome refers at the conclusion of the prologue to the first book. Nevertheless, it is a rather safe assumption that the bulk of the material in the prologues comes from Origen.

4. Origen's Commentary on Ephesians 4.1. The Catena Fragments of Origen's Commentary on Ephesians

Catena is a Latin word which means 'chain'. It is applied to a particular genre of Christian

Biblical commentary which originated in the fifth century. R. Devreesse defined the genre as a 'collection of scholia drawn from different works of ecclesiastical authors on the text of Scripture'. 155

155 'Chaines exégétiques grecques', Dictionnaire de la bible, suppl. 1 (Paris, 1928), 1084.

In 1842 J. A. Cramer published the catena commentary on the minor Pauline epistles from the Paris manuscript Coislin 204. This publication end p.35 brought to attention a number of excerpts from Origen on Ephesians. 156

156 J. A. Cramer, Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum, vi (Oxford, 1842; repr. Hildesheim, 1967), 100-225. On Paris Coislin 204 see K. Staab, Pauluskatenen, 5370.

J. A. F. Gregg collected and re-edited the comments of Origen on Ephesians in Paris

Coislin 204 in 1902. 157

157 'The Commentary of Origen', 233-44, 398-420, 554-76.

Athos Codex Pantocrator 28 contains most of the same selections from Origen on Ephesians as Coislin 204, though in greatly abbreviated form. 158

158 The relationship between Coislin 204 and Pantocrator 28 will be discussed below.

See F. Deniau, 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur Éphésiens', 163 n. 1, and K. Staab,

Pauluskatenen, 255. Dr Francesco Pieri is in the process of preparing a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of Origen on Ephesians based on Paris Coislin 204 and Athos Pantocrator 28.

The scribe of Athos Laura 184, better known as Codex von der Goltz, checked the Biblical text of his ancient exemplar on Ephesians against the Biblical text in Origen's commentary on Ephesians. 159

159 C. P. Bammel, 'A New Witness to the Scholia from Origen in the Codex von der

Goltz', Origeniana et Rufiniana, VL 29 (Freiburg, 1996), 137-8. On the Codex von der

Goltz, see F. von der Goltz, Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten

Jahrhunderts, TU 2.4 (Leipzig, 1899); K. Lake and S. New (eds.), Six Collations of New

Testament Manuscripts, HThS 17 (Cambridge, Mass., 1932), 141-219; J. N. Birdsall,

'The Text and Scholia of the Codex von der Goltz and its Allies, and their bearing upon the Texts of the Works of Origen, especially the Commentary on Romans', Origeniana:

Premier colloque international des études origéniennes (Montserrat, 18-21 septembre

1973), ed. H. Crouzel, G. Lomiento, and J. Rius-Camps, QVetChr 12 (Bari, 1975), 21522.

This manuscript, however, offers little help in terms of Origenian scholia on Ephesians.

Athos Laura 184 contains notices showing where each of the books in Origen's commentaries on the Pauline epistles began. Unfortunately, it has only the notice showing where the first book in the Ephesians commentary began. A later scribe, who erased many references to Origen in the margins of this codex, seems to have removed these notices from the margins in the text of Ephesians. 160

160 F. von der Goltz, Eine textkritische Arbeit, 95.

4.1.1. The Nature of Catena Commentaries The Greek catena fragments in Coislin 204 are very helpful and have provided us with a Greek text for some, at least, of Origen's comments in his commentary on Ephesians.

Catena commentaries, although consisting of excerpts from earlier commentators in the Greek language, could, nevertheless, alter in various ways both the expression and the thought of the commentators excerpted. 161

161 See R. E. Heine, 'Can the Catena Fragments of Origen's Commentary on John be

Trusted?', VC (1986), 118-34. For a general survey and history of catena commentaries see R. Devreesse, 'Chaines exégétiques grecques', 1084-1233 and for a survey in English of those on the Pauline epistles see C. H. Turner, 'Greek Patristic Commentaries', 484531.

The fact that several different end p.36 commentators were being quoted in relation to each verse of Scriptural text necessitated that most of the comments be shortened. This was done by deleting everything the catenist considered extraneous to his point even if the original commentator may have considered it essential to the point he was making. These deletions could involve supporting arguments and illustrations for the interpretation offered as well as collateral verses of Scripture which were quoted.

In the process of shortening the excerpts the catenists sometimes conflated parts from widely separated sentences into one sentence. At other times, the thought of a section might be loosely paraphrased by the catenist with no actual quotation from the original author. The order of the material in the original text was also sometimes altered. 162

162 For an illustration of all of these processes at work in a single catena fragment see

Heine, 'Can the Catena Fragments be Trusted?', 120-4.

While the earliest catenae were made by excerpting directly from the works of the chosen commentators, later catenists, who usually no longer had access to the original commentaries, used these earlier catenae to make their catenae. These later catenists sometimes altered the material taken from the earlier catenae by further abridgement of the excerpts and by the introduction of new material from other catenae. 163

163 See O. Guéraud and P. Nautin, Origène: Sur la Pâque (Paris, 1979), 93-5.

4.1.2. The Excerpts in Coislin 204 and Pantocrator 28 and Their Relationship to One

Another Paris Coislin 204 is an eleventh-century 164

164 K. Staab, Pauluskatenen, 53. catena manuscript written in minuscule script containing commentary in two parallel columns per page on the eleven Pauline epistles, Galatians-Hebrews. The commentary on the epistle to the Ephesians is found on folios 47-108v. The writing is clear and easy to read. 165

165 I have worked with photocopies of the folios on Ephesians provided to me by the Bibiothèque nationale de France, where the manuscript is located.

The catena on Ephesians provides excerpts taken from the works of John Chrysostom,

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Severian of Gabala, and Origen. There are a few anonymous excerpts but usually the authors of the excerpts are identified by an abbreviation of the author's name in the margin. 166

166 R. Layton, 'Origen as a Reader of Paul ', 46-8, has pointed out that three excerpts in Coislin 204 have parallels in the work of John of Damascus. Two of the excerpts are anonymous and the other is attributed to Severian in the margin. These excerpts will be discussed later in this section.

Occasionally the name of the author is a part of the text of the commentary, as in the end p.37 formula, 'the blessed John says . . . ', or, 'But Severian says . . . '. 167

167 Cramer, Catenae, vi. 101.

The first excerpt from Origen is preceded by the sentence, 'But since one must not be ignorant of the wickedness of the heretics let us also hear what Origen says on this.' 168

168 Ibid. 101.

Athos Pantocrator 28 is a catena manuscript dated in the ninth century by von Soden and Turner but thought by Staab to belong, more probably, to the beginning of the tenth century. 169

169 Pauluskatenen, 247.

It is either, as Staab says, the oldest catena manuscript on the Pauline epistles that we possess or belongs to the oldest of such catenae. 170

170 Ibid.

It contains commentary on the fourteen Pauline epistles, Romans-Hebrews. The catena on Ephesians is on folios 143-157v and 190-194v. 171

171 K. Staab, ibid. 247, points out that folios 158-89 were incorrectly bound and follow folio 245. Staab's heading at ibid. 254 is incorrect. He indicates that folios 143-57 and 190-221 contain the commentary on Gal.-Col. The commentary on Galatians, however, precedes these folios.

The Biblical text is written in minuscule script and the commentary excerpts in semiuncial script. The semi-uncial script is difficult to read because the letters are written very small resulting in the ink having run together on several letters. The letters ε, ι, ο, and σ, for example, are often indistinguishable. The commentary has the form of comments written around the Biblical verses which are in a block centred from top to bottom on each page. 172

172 K. Staab, ibid. 246, says there are 12 lines of Biblical text with 55 lines of commentary per page.

This form is significant for it means that the catenist had to limit his excerpts for the Commentary material cited to what would fit on the page where the Biblical material was cited. This, no doubt, is the reason for the extensive abbreviation of the excerpts and for

the use of numerous abbreviated words and shorthand symbols for endings in the text.

173 I have worked with photocopies of the Ephesians manuscript provided to me by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des

Textes in Paris. The copies were made from a microfilm of the manuscript.

The catena on Ephesians in Pantocrator 28 has excerpts from John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Severian of Gabala, Origen, and, according to Staab's listing, one excerpt from Titus Episcopus. Staab also notes in his discussion, but not in his listing of sources, which covers only authors named in the manuscript, that Pantocrator 28 has inserted anonymous excerpts from Theodoret. 174

174 Pauluskatenen, 255-6.

These latter excerpts are sometimes end p.38 quite numerous. I have identified six excerpts from Theodoret on folios 145r-146v. The excerpts from the other authors are sometimes identified and sometimes not. Folio 146v, for example, begins with an excerpt from Origen which is identified by his name in the margin. This is followed by an unidentified excerpt from Theodoret. Then comes a rather long unidentified excerpt from Origen followed by an unidentified excerpt from Severian.

The next excerpt is from Theodoret but is attributed to Severian in the margin of Pantocrator 28. Then comes a pastiche of short excerpts, all of which are unidentified in the manuscript, consisting of the following: Severian, Chrysostom, Severian, Origen,

Chrysostom, Severian, Origen, Chrysostom, and concluding with an excerpt which has a parallel in John of Damascus. 175

175 On the latter, see n. 166 above.

Except for the excerpts from Titus and Theodoret, the excerpts found in Pantocrator 28 on Ephesians seem to be parallel to, but considerably briefer than, those in Coislin 204.

176 I have found one excerpt from Chrysostom in Pantocrator 28 on folio 145r which, although greatly abbreviated from its parallel in Coislin 204, actually extends by two manuscript lines the material quoted from Chrysostom's homily.

K. Staab has designated the type of catena manuscript represented by Coislin 204 the Paris Type. 177

177 Pauluskatenen, 53-70.

He thinks that the excerpts in the Paris Type represented by Coislin 204 were taken directly from the works of the commentators cited and not from an earlier catena. Staab's conclusion is based on two factors. First, nothing at all remains in the literature of a catena on Galatians-Hebrews of the sort that would have to be assumed were this catena drawn from a larger earlier catena. Second, it would be difficult, he thinks, to understand the concluding words of the author of the catena at the end of the excerpts from Ephesians and Colossians in any other way than that the excerpts have been drawn directly from the commentators listed. 178

178 Ibid. 64.

The commentary on Ephesians ends with the words, 'A volume of exegetical excerpts on the epistle of the apostle Paul to the Ephesians from Origen, the blessed John, Severian,

Theodore.' 179

179 Cramer, Catenae, vi. 225.

That on Colossians concludes by citing its sources as 'John, bishop of the royal city, and Severian of Gabala, and Theodore of Mopsuestia', and adds that there is one use of 'the blessed Cyril'. 180

180 Ibid. 340.

Staab dates the origin of the Paris Type represented by Coislin 204 in the end p.39 seventh century. 181

181 Pauluskatenen, 69. Cf. the opinion of C. H. Turner, 'Greek Patristic Commentaries',

488, that 'the inclusion in the Catenae of material from authors such as Origen and Apollinaris, Diodore and the two Theodores, remarkable as it is under any circumstances, would be tenfold more difficult to account for if it had originated after the middle of the 6th century'. Turner is not speaking specifically of Coislin 204 but of any catena containing excerpts from authors later banned as heretical.

He also thinks that the commentary on the four epistles, Galatians-Colossians, in Pantocrator 28 is 'essentially identical' with the Paris Type. 182

182 Pauluskatenen, 255.

R. Layton has argued that Staab's conclusions suggest 'that Coislin 204 . . . represents a witness only once-removed from the original text of Origen's commentary'. 183

183 'Origen as a Reader of Paul', 45.

He challenges this view on the basis of three anonymous passages in Coislin204which he has discovered in the eighth-century commentary on the Pauline epistles by John of Damascus. He thinks that 'it is unlikely that the original form of a catena would include an eighth-century author in a collection comprised otherwise of authors from the fifth century and earlier'. 184

184 Ibid. 47.

He argues that these three excerpts were inserted into the margins of the original catena

'by a subsequent copyist, and later included in the body of Coislin 204'. 185

185 Ibid. 48.

Layton, therefore, posits a second stratum between the original catena of the Paris Type and the form of the text reflected in Coislin 204.

Layton's argument depends on his assumption that the catenist is dependent on John of Damascus for the three passages in question. B. Studer has pointed out, however, that the works of John of Damascus 'are characterized by their compilatory nature' and that his

Pauline commentaries are 'mostly extracted from the commentaries of John Chrysostom and unknown authors'. 186

186 'John Damascene', Encyclopedia of the Early Church, i (Cambridge, 1992), 442. See also B. Studer, Die theologische Arbeitsweise des Johannes von Damaskus, SPB 2 (Ettal,

1956), 88-9, 100.

This compilatory nature of the works of John of Damascus raises the possibility, it seems to me, that John drew the passages common to his commentary and Coislin 204 either from the same source used by Coislin 204 or from the catena itself represented by Coislin

204.

The first passage common to Coislin 204 and John of Damascus is attributed to Severian in the margin of Coislin 204 (56v). 187

187 The passage can be found in Cramer, Catenae, vi. 119.

It is absent from the commentary in Pantocrator 28. There are good grounds, in my opinion, for trusting the attribution of this passage to Severian. The end p.40 excerpt states the rather uncommon view that 'John the Evangelist' first preached the gospel to the Ephesians and that Paul could, therefore, speak to them in a more sublime manner in his epistle because they had already been perfected by John's teaching. This same view, that John the apostle first preached to the Ephesians, is stated by Severian in his comments recorded in the prologue to the commentary on Ephesians in both Coislin

204 and Pantocrator 28. The first passage noted by Layton, therefore, seems to me clearly to derive from Severian. The fact that the remarks of John of Damascus are so similar to what stands in Coislin 204 makes it likely, furthermore, that he has drawn them from the catena tradition represented by this manuscript.

The other two passages common to John of Damascus and Coislin 204 are anonymous in both Coislin 204 and Pantocrator 28. 188

188 Coislin 204, fos. 60v and 66r; Pantocrator 28, fos. 146r and 146v; Cramer, Catenae, vi.

126-7 and 138-9.

I have noticed nothing in the excerpts to suggest an author nor have I found anything resembling them in the sources that can be checked which the two manuscripts have used. The Severian source shown above for the first excerpt in question, however, causes me to have serious reservations about regarding John of Damascus as the source of these latter two excerpts. If John of Damascus was not the source drawn on by the tradition represented by Coislin 204, then there is no need to posit a second stratum of catena text on which Coislin 204 depends. The conclusions of Staab, then, about the early date of the tradition represented by Coislin 204 and the latter's nearness to this source may be correct.

The similarity of the excerpts from Origen's commentary on Ephesians in Coislin 204 and Pantocrator 28 shows that a common source lies behind the two manuscripts and that this source was a catena. There is no possibility of Coislin 204 being dependent on Pantocrator 28 because of the abbreviated nature of the latter's excerpts and the fact that continuous passages in Coislin 204 are found broken up and scattered, sometimes even in a different order, in Pantocrator 28.

Coislin 204 clearly provides the superior text of Origen's fragments. The excerpts from Origen in Coislin 204 form much more of a continuous text than those in Pantocrator 28.

The scribe responsible for the excerpts in the Paris Type gives long excerpts and allows the comments from the various authors to overlap one another. For example, between an excerpt from Severian covering Ephesians 1: 14-23 and one from Chrysostom beginning with Ephesians 2: 1 he gives a long excerpt from Origen beginning with Ephesians 1: 17 and extending end p.41 to Ephesians 2: 3. 189

189 Cramer, Catenae, vi. 127-37. The excerpt from Origen covers pp. 129-37.

The material in this one continuous excerpt in Coislin 204 appears in abbreviated form in eight different fragments in Pantocrator 28 and the syntax of some of these has been changed to what is appropriate to the context in which the scribe has inserted them. The scribe of Pantocrator 28 almost always omits the quotations from Scripture found in the

excerpts from Origen in Coislin 204. He also omits most of the philological remarks of Origen.

4.2. The Date of the Composition of Origen's Commentary on Ephesians The time period in which Origen composed his commentary on Ephesians has received little attention from scholars. A. Harnack and O. Bardenhewer each dated the composition of Origen's commentary on Romans after ad 244 and before the commentary on Matthew, which they placed in the period ad 246-9. 190

190 A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, ii.2, (Leipzig, 1958, reprint), 41; O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, ii (Darmstadt,

1962, reprint), 149.

This dating is based on a reference to the commentary on Romans in that on Matthew. 191

191 Comm. in Matt. 10-17, 17. 32.

The two scholars group the commentaries on the remaining Pauline letters together and assign them simply to Origen's last years. 192

192 Harnack, Altchristlichen Literatur, 41-2; Bardenhewer, Altkirchlichen Literatur, 149.

Although neither Harnack nor Bardenhewer states it, both seem to assume that Origen wrote the commentary on Romans before any of his commentaries on the other epistles of Paul and then somewhat later composed all his other Pauline commentaries in approximately the same period of time.

R. P. C. Hanson suggested a different dating scheme in which he placed the commentary on Ephesians in ad 233-4 and that on Romans in ad 245. 193

193 Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London, 1954), 23, 26.

His grounds for assigning the early date to the commentary on Ephesians, however, are not strong. He considered Origen to refer 'very often' to ο σεις in the catena fragments on Ephesians and stated that he identified 'Christ with σοφ ε σ γοντες τ ς φ

νη'. 194

194 Hanson failed to mention λ , and ε ρ

γος which occurs first in the list of names for Christ to which he refers (see Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen,' 406.20-1).

The references to the 'natures' and the list of names for Christ, Hanson thought, suggested

'a date contemporary with the Commentary on John'. 195

195 Origen's Doctrine of Tradition, 23.

I have found only two passages in the catena fragments on Ephesians where Origen uses the phrase concerning 'natures' to which end p.42

Hanson refers, 196 196 Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 404.220; 407.34. although there are nine passages which refer either to Gnostics or to Marcionites. 197

197 Ibid. 236.19-20; 404.220; 407.34, 39-40; 413.3; 417.31-5; 561.18-19; 562.35-6;

568.8-10.

One cannot assign this phrase only to Origen's early works, however, as it appears at least once in his late commentary on Matthew. 198

198 Origen, Comm. in Matt. 10-17, 10, 11.

The various terms identifying Christ to which Hanson refers come from a combination of designations of Christ found in John 1: 1, 1 Corinthians 1: 24, and Colossians 3: 4 (or John 14: 6), with that occurring in Ephesians 2: 14. The first two passages are two of Origen's favourite texts which he applies to Christ and are present throughout his works

so that little can be concluded about date from the appearance of the names in these texts.

Hansons's other evidence for an early date for the commentary on Ephesians seems to rest on a misreading. He refers to a text quoted by Pamphilus in his Apology for Origen which he takes to come from the commentary on Ephesians. The text to which Hanson refers, however, is attributed to Origen's commentary on Galatians by the editor of the volume in the Patrologiae. 199

199 Ruf. Apol. Orig. 5 (PG 17.586).

C. H. Turner notes that this reference to the commentary on Galatians stands 'only in the margin' of the manuscript and states that there is no conclusive ground 'for connecting this lengthy and important passage with the Galatian commentary in particular among all the works of Origen'. 200

200 'Greek Patristic Commentaries', 493.

Hanson neither notes the ascription to the commentary on Galatians in the Migne volume nor provides any reasons for assuming that the passage might come from the commentary on Ephesians. I find nothing in the fragment which suggests that it may have been a part of the commentary on Ephesians.

P. Nautin makes the assumption of Harnack and Bardenhewer noted above concerning

Origen's composition of his Pauline commentaries explicit in his chronology of the treatises of Origen. He sets the outside perimeters for the time in which the commentaries on the Pauline letters could have been composed at ad 235-44 and then puts their composition precisely in ad 243 with the composition of the commentary on Romans coming first. 201

201 Origène, 385-6, 408-9, 411.

C. Bammel has challenged Nautin's assumptions that Origen composed all his Pauline commentaries at one time and, especially, that he wrote that on Romans first. 202

202 'Origen's Pauline Prefaces', 497.

She argues, on end p.43 the basis of the prefaces to Jerome's Pauline commentaries which she assumes to be essentially translations from Origen's prefaces and the preface to the commentary on Romans in Rufinus' translation, that Origen began his work on the Pauline letters with a commentary on Philemon. Because Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians form a group with Philemon, she thinks it likely that Origen commented on these three epistles in close conjunction with his work on Philemon. 203

203 Ibid. 503-6.

The only specific time she suggests for the composition of Philemon is sometime after the composition of the De Oratione. 204

204 Ibid. 511.

Bammel's arguments are, in my opinion, stronger than those of Nautin but, nevertheless, still lack what one might call solid evidence such as a specific reference to one of the earlier Pauline commentaries in the commentary on Romans.

There is, in fact, such a specific reference to the commentary on Ephesians in the papyrus fragments from Origen's commentary on Romans found at Tura in his comments on Romans 4: 23-5. J. Scherer called attention to the reference in a note in his edition of the papyrus but little attention has been taken of it in subsequent chronologies of Origen's works. 205

205 J. Scherer, Le Commentaire, 218-20.

P. Nautin, for example, takes no notice of the reference in his elaborate chronology of Origen's life and works. 206

206 Origène, 363-441.

C. Bammel refers to this fragment in a footnote but is very tentative in her statement about it, saying, 'Origen appears to be describing his procedure in his Commentary on Ephesians . . . if so, the latter must be earlier.' 207

207 'Origen's Pauline Prefaces', 511-12 n. 90.

R. Layton accepts Scherer's note as providing the latest date for the composition of the Ephesians commentary. 208

208 'Origen as a Reader of Paul', 5.

The reference in the Tura papyrus seems to me to provide solid proof that the commentary on Ephesians was written before that on Romans.

It must be noted at the outset that there is no explicit mention of the commentary on Ephesians in the comments on Romans 4: 23-5 occurring in the Tura papyrus. This can be explained, however, by the fact that the fragments from the commentary on Romans contained in the Tura papyrus do not represent the continuous text of Origen's comments on these sections of Romans but are an abridgement of his text. The mention of an earlier commentary would be the kind of information that an editor would omit in the interest of economy of space. The text referred to is Ephesians 5: 4. Origen's exegesis of this text is preserved both in the Greek catena fragments from his commentary on Ephesians end p.44 and in Jerome's commentary on Ephesians. The latter is very close to the catena fragment on this passage.

A comparison of what Origen says in the Tura fragment on Romans 4: 23-5 and in the catena fragment on Ephesians 5: 4 makes it clear that the comments on Ephesians 5: 4 in the Tura fragment on Romans refer back to the exposition in the commentary on Ephesians.

The discussion in the Tura fragment is intended to illustrate the imprecise way in which Paul sometimes uses language. In Romans 4: 23 Paul has written δι ν of Abraham where he meant, Origen says, α τ

. Origen then asserts that such awkwardness of expression occurs in other passages of Paul and makes them difficult to understand. 209

209 Scherer, Le Commentaire, 218.1-9.

He then cites Paul's joining of ε

α where he must have meant, Origen argues, ε χαριστ α with μωρολογ α and ε τραπελ

α. Although Origen does not mention Ephesians, there is no question that he is discussing Ephesians 5: 4 for μωρολογ χαριτ

α occur only there in the New Testament. The discussion in both the Romans commentary and the Ephesians commentary turns on an argument involving 'ordinary speech' (συν α and ε τραπελ

θεια). 210

210 See Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 143-4. O. Casel, 'E α', BZ 18 (1928), 85, commented on the Ephesians fragment, 'Origen says, therefore, that only the learned among the Greeks make the fine distinction between ε χαριστ α—ε χαριτ

α, that in everyday life one used ε χαριστ α und ε χαριτ

ριστος) in a double sense, and that this common usage suggested especially the Jews since a very similar phenomenon appears in their language.' χαριστ α (and ε χ

That in the Ephesians commentary asserts that it would not be 'customary' ( νηθες) to use the noun ε σ

α although the other noun would express the meaning appropriate to the context. The discussion in the Romans commentary uses the same argument but reverses its direction. There Origen says that the noun ε χαριτ α and suggests that this may be why Paul used ε χαριστ

θειαν) did not seem to him to go with μωρολογ χαριστ α 'taken in its normal usage' (κατ τ ν συν

α and suggests that Paul has substituted this noun for ε α and ε τραπελ

α. This slight alteration in the argument is what one might expect if, as Scherer has suggested, Origen was relying on his memory for what he had written in the Ephesians commentary. 211

211 Le Commentaire, 220 n. 3.

Three additional points in the fragment from Romans, beyond this common theme of the two discussions, indicate that Origen is alluding back to his discussion in his commentary on Ephesians.

The first and most significant indication that Origen is referring to an earlier writing in which he commented on Ephesians 5: 4 is his use of first-person singular verbs in the past tense four times in the fragment to refer to his own views and what he had done in his exposition of this text. 212

212 Scherer, Le Commentaire, 118 n. 11, calls attention to his use of χαριτ

These verbs do not refer to Origen's current comments on Ephesians 5: 4 but to a previous exposition of that text to which he is referring back. Were Origen referring to his current remarks or activities he would have used the present tense. 213

213 See, for example, Comm. in Matt. 10-17, 16, 12; 16, 19; 17, 17. A reading of Origen's commentaries will provide numerous examples of the sort offered here.

The second indication linking the remarks in the Tura fragment with Origen's commentary on Ephesians involves the suggestion of three other virtues which might have been chosen instead of ε . To these should be added ζ τουν and

α. Jerome, in his commentary on Ephesians, also suggests three alternative virtues for ε χαριστ

α. There is a lacuna in the list in the Tura fragment which can, perhaps, be supplied from Jerome's parallel list of three alternative virtues. Jerome's first virtue is iustitia. The blank space for the first virtue in the Tura fragment should probably be filled with the equivalent δικαιοσ χαριστ

νην. Scherer has estimated that there were eight letters missing. His reproduction of the actual lines of the papyrus, however, shows that this lacuna occurs at the end of a line and some of the words on the same page extend three spaces beyond the eight spaces which he has allowed. 214

214 Le Commentaire, 45.

There was, then, theoretically at least, space for the eleven letters of δικαιοσ

νην where the lacuna occurs. The probability of δικαιοσ

νην being the missing word in the Tura papyrus is strengthened by the fact that Origen, in his comments on Ephesians 4:32 preserved in the catena, joins the three virtues, σοφ

νη. 215

215 Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 558.22.

This exposition is in close proximity to that on Ephesians 5: 4 so that this list would have been in his mind as he dictated his comments on Ephesians 5: 4. Jerome indicates that Origen may have provided a longer list of virtues in his comments on Ephesians 4: 32 than the catenist preserved. He has 'sapientia, veritas, iustitia, mansuetudo et cetera'. 216

216 PL 26. 638 (Vall.); 107.76-7 (Pieri). α, λ θεια κα δικαιοσ

Nevertheless, the three virtues in question appear together at the head of Jerome's list. It should be noted, however, that in his list on Ephesians 5: 4 Jerome's third virtue, dilectio, does not correspond with Origen's σοφ α and that 'truth' does not appear in the same position in each list. These differences may be explained, however, by the freedom that Jerome often took with Origen's texts. Most of his dependency on Origen in the Ephesians commentary does not consist of literal translation but of a loose paraphrase. end p.46

The third point which indicates that the fragment from the commentary on Romans is referring back to the discussion in the commentary on Ephesians is the use of Proverbs

11: 16 in both texts and the significance given to how 'the other translations' had translated the verse. Proverbs 11: 16 is cited only in these two texts in Origen's extant works. 217

217 Biblia Patristica, iii (Paris 1991), 204.

Origen introduces the reference in the fragment from the commentary on Romans with the statement that after he had concluded that ε

α in Ephesians 5: 4 he then 'investigated' ( χαριστ α had been used for ε χαριτ

τουν) to see if this substitution occurred anywhere else in Scripture and he 'discovered' ( ζ

), he says, the same term in Proverbs 11: 16. He then remarks that he found a different phrase substituted (

ριστος in the 'other translations'. Unfortunately, there is a lacuna in the Tura papyrus at precisely the critical word in the text. The text reads, ε χ

. Scherer suggests reading the text as follows:

. 218

218 Le Commentaire, 220.

Something such as Scherer's suggestion must be correct, for Origen's point in citing the 'other translations' is that they confirmed that he was correct in his surmise that Paul had written ε α.

There can be little doubt, it seems to me, that the fragment from the Tura papyrus is referring back to the discussion in the commentary on Ephesians. This allows us, then, to lay aside the common assumption that the Romans commentary was the first of Origen's commentaries on the Pauline epistles. This does not mean that the commentary on Ephesians was necessarily the first of Origen's commentaries on Paul, nor does it provide a precise date for the commentary on Ephesians. It does, however, provide a significant date before which the commentary must have been written, namely before ad 244 which is the approximate date for the composition of the commentary on Romans. 219

219 There is a reference to book 2 of the commentary on John (Jo. 2.70-1) in the opening words of the catena fragments from the commentary on Ephesians (Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 234.2-4), noted also by Layton, 'Origen as a Reader of Paul', 5.

This reference does not, however, provide much help for a precise date since book 2 of the commentary on John was written quite early in Origen's career before he moved from Alexandria to Caesarea.

I would suggest that the general time frame for the composition of the commentary on Ephesians falls in the period after his move to Caesarea in ad 232-3 220

220 See at n. 204 above. but before the composition of the commentary on Romans in c.ad 244. end p.47 χαριστ α in Ephesians 5: 4 when what he intended to say was ε χαριτ

4.3. The Epistle to the Ephesians in the Theology of Origen Origen ranked Ephesians as the pinnacle of the Pauline epistles. 221

221 See F. Cocchini, Il Paolo di Origene (Rome, 1992), 88-90.

He considered it to contain 'solid food' or mystical understanding in contrast, for example, to the 'milk' of 1 Corinthians. 222

222 Hom. 1-14 in Ezech. 7.10. Cf. Princ. 3.2.4, C. Jenkins, 'The Origen-Citations in Cramer's Catena on I Corinthians', JTS, os 6 (1905), 354 (§XVIII.15-16), and Jerome, below on Eph. 5: 24 (PL 26. 655).

When he argued with Celsus about the 'superior wisdom' which Paul spoke 'among the perfect', he asked Celsus to look carefully at Paul's meaning in his epistles to the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, the Philippians, and the Romans (Cels.

3.19-20). 223

223 Origen: Contra Celsum, tr. H. Chadwick (Cambridge, 1965), 139-40.

It is probably significant that Origen placed Ephesians first in this list. Several passages in Ephesians are important to Origen's theological thought. By looking at these passages and the role they play in some of the key points of his theology it is possible to get some idea of the theological themes Origen would have treated in his commentary. This information also alerts us to the probably Origenian source of the discussion of these themes in Jerome's commentary.

4.3.1. Creation, the Pre-Existent Church, and the Consummation The hypothesis that prior to the creation of the material universe God, in his eternal activity as creator, had created a universe of rational beings who were in harmonious contemplation of the divine Being is foundational to all of Origen's theological thought

(Princ. 1.4.3-5; 2.1.1). This body of rational beings in contemplation of God constituted the preexistent Church. 224

224 H. Crouzel, Origen, tr. A. S. Worrall (Edinburgh, 1989), 206, 209-10, 218.

Most of these rational beings, however, chose to turn away from this divine contemplation (Princ. 1.8.1-2.1.1). 225

225 Some rational beings, it appears, did not turn away but were later sent down, either by their own choice or even against their will, to help those who had fallen (Jerome, Ep.

124.9; Crouzel, Origen, 211).

This turning or falling away from the contemplation of God caused some of the rational beings to become souls and was the occasion for the creation of the material universe.

God made the material world as a correctional institution so that souls, now enclosed in physical bodies, might, by using their power of choice, choose God again and return to their original condition as rational beings in contemplation of the divine Being (Jerome,

Ep. end p.48

124.9). Origen's doctrine of the consummation, in keeping with this hypothesis, is that the end will be like the beginning and all souls will return to their original unity in the contemplation of God (Princ. 1.6.2). To achieve this return to their original state may, however, require more than one lifetime for souls. Origen theorizes, therefore, that there may be a series of worlds or ages through which souls will pass in their journey back to the beginning (Jerome, Ep. 124.5).

Ephesians 1: 4 was a significant text in which Origen found a basis for some of these ideas. 226

226 See W. Völker, 'Paulus bei Origenes', ThStKr (1930), 266.

Ephesians 1: 4 speaks of a calling of God 'before the foundation of the world' (

). Origen understood the word usually rendered 'foundation'

) in terms of its two parts, 'casting' and 'down' and took the prepositional phrase to mean 'before the casting down of the world'. 227

227 See H. J. Vogt, Das Kirchenverständnis des Origenes, BoBKG 4 (Cologne/Vienna,

1974), 206.

('casting down') is used in relation to creation in two different phrases in the Greek Bible. One is the phrase 'from the foundation of the world' (Matt. 13: 35; 25: 34;

Luke 11: 50; Heb. 4: 3; 9: 26; Rev. 13: 8; 17: 8). Origen discusses this phrase in relation to creation only at its appearance in Matthew 25: 34. The discussion appears in his commentary on this verse. He explains that the noun means 'casting down' but he is very evasive about the significance of this meaning to avoid, he says, casting pearls before swine. 228

228 Comm. ser. 1-145 in Matt. 71.

The other phrase in which καταβολ

occurs in the Greek Bible is that quoted above in Ephesians 1: 4. This phrase, 'before the casting down of the world', appears three times in the Greek Bible (1 Pet. 1: 20; John 17: 24; Eph. 1: 4). Origen never cites 1 Peter 1: 20 in relation to creation. He cites John 17: 24 in relation to creation only once (Jo. 19.149-50).

This latter is a signicant text in several respects. First, it is a Greek text and shows that the Latin renderings of the term καταβολ

as a 'casting down' in texts of Origen preserved only in Latin are correct. Second, it is set in a discussion of the higher, invisible world and the lower, visible world showing its relation to Origen's larger theological thought

(Jo. 19.127-50). The 'casting down', he says, includes both the world and the things in it

(i.e. human souls clothed in physical bodies). Finally, this text shows that Origen considered this expression to be a specifically Christian expression coined to depict the fact that the material creation was fallen from its conception. Otherwise, he says, they would have said, 'Before the creation of the world.' end p.49

It is to Ephesians 1: 4, however, which Origen appeals when he discusses the creation of the material world in his theological work, De Principiis (3.5.4). 229

229 According to the Latin text of Rufinus, Origen first cites a passage from John. The passage, however, is not from John but from Matt. 24: 21 and although the explanation which follows the citation claims that καταβολ

appears there for 'foundation', it is not καταβολ

which appears in the text of Matthew. G. W. Butterworth (tr.), Origen:

On First Principles (New York, 1966), suggests that Rufinus may have added this illustration.

In harmony with his later remark in the commentary on the Gospel of John 19.149 that the 'casting down' was a Christian coinage for the creation he refers here to the term as a 'new and peculiar name' 230

230 Butterworth, First Principles, 239.

(novo quodam et proprio nomine) for the creation. He describes the significance of the phrase as follows.

Now I think that since the end and consummation of the saints will happen in those worlds that are not seen and are eternal, we must suppose, from a contemplation of this but ρχ

end, . . . that rational creatures have also had a similar beginning. And if they had a beginning that was such as they expect their end to be, they have undoubtedly existed right from their beginning in those worlds 'that are not seen and are eternal'. If this is so, there has been a descent from higher to lower conditions not only on the part of those souls who have by the variety of their own movements deserved it, but also on the part of those who have been brought down, even against their will, from those higher invisible conditions to these lower visible ones, in order to be of service to the whole world. . . . A descent, therefore, of all alike from higher to lower conditions appears to be indicated by the meaning of this word katabole (Princ. 3.5.4). 231

231 Ibid. 240-1.

Ephesians 1: 4 with its peculiar expression for the creation of the world was a key verse in support of Origen's doctrine that the fall of rational beings from contemplation of God resulted in the creation of the present world as a lower level of creation to accommodate fallen beings.

Origen's other citation of Ephesians 1: 4 appears in a discussion of the pre-existent

Church in his commentary on the Song of Songs. 232

232 Cant. 2.8.4-8.

Identifying the Church with the bride in the Song of Songs, Origen says, 'You must please not think that she is called the Bride or the Church only from the time when the Saviour came in flesh: she is so called from the beginning of the human race and from the very foundation of the world—indeed, if I may look for the origin of this high mystery under Paul's guidance, even before the foundation of the world.' 233

233 Ibid. 2.8.4; tr. R. P. Lawson, Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies,

ACW 26 (New York, n.d.), 149.

The emphasis end p.50 here is not on the term καταβολ

in Ephesians 1: 4 which, for Origen indicated the fallen nature of the present creation, but on the preposition πρ

(before) which sets the choosing of the saints in Christ in the period before the creation and, for Origen, shows that the Church was in existence before the creation. Origen was not the first to expound the doctrine of the pre-existent Church. Socrates states that Pamphilus and Eusebius proved in their joint defence of Origen that he was only the 'expositor of the mystical tradition of the church' in this doctrine. 234

234 HE 3.7 (NPNF, 2nd ser. ii.81). For the doctrine in earlier writings, including Gnostic treatises, see J. Daniélou, The Development of Christian Doctrine before the Council of Nicaea, i: The Theology of Jewish Christianity, tr. J. A. Baker (London/Chicago, 1964),

293-313, and L. Brésard, H. Crouzel, and M. Borret, Origène: Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques, i, SC 375 (Paris, 1991), 408-9 n. 1.

Ephesians 5: 31-2 is also used to explicate part of Origen's understanding of the preexistent Church in his commentary on the Song of Songs. In the same passage he cites

Psalm 73: 2 which refers to the 'congregation' which the Lord has 'gathered from the beginning'. Taking the 'prophets' in Ephesians 2: 20 to represent the revelation of the Old

Testament, he understands the latter verse to confirm that the foundations of the Church have existed from the beginning (Cant. 2.8.4). The prophets, along with the angels, have ministered to the Church from the beginning (Cant. 2.8.8). He considers Adam to have been one of these prophets and thinks Adam's words quoted in Ephesians 5: 31 refer to

Christ and the Church (Cant. 2.8.5). Ephesians 5: 25 completes the group of texts from Ephesians which Origen here applies to the pre-existent Church. He anticipates the objection that the words of Ephesians 5: 25, 'Just as Christ also loved the Church and delivered himself up for her', suggest that the Church did not pre-exist the action of Christ for her on this earth. Origen responds:

How could He have loved her, if she did not exist? Undoubtedly He loved her who did exist; she existed in all the saints who have been since time began. So, loving her, He came to her; and, 'as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself in like manner was made a sharer of the same', and delivered Himself up for them. They themselves were the Church whom He loved to the intent that He might increase her in multitude and develop her in virtue and translate her through the love of perfectness from earth to heaven. 235

235 Cant. 2.8.6-7; Lawson, Song of Songs, 149-50. I have inserted the quotation marks.

The Scripture quotation is italicized in Lawson's translation.

Christ's love for the Church, in other words, preceded any action which he took for the Church on this earth. This demanded a Church which he end p.51 knew and loved prior to the incarnation. It was Christ's love for the pre-existent Church, in fact, which was the cause of the incarnation.

The creation of male and female in Genesis 1: 27 and the marriage imagery of Genesis 2:

24 understood through Ephesians 5: 31-2 appear to have been of major significance for Origen's understanding of both the pre-existent Church and the incarnation of Christ.

Socrates indicates that Origen discussed the incarnation in conjunction with the preexistent Church in his commentary on Genesis. 'Origen . . . everywhere . . . accepts',

Socrates says, 'that the Incarnate God took on himself a human soul. But he more particularly explains this mystery in the ninth volume of his Comments upon Genesis, where he shows that Adam and Eve were types of Christ and the church.' 236

236 HE 3.7 (NPNF, 2nd ser. ii.81).

The commentary on Genesis has perished but references to the typology of Adam and Eve as types of Christ and the Church can be found in several places in Origen's extant writings. 237

237 See Princ. 4.3.7; Cant. 2.3.13-14; Jo. 19.23; Jo. Cat. 45; Comm. in Rom. 5.1.

The imagery is developed most fully in his commentary on Matthew 19: 3-6. 238

238 See the discussion of this text in J. Chênevert, L'Église dans le commentaire d'Origène sur le Cantique des Cantiques, Studia: Travaux de recherche 24 (Brussels/Paris/Montreal,

1969), 31-2.

He begins there by noting that 'the apostle' (in Ephesians 5: 31-2) takes the words of Genesis 2: 24, 'And the two shall be one flesh', to refer 'to Christ and the Church'. He argues that Christ did not put away his former wife, the synagogue, but that she bore the responsibility for the divorce because she rejected and killed him. Then he moves the discussion back to Genesis 1: 27 and the question of the pre-existent Church. 'He who at the beginning created Him "who is in the form of God" after the image, made Him male, and the church female, granting to the two to be one according to the image.' 239

239 Comm. in Matt. 10-17, 14, 17; tr. ANF x.506, revised.

He then explains the reason for the incarnation to have been the love of Christ for his fallen wife.

And, for the sake of the church, the Lord—the husband—left the Father whom He saw when He was 'in the form of God', left also His mother . . . the Jerusalem which is above, and was joined to His wife who had fallen down here, and these two here became one flesh. For because of her, He Himself also became flesh. 240

240 Ibid. 506-7. Emphasis mine.

It was the turning away of the rational beings, the pre-existent Church, and their becoming souls enclosed in flesh which caused the Lord consequently to accept a soul and flesh. 241

241 Cf. Jo. 32.35.

For the latter, however, the taking end p.52 up of soul and flesh was an act of love for his fallen bride, the pre-existent Church, and not a condition of necessity. Origen refers to this love of Christ for the pre-existent

Church as the cause of the incarnation again in his sixth homily on Ezekiel. 'First he suffered,' he says, 'then he descended and was manifest. What is that suffering which he suffered for us? It is the suffering of love.' 242

242 Hom. 1-14 in Ezech. 6.6.

Two texts in Ephesians play a role in Origen's understanding that the consummation will be a return to the beginning. Ephesians 4: 13 serves as a collateral text to confirm that the end will be like the beginning. Just as many arose from the initial one so the many will be restored to unity again in the end (Princ. 1.6.2). Ephesians 4: 13 undergirds this idea when it speaks of attaining 'unity' in the faith and arriving at the state of being 'a perfect man' (singular). 243

243 See Comm. in Matt. 10-17, 10. 3 and Jo. 10.236-7.

Ephesians 2: 7, which speaks of 'ages to come' in the plural, serves to confirm Origen's theory that there will be many worlds or ages through which souls will pass on their way back to the state which they enjoyed in the beginning.

After the present age, . . . there will yet be further 'ages to come'; for we learn this plainly from Paul himself when he says, 'that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us'. He did not say, 'in the age to come'; nor, in 'two ages'; but, 'in the ages to come'. I think, therefore, that the indications of this statement point to many ages. 244

244 Princ. 2.3.5; tr. Butterworth, First Principles, 88-9. Cf. Jo. 13.351; 19.88; see also

Völker, 'Paulus bei Origenes', 266.

Origen was especially concerned to reconcile the statement in Hebrews 9: 26 that Christ's sacrifice for sins occurred 'at the end of the ages' with the statement in Ephesians 2: 7 that God will reveal the abundance of his grace to the saints 'in the ages to come'. He conjectures that 'as the last month is the end of the year, after which the beginning of another month ensues, so it may be that, since several ages complete as it were a year of ages, the present age is "the end" after which certain "ages to come" will ensue, of which the age to come is the beginning, and in those coming ages God will "shew the riches of his grace in kindness": when the greatest sinner, who has spoken ill of the Holy Spirit and is under the power of sin throughout the present age, will, I know not how, be under treatment from beginning to end in the ensuing age that is to come.' 245

245 Or. 27.15; tr. Oulton in J. E. L. Oulton and H. Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity,

LCC 2 (Philadelphia, 1954), 304; cf. Comm. in Matt. 10-17, 15. 31.

The conclusion of this statement shows the eschatological basis of Origen's end p.53 concern for multiple ages. They are necessary if all souls are to make the return journey to the state of holiness they enjoyed in the beginning.

What can be detected of Origen's theological understanding of Ephesians 1: 4, 5: 31-2, 4:

13, and 2: 7 in the portions of his commentary on Ephesians preserved in the catena commentary and in Jerome's commentary on Ephesians? The catena commentary has no discussion of the phrase 'before the casting down of the world' in Ephesians 1: 4. Jerome's commentary gives us the shadow of Origen's interpretation. Rufinus had accused Jerome of holding Origen's views on this verse. 246

246 Apol. 1. 25-9.

In his response to Rufinus Jerome admits that he has given Origen's opinions on this verse though he denies that he agreed with Origen. 247

247 Apol. 1. 22 (Append. B, 22).

Jerome says that Origen had a 'very extensive argument' on Ephesians 1: 4 which he condensed into a 'brief discussion' which 'revealed his sense to the reader'. He also insists that his abbreviated discussion passed over none of the points Origen made on the verse. 248

248 Ibid.

Jerome's discussion in the commentary begins by describing the special meaning of the Greek noun καταβολ

and by noting that the Latin language cannot adequately express the concept. In his Apology he says that the section beginning with the phrase, 'another says', derives from Origen. 249

249 Ibid.

This section treats the 'casting down' of souls 'into the world' and the 'casting down' of the world itself 'to the lowest rank'. Souls in the world long to 'return to that original habitation'. Those chosen 'before the casting down of the world' are said to be those sent into the world to help the souls who had been cast down, just as Ezekiel, Daniel, and others were sent into the Babylonian captivity, not because they deserved it but to help the captives. The goal of the ministry of these chosen ones is that the sinful souls 'might be turned back to that place from which they had fallen'. Jerome's discussion also includes some of the passages Origen cited in explicating these points. 250

250 See Jerome's discussion of Eph. 1: 4 in the Commentary below.

Rufinus extended his attack on Jerome on this point to include the comments on Ephesians 1: 5b-6 in Jerome's commentary. 251

251 Apol. 1. 28-9.

Jerome did not reply to Rufinus' attack on these verses in his own Apology. Rufinus is certainly correct, however, in thinking that Jerome is following Origen when he introduces in his comments on these verses those 'who think that souls turned away before the creating of the world' and end p.54 consequently merited the diversity of circumstances which they experience in life so that God's justice cannot be impugned.

The catena commentary contains none of Origen's theological interpretation of Ephesians

5: 31-2. It discusses only the textual differences between Genesis 2: 24 as it appears in the Old Testament and as it has been quoted in Ephesians 5: 31. Jerome's comments on

these verses begin with the same textual discussion found in the catena commentary, showing his dependence again on Origen's commentary. He then moves into a theological interpretation of the verses and notes the allegorical interpretation which identifies Adam with Christ and Eve with the Church. This is probably derived from Origen and is a reference to the earlier tradition noted above which made this identification. 252

252 See n. 234 above.

Jerome is probably also quoting Origen when he says at the beginning of his discussion of Ephesians 5: 32 that the whole story of Adam and Eve related in Genesis is not to be related to Christ and the Church but only that which is quoted in Ephesians 5: 31. Jerome is certainly following Origen in his subsequent comments which identify Adam as the first prophet and say that his prophecy was 'that our Lord and Saviour would leave his

Father God and his mother the heavenly Jerusalem and come to earth for the sake of his body the Church' for it was, he adds, 'for her sake that the Word became flesh'. We noted above Origen's identification of Adam as a prophet (Cant. 2.8.5) and his remark that the Lord left his Father and mother in heaven to come to earth for the sake of his fallen bride. 253

253 See the quotation from Comm. in Matt. 1-17, 14. 17 at n. 240 above.

The catena commentary on Ephesians 4: 13 preserves only the slightest hint of Origen's eschatological use of this verse. The catenist quotes Origen's question concerning the identity of the 'we all' in Ephesians 4: 13. Does it refer to 'all humanity in general' or only to those 'who have been appointed in Christ'? He answers that it appears to be the former.

The assumption that all souls would return to the original unity in contemplation of God was, of course, foundational to Origen's eschatology. Jerome has a discussion of Ephesians 4: 13 which closely resembles that of the catena commentary. He concludes by saying that he has translated the passage 'word for word' from Greek which, given the close similarity with the catena discussion, can only mean the Greek of Origen's commentary on Ephesians.

The catena commentary has no remarks by Origen on Ephesians 2: 7. Jerome passes over any eschatological discussion of the plurality of future ages in Ephesians 2: 7 but does preserve some of Origen's eschatological end p.55 remarks made in connection with the verse. Rufinus claimed that Jerome's comments on this verse showed that he held, with Origen, that the evil powers, including the fallen angels and Lucifer, would be restored to participate in Christ's kingdom in the end (Apol.

1. 34). Jerome was quick to identify what came from Origen in his comments on this verse in his own Apology and to dissociate himself from Origen's views. 254

254 Apol. 1. 24 (see Append. B, 24 and also the Commentary on 2: 7 below and my note there).

It was for the restoration of such wicked powers to their original state that Origen had theorized that there will be a series of ages through which they must pass in the purification process. The fact that Origen discussed the restoration of the wicked powers in relation to this verse suggests strongly that he also discussed the plurality of future ages which he linked with the plural 'ages' in the verse. Both the catenist and Jerome chose, however, to omit this discussion from their commentaries.

4.3.2. The Inner Person and the Spiritual Senses

In the prologue to his commentary on the Song of Songs Origen explains that Paul understood the two accounts of the creation of humanity in Genesis 1: 26-7 and 2: 7 to refer to the creation of two persons in each of us. The first was made 'in the image and likeness of God' and the second from the 'dust of the earth'. The first is the inner person which is renewed daily and the second is the outer person which is being corrupted (2

Cor. 4: 16). The Bible often applies, Origen insists, terms drawn from the members and circumstances of the outer person to the inner person. 255

255 Cant. Prol. 2.4-13.

The reference to the 'inner person' in Ephesians 3: 16 appears, as might be expected, frequently in Origen's writings. 256

256 There are 29 references to Eph. 3: 16 outside those in the catena commentary on Ephesians listed in Biblia Patristica, iii. 426.

Most of these references involve the usage of only the phrase 'inner person'. Because the phrase appears also in Romans 7: 22 and 2 Corinthians 4: 16, it is not possible in such cases to say that Origen has Ephesians 3: 16 specifically in mind. There are a few passages which show the theological significance of the phrase for Origen and, when we compare these with the comments preserved in the catena commentary and in Jerome's commentary we can see the significance of this verse in Origen's theology. In the Contra

Celsum Origen says that a person consists of a 'soul using a body' and then remarks that the soul is called the 'inner person'. 257

257 Cels. 7.38; tr. H. Chadwick, Contra Celsum, 425. I have substituted 'person' for Chadwick's 'man'. Cf. Cels. 7.46.

It is the 'inner person' end p.56 which 'has the power to be formed in the image of the Creator'. 258

258 Ibid. 6.63; tr. Chadwick, Contra Celsum, 378-9.

Much of Scripture's teachings are addressed to this 'inner person' and the concept, consequently, has significance for Origen's hermeneutic of the hidden meaning of Scripture. 259

259 Hom. 1-13 in Exod. 8.6; 10.3.

The catena commentary has some brief comments of Origen on the 'inner person' in comments on Ephesians 3: 16. Jerome has a fuller discussion of the phrase and, because some of his key points parallel the remarks in the catena fragments, it is relatively certain that Jerome's account was taken from Origen. Jerome writes,

But he would make you strong and confirm you 'in the inner person'. For we are not inquiring about people of the body but of the soul; we do not wish the exterior but the interior person to be made strong so that, after Christ has dwelt 'in the interior person', he may dwell in the ruling principle of the inner person himself, that is in our hearts, by no means running about through all our members but dwelling in our reason and placing his dwelling and his seat in it. 260

260 See the Commentary on Eph. 3: 16-19.

In these comments Origen draws on his understanding of the 'inner person' as the soul in the body with its capacity to be formed in the image of God.

The phrase concerning 'the eyes of the heart' being enlightened in Ephesians 1: 18 is used in this same framework of understanding in De Principiis 1.1.9 to undergird the doctrine of the spiritual senses and the use of the terminology of the physical senses to refer to the

spiritual senses in the Bible. Explaining what it means for the 'pure in heart' to see God

(Matt. 5: 8) Origen comments, 'The names of the organs of sense are often applied to the soul, so that we speak of seeing with the eyes of the heart (Eph. 1: 18), that is, of drawing some intellectual conclusion by means of the faculty of intelligence.' 261

261 Princ. 1.1.9; tr. Butterworth, First Principles, 14, emphasis and Scripture reference my addition.

In his commentary on the Song of Songs Origen goes into some detail in a comparison of both the proper function and the dysfunction of the physical eyes to the eyes of the inner person to emphasize the importance of the inner vision 'being trained by learning and diligence so as to acquire the power of discerning good and evil'. 262

262 Cant. 1.4.18, cf. 1.4.16-20; tr. Lawson, Song of Songs, 80.

Jerome, again probably following Origen because of the similarities of other parts of his comments on Ephesians 1: 18 with those in the catena commentary, says on the phrase concerning 'the eyes of the heart', end p.57

From the present words related to the members of the outer person, it is confirmed that the members of the inner person are also meant. For note that he has clearly termed 'eyes of the heart' those members which we cannot understand apart from our power of thought and mind. The following statement of the Psalmist is also in harmony with this:

'Enlighten my eyes that I may never sleep in death.' And elsewhere: 'The wise have eyes in their head.' For if we take it simply to be the eyes of the flesh, the eyes not only of the wise . . . but also of the fool are in his head. The head of the wise, therefore, is taken to mean his understanding, because the mind and soul and ruling principle of the heart are designated by another term. 263

263 See the catena commentary on Eph. 1: 15-18a below and my note on the quotation from Eccles.

4.3.3. The Relation of the Old Revelation to the New Ephesians 3: 5-7 was an important text for Origen's understanding of the relationship between the old revelation and the new. The question of this relationship was forced on the early Church by Marcion's complete rejection of the old revelation and by the Gnostics' denigration of much associated with the old revelation. The unity of the old and the new revelation was of basic importance for Origen's theology. The old revelation in the Law and the prophets and the new revelation in the apostles were equally the revelation of God. The only privilege enjoyed by the apostles over Moses and the prophets was the privilege of having actually seen in their lifetime the fulfilment of the promises made in the old revelation.

The catenist omitted all of Origen's comments on these verses from his commentary.

Jerome, however, has a rather extensive discussion of the verses in relation to the question of the old and new revelations. I will argue in what follows that, in spite of the absence of evidence from the catena commentary, Jerome's discussion of these verses depends on Origen's commentary on Ephesians.

Jerome's discussion of Ephesians 3: 5-7 is structured by two questions. 264

264 See the Commentary below on 3: 5-7.

(1) How was the mystery of Christ unknown to other generations? (2) What is this mystery which was not revealed previously as it is now? The two questions correspond to Ephesians 3: 5 and 3: 6-7 respectively.

Jerome's first step in answering the first question is to cite passages from the Old and New Testaments which show that the patriarchs and prophets predicted the advent of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles. This was a common early Christian theme. It is significant, however, that end p.58

Jerome begins with John 8: 56, Abraham 'saw my day and was glad', for, as I will show later, this is also the Scripture with which Origen begins to prove the same point in his argument for the unity of the old and new revelation.

The recognition that the patriarchs and prophets spoke of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles poses a subordinate question. Did the Old Testament personalities who spoke of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles know that of which they spoke or were they speaking in ecstasy as Montanus claimed prophets spoke? 265

265 Cf. Origen, Comm. in Rom. 8.6, 'In quo tamen simul et illud ostenditur, quia non, ut aliqui putant, prophetae nesciebant, quid dicerent, et quasi alienato sensu suo prophetabant.'

The view that they spoke in ecstasy without understanding what they said is dismissed without discussion on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14: 32.

These two preliminary steps set the stage for the focal problem perceived in Ephesians 3:

5. 'If they understood, I ask how Paul now says that what was not known to other generations has been revealed to the apostles of Christ.' The answer to that question is approached in the typical style of Origen by presenting alternative solutions. 266

266 See, for example, Origen's discussion of the prophecy of Caiphas in Jo. 28.98-191.

The first possibility is that Paul spoke very precisely and made a distinction between 'the sons of men' and 'the sons of God' based on Psalm 81: 6. Those who spoke of such mysteries in the Old Testament belonged to the sons of God who had 'received the spirit of adoption'. Jerome does not pursue this suggestion either to confirm or to reject it but simply offers it as a possibility.

The second possibility, however, is developed and is clearly the favoured solution. Paul did not intend to make a general statement that the mystery of God was unknown to former generations. He meant only that the patriarchs and prophets perceived what was to come less clearly than the saints and apostles now perceive it as a consequence of the revelation in Christ. The distinction is that between the knowledge that the prophet has of what he prophesies and the knowledge that the one who sees the fulfilment of the prophecy has of what was prophesied. The latter is a greater knowledge because it is seen with the eyes whereas the prophet only recognized what is to come 'in the spirit'.

Jerome then introduces Luke 10: 24 (= Matt. 13: 17), which also poses the problem of an inferior revelation to the saints of the Old Testament. He argues that one must either apply the same solution to this saying of Jesus or, suggesting a third alternative, one 'must say that in the same way that all faces are not alike so neither are hearts and, according to the end p.59 apostle, there is a diversity of gifts'. He develops this latter alternative first by noting the diversity of gifts discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthinas 12 and then by contrasting the diversity of subjects discussed by Solomon and Moses in the Old Testament.

Jerome blends the second and third alternatives in his conclusion to the discussion of Ephesians 3: 5. The blending occurs in his recognition that 'the patriarchs and prophets

had some things which the apostles did not have'. This is based on the third alternative, which points to the diversity of gifts and the diversity of things known. He then turns to the second alternative, which distinguishes between knowing in the spirit and knowing by sight.

[O]n the other hand, in virtue of the favourableness of time and the preaching of the gospel the apostles have known the mystery of Christ more completely. For indeed, the holy men of old also knew indeed but not as the apostles on whom rested the necessity of preaching.

The second question that structures Jerome's discussion of Ephesians 3: 5-7 moves the discussion on to verses 6 and 7. 'What is this mystery which was not revealed previously as it is now?' The answer is given in verse 6, that 'the Gentiles are joint heirs', etc. Jerome begins with a critique of Paul's style, which, he says, 'makes an indecorus Latin sentence'.

One might think that this whole discussion of style and inspiration must come from Jerome since he refers to his 'Latin' sentence. This is not an unquestionable conclusion, however, for Origen often critiques Paul's style and also holds the view of inspiration that is expressed in the assertion that 'individual words, syllables, tittles and punctuation marks in the divine Scriptures are full of meaning'. 267

267 See, for example, Origen, Hom. 1-13 in Ex. 1.1; Comm. in Rom. 5.1.

It may be that Jerome has simply added the adjectives 'Latin' and 'Greek' to Origen's comments.

The statement that the Gentiles are 'joint heirs' is interpreted, by means of Romans 8: 17,

Deuteronomy 18: 2, and Psalm 15: 5 to mean that they are 'joint heirs of Christ' and that the inheritance is the Lord himself. This is an Origenian interpretation. It appears in the catena fragments on Ephesians 1: 18, where two of the same three passages also appear to support the interpretation.

But you will ask if God himself is also 'the inheritance of the saints' even as the phrase

'heirs of God' (cf. Rom. 8: 17) is understood, so that, just as we speak of heirs of estates and heirs of houses, applying the word inheritance to the pieces of property, so we should also understand 'the heirs of God'. And the law which says, 'You shall not give the sons of Levi an allotment among their brothers because I am end p.60 their portion, says the Lord' (cf. Josh. 18: 7; etc.), and elsewhere, 'The Lord is their inheritance' (Deut. 18: 2), is related to such a meaning. 268

268 See the Commentary below on Ephesians 1: 18-20a.

Jerome next argues for the diversity and unity of the Church on the basis of Paul's analogy of the human body in 1 Corinthians 12 and asserts that unity is assured on the basis of the term 'co-partners'. The discussion then turns to Ephesians 3: 7, in relation to which Jerome notes that Paul's humility is indicated 'when he claims that the gospel of which he is a minister was not of his own merit but the grace of God'.

Finally, Jerome returns abruptly to the question of the relationship between the old revelation and the new which was the focal point of the discussion of Ephesians 3: 5.

Those who want the prophets not to have understood what they said, and to have spoken in ecstasy, as it were, attempt to confirm their doctrine by dragging in, along with the present testimony, this, too, which is found in many manuscripts to the Romans, 'Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus

Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret from eternal times but now

revealed through the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ' etc.

(Rom. 16: 25-6; 1 Tim. 6: 14; 2 Tim. 1: 10).

It may be that a different group is being considered here than those introduced in conjunction with the name of Montanus earlier. There the question was one of actually speaking in ecstasy. Here Jerome qualifies speaking in ecstasy with 'as it were' (quasi).

Jerome's answer to the objection based on Romans 16: 25-6 is that the mystery was not kept secret from those who were announcing it but from the Gentiles to whom it would later be revealed. There are two strong suggestions that Jerome is drawing on Origen in the passage quoted. First, the allusion to the manuscript problem concerning Romans 16:

25-6 is typical of Origen's way of working. He discusses this particular problem in his

Commentary on Romans (10.43). Second, the blending of 1 Timothy 6: 14 or 2 Timothy

1: 10 with Romans 16: 25-6 is characteristic of Origen as we shall see later. 269

269 F. Deniau, 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur Éphésiens', 174 n. 17. Add to Deniau's list of references Robinson, The Philocalia of Origen, 35.8-11 and Origen, Comm. in Rom.

10.6. Deniau thinks that 2 Tim. 1: 10 has been blended with Rom. 16: 25-6. H.

Görgemanns and H. Karpp, Origenes vier Bücher von den Prinzipien, TzF 24 (Darmstadt, 1985), 695 n. 27, however, point out the influence of 1 Tim. 6: 14.

Jerome concludes the discussion of Ephesians 3: 5-7 by emphasizing once again the unity of the old revelation and the new. end p.61

And it must be noted as well that the mystery of our faith cannot be revealed except through the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of Christ. 270

270 Here the significance of the blending of 1 Tim. 6: 14 or 2 Tim. 1: 10 with Rom. 6: 256 becomes clear. Rom. 6: 25-6 speaks only of the prophetic Scriptures. The verses in 1 and 2 Tim. add the advent of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, let those who do not understand the prophets nor desire to know them, but assert that they are intent on the gospel alone, know that they do not know the mystery of Christ which was unknown to all the Gentiles from eternal times.

The reference to those who do not 'desire to know' the prophets but are 'intent on the gospel alone' is a key reference for locating this discussion historically. Harnack took the slightly earlier reference to 'those who want the prophets not to have understood what they said and to have spoken in ecstasy, as it were', and who drag in Romans 16: 25-6, to refer to Marcion. 271

271 'Origenistisches Gut', 157.

This is an attractive suggestion but I think it cannot be correct because Origen tells us that Marcion had removed this section from the epistle to the Romans. 272

272 Comm. in Rom. 16.43.

He would hardly have appealed to a section of Scripture that he had excised from the Biblical text. It is clear that the question of the relation of the old revelation to the new is the overarching issue that fuels the discussion of Ephesians 3: 5-7. Marcion had placed this issue in centre stage but he and his followers were not the only ones who raised the question. I will argue in what follows for a context for this discussion other than that provided by Marcion.

We turn now to the parallel discussions of this problem in other treatises of Origen. Like all writers who produce large amounts of work Origen tended to repeat himself and

provide very similar discussions wherever the same theme occurred. There are three major discussions of the issue discussed here in the extant works of Origen. 273

273 Jo. 6.15-31; 13.301-19; Comm. in Rom. 10.43.

I shall concentrate on that in the Commentary on John 6.15-31, which is the fullest discussion of the issue and which shows most clearly the role of Ephesians 3: 5-7 in Origen's thought on this subject. 274

274 See Jo. 6.26-8; cf. Jo. 13.305, 315.

The discussion of the relation between the revelation given to Moses and the prophets and that given to the apostles occurs first in Origen's Commentary on John in the context of his attempt to prove against the Gnostic Heracleon that John 1: 18 should be included with the words of John the Baptist beginning in John 1: 15 and not be ascribed to the disciple who wrote the Gospel. Origen never explicitly identifies the end p.62 significance of this distinction in his discussion. E. H. Pagels, however, has pointed out that Heracleon understands John the Baptist to be a representative of the creator God of the Old Testament whom the Gnostics designated the Demiurge. 275

275 The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon's Commentary on John (Nashville, 1973), 52, 54.

This fact and its significance for our argument become clearer in Origen's later debate with Heracleon over the meaning of John 1: 26-7. Heracleon had said on these verses, 'He is already present, . . . and is manifest to all of you', implying that a new revelation of the unknown God was now in process. Origen counters that Christ 'was always among men' and that he was in such men as Isaiah and David, implying that there is no disjuncture between the God of the Old Testament and the New nor is there a disjuncture in the revelation in the two Testaments. Further, Heracleon had taken John the Baptist's statement that he was unworthy to loosen the thong of Christ's shoe to indicate the Demiurge's inferiority to Christ. 276

276 Origen, Jo. 6.194-200.

Origen claims in addition that Heracleon 'truly disdains what is called the Old Testament'. 277

277 Jo. 6.117.

When we consider Origen's argument against Heracleon on John 1: 18 in this context it becomes clear that Heracleon must have argued that John 1: 18 speaks of the Gnostic unknown God and have concluded that John the Baptist, as a representative of the Demiurge, could not have spoken of this God for the Demiurge was ignorant of him.

Consequently, Heracleon ascribed John 1: 18 to the disciple of Jesus who wrote the Gospel of John rather than to John the Baptist who preceded Jesus and represented the Demiurge of the Old Testament. Origen launches a lengthy rebuttal to prove the unity between the old revelation in Moses and the prophets and the new revelation in Christ and consequently also to prove the unity of God. Origen's concluding remarks show that the primary concern in his argument with Heracleon's interpretation of John 1: 18 is parallel to that in Jerome's discussion of Ephesians 3: 5-7.

We have spent time . . . examining these matters at greater length because some, in the fantasy of glorifying Christ's sojourn, say that the apostles were much wiser than the fathers and the prophets, and have fashioned another God who is greater. Others, not daring to go so far as this in their argument, because of the unexamined nature of their

teachings, minimize the gift given to the fathers and the prophets from God through Christ, through whom 'all things were made' [emphasis mine]. 278

278 Jo. 6.31; tr. R. E. Heine, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John,

Books 1-10, FOTC 80 (Washington, 1989), 177.

The first group to which Origen refers is clearly the Gnostics. The second end p.63 group appears to be Christians not considered heretical but considered to err in their view of the relation of the old revelation to the new. They may have been influenced by Gnostic teachings but did not go so far as to denigrate the God of the Old Testament or to recognize another higher God. Origen's remarks make clear how widespread and important the issue of the relation between the old revelation and the new was in the early third century. The theological problem perceived as critical in Jerome's discussion of Ephesians 3: 5-7 is a problem of the early third century and it is a problem which Origen addressed.

Origen's overall approach to this problem and some of the passages he considered important to interpret in relation to it can also be shown to be parallel to Jerome's approach and related Scriptures. Origen's first step, like Jerome's noted above, was to show that things related to Christ's advent had been made known by the patriarchs and prophets. Like Jerome, Origen begins by citing John 8: 56 to prove this point (Jo. 6.1520). This is followed, again like Jerome, by the question of understanding. Did the ancients understand the things they spoke about Christ? Origen regularly answered this question by quoting Proverbs 16: 23 as it appears in the Septuagint.

If 'a wise man shall understand the words from his own mouth and shall bear knowledge on his lips' we must either declare rashly that the prophets were not wise, if they have not understood 'the words from their own mouth', or admit that the prophets were wise because they have received what is correct and true and have understood 'the words from their own mouth' and borne knowledge on their lips. 279

279 Jo. 6.21; tr. Heine, Comm. John 1-10, 174. See also Origen, Comm. in Rom. 10.43; Jo.

13.316.

Jerome uses 1 Corinthians 14: 32 rather than Proverbs 16: 23 to show that the prophets understood the things they said and did not speak in ecstasy. 280

280 In the prologue to his commentary on Isaiah (PL 24.19B-20A) Jerome uses Prov. 16:

23 as it appears in the LXX along with 1 Cor. 14: 32 to argue that the prophets did not speak in ecstasy as Montanus and his prophetesses said. P. Jay, L'Exégèse de saint

Jérôme d'après son 'Commentaire sur Isaïe' (Paris, 1985), 352-4 takes note of Jerome's discussion of prophetic inspiration in his commentary on Ephesians in relation to his discussion of the same in the prologue to the commentary on Isaiah, and suggests (354 n.

153) that Jerome is very probably following his Origenian source for his discussion in Ephesians.

There are no extant texts of Origen where he uses 1 Corinthians 14: 32 to make precisely this point though one of his applications of this verse might lend itself to such a use. He sometimes understands it to mean that the words of prophets can be understood and explained only by prophets. 281

281 Hom. 1-13 in Ex. 4.5. end p.64

Origen then comes to the focal point of his discussion of the problem. 'I wish to prove that those who have been perfected in former generations have known no less than the things which were revealed to the apostles by Christ, since the one who also taught the apostles revealed the unspeakable mysteries of religion to them.' 282

282 Jo. 6.24; tr. Heine, Comm. John 1-10, 174.

He begins by quoting the same blend of Romans 16: 25-6 with 1 Timothy 6: 14 that we noted in Jerome above. This leads, via an allusion to Proverbs 16: 23, to the conclusion that 'the prophets knew the things which have been made manifest to the apostles'. 283

283 Jo. 6.25; tr. Heine, Comm. John 1-10, 175.

Origen then quotes Ephesians 3: 5-6 and says the reason Paul said this was that 'it was not revealed to many' (italics mine). 284

284 Jo. 6.26; tr. Heine, Comm. John 1-10, 175.

Jerome's argument in the commentary, also related to Romans 16: 25-6, that the mystery was not kept secret from those who were announcing it but from the Gentiles to whom it would later be revealed closely resembles this. Origen's argument occurs in fuller form in his Commentary on Romans where he says that the prophets knew that of which they spoke but that they did not reveal the mystery universally (vulgo) until the Word became flesh, at which time the mystery was made known to all the Gentiles for the obedience of faith. 285

285 Comm in Rom. 10.43.

Next, in his argument in the Commentary on John, book 6, Origen explains the distinction Paul makes between what was formerly revealed and what has now been revealed by suggesting two different ways of understanding 'revealed'. Something can be said to be revealed when it is understood or, if it is a prophecy, it can be said to be revealed when its fulfilment is complete. The prophets knew about the inclusion of the Gentiles referred to in Ephesians 3: 6 so far as understanding goes. The apostles, on the other hand, have seen this fulfilled 'with their own eyes'. 'They understood the events no more than the fathers and the prophets' but they have perceived the truth 'through the completed event'. 286

286 Jo. 6.27-8.

This is the same argument that Jerome uses as his primary explanation of the distinction between the old revelation and the new.

Immediately after this explanation Origen points out that Matthew 13:17 should be interpreted in this same way. 287

287 Jo. 6.29; cf. 13.315.

Jerome does the same except that he uses the Lucan parallel (Luke 10: 24) to Matthew

13: 17. end p.65

The way that the interpretation is developed differs between the two but the same point is made in the exposition.

The two suggestions made by Jerome for solving the problem of the relation of the old revelation to the new posed in Ephesians 3: 5-7 for which I have found no exact parallel in Origen are the first and the last. The first proposed a distinction between the phrases

'sons of men' and 'sons of God' based on Psalm 81: 6. This so closely resembles the kind

of distinctions Origen often makes and resembles the distinction he sometimes uses

Psalm 81: 6 to make that it most likely comes from Origen. 288

288 See Jo. 20.242, 266; Hom. 1-16 in Lev. 9.10; 11.2.

The other proposal Jerome makes for solving the problem is that of a diversity of gifts based on 1 Corinthians 12. I have found nothing resembling this in Origen in respect to the problem of the unity of the old and new revelations. Perhaps Jerome took this argument over from one of his other two sources.

The intention of my argument has not been to show that Jerome was dependent on Origen's discussion in book 6 of his Commentary on John but to show how Origen treated the problem of the relation of the old revelation to the new and to suggest how he probably treated the same subject in his Commentary on Ephesians. The many similarities between Origen's treatment of this topic and Jerome's treatment of it in his comments on Ephesians 3: 5-7 suggest that Jerome has taken over the bulk, at least, of his discussion from Origen's Commentary on Ephesians.

4.3.4. The Spiritual Powers Against the Spiritual Person Origen stood in the tradition of the early Church when he spoke of a host of wicked spiritual powers arrayed against the spiritual person. In the preface to his De Principiis he sets forth what was considered in his time to constitute the basic beliefs of the Church.

The sixth point in that list of beliefs affirms that the teaching of the Church is that 'the devil and his angels and the opposing spiritual powers . . . exist'. But, he adds, the Church has not 'explained very clearly . . . how they exist'. 289

289 Princ. Praef. 6; tr. Butterworth, First Principles, 4. Cf. Princ. 1.5.2.

Origen devotes a lengthy discussion to the dark side of the spiritual powers in De

Principiis 3.2. The Greek title to this section, according to Photius, was, 'How the devil and the opposing powers are, according to the Scriptures, at war with the human race'. 290

290 Tr. Butterworth, First Principles, 211.

The epistle to the Ephesians provided much of the Biblical material for Origen's understanding of these 'opposing powers', especially Ephesians 1: 20-1, 2: 2, 4: end p.66

27, and 6: 10-17. Origen cites Ephesians 6: 12 more frequently than any other verse in the epistle. Paul, Origen asserts, 'teaches us that we should not "give place to the devil" (Eph.

4: 27) but, he says, "Put on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil" (Eph. 6: 11), pointing out that the saints' wrestling "is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of this world's darkness, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph. 6: 12).' After citing other passages Origen concludes, reflecting the imagery of Ephesians 6: 11-13,

'Through all these instances . . . the divine Scripture teaches us that there are certain invisible enemies fighting against us, and it tells us that we must be armed to meet them.' 291

291 Princ. 3.2.1; tr. Butterworth, First Principles, 213 (modified).

In spite of the vast number of opposing powers amassed against us under Satan Origen does not blame all our sins on the devil. Some temptations stem simply from the body's need for food, drink, and sex (Princ. 3.2.1-2). Furthermore, on the basis of 1 Corinthians

10: 13, he argues that God allows the hostile powers to be pitted against individuals only on the basis of the corresponding strength of the individual in question, like one who

presides over games matches boys against boys in accordance with their size and age

(Princ. 3.2.3).

Origen joins Ephesians 4: 27, 'Do not give place to the devil', with John 13: 2, which says that the devil put it into Judas' heart to betray Jesus, to support a fundamental point in his psychology of temptation. 292

292 See R. A. Layton, 'Judas Yields a Place to the Devil: The Appropriation of Origen's

Commentary on Ephesians by Didymus of Alexandria', in Origeniana Septima, ed. W. A.

Bienert and U. Kühneweg, BEThL 137 (Leuven, 1999), 533-6.

The devil attacks a person by placing thoughts in the mind, which Origen refers to, using the language of Ephesians 6: 16, as 'hurling at us his "fiery darts", with which we are sometimes merely inflamed, but sometimes pierced and wounded deeply'. The defence against these mental onslaughts of the devil is the 'shield of faith' of Ephesians 6: 16. 293

293 Princ. 3.2.4; tr. Butterworth, First Principles, 218.

Origen understands Ephesians 6: 12 to refer to two different classifications of temptations. He designates the first the struggle 'against flesh and blood'. On the basis of 1 Corinthians 10: 13 he asserts that this lower level was the level of temptation against which the Corinthians struggled, whom 'no temptation had taken but such as was human'.

Origen does not explicitly identify the struggle 'against flesh and blood' with the temptations mentioned above which arise simply from the needs of the body but it appears likely that he understood them in this way since he identifies the end p.67 struggles 'against flesh and blood' with the Corinthians and so many of their problems involved eating and sex. On the other hand, Paul and the Ephesians were tempted at a higher level. Their wrestling was not against 'flesh and blood' but was 'against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world'. 294

294 Ibid.; cf. Origen, Or. 29.2; Comm. in Matt. 10-17, 17.2.

Near the end of his discussion of the hostile powers in De Principiis 3.2 Origen cites the story of the wrestling of Jacob and looks at it in the light of Ephesians 6: 12. He thinks the angel in the story was not Jacob's opponent but his helper against whatever opponent he was wrestling. 'Nor indeed', he says, 'must we suppose that struggles like Jacob's are carried on by means of bodily strength and the exercise of the art of wrestling, but that the fight is one of spirit against spirit, in the same way as Paul points out that our present struggle is "against principalities and powers and the rulers of the darkness of this world".' He interprets what this means:

This kind of struggle must be understood as follows; that when losses and dangers, insults and accusations are raised up against us, the opposing powers do not do this with the mere object of making us endure these sufferings, but of provoking us by means of them to fierce anger or excessive sorrow or the depths of despair, or indeed, what is more serious, of inducing us when wearied out and overcome by these annoyances to complain against God on the ground that he does not control human life fairly and righteously.

Their aim is that by these efforts our faith may be weakened or that we may lose hope or be driven to abandon the true doctrines and persuaded to accept some impious belief about God. 295

295 Princ. 3.2.6; tr. Butterworth, First Principles, 220.

Ephesians 1: 20-1 and 6: 10-17 also play a role in Origen's understanding that the enemies of the Israelites in the Old Testament and the wars in which Israel engaged

against them are allegorical representations of the spiritual powers and their wars against spiritual persons. In De Principiis 4.3.12 the 'enemies and adversaries of Israel' are the principalities and powers of Ephesians 1: 21 which the Father subjects to the Son. 296

296 Cf. Hom. 1-28 in Num. 7.5-6; Hom. 1-26 in Jos. 11.4; 12.1.

The fighting men of Israel whom God orders to be numbered in the book of Numbers are those who wear the armour described in Ephesians 6: 13-17. The wars of Joshua are a type of the spiritual warfare of the spiritual person.

If those things which are represented in outline by Moses concerning the tabernacle or the sacrifices and that entire form of worship are said to be a type and shadow of end p.68 heavenly things, then we must certainly say that the wars which Joshua waged and his defeat of kings and enemies are a shadow and type of heavenly things, that is, of those wars which our Lord Jesus with his army and magistrates, that is the believers and their leaders, fight against the devil and his angels. For it is he himself who, in Paul and the Ephesians, fights against principalities and powers and rulers of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the heavens. 297

297 Hom. 1-26 in Jos. 12.1.

Individual kings who opposed Israel in the Old Testament represent these hostile spiritual powers. Amalek, for example, whose name is interpreted to mean 'he who licks up or diverts a people', is identified with such spiritual rulers of darkness. Alluding to Genesis

14: 7, Origen says that those who turn back to Kadesh, which he takes to mean 'the holy place' or 'sanctification', kill Amalek, meaning 'the one who licks up the people or who diverts them. For who else', Origen asks, 'is it who diverts people from God than the contrary power and wicked spirits? Who then are their princes? Those principalities, undoubtedly, against whom the saints wrestle. For their struggles are against principalities and powers and the rulers of this world . . . '. 298

298 Hom. 1-28 in Num. 19.1.

Ephesians 6: 12 also features in Origen's controversial suggestion that there may also be a passion of Christ in the heavens to save this host of errant heavenly beings. Rufinus eliminated this from his translation of the De Principiis but the agreement between Justinian's Epistola ad Mennam and Jerome's Epistola ad Avitum 12 in reporting the view makes it highly likely that Origen made such a suggestion. 299

299 See Princ. 4.3.13; Butterworth, First Principles, 310 n. 3. Cf. also Comm. in Rom. 5.1 where Origen raises the question that since Paul says that sin entered this world, meaning the earthly realm, by one man, sin may not also have entered some other locale and then suggests explicitly that region where 'the spirits of wickedness in the heavens' of Eph. 6:

12 are mentioned. Origen does not go on to make it explicit here that there may also be a redemption for those beings in the heavens, though such a thought is implicit in the discussion.

Jerome claims to be quoting Origen's own words when he says, 'Indeed, if we wish also to extend our inquiry to the passion of our Lord and Saviour, although it may be overbold to inquire about his passion in heaven, nevertheless if there is "spiritual wickedness in heavenly places" (Eph. 6: 12) and if we are not embarrassed to confess that the Lord has once been crucified to destroy those things which he has destroyed by his passion, why should we fear to imagine something similar in the upper regions at the

consummation of the ages, so that the nations of all realms will be saved by his passion?' 300

300 Ep. 124.12; tr. NPNF, 2nd ser. vi, 243 (modified). The passage appears in 124.13 in the NPNF translation. end p.69

Finally, Origen thinks that it is with the powers mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15: 24 'that the wrestling' of Ephesians 6: 12 'occurs' and once these powers have been destroyed 'so that there is no longer any principality and authority and power with which to wrestle . . . there will be no more wrestling'. He adds that it is Paul's additional words, 'For he must reign until he has placed all his enemies under his feet', that cause him to take ' "every principality and every authority and power" that is destroyed to be the powers with which the wrestling occurs'. 301

301 Jo. 32.30-1; tr. R. E. Heine, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John

Books 13-32, FOTC 89 (Washington, 1993), 348.

It is only by understanding how Origen interprets Paul's statement about placing 'all his enemies under his feet' (1 Cor. 15: 25) or all things being 'subjected under his feet' (1

Cor. 15: 27) that we can see how his statement here about the destruction of the powers does not contradict that about their salvation which we discussed in the preceding paragraph. His clearest exposition of his understanding of these matters occurs in the following paragraph concerning the consummation in De Principiis.

The end of the world and the consummation will come when every soul shall be visited with the penalties due for its sins. . . . We believe, however, that the goodness of God through Christ will restore his entire creation to one end, even his enemies being conquered and subdued. For so says the holy scripture: 'The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet'. And if it is not very evident what the prophetic language here means, let us learn from Paul the Apostle, who says more openly, 'Christ must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet'. But if even this clear declaration of the Apostle is not sufficient to inform us what is the meaning of 'putting enemies under his feet', hear further what he says in the words that follow: 'For all things must be made subject to him'. What then is this

'subjection', by which 'all things must be made subject to Christ'? In my opinion it is the same subjection by which we too desire to be subjected to him, and by which the apostles and all the saints who have followed Christ were subject to him. For the word subjection, when used of our subjection to Christ, implies the salvation, proceeding from Christ, of those who are subject. . . . 302

302 1.6.1; tr. Butterworth, First Principles, 52-3 (emphasis mine). C. Blanc (ed., tr.),

Origène: Commentaire sur saint Jean, v, SC 385 (Paris, 1992), 201 n. 2, calls attention to this passage in relation to Jo. 32.31 along with similar passages in Princ. 3.5.7, Comm. ser. 1-145 in Matt. 8, and Hom. 1-16 in Lev. 8.2.

There is no contradiction, then, between saying that there will be a passion of Christ in the heavens on behalf of the 'spiritual wickedness in heavenly places' and saying that the powers against which the spiritual person wrestles will in the end be destroyed when they are placed in end p.70 subjection under Christ's feet for the latter, for Origen, is a way of speaking of their salvation.

A number of these points about the spiritual powers appear in the catena commentary and in Jerome's commentary on the verses noted above. Both the catena commentary on Ephesians 6: 12 and Jerome's commentary on Ephesians 1: 20b-21 and on Ephesians 6:

12 take the enemies who made war on Israel in the Old Testament to be types of the principalities and powers Paul discusses in Ephesians. Both also make the distinction noted above between struggles 'against flesh and blood' and struggles 'against principalities and powers' in their discussion of Ephesians 6: 12. Jerome, in a passage in his discussion of Ephesians 6: 12 for which there is no parallel in the catena commentary, cites the story of Jacob's wrestling and understands the angel to have been Jacob's helper in the struggle against another opponent in the same way that we noted above that Origen understood the passage. This similarity shows that Jerome is dependent on Origen for this interpretation although there is no matching passage in the catena commentary. There is no trace, however, in either the catena commentary or Jerome's commentary of Origen's controversial suggestion about a passion of Christ in heaven for the salvation of the powers of Ephesians 6: 12, although there are allusions to the cross of Christ benefiting angels as well as humans in Jerome's remarks on Ephesians 2: 14b-18 and 4: 10. end p.71 end p.72

Translations of Origen's and Jerome's Commentaries on Ephesians end p.73 end p.74

The Commentaries of Eusebius Jerome the Presbyter on the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians Book I Ronald E. Heine The Preface to Paula and Eustochium 537-8 If there is anything, O Paula and Eustochium, which might be wise in this human life and persuade one to continue with tranquil soul amid the pressures and tumults of the world it is, above all else, in my opinion, the meditation on and knowledge of the Scriptures. For because we differ from other living beings, especially in the fact that we are rational and can speak, and all reason and speech is contained in the divine books through which we learn about God and are made aware of why we have been created, I am amazed that there are some people who either, because they are lazy, do not wish to learn those things which are noble or who think others who cherish that study should be censured.

While I could respond to these people more severely and briefly dismiss them either embittered or appeased, I will say only that it is much better to read the Scriptures than to long for one's influence to be enlarged and increased. I say this because he asserts before the most unjust judge possible that I enjoy leisure and appear to enjoy solitude more than any festivity. In the same way that I neither reprove nor condemn what they do, so ought they to grant me my follies. Am I not eloquent enough? What is that to you? Read him who is more fluent. Do I not translate Greek words into Latin properly? Then read the Greek authors, if you know that language, or if you are only a Latin, don't be judgemental with respect to a free gift and, as the common proverb goes, look a gift-horse in the mouth. Do I drag you off by the hand to the law because you do not write things favourable to us? Will some inexperienced person read me? Perhaps if you were to write

down your sayings Tullius might admire them. Did Tertullian deter the blessed martyr

Cyprian from writing, or Cyprian Lactantius, or Lactantius Hilary? I say nothing of the other insignificant matters which they prate about me in their books. And in fact, if they were not minor points, major end p.75

points could not stand out. One does not mention a first unless a second and third follow.

We do not ascend to the heights unless we traverse 539-40 the lowest parts.

For this reason I beseech you who are at present, like the holy Marcella, the unique model of widowhood, not to hand my little works over readily to those who are slanderous and envious, and not to give that which is holy to the dogs and cast pearls before the swine who, when they cannot imitate good things, envy them, since this is the only thing of which they are capable, and suppose themselves learned and erudite if they detract from others. I beseech you to reply to them: Let them thrust in the pen themselves. Let them connect three words, as the saying goes. Let them sweat a little, let them put themselves to the test and learn from their own labour to be forgiving to those who labour. For you yourselves also know that you have compelled me to this work of explanation as I was reluctant and unwilling.

Never, from my youth, have I ceased to read about or to question learned men about those things which I did not know. I have not regarded myself alone to be a master, as many do. In fact, only recently I went to Alexandria for the very purpose of visiting

Didymus and inquiring of him concerning those things of which I am uncertain in all of the Scriptures.

But it is one thing to compose one's own books—for example on avarice, faith, virginity, or widows—and to unite secular eloquence on each subject with testimonies from the Scriptures selected from one place and another and to display a splendid style on rather common topics. It is another thing to enter into the meaning of the prophets and apostles, to understand why they wrote, in what way they have declared their thinking, what they regard as characteristic of the Idumaeans in the Old Law, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Tyrians, the Philistines, the Egyptians, and the Assyrians; what, again, they regard as characteristic of the Romans in the New Testament, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Hebrews, the Colossians, and the Ephesians, which epistle to the Ephesians we now have in our hands. 1

1 See Introd. §3.4.3 for my reasons for assuming that the italicized passages in the preface are derived from Origen's commentary on Ephesians.

For in conformity with the diversity of places, times, and people to whom they have been written, they must also have diverse themes, subjects, and origins. And just as the blessed

John, writing to the seven churches in his Apocalypse, either reproved the vices or approved the virtues in each of them, so also the holy apostle Paul heals the wounds which have been inflicted on the individual churches. He does not wish, like an inexperienced physician, to heal the eyes of everyone with the same eye-salve. And since, aided by prayers, we have already expressed what seemed good to end p.76 us in respect to the Galatians a few days ago, we must now pass over to the Ephesians, that epistle of the apostle which stands in the middle in concepts as well as order. Now I say middle not because it comes after the first epistles and is longer than the final ones,

but in the sense that the heart of an animal is in its mid-section, so that you might understand from this the magnitude of the difficulties and the profundity of the questions it contains.

He wrote to the Ephesians who worshipped Diana. This was not the huntress who holds the bow and is girded, but that multi-breasted Diana which the Greeks call πōλυμαστ ν, so that, of course, on the basis of 541-2 the statue itself they might also falsely assert that she is the nurse of all beasts and living beings. He wrote, moreover, to the chief city of Asia where idolatry and the deceptions of the magicians' arts which always accompany idolatry thrived, as Demetrius said, 'And the temple of the great goddess Diana shall be considered nothing, and her majesty shall also be destroyed, whom all Asia and the whole world worship' (Acts 19: 27). Finally, the apostle remained there for three years preaching the gospel of God night and day so that when the stronghold of idolatry had been destroyed they might easily take the temples of the lesser cities. Scripture reports this very thing, how Paul preached to the Ephesians saying, 'Wherefore be on your guard, recalling that for three years I did not cease night and day to admonish each one of you with tears, and now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace who is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified'

(Acts 20: 31-2).

They, whom the error of demons had so long held and who knew that there are spiritual beings and powers and who had perceived a certain likeness of divinity in organs and auguries and divinations, were in need of the apostle's commendation to God. On this basis he says to them again, 'For this reason I call you to witness on this day that I am clean from the blood of all. For I have not shunned announcing to you the whole will of God' (Acts 20: 26-7). And he says in another passage, 'How I have avoided none of those things which they have related to you but I have proclaimed and taught them in public and in private' (Acts 20: 20). He had read in Ezekiel that the blood of the citizens would be required of the hands of the watchman who had not warned the people of the approach of enemies and, therefore, he relates that he had proclaimed the whole will of God and everything which might be useful to them so that he is free of their blood.

Furthermore, so that you might know that those in Ephesus who had believed had been bound by the deceptions of demons and the frauds of magic the same Acts of the Apostles reiterates, 'Many of them also who had cherished magical arts brought their books together and burned them before everyone and they reckoned up their value and discovered it to be fifty thousand pieces of silver. The word of God was increasing so powerfully and becoming stronger' (Acts 19: 18-20).

We have, therefore, repeated all these things to show why the apostle has heaped up more obscure ideas and mysteries unknown to the ages in this epistle than in all the end p.77 others and has taught about the dominion of sacred and hostile powers, what demons are, what they are capable of, what they were previously and how they have been overthrown and destroyed after the advent of Christ. He says of them, 'Our battle is not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this darkness, against spiritual powers of wickedness in the heavens' (Eph. 6: 12). And he says in another passage, 'But I will remain in Ephesus until Pentecost. For a great and effectual door has been opened to me, but the adversaries are many' (1 Cor. 16: 8-9).

Moreover, he remained at Ephesus until Pentecost, that joyful and victorious time in

which we do not bend our knees or bow to the earth but rising up with the Lord we are elevated to the heights of heaven. He remained because a door had been opened for him, and it was not a modest door but a great one, so that he might conquer and vanquish the strong man, invade his house, plunder and overthrow it and 'lead captivity captive' (cf.

Eph. 4: 8). When the armies of the strong man's attendants 543-4 had been mustered he fought together with his total battle array against the apostle and lost.

But the following especially reveals who the Ephesians are, because just as John, who was to reveal the mystery of the ancient birth of the Lord, reclined on Jesus' breast and drew rivulets of teachings from the purest source, so also the Ephesians, by falling on Paul's neck with their kisses and embraces at the time of their separation, indicated that they held one treasure of knowledge with him and proved their grief for their teacher with their tears (cf. Acts 20: 37).

I bring the following to your attention also in the preface that you may know that Origen, whom we have also followed in part, has written three volumes on this epistle.

Apollinarius and Didymus have also published some brief commentaries. Although we have plucked a few things from these, we have also added or removed some things as it seemed proper to us. Consequently, the studious reader may know at the very beginning that this work is both 2 2 The Latin text has vel . . . vel, which would usually be translated 'either . . . or'. This does not seem to me, however, to convey the meaning in this context. C. T. Lewis and C.

Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879/1966) say under vel I.B.2.a that the disjunctive force of vel. . .vel may be weakened so that it 'nearly= et . . . et'. another's and ours.

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 1 Paul, Apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God.

Eph. 1: 1 Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God.

If the preposition 'through' indicates the office of him through which a thing is done, that idea seems to me to correspond with the following sentence, 'No one comes to me, unless my Father draws him to me' (John 6: 44). And thus it will follow also that what is said in John's Gospel, 'All things were made through him' (John 1: 3), no doubt at all meaning through the Son, is not detrimental to our

Lord Jesus Christ, as if he is less because he submitted to the will of the Father, even as now it is not detrimental to the Father because Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ through his will. But others understand that passage in such a way that they think Paul is shown to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of If the preposition 'through' indicates what is subordinate (as we examined more extensively when we were explaining the clause, 'All things were made through him' (John 1: 3), 3 3 Jo. 2.70-1. and wrote down the objections to this which occurred to us), we must investigate how Paul is an apostle of Christ Jesus, not from the will of God but 'through the will of God'.

Someone will say, then, that Paul does not understand the specific features of the prepositions perfectly at all, which

God, which is Christ. Just as (Christ) is said to be the 'Wisdom' and 'Logos', and 'Power' of God, and the 'Truth', and 'Resurrection' and 'Way' (1 Cor. 1:

24; John 1: 14; 14: 6; 11: 25), so also is he designated 'Will'. Others are of the opinion that it makes no difference whether he has said 'through the will of God' or 'from the will of God' because the apostle uses these prepositions without distinction, and 'through the will of God' indicates the same thing, as if he had said, 'from the will of God'. is the case also with other meanings. But another, who knows the difference between 'through God' and 'through the will of God', will say that it would have been strange had he written, 'Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through God'. If, however, the will of God is something subordinate, since what God uses is itself considered to have being, this would not be unreasonable.

And you will take note also if the phrase 'will of God' can be applied to Christ so that as he is 'the end p.78 power of God and the wisdom of God' (1 Cor 1: 24), so he may also be his 'will', himself having the substance of God. But if someone should think it absurd to say that the 'Will of God' is invested with substance, let him note if the seeming absurdity is not about the same also in the case of the 'Power of God', the 'Wisdom of God', the 'Word of God',

'Truth', 'Resurrection' and 'Way'. For it seems to me to be about the same concerning all of these, insofar as they are invested with substance in the only-begotten Word. end p.79

Eph. 1: 1b To all the saints who are in Ephesus.

Eph. 1: 1b To the saints who are, and the faithful in Christ Jesus.

545 Some, in a more curious manner than is necessary, think, because of what was said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, He who is has sent me'

(Exod. 3: 14), that those who are saints and faithful in Ephesus are referred to by the term 'being'. Just as they are called 'saints' by a saint, 'just' by a just man and 'wise' by a wise man, so they are called 'those who are' by him

'who is'. According to the same apostle, God chose those things which were not that he might destroy the things which were (1 Cor. 1: 28). We understand the same Scripture, furthermore, which has been advanced as testimony for the destruction of those things which were, as In the case of Ephesians alone we find the phrase, 'to the saints who are'. We ask what the phrase 'who are' can mean, if it is not redundant when added to 'the saints'. Consider, then, if not as in Exodus he who utters the words 'he who is' to Moses speaks his own name (Exod. 3: 14), so those who participate in 'the one who is' become those 'who are', called, as it were, from 'not being' into 'being'. For God 'chose the things which are not', Paul himself says, 'that he might abolish the things which are' (1 Cor 1: 28-9). And someone will ask how he

they explained it, on the basis of the words which follow, 'That no flesh may glory before God' (1 Cor. 1: 29). For if, they say, someone advancing by means of God to being, from that which was not into that which is, should refer the gift not to the giver but should consider its continuation to be due to his own merit and virtue, immediately the being which is, is destroyed and he begins not to be what he was. Others, however, think it has been written straightforwardly not to those 'who are', but 'who are the saints and faithful in Ephesus'. abolishes 'the things which are'.

But let us hear him subjoin the phrase, 'that no flesh may boast before God'. For if someone who has participated in 'being' should forget the participation and attribute the cause of 'being' to himself and not offer up the complete thanksgiving to the one who granted to him 'to be' in respect to his 'likeness and image' from 'not being', then 'that which is' is abolished.

Eph. 1: 1c and to the Faithful in Christ Jesus.

Because an unbelieving wife is sanctified in a believing brother and an unbelieving husband is sanctified in a believing wife (1 Cor. 7: 14), and there are also holy vessels

(Num. 4: 12-15) and dumb animals which are end p.80 offered to God in the temple (Num. 29: 2 ff.), he has added the term 'faithful' to those whom he had said were 'saints' because faith proceeds from our own mind by our free will but sanctification is received sometimes from the generosity of the one who sanctifies without the involvement of our will.

But he says, on the contrary, 'to the faithful in Christ Jesus'. He has stated this to set off a most attentive observation, since indeed there are many faithful but not in Christ Jesus. If someone returns a deposit and does not refuse the things which have been entrusted to him, he shows himself to be a faithful friend. He is prepared to surrender his life rather than his trustworthiness, which we read of some philosophers (and the Athenian whore brought it about that they should not boast too much). Such a person, indeed, is faithful but he is not 'faithful in Christ Jesus'.

Eph. 1: 2 Grace to You and Peace from God Our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Do both, that is grace and 546 peace, apply to each, as to God the Father, so to our Lord

Jesus Christ, or are individual terms to be referred to individuals so that grace is referred to God the Father but peace to Christ? Since there follows immediately, 'To the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he has glorified us in the beloved' (Eph. 1: 6), the grace of the Father would consist in the fact that He considered it worthy to send the Son for our salvation, but the peace of the Son would consist in the fact that we have been reconciled to the Father by him and, when he had destroyed the middle partition by cancelling the enmity in his flesh, he made both one (Eph. 2: 14).

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the Eph. 1: 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the

heavenly places in Christ. heavenly places in Christ.

On the basis of the blessings in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, someone will say that perhaps blessings such as these have been recorded elsewhere in Scripture.

The 'spiritual blessing' is mentioned, however, in opposition to those blessings, since 'the God and Father of Jesus Christ' does not 'bless us', like those, with a material 'blessing' but with a 'spiritual' one. The heterodox will, indeed, take it in this way, thinking that they will also receive a pretext for dissecting the deity from such an interpretation.

But since we have demonstrated that not even in those cases related to the law are the blessings, if taken materially, given to those who were thought to have lived well even according to the law, we will prove that those who have interpreted in this way either give a false impression of the one who has given the blessings or have made promises not intended by the obvious interpretation to those who have lived as he commanded. For it is consistent with the statement, 'The law is spiritual' (Rom. 7: 14), that the blessings it contains are also spiritual. Take the prophets, for example. They have not obtained blessings materially. For men who 'went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, in want, afflicted, maltreated, wandering in deserts, in mountains, in caves and holes of the earth' (Heb. 11: 37-8) have not 'lent to many nations'

(Deut. 28: 12) nor 'have they been blessed in the city' or 'in the field'

Just as God is good in substance and nature and makes us good by communion with himself as he said to Israel, 'You shall be holy, as I am holy' (Lev. 20: 7), so, because he is blessed, he grants that we are blessed. The lawgiver, to be sure, gives blessings and the blessing of the Lord is on the head of the just (Prov. 10: 6). Baruch, which in our language signifies blessed, has the name of his blessing.

But he has blessed us not with one blessing but with all. Not that we all obtain all, but while we individually have either single or multiple blessings from all, we all possess them individually.

And he has blessed us not with earthly blessings but with spiritual.

There are, indeed, also earthly blessings: for someone to have children, to abound in wealth, to enjoy honour and health. This earthly blessing falls even to irrational beasts. It was, indeed, said of them, 'The Lord blessed them and said, Increase and be multiplied' (Gen. 1: 22). But spiritual blessings are in the heavenly places because earth does not contain a spiritual blessing. We do not see those blessings which are promised to those who keep the precepts of God in Leviticus (Lev. 26:

3-13) fulfilled, for example, in the prophets: to lend to foreign nations, to have barns filled with grain, to be blessed in cities, blessed in fields, and other things similar to these. The prophets were men who 547 wandered in sheepskins and in goatskins, in poverty, in distress, in deserts, in mountains, in caves and holes in rocks, avoiding the attacks of

persecutors (Heb. 11: 38). All the blessings, therefore, are to be interpreted spiritually, and spiritual things are to be expected not in earthly places, but in heavenly.

But because he said, 'He has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places', as if it were already done in the past and not promised in the future, that is, he has blessed and not he will bless, I ask how he will have blessed us with a heavenly blessing who are still located on earth. We are said to be blessed now with a heavenly blessing, therefore, either because 'our manner of life is in heaven' (Phil. 3: 20) and we are not of this world (John 15: 19), but when the image of the earthly man has been put aside we bear the image of the heavenly (1 Cor. 15: 49) and we do not live in the flesh but in the spirit (Rom. 8:

9) and we lay up treasures for ourselves in heaven where we have our heart (Matt. 6: 20-1) or, perhaps, because every spiritual blessing 'in Christ', even if it be on earth, is nevertheless reckoned to belong to heavenly blessings.

'He has blessed us', he says, 'with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ', that is, in the Word of God, Wisdom, Truth and the other virtues.

But 'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' must be read in one of two ways.

It may be read, 'God, who is the maker of all things, is blessed', followed by a break. Then the fact that he is 'also Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' is introduced.

Alternatively, it may be read so that both 'God' and 'Father' are referred in common to 'our Lord'.

Blessed be the God of that man who was assumed, and of him who was God the Word in the (Deut. 28: 3). But neither have their 'barns been blessed' (Deut.

28: 5), which they did not possess at all. And consider if, on this basis, we shall not compel those who think otherwise (if they would preserve the dignity of the God who has given the blessings)4 to adopt the view that God has given blessings spiritually to his blessed ones.

But not only is every blessing 'spiritual' with which Paul and those similar to him are blessed and not one of them material but they are also 'in the heavenly places'. For it was fitting for those whose 'citizenship is in heaven'

(Phil. 3: 20), who 'store up treasure in heaven' and have their 'heart where' their 'treasure is'

(Matt. 6: 20-1) also to obtain spiritual blessings 'in the heavenly places'. But how now is the past tense in the statement, 'The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing' and 'in the heavenly places', to be considered in a worthy manner? For he does not say, 'Who will bless' us. And consider if the phrase, 'in the heavenly places', can be used for the phrase, 'in the places that are apprehended by the intellect and are outside of sense perception'.

For it is in this way also that one 'stores up treasure in heaven' and no longer has his 'heart on the earth', that is in physical and material things, but 'in heaven', always consorting with that nature itself which is apprehended by the intellect. But so that we might perceive it more precisely, both phrases are used of the blessing,

both that it is 'spiritual', and that it is 'in the heavenly places', and in addition to these, that it is 'in Christ', that is to say, in the Word, in Wisdom, in the Truth and in Power. beginning with God. It is not that the man assumed is one and the Word who assumed another, but that one and the same is proclaimed for a variety of reasons, at one time exalted, at another lowly.

end p.81 end p.82 end p.83

Eph. 1: 4 as He Chose Us in Him Before the Constitution of the World, That We Should

Be Holy and Unstained Before Him.

'Before the constitution of the world' has been written in Greek, , but καταβōλ

does not mean the same thing as 'constitution' (see Introd. §4.3.1).

Therefore, because of the poverty of the Latin language and the novelty of the things discussed 548 and, as someone said, because the language of the Greeks is more extensive and is a more fertile speech, we will attempt to translate not so much word for word, which is impossible, as to explain somewhat periphrastically the force of the word.

is properly used when something is thrown down and is placed in a lower place from a higher one or when something assumes a beginning. For this reason also those who lay the first foundations of future buildings are said καταβεβληκ ναι, that is, they are said to have thrown down the beginnings of the foundations. Paul, therefore, wishing to show that God devised all things from nothing, ascribes to it not making, not creating and formation, but καταβōλ

, that is the beginning of the foundation, so that something from which creatures were made did not precede creatures in accordance with the Manichaeans and other heresies (which posit a maker and material), but all things subsist from nothing.

But the fact that he has declared that we were chosen before the creation of the world

'that we should be holy and unstained before him', that is, before God, pertains to God's foreknowledge for whom all future things have already been done (Eccles. 3: 15) and all things are known before they come to pass (Dan. 13: 42). Just as Paul himself is predestined in the womb of his mother (Gal. 1: 15) and Jeremiah is sanctified in the end p.84 womb (Jer. 1: 5), Paul is chosen, confirmed, and sent as a prophet to the Gentiles in the type of Christ.

But another, who attempts to show that God is just because he chooses each, not on the basis of the prejudgement of his knowledge but on the basis of the merit of those chosen, says that before there were visible creatures, sky, earth, seas, and all the things which are in them, there had been other invisible creatures in which were also souls which, for reasons known only to God, were cast down into that valley of tears, into the place of affliction and our sojourning, where the saint who had been placed there prayed that he might return to that original habitation saying, 'Woe to me, because my residence has been prolonged. I have dwelt with the inhabitants of Kedar; my soul has sojourned long'

(Ps. 119: 5-6). And in another place, 'I am a miserable man. Who will deliver me from the body of this death?' (Rom. 7: 24). And, 'It is better 549 to return, 5

5 I have found no MS evidence in Biblical texts of Phil. in either Greek or Latin to attest

'return' (reverti) here. Jerome's use of this word may point to a reliance on Origen. In Princ. 1.7.5 Origen cites Phil. 1: 23 in the following words, 'Optarem enim resolvi vel redire et esse cum Christo'. Origen may have used a verb meaning 'to return' in his citation of Phil. 1: 23 in our text. I have, however, found no other place where he cites

Phil. 1: 23 in any but the standard words of the Biblical text. and be with Christ' (Phil. 1: 23). And elsewhere, 'Before I was humbled, I sinned' (Ps.

118: 67), and other passages like these. Therefore, before souls were cast down into the world, they say, and the world came to be with its inhabitants of living beings, itself cast down to the lowest rank, God chose Paul and those like him who were holy and unstained before himself. But no one is chosen except out of a larger number, and where some are baser, there election is accomplished. But as the prophets Ezekiel, Daniel, the three boys,

Aggeus, and Zacharias were sent into the Babylonian captivity when the people were carried off into Chaldaea by Nabuchodonosor not because they themselves also deserved captivity but that they might comfort the captives, so also those who had been chosen by God before the origin of the world have been sent into that throwing down of the world to instruct and teach sinful souls so that as a result of their preaching these souls might be turned back to that place whence they have fallen. This is what Moses said in the eightyninth Psalm, 'Lord, you have been our refuge from generation to generation, before the mountains were made firm, or the earth and the world came to be' (Ps. 89: 1-2), because, of course, before the world came to be and the whole of humanity assumed a beginning,

God was a refuge for his saints. 6

6 See Append. B, 22; Introd. §3.2 and 4.3.1.

But the fact that he says, 'That we should be holy and unstained before him', makes a distinction between 'holy' and 'unstained', because 'holy' can also be understood as 'unstained', but 'unstained' is not also regularly understood as 'holy'. Children, indeed, are unstained because they have committed no sin in their entire body. Nevertheless they are not holy end p.85 because holiness is connected with the will and intentionality. And the fact that one who has not committed sins can be called 'unstained' is in accord with that which is written in a certain Psalm, 'He who walks without stain, and works justice' (Ps. 14: 2), and in the Song of Songs, 'You are totally beautiful, and there is no stain in you' (Song 4: 7). 'Holy', however, is for those who are full of virtues.

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 4b (For) us to be holy and blameless before him.

It is asked how someone may be holy and unstained before God when the prophet testifies and says, 'No one living will be justified in your sight'

(Ps. 142: 2). For either the Ephesians are holy and unstained before God, and the statement is false, 'No one living But someone may ask if the prophetic saying, 'No one living will be justified before you' (Ps.

142: 2) does not contradict the statement that some 'are holy and blameless before' God. If 'no one living will be justified'

will be justified in your sight' or, if no one is justified 550 in the sight of God, what precedes is false, that they are holy and unstained before God. One must respond to this in two ways.

Paul does not say, He chose us before the constitution of the world when we were holy and unstained but, He chose us 'that we should be holy and unstained', that is, that we who previously were not holy and unstained should afterwards be holy and unstained. This can also be said to those who have been converted from sinners to better things, and that sentence will stand firm, 'No one living will be justified in your sight', that is, in his whole life, in the entire time in which he lives in this world.

Understood in this way it also before God, how will they be 'holy before him'? For if they will be 'holy and blameless', they will also be justified.

Someone will appeal to the ambiguity of the prophetic saying and say that for no one to be justified before God means something like this: the fact that no one will be justified on the basis that he has never sinned in his entire lifetime does not prevent some from 'being holy and blameless before him' on the basis of correction. Or, consider also the meaning, [if] not 'every living being',7 indeed, then, some are justified.

end p.86 opposes the one who says that before the origin of the world souls were elected because of their holiness and the absence of any blemish of sins. For, as we have already said,

Paul and those like him were not chosen because they were holy and unstained but they were chosen and predestined that in their following life they might become holy and unstained by works and virtues. Then, the following observation must also be noted: he did not say, 'Not anyone living will be justified in your sight', but 'all living', that is, all will not be justified, but some will be justified.

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 4b-5a In love having predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ unto himself.

Eph. 1:4b-5a In love predestining us in the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ in himself.'

This must be read in one of two ways, so that love is connected either with what precedes or what follows. Read with what precedes, it is as follows: 'That we should be holy and unstained before him in love', and after that follows, 'predestining

One must join the 'in love' either with 'having predestined', or with 'he chose us in him

us in the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ in himself'. But read with what follows it is thus: 'In love predestining us in the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ in himself'.

The Latin language, however, does not exhibit the distinction of the Greek language between πρōōρισθ in love before the foundation of the world, having predestined us' in adoption '[through] Jesus Christ unto himself' so that 'we might be holy and blameless before him' (Eph.

1: 4).

Now the noun 'adoption' reveals that those predestined by him are not sons of God by nature. The noun adoption would not indeed be applied to the Saviour but to those who, 'having received the spirit of slavery to fear' (Rom. 8: 15) and having 'rendered fear its due' (Rom. 13:

7), become worthy of freedom and of hearing, 'No longer do I call you slaves'

(John 15: 15), who also, for this reason, receive 'the spirit of adoption'

(Rom. 8: 15).

And when anyone receives the Son who has not previously had him, then he has also received 'the ντōς.

The former word refers to those who previously did not exist, and before they came to be a plan was made for them, and afterwards they existed. But the latter is used of him whom no plan nor will preceded, but he always was and never experienced a beginning of his existence. Wherefore πρōōρισθ ντōς and ρισθ

ντες is now correctly used of those who, although they previously did not exist, later existed. But

ντōς has been written of the Son, that is of our Lord Jesus Christ, in another place (Rom. 1:

4) because he was always with the Father 551 and the will of the Father never preceded him that he should exist. From this it is deduced that the Father always was and the Son always was and that the nature is the same in those in whom the eternity is coequal. 8

8 This discussion of πρōōρισθ ρισθ

ντōς is not found in the catena fragment but so closely parallels Origen's discussion of Rom.

1: 4a in Comm. in Rom. 1.5 that the section must depend on Origen.

And this too is to be inferred, that although God predestines or appoints us beforehand in the ντες and ρισθ

spirit of adoption'.

For in this way the adoption through Christ comes to us.

Nevertheless, we have arrived at the phrase 'unto himself'. 'He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blameless before him, in love having predestined us' in adoption 'through Christ'.

For the phrase 'unto himself' is added to these words.

end p.87 adoption of sons through Jesus Christ we, nevertheless, cannot be sons before we receive faith in and knowledge of his Son Jesus Christ. And he, indeed, is Son by nature but we by adoption. He was always Son. Before we existed we were adopted and then we received the spirit of adoption when we believed in the Son of God.

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 5b According to the good pleasure of his will.

Eph. 1: 5b According to the pleasure of his will.

The word ε The Greeks do not, I think, regularly use the expression 'good pleasure' in their common language. The expression has been coined by the α, which the Latin word placitum has translated is composed from two words with δōκ

Δ the Greeks,

, from 'well', and from 'that which is pleasing'. We cannot say beneplacitum, because everything which pleases cannot immediately also be well pleasing, but where

α alone is said, that is, 'that which is well pleasing', there what is pleasing is verified as very pleasing. But the Septuagint translators translated this word from the Hebrew RESON, forming new words for new things. They, 9 9 The passage beginning here and extending to the end of the first paragraph on Eph. 1: 6 has no parallel in the catena fragment. The doctrine expressed concerning the origin of souls, however, is Origen's doctrine. See Princ. 1.8.1, 1.5.3 and his discussion of Rom. 9: 21 in Comm. in Rom. 7.17. See also Rufinus, Apol. 1. 28-9 and above, Introd.

§4.3.1.

therefore, who think that souls turned away before the creating of the world, along with the angels and other names of the powers in the heavenly Jerusalem, seize the opportunity in this passage because it could not be understood as well pleasing to God and in the praise of his glory and grace that souls were born in various parts of the world, ignoble or noble, some destitute, barbarians, slaves, and infirm, and others rich, Romans, free, and healthy, unless each of these lots of the souls should rest on the merits of preceding causes. And some think they understand, but do not, that which Paul wrote to the Romans, 'Or does the potter not have power to make one vessel for honour and another for dishonour from translators. They used the expression in the case of the prophetic words, as in the eighty-fourth Psalm, 'You have shown good pleasure on your land, Lord' (Ps.

84: 2), and in the one-hundred and fifth, 'Remember us, Lord, in the good pleasure of your people' (Ps. 105:

4), and in Habakkuk, 'If he draw back, my soul has no good pleasure in him'

(Hab. 2: 4). Now 'good pleasure' indicates 'good' and 'to seem'.

Consequently it would not be used in the case of things which do not seem good to us but in the case only of things which seem worthy of praise.

We must ask, therefore, how God, 'in love having predestined ε δōκ

for adoption' those whom he predestined, predestined them 'according to the good pleasure of his will'. And we must discover proof that the 'good pleasure' belongs to 'his will' for these, for his will was also well pleased that 'the glory of his grace' for those being saved be praised (Eph. 1:

6). end p.88 the same lump?' (Rom. 9: 21). They give this the same interpretation, namely that just as a good or bad life, a difficult or an easy one is lived in vain in this world unless we believe that there is a future judgement of God, so also the diversity of those born in this world reproves the justice of God if the merits of the souls have not preceded. For if, they say, we do not take these things in this way it will be neither the good pleasure 552 of the will of God nor in praise of his glory and grace that some have been chosen before the constitution of the world that they should be holy and blameless and have adoption through Jesus Christ, while others from the earliest creation have also been destined for perpetual punishments.

Eph. 1: 6 to the Praise of the Glory of His Grace, in Which He Has Shown Grace to Us in the Beloved.

What praise, they ask, is there to the glory of the grace of God, who has shown grace to some in Christ and has prepared others for eternal punishments; who loves Jacob before he emerges from the womb, and has hated Esau before he has done things worthy of hatred, unless there were preceding causes which prove the justice of God? 10

10 See preceding note. end p.89

All the grace, therefore, which we obtain to the glory and praise of him who has 'shown grace to us in the Beloved', that is, in our Lord and Saviour, is furnished abundantly because nothing good can be understood without wisdom, truth, justice, peace, redemption, and the other virtues. The phrase, 'in his beloved Son', which has been written in the Latin codices is not to be considered, but simply 'in the Beloved'. If, however, 'Beloved of God' or 'Beloved of the Father' should be added, it would be the simple understanding and, by the common opinion of all, that our Lord Jesus Christ is loved by the Father. We would, however, concede nothing great to the peculiar nature of

the Son when the Son is thus loved as other things. It is said, indeed, to God, 'You love all things, and you cast off nothing of the things which you have made, for you formed nothing considering it for hatred' (Wisd. 11: 25). Or, if it had been added, 'In which he has shown grace to us in the beloved' 'before all', the whole difficulty would have been removed, because we know that the patriarchs, prophets, and all holy men were loved by God. But now because it has been stated absolutely saying, 'in the Beloved', it thus seems to me to be understood that 'in respect to all things' should be supplied.

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 6 In the Beloved.

The Saviour is designated simply 'Beloved', since men would err concerning the apprehension of 'righteousness', 'truth', and 'wisdom' (1 Cor. 1: 30, 24; John 14: 6) but all would agree 'to love'

'wisdom', 'truth', and 'righteousness'. For this reason the only begotten of God is designated 'Beloved', since all men love the things intended in him, but either fall short of the goal or attain it, just as all men wonder at God but those who fail to obtain sound concepts of God go wrong.

For if Christ, as we have often already said, is wisdom, justice, peace, joy, continence (1 Cor. 1: 30), etc., even those who cannot follow these names of the virtues love them. No one is such an acknowledged villain that he would say that he does not love wisdom and justice.

Just as all men agree that the substance of God is divine and no one's perception easily grasps it but each errs when he thinks that it is such or such, so also all love Christ in accordance with 553 that which signifies the diverse virtues, although many cannot prove by their deeds that they love him. This is the Beloved whom I think is indicated in Isaiah, 'I will sing to my beloved

a song of the beloved of my vineyard' (Isa. 5: 1) and, 'My beloved had a vineyard' (ibid.); and in the twenty-eighth Psalm, 'The Lord will destroy end p.90

the cedars of Lebanon, and will diminish them like a calf of Lebanon, and as a beloved son of unicorns' (Ps. 28: 5-6).

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 7a In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of trespasses.

Eph. 1: 7a In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.

That person is redeemed who is a captive and has fallen into the power of enemies and has ceased to be free. So also some say that we are captives in this world and are held by the yoke of slavery under princes and powers, nor, unless a redeemer come, can we free our hands previously bound by chains and lift our eyes above. But who, they ask, is so great and of such a kind that he can redeem the whole world by his own worth? Jesus Christ, the Son of God, gave his own blood, snatched us from slavery and forgave us freely. And indeed, if we trust the stories of the Gentiles that Codrus,

Curtius, and the Decii Mures curbed plagues of cities, famines, and wars with their own deaths, how much more is it to be judged possible that the Son of God cleansed not one city but the whole world with his own blood.11 But the blood and flesh of Christ are understood in a twofold manner. They are understood either as spiritual and divine, of which he himself said, 'My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink' (John 6: 56) and, 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will not have eternal life' (John 6: 54), or as the flesh and blood which was crucified and which was poured out by the spear of the soldier (John 19: 33-4). In accordance 'Redemption' [or] deliverance has to do with prisoners and those who have come under the power of enemies. And we had come under the power of enemies, namely 'the ruler of this world' and the evil powers under him (2 Cor. 4: 4; Eph. 2: 2) and for this reason were in need of redemption and of him who purchased us, that he might receive us back who were alienated from him. The Saviour, therefore, 'gave' his own blood as the 'ransom' for us, wherefore 'we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of trespasses'.

'The forgiveness of trespasses' follows redemption, since it is not possible that forgiveness of trespasses occur for someone before he has been redeemed.

First, then, we must be redeemed and no longer be under the power of the one who has captured and conquered us, so that having been freed and released from his hands (so to speak), we can profitably receive 'the forgiveness of trespasses' and, having been healed from the wounds of sin, we can actively engage in piety and the other virtues.

end p.91 with this division a distinction of blood and flesh is understood also among his saints, so that there is one flesh which is to see the salvation of God (Luke 3: 6) and another flesh

and blood which cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15: 50). But we are described, consequently, as having received forgiveness of sins after redemption by the blood of Christ, 554 for unless we had been redeemed, in vain had our sins been forgiven us. For we could not receive pardon from our transgressions and cease to be their servants before the victor once stained with blood had borne the price for us.

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 7b-8 According to the wealth of his grace which he caused to abound to us.

Eph. 1: 7b-8a According to the wealth of his grace which has abounded in us.

The person who understands the saying, 'You have been saved by grace and not of works' (Eph. 2: 8, 9), and that he who is forgiven more loves more in relation to the debtor who owed fifty denarii and five hundred in the Gospel (Luke 7: 41-3), can understand that, according to his wealth, the grace of God abounds in us, especially in the church gathered from the Gentiles. This church was alien to the covenant and promises to Israel, on the basis of whose transgression we Gentiles have obtained salvation. Or is there not a magnitude of graces in Paul and in the other saints of whom it is said, 'Do you not know that we will judge angels?' (1 Cor. 6: 3) and, in another place, 'On whom angels desired to look' (1 Pet. 1:

12) and again, 'Father, grant that as I and you are one, so may they also be one in us' (John 17: 21). He does not regard this wealth of graces in himself to be in vain who, however much human frailty prevails, presses forward, strives, and strains, and says with the apostle, 'His grace was not in vain in me' (1 Cor. 15:

10). But in that person who is unmindful of the magnitude of the favour, the rich grace of God will degenerate, and the opulent bestowal be reduced to poverty.

He who has understood the meaning of, 'You have been saved by grace' and 'not from works'

(Eph. 2: 5, 9) and 'comparing' trespasses with trespasses (cf. 1

Cor. 2: 13), might consider the parable which speaks of the 'five hundred denarii' and the 'fifty'

(Luke 7: 41-3). Which man ought to confess more gratitude to the householder who forgave the debt? And considering further how 'the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed to us' (Rom. 8: 18), he might comprehend 'the wealth of'

God's 'grace' and how he has caused it so to abound to the called and elect, especially to the 'aliens from the covenants' of God and the 'strangers from his promises' (cf. Eph. 2: 12) who, because of the trespass of Israel, have been drawn to salvation by the goodness of the Father.

Furthermore, one might better understand 'the wealth of his grace which he caused to abound to' the blessed by considering the remarks, 'Do you not know that we shall judge angels?' (1 Cor. 6: 3)

end p.92

and, 'Into which things angels desire to look' (1 Pet. 1: 12), along with the request made for all concerning the future, 'Grant that as I and you are one, that they too may be one in us' (John 17: 21-2). And this whole 'wealth of the grace' of God, 'which he caused to abound to' the saints, 'being supplied' from the beginning and 'increasing' and being multiplied (cf. Col. 2: 19), either holds the one who attains the things previously mentioned by struggling and exerting himself to his fullest power (cf. Phil. 3: 13), or it holds the one who falls short in his capacity to do all the things imposed on him. If, then, someone were to fall short, it would be as if grace were in vain to such a person. But if he were to do the things in his power perfectly, the apostolic word would say, 'His grace to me was not in vain' (1 Cor. 15: 10).

Eph. 1: 8b-9 In all wisdom and prudence having made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in him for the economy of the fullness of the times.

Eph. 1: 8b-9a In all wisdom and prudence making known to us the mystery of his will.

What does the phrase 'in all wisdom' mean and, after this, the phrase 'in understanding'? Jesus also uses the phrase in Wisdom, beginning with the statement, 'All wisdom is from the Lord and is with him forever' (Wisd. 1: 1). If one, then, has perceived the things which are seen and what the things are which are not seen in them or even outside of them, and has separated by reason the things which are invisible and the things which are visible, and should examine the wisdom in which God has made all things (For 'you made all things in wisdom', David says (Ps. 103: 24)), he might observe that 'all wisdom is from the Lord'.

Someone, however, who has abandoned the hope of achieving the state of being 'in all wisdom and prudence' while still clothed with this body, and who also takes notice of the statement, 'We know in part and we prophsey in part' (1 The Stoics also are of the opinion that wisdom and prudence are different, saying, 'Wisdom is the knowledge of things divine and human, but prudence pertains only to mortal things.' 12

12 See SVF ii.35, 36, 1017; Cicero, Off. 1.153.

In accordance with this division we can take wisdom to apply to invisible and visible things but prudence only to visible things.

We ask, therefore, how God shall have made the mystery of his will known 555 to us in all wisdom and prudence.

Indeed it is simply to be accepted, first that the mystery of his will is our redemption through the blood of his Son, 'according to the wealth of his grace which has abounded in us' (Eph. 2: 7). In respect to this, of course, we should possess wisdom and prudence, believing in the passion of the Lord (which is not foolishness to those who believe

Cor. 13: 9), probably stumbles over the statement, 'in all wisdom and understanding having made known to us the mystery of his will', as being minimally adequate rather than accurate. For he thinks it possible that 'the mystery' of God was made known in wisdom to Paul and those like him but all things are not made known 'in all wisdom' to one who knows 'in part' and prophesies 'in part'.

Consider, then, if we should not separate the reading of the matters in this passage differently in the following manner. 'To the praise of the glory of his grace which he bestowed on us in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of trespasses, according to the wealth of his grace which he caused to abound to us in all wisdom and prudence.' When we end the division of this passage here, the statement, 'Having made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure', is taken with a different beginning, so that the phrase, 'in all wisdom and prudence', does not apply to the phrase, 'having made known to us the mystery of his will', but to the previous words. For God 'bestowed grace on us in the beloved in all' his own 'wisdom and' his 'prudence' but also 'in the beloved', since we have 'redemption through the blood' of Christ. We have received these things 'in all the wisdom and prudence' of God. And we have attained the forgiveness 'of trespasses' 'in all' his 'wisdom and prudence', since he causes 'the wealth of his grace' to abound on (1 Cor. 1: 23, 24)). Then, it is to be accepted that he has made all mysteries known to us through his Scriptures, namely, how he designed heaven and earth and made, arranged, and distinguished everything which is in them so that man was formed and the world was filled (Gen. 1: 28) up to the time of the passion of Christ, and how those things which are visible were made known from those which are invisible (Rom. 1:

20).

Finally, it is to be accepted that even those things which are on the earth are in need of wisdom and prudence. For how many of us know what that is which supports birds in the air or fish in billows, and also what effects the courses of humans and incites the rage of beasts?

But the diligent reader immediately raises this objection, 'If Paul knows in part, and prophesies in part, and now sees enigmatically through a mirror' (1 Cor. 13: 9, 12), how has the mystery of God been revealed to himself or to the Ephesians in all wisdom and prudence?

This necessity, therefore, compels us to change the order of the reading and make it as follows: 'According to the pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace in which he has been gracious to us in the Beloved in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the wealth of his grace which has abounded in us in all wisdom and prudence.' When we have made the separation at this point, where, of course, the phrase 'in all wisdom and prudence' is joined with what precedes, then we may bring forward, 'making known to us the mystery of his will according to his

pleasure'.

But it can be said, while adhering to this viewpoint, that the mystery has been revealed to them now 'in all wisdom and prudence', though they may see in part and prophesy in part. It was not that they might come to know the mystery in all wisdom and prudence, but God revealed the mystery to them in all his wisdom and prudence in accordance with that which they could understand.

556 Eph. 1: 9b-10a According to his pleasure which he purposed in him in the dispensation of the fullness of the times.

He said above, 'According to the pleasure of his will'; now, 'According to his pleasure', 'will' having been removed. There he placed πρōōρισμ us 'in all wisdom and prudence'.

He has done all of this, 'when he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure'.

But even if the former reading should be correct, the following meaning, which is not in opposition to the activity of 'knowing in part' and 'pursuing to apprehend' (1 Cor. 13: 9; Phil. 3:

12) would result. God has ordained us 'in all' his own 'wisdom and prudence', having made known the mystery of his will. For we have need of 'all'

God's 'wisdom' which ordains us that we may be able to make known 'the mystery of his will' and have the strength to contain this while we wear a 'lowly body'

(Phil. 3: 21). And if the reference to mysteries is taken in the sense of things divine and secret which are not suitable for the masses, it clearly also pertains to the 'will' of the 'mystery' of God concerning those who will be saved. For the great multitude of God's goodness has been hidden for those who fear him, just as David says, 'How great is the multitude of your goodness, Lord, which you have hidden for those who fear you' (Ps. 30: 20).

And consider if 'predetermination' and 'purpose' differ, so that the purpose occurs after the predetermination.

Consequently the predetermination occurred, as it were, in the thoughts of God. In relation to the same thoughts, however, the purpose of the things which he predetermined, being invested with being, ν, that is, 'predestination for the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ'

(Eph. 1: 5), but here he placed πρ

θεσιν, that is, 'purpose'. But those who are in the habit of discussing verbal distinctions assert that there is the following distinction between predestination and purpose. The predestination of something would figure much earlier in the mind of him who destines what will be but purpose (is used) when the design is already near and the performance nearly follows the thought. But the words, 'He purposed in him' are to be referred to the mystery since, indeed, he said above, 'That he might make known to us the mystery of his will'. This mystery is the 'dispensation of the fullness of the times', that all things might be fulfilled at the appointed time. For just as an inheritance is not paid to an heir so long as he is a child, although the goods are his (Gal. 4: 1-2), so also the mystery

which was predestined by God for the adoption of his sons could not be dispensed before it should arrive at its time. Paul speaks of this elsewhere in the singular, 'But as the fullness of time came, God sent his Son' (Gal. 4: 4), who could not come before the mystery of the time was fulfilled. somehow already follow and come to the actuality of the predetermination. This is why he has first written, 'In love having

end p.93

predetermined us for adoption', and second, 'according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him'.

And we must investigate what the 'fullness of the times' is. The same Paul uses the closely related phrase, 'the fullness of time', 'But when the end p.96 fullness of time came, God sent forth his son' (Gal. 4: 4). And just as the time in the age of a man when he who was the heir inherits his father's possessions might perhaps be designated the fullness of his time or of his season, so he would be 'in the fullness of times' who, through journeys and progress which bring one to perfection, has reached the point of being able to receive the things which have been predetermined and purposed by God for the saints.

Eph. 1: 10 To sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in him.

Eph. 1: 10b To recapitulate all things in Christ, things in heaven and things in earth, in him.

'To restore' (instaurare) is written in the Latin codices for 'to recapitulate' (recapitulare). I wonder why the translators have not used the Greek verb itself, since by a licence of that sort the words dialectics and philosophy have been adopted just as they are used in Greek. For orators also in their epilogues, or before the epilogues, are in the habit of making a summation at the end of their cases, that is an Bankers and similar people use the noun 'summation' when they add up accounts, and when they bring payments and expenses or receipts together in one sum total. I think the apostle drew on this source when he used the expression here.

For while there are many accounts of the administration of those in heaven and of the financial administration of those on earth, all, inasmuch as they are all parts of the one whole world, coalesce and converge into one totality. The 'summation' is 'in Christ'. For not only are the divisions into parts of those who are administered and the individual accounts of those ωσιν.

This is for the memory of the judges and those who are hearing the matters so that the things which were previously discussed more extensively might afterwards νακεφαλα

who are governed in the Word of God and in his Wisdom but also the summation and (so to speak) summings-up of all.

'Sum' is used frequently along with the inclusive concept. 'The sum', then, 'of what is being said'

(Heb. 8: 1), he says, and, 'Sum up many things in a few words' (Sir.

32: 8). Now the word 'sum'

(κεφ be grasped in a brief word, and each person might begin to recall what he has heard.

This, then, is the meaning in the present passage: Every dispensation which has existed in the world, both before and after it, comprising invisible as well as visible creatures, has promised the advent of the Son 557 of God. It was promised in the fact that Adam, who was cast out of paradise (Gen. 3:24), was to be recalled by the Saviour (1 Cor. 15:

22, 45); in the fact that in the λαιōν) is used, in my opinion, because our head

(κεφαλ ν) contains all things as in a sum, even the entirety of the faculties of our life.

end p.97 making of the tower, the unity of languages which was rent (Gen. 11: 4-8) should portend the gift of tongues in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:3); in the fact that Isaac, as a type of the Lord, carried his own cross (Gen. 22: 6); and in the fact that the mystery of the Saviour and the poor and destitute church of the Gentiles is foretold in the story of Samson, who, although he nourished holy hair, loved the embraces of the poor Delilah and confessed all the secrets of his heart (Judg. 16: 17). All things, therefore, have been recapitulated in the cross of the Lord and in his passion (John 19: 30), that is all things have been summed up in this σει.

But to make this clearer, I cite an example of a daily custom. For example, I spend twenty denarii, at another time five, and at another fifteen. At another time I also give thirty denarii, and three times ten. 13

13 Decies, however, is the adv. meaning ten times.

If I wish to sum these up into one sum, I have a sum consisting of the number one hundred. I will have in this one number everything which I previously described. So, therefore, all the mysteries and every ancient dispensation which has occurred not only on earth but also in heaven have been completed in the passion of Christ. For when once

Christ has died for me, been buried, resurrected and ascended to the Father as victor, I have no need for that old number because I hold all things in one. Pay close attention, for not only all the stories which have occurred in the world and which the Holy Spirit has related in the Scriptures, but also the things which have occurred in the heavenly places which are hidden from us are held to be recapitulated in the passion of Christ. 14

14 There is no parallel for this statement in the catena fragment. The concept, however, of the passion of Christ affecting things in heaven as well as on earth was a doctrine of Origen (see above, Introd. §4.3.4 at nn. 299 and 300).

Eph. 1: 11 in Whom Also We Have Been Called by Lot, Predestined According to His

Purpose Who Works All Things According to the Counsel of His Will.

The expression concerning inheritance and lot by which we come into the portion of Christ shows that we have migrated from one power to end p.98 νακεφαλαι

another and, in accordance with that which has been written in Deuteronomy, 'When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam' (Deut. 32: 8), we have been transferred from the dominion of angels to the portion of the Lord. Those, indeed, held things which were alien and had either been entrusted to themselves or usurped. He truly received his own things and 'ascending into the height he led captivity captive' (Eph. 4: 8; Ps. 67: 19), that is, those who previously had been captive in ruin, he made captive to life, that he might bring them back 558 to the height. In a certain manner, then, captivity has been taken captive since those who were previously captives are liberated by a second captivity. 15

15 I have not italicized the comments on Eph. 1: 11 but there is a very similar discussion by Origen based on Deut. 32: 8-9 in Jo. 13.332-3.

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 11b Of him who brings all things to pass according to the counsel of his will.

We must give attention to the fact also that here πρōōρισμ

All the things which God brings to pass, does, and accomplishes, he brings to pass 'according to' his own 'counsel of his will', for there is nothing which can make him do anything contrary to 'the counsel of his will', for he controls all things and rules everything. But to show the circumspection of the operations of God which occur according to his will, Paul placed 'counsel' before 'his will'. ς and πρ

θ εσις, that is, predestination and purpose, are placed together, according to which God works all things according to the counsel of his will.

It is not that all things which come about in the world are accomplished by the will and counsel of God, otherwise evil things too could be imputed to God, but that everything which he does he does by his counsel and will since, of course, they are also full of the reason and power of the maker.

We humans wish to do things

which are full of counsel, but when it is accomplished it by no means follows the will. No one, however, can resist him (Ps. 75: 8) but he does everything which he wills. Moreover, he wills that all those things which are full of reason and counsel be saved and come to 'the knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim.2: 4). But, because no one is saved apart from his own will, for we possess free will, he wills that we will the good so that when we have willed it he himself may will to fulfil his own counsel in us. end p.99

Eph 1: 12 That We Who Have Previously Hoped in Christ May Be for the Praise of His

Glory.

If he had said only, 'We have hoped in Christ', and had not prefixed 'previously' to 'we have hoped', which is pronounced as one word in Greek, πρōηλπικ τες, the meaning would be clearer that those who have hoped in Christ have been called by lot and

predestined according to his purpose, who works all things in accordance with the counsel of his will. But now the addition of the preposition draws us to that understanding we discussed above when we were explaining the words, 'Who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, as he chose us in him before the constitution of the world, that we should be holy and unstained before him'

(Eph. 1: 3-4). Just as he will have already blessed us 'with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places' and have chosen us 'before the constitution of the world', so also now we are said to have hoped previously in Christ from that time when we were elected, predestined, and blessed in the heavenly places. 16

16 See above, Introd. §3.2. Although Jerome does not discuss this passage in his Apology,

Rufinus clearly appears to be correct when he points his finger at this passage as an example of Jerome's espousal of Origen's doctrines.

But another, who does not support the doctrine that we existed and hoped in Christ before we lived in this body, will transfer the understanding to our bodily existence that he may say that at the coming of the Lord and Saviour, 559 those who have hoped in him before the presence of his majesty will be in the praise of his glory and be called πρōηλπικ τας (those who have previously hoped), when in his name 'every knee will bow of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that the Lord Jesus

Christ is in the glory of God the Father' (Phil. 2: 10-11), when all things will have been subjected to him (1 Cor. 15: 28), some willingly and others to be subjected by necessity.

Those, however, who have been found believing by necessity at that time when not even the devil and his angels can deny the one who is ruling, hope but are not in the praise of his glory. But indeed we also now see fulfilled in part that the reward of him who follows

God willingly is one thing but that of him who follows by necessity is another.

Nevertheless, 'whether by occasion or by truth', to such a degree Christ will be preached

(Phil. 1: 18), if only he who hopes and he who hopes previously know that different rewards will be received based on the difference of their hope.

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 13 In whom also you, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in whom, were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.

Eph. 1: 13 In whom also you, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also believing, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.

'In whom', no doubt means in Christ.

Among others who have heard, you Ephesians also have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, which believing, you have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. But the main clause, following the order of the text, does not appear to cohere with the clause which has preceded it, 'In whom also you, when you had heard the word of 'In whom' (that is to say, in Christ) 'also you, when you', along with others who had heard, 'had heard the word of truth', which word of truth is 'the gospel of your salvation, and had believed [in whom], were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise'. Now the second 'in whom' will appear to be redundant so far as the phrase is

truth, the gospel of your salvation', because it has repeated the 'in whom'.

The removal of this 'in whom' which follows in the second position and is superfluous can restore the structure of the text. But Paul allowed this from his excessive love of Christ. He always mentioned him whom he loved even when it was superfluous and excessively frequent. This the careful reader can discover in all his epistles without our help. For this reason also now the 'in whom' placed in the second position is perceived to have thrown the order of the sentence into confusion and to have left the previous theme hanging.

And it is, to be sure, no insignificant praise of the Ephesians that they have heard not the preaching but the word of truth, if indeed there is a significant distinction between the preaching and the word of truth. We read also in another epistle, 'And my word', he says, 'and my preaching, were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in a manifestation of the Spirit and power' (1 Cor. 2: 4). Let us search 560 very carefully where else it has been written that someone has heard the word of truth so that Paul's meaning can be clearly disclosed by a comparison of the passages. We should note also where the gospel is mentioned, whether it is mentioned with an addition or absolutely. For example, it is mentioned with an addition in the following passages: 'my gospel' (Rom. 2: 16), 'the gospel of Jesus Christ' (Mark 1: 1), 'the eternal gospel' (Rev. 14: 6), or what is now said to the Ephesians, 'the gospel of your salvation'. But it is mentioned absolutely, as when it is said of Luke, 'Whose praise in the gospel is in all the churches' (2 Cor. 8: 18).

Moreover, the one who has heard the word of truth and has believed in it is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. concerned. This is also why it appears that the post-positive phrase does not follow logically, since the meaning has been suspended. But this is not true.

Some previous writer indeed said that because of his great love for Jesus Paul has made mention of him continuously, even superfluously, as it were. This can be seen in relation to the 'in whom' in the case of the phrase, 'and had believed in whom'.

Now it is a mark of the excellence of the Ephesians to hear, 'In whom also you, when you had heard the word of truth', since Paul means those who had shared in secret teachings. For I do not think that those who have heard the preaching alone and have not received the teachings of the concrete realities with interpretation and clear explanation 'hear the word of truth'. For word and preaching differ, as Paul also teaches in other places when he says, 'And my word and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and power' (1 Cor. 2: 4). For one must note there, too, that he says his own word is other than his own preaching. And one must investigate also [if] the phrase, 'Some have heard the word of truth', occurs in another epistle, so that our observation concerning Paul's meaning may appear more accurate.

But one must observe where the 'gospel' is designated and also the words applied to it, such as 'according to my gospel' (Rom. 2:

16), or the 'beginning of the

Because there are many who have heard and remain unbelieving, they by no means obtain the seal of the Holy Spirit.

It is also said to the prince of Tyre, 'You are the seal of the likeness of God' (Ezek. 28: 12). But he is the seal of God so that just as the first man was created in the image and likeness of God, so whoever shall have obtained the Holy Spirit in the second regeneration may be sealed by him and receive the form of the creator.

We must also investigate where else the phrase, 'the Holy Spirit of promise', has been written, or what it means.

For I18 think that just as the Holy Spirit makes one to whom he has been imparted holy, and the spirit of wisdom makes one wise, and the spirit of understanding makes one understanding, and the spirit of counsel makes one cautious and deliberative, and the spirit of courage makes one courageous, and the spirit of knowledge makes one knowledgeable, and the spirit of fear makes one fearful (Isa. 11:

2-3) and trembling with the fear of God, so also the Spirit of promise or the Spirit of God makes him in whom he dwells the surety and God. In the same way, on the contrary, an unclean spirit makes one unclean, and a dirty occupant prepares a dirty home for himself, a spirit of fornication also produces fornicators, of which the prophet also says, 'they have been led astray by a spirit of fornication' gospel of Jesus Christ' (Mark 1: 1), or the 'eternal gospel' (Rev. 14: 6), or the 'gospel of the salvation' of the Ephesians, or simply 'gospel', as when Paul says of Luke, 'Whose praise in the gospel is in all the churches' (2 Cor. 8: 18).

And everyone 'who has heard the word of truth' which is 'the gospel of salvation' of the one who hears and believes is sealed 'with the Holy Spirit of promise', as if he would not be sealed if he should hear but not believe. But someone else will say that even if he should believe but should not advance to such a point that he hears 'the word of truth', he would thus not contain the seal of 'the Holy Spirit of promise', which is truly the clarification and explanation of these things which are appropriately clarified and explained by 'the promise' of the Holy Spirit.

And one must also investigate if the phrase 'Holy Spirit of promise'17 is used anywhere and what meaning one must take for the phrase 'the Holy Spirit of the promise'. In my opinion, just as the Holy Spirit makes that person holy on whom he comes, and 'the spirit of' the 'wisdom' makes one wise, and the 'spirit of' the 'understanding' makes one understanding (Isa. 11: 2), so also the one on whom 'the Spirit of the promise' comes is, perhaps, already in the promise.

end p.101 end p.102

(Hos. 4: 12), and a good-for-nothing spirit makes men good-for-nothing and perverse, and a demoniac spirit makes demons. When a liquid has been poured into a new earthen jar, the jar retains the odour and taste a long time. end p.103

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 14 Which is the pledge of our inheritance, for the redemption of the possession, for the praise of his glory.

Eph. 1: 14 Who is the security of our inheritance, to the redemption of the adoption, to the praise of his glory.

The Latin word pignus has been used to translate the Greek arrhabon. But pignus does not signify precisely that which arrhabon does. For an arrhabon is given for a future purchase, as if it were some 561 proof and obligation. Security, on the other hand, that is You will ask if everyone who partakes of Holy Spirit19 partakes of 'the Spirit of the promise', or if only the one who has 'heard the word of truth', which is 'the gospel of salvation', and 'has believed', receives 'the Holy Spirit of the promise'. And let us give attention also to these further matters, namely if everyone who participates in the Holy Spirit in whatever manner has the 'pledge of the inheritance'. But it is better to think that, just as in the case of those who buy up something and give a pledge, the pledge is given in proportion to the whole sum of money, so 'the pledge of the inheritance' is given in proportion to the foreknown good things which will belong to each saint.

Consequently, the one capable of understanding from the pledge the differences of value between pledge and pledge would be capable of making a declaration concerning a greater and lesser inheritance 'stored up' (Col. 1: 5) for the joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8: 17).

And just as 'the pledge of the inheritance' is not something external to us (for 'the Holy Spirit of the promise' in each one is the 'pledge' of the promise), so the inheritance is not external to the one who inherits but is in the mind and soul of the one inheriting. For nothing external χυρōν, is pledged for a loan so that when the loan has been repaid the security owed to the borrower is returned by the creditor.

Again, there where it says, 'to the redemption of the adoption', the Greek text does not have υ ν

αν (adoption), but περιπō ōθεσ

ησιν (possession), which we can say as acquisitionem (acquisition), or possessionem (possession), and yet we have not portrayed the force of the word.

For there are many words which are incapable of being translated from Greek into Latin, or from Hebrew into Greek, or conversely, from Latin into Greek or from Greek into Hebrew.

Whoever, therefore, has received not only the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit of promise has, at the same time, acquired also the arrhabon of the inheritance, which inheritance is eternal life. And in the same manner, the arrhabon gives us an idea of what sort the future purchase may be and what the possession. For example, from ten gold coins, a villa worth a hundred gold coins, and from a

can be compared with the perfection of the mind which contemplates the beauties of Wisdom, the Word of God and truth.

Nevertheless, this 'Holy Spirit of the promise', which is 'the pledge of our inheritance', is given to the saints for the present that they might be redeemed and secured for God, being equipped 'for the praise' of God's 'glory'.

Now the phrase, 'for the praise of his glory', can also have the following meaning in relation to one who is being repaid. Each one receives 'the Spirit of the promise' as 'the pledge of the inheritance' now, but later the inheritance itself, for the purpose of praising the glory of God. Nevertheless it is not (as one might suppose to be indicated by the text) that God is in need of those who praise his glory. It is, on the contrary, that the superlative good things overcome those who have beheld the praiseworthiness of the glory of God and who cannot be silent about it but who are engaged in singing its praise continually with enjoyment. hundred gold coins, a possession worth a thousand gold coins so, based on the difference in the arrhabon, the magnitude of the inheritance which will follow hereafter is recognized. Moreover, although someone may be holy and perfect and thought worthy of blessedness by all, nevertheless the Spirit has been acquired now as the arrhabon for the future inheritance. But if the arrhabon is so great, how great will the possession itself be? Moreover, as the arrhabon which is given to us is not outside us but is within us, so also the inheritance itself, that is the kingdom of God which is within us (Luke 17:21), is situated inside us. For what inheritance can be greater than to contemplate and see with the understanding the beauty of Wisdom, and of the Word, and of Truth, and of Light, and to consider the ineffable and magnificent nature of God himself, and to ponder the substance of all things which have been made in the likeness of God.

Moreover, that Holy Spirit of promise which is the arrhabon of our inheritance is given, therefore, to the saints now, that they may be redeemed and bound to God

end p.104 end p.105 for the praise of his glory. It is not that God is in need of anyone's praise but that the praise of God might benefit those praising him. While they are recognizing his majestic greatness through his individual works they burst forth in praise of him in the wonder of amazement.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 1: 15-18a For the reason I too, having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and 20 20 The NT text has τ 562 Eph. 1: 15-18a For this reason I also, hearing of your faith in the Lord Jesus and in all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers,

πην, i.e. 'your love for all the saints': K. Lake and S. New, Six Collations of New ν γ

Testament Manuscripts, HThS 17 (Cambridge, Mass., 1932), 182, note that the von der Goltz codex Athos

184 (see Introd. §4.1) omits τ that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, might give you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the recognition of him, the eyes of your heart having been enlightened.

πην For a similar reference to faith 'in all the saints' in Origen's Commentary on Philemon see R. E. Heine, 'In Search of Origen's Commentary on Philemon', HTR (2000),

128. in all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, might give you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation, in recognition of him the eyes of your heart having been englightened. ν γ

The phrase, 'in recognition of him the eyes of your heart having been enlightened,' will appear to be expressed incorrectly unless we interpret it as expressed in inverted order. Wherefore I think the grammatical sequence of the context is as follows: 'For this reason I too, having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, in recognition of him the eyes of your heart having been enlightened, and your faith21 in all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, might give you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation, that you may know what is the hope of your calling' and the words which follow.

If the Father is father of what is substantial and real and he is also said to be father 'of glory', glory clearly is something substantial Although a careful reader can lay the blame on a literal translation of the sentence and not on the apostle for the fact that the whole coherence of the thought appears to gush forth resulting in a solecism, nevertheless, the fault cries out in the Greek text also.

For this reason also, responding to the Greeks who are rather overscrupulous, we will attempt to divide up the order of the text according to the sense as follows, so that we may say, 'Hearing of your faith in the Lord Jesus and in all his saints, and seeing the distinctive character of your faith in the Lord and in all his saints, I do not cease to give thanks and to make mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ and, indeed, the Father of glory might give you

and invested with being. And perhaps, just as our Saviour is Logos, Wisdom, Truth, Peace, and Justice, so is he also Glory.

And if it has ever been recorded that 'the glory of God appeared'

(cf. Exod. 16: 10; Ezek. 8: 4, etc.), one must not suppose that anything other than the Son of God appeared.

On the one hand, then, the 'spirit of wisdom' makes one wise, and on the other, the 'spirit of revelation' 'removes the veil' (2 Cor. 3:16) from the heart so that one, 'contemplating the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, may be transformed into his image from glory to glory' (2 Cor. 3: 18).

No one, then, who is not wise has the 'spirit of wisdom' and no one who still has a 'veil on his heart when Moses is read' has already received the 'spirit of revelation'. 22

22 For Origen's joining of 2 Cor. 3: 16 and Eph. 1: 17 cf.

Comm in Mt. 10-17, 12.10.

Unless perhaps it is that the 'spirit of wisdom' makes some preeminently wise by the quantity of their contemplative experiences of wisdom and does 23 23 There is no subject expressed for the verb in the second clause. Grammatically, this would most probably call for the subject of the former verb to be carried over to the second, which is how I have translated. The subject matter of the second clause, however, suggests that 'the spirit of revelation' might be the subject. not, in like manner, promote the revelation of those things from which 'the veil is removed' by the quantity of the removal of veils on the letters.

One must understand the phrase, 'in recognition of him the the spirit of wisdom and of revelation.'

But the phrase which follows, 'the eyes of your heart having been enlightened', can be rendered by a hyperbaton as follows, 'For this reason I also, hearing of your faith in the Lord Jesus, in the recognition of him the eyes of your heart having been enlightened, and in all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, might give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in recognition, that you might know what is the hope of your calling', etc.

Furthermore, the phrase 'the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, and indeed the Father of glory' is to be understood as follows. In the same manner as our Lord Jesus Christ is himself Word, Wisdom, Truth, Peace, Justice, and Courage, he himself is also Glory, according to this which is said elsewhere, 'The glory of God will appear' (Lev. 9: 23). It

eyes of your heart having been enlightened', with these words.

For if knowledge of God and recognition of God are not the same but he who recognizes comes to recognize, as it were, what he knew long ago but had forgotten, then all who are 'in recognition' of God have known him long ago. Wherefore it was said, 'All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord'

(Ps. 21: 28). And the phrase, 'the eyes of your heart having been enlightened', indicates the bodiless and spiritual nature of our ruling principle and of 'the true light' (John 1: 9). 24

24 Cf. Origen, Dial. 17; 20.

has also been written in almost the whole of the old Law that the glory of God was seen above the tabernacle of testimony (Num. 9:

15 ff.). And the Psalmist sings, 'Arise, my glory, arise' (Ps. 107:

3).

This Glory, enlightening the world with his splendour, fashioned a sanctuary for himself from the womb of the virgin. It follows that God is the Father of the Glory of this sanctuary. Only there where Christ is Glory is the Father mentioned. Where Jesus or where his God are mentioned, he is mentioned without any addition. 563 This God of the assumed man, therefore, indeed the Father of Glory, Wisdom, and Truth, gives the spirit of wisdom and of revelation to those who believe in his Son, that they may become wise, and may contemplate 'the glory of the Lord with unveiled face'

(2 Cor. 3: 18).

When 25 25 There is no parallel to this passage in the catena fragment but the discussion clearly derives from Origen. See Introd. §4.3.2 and Origen , Cant. Prol. 2.9-11; Dial. 160-2. this wisdom and revelation have made them wise and revealed the hidden mysteries to them, it follows

immediately that they have the eyes of their heart enlightened. From the present words related to the members of the outer person, it is confirmed that the members

end p.106 end p.107 of the inner person are also meant. For note that he has clearly termed 'eyes of the heart' those members which we cannot understand apart from our power of thought and mind.

The following statement of the Psalmist is also in harmony with this: 'Enlighten my eyes that I may never sleep in death' (Ps. 12: 4). And elsewhere: 'The wise have eyes in their head' (Eccles. 2: 14). 26

26 Cf. Origen, Cant. Prol. 2.9-11; Dial. 160-2.

For if we take it simply to be eyes of the flesh, the eyes not only of the wise, to be sure, but also of the fool are in his head. The head of the wise, therefore, end p.108 is taken to mean his understanding, because the mind and soul and ruling principle of the heart are designated by another term.

But because he says, 'in recognition of him', that is, γνωσιν, some understand it as follows, that there is this distinction between π

γνωσιν, that is between notionem (investigation) and agnitionem (recognition), because there may be an investigation of those things which we have not previously known and afterwards we begin to know them. But there is a recognition of those things which we have known previously and then ceased to know and later remember them. And they conjecture some previous life in the heavenly realms after which we were cast down into these bodies. And after we had forgotten God the Father, we now recognize him through revelation in accordance with the words, 'All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord'

(Ps. 21: 28). They multiply other proofs similar to these. 27

27 See Introd. §3.2. The discussion reflects the final paragraph of the catena fragment.

Rufinus cites this passage in his attack on Jerome (Apol. 1. 36). Jerome does not mention this passage in his defence, but Origen's doctrine of the previous existence of souls is clearly present. and π

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 18-20a That you might know what is the hope of his calling, and what is the wealth of the glory of his inheritance Eph. 1: 18b-20a That you might know what is the hope of his calling, and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power in us who believe, in accordance with the

in the saints28 and what is the surpassing greatness of his power to us who believe, in accordance with the operation of the might of his strength which he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead. operation of the power of his might which he worked in Christ raising him from the dead.

According to Paul's prayer, he to whom the spirit of wisdom and revelation has once been given and the eyes of his heart opened so that he may see, will know the things which have been 'laid up' (Col.

1: 5) for those who have been called and what things are to be hoped for by the saints of God which are to be given abundantly and liberally to those who long for his inheritance. The greatness 564 of God's power through which he has worked in Christ Jesus whom he has made alive from the dead is necessary for this knowledge in those who, like Paul, believe and are called. Moreover the inheritance is to be understood in a twofold manner: either that the 'firstborn of every creature' (Col.

1: 15) is the inheritance of the soul of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of that man who was assumed from body and soul, and we inherit God the Word with the inheritance of the soul, or that our inheritance in Christ is the one divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so that just as an inheritance of houses and villas bears the name of the very things which the heirs possess, so God himself is the inheritance of the believers and saints. It has also been written in the old instrument, 'But The 'calling' of God includes 'hope', which one must come to know from much diligence of life and readiness of mind, and 'his inheritance' includes the 'wealth' of much 'glory' 'in the holy' places above.

He to whom 'the spirit of wisdom and of revelation' is given in accordance with Paul's prayer, will know the things 'stored up'

Col. 1: 5) for those 'called' and will contemplate the things hoped for, which constitute the 'wealth of the glory' which is in

you shall not give the sons of Levi an inheritance among their brothers because I am their portion' (Num. 18: 20). And elsewhere, 'the Lord is their inheritance'

(Deut. 18: 2). And the saint who knows that he has nothing outside of God says boldly, 'The Lord is my portion' (Ps. 72:

26) and, 'You are the portion of my inheritance and of my cup' (Ps. 15: 5).

It is, therefore, no small favour that we should know the hope of the calling and the riches of the glory of the inheritance of God in the saints since, indeed, to know these things we stand in need of that power which God also used in restoring his Son to life. He did not raise him from the dead once but always, and has made him free among the dead (Ps. 87: 6), unstained by the touch of death. Christ arises from the dead daily; he is restored to life in the penitent daily. It is not that he did not have power according to the flesh to lay down his soul and take it up again (cf. John 10:

18), since no one would have taken it if he had not laid it down on his own, but that in accordance with the dispensation of the flesh and of the Son, the man and Son is said to have been restored to life by God and the Father. 29

29 It is likely that the final part of this paragraph is from Origen's commentary on Ephesians also. Origen joins Ps. 87: 6 with John 10:

18 to explain the unique nature of Jesus' death, as Jerome does here, in Jo. 19.101-2 and Comm. in Rom. 5.10.

accordance with his inheritance which he gives to those called to this holy inheritance.

But you will ask if God himself is also 'the inheritance of the saints' even as the phrase 'heirs of God' (cf. Rom. 8:

17) is understood so that, just as we speak of heirs of estates and heirs of houses, applying the word inheritance to the pieces of property, so we should also understand 'the heirs of God'.

And the law which says, 'You shall not give the sons of Levi an allotment among their brothers because I am their portion, says the Lord' (cf. Josh.

18: 7; Deut. 10:

9; Num. 18: 20; 26: 62) and elsewhere, 'The Lord is their inheritance' (Deut.

18: 2), is related to such a meaning.

'The wealth of the glory of the

inheritance' of God, therefore, comes to exist in the mind of the saints who have the capacity for such great things derived from the contemplation of God and of his Logos in the 'surpassing greatness of the power' of God which is 'for the' saints and 'those who believe'.

For we have no need of the power obtained from God 'in order to know what is the hope of his calling, and what is the wealth of the glory of his inheritance in the saints' but we have need 'of the greatness of' his 'power' which appears from him 'for us who believe', and which appears 'in accordance with the operation of his strength' which masters all things, which Paul has now called 'the might of his strength'. And he used this operation 'of the might

of his strength' and has worked those things which 'he worked in Christ' when he raised 'him from the dead'.

end p.109 end p.110

Origen Jerome Eph. 1: 20b-23 And having seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named not only in this age, but in the one to come, and he subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things in the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who is filled in respect to all in all.

Eph. 1: 20b-21 And making him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, above every principality and authority and power and dominion, and every name which is named not only in this age, but also in that which is to come.

He has described the power of God by means of a human analogy. It is not that a throne has been set up and God the Father is seated on it and has the Son seated with him, but that we are unable to understand one judging and ruling in any other way than by means of our concepts. That which has been written in the one-hundred 565 and ninth Psalm also relates to this: 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet' (Ps. 109: 1). For if the Son is seated at the right hand of the Father in accordance with the deportment of one who rules, it is necessary in accordance with the same analogy that he be greater than30 him who sits on the left.

One must consider these things to have been said in a physical image, not that there are any chairs or thrones perceptible to the senses situated in the heavens on which the Father is seated and the Son at the right hand of the Father, for should we think in this way we would not say things worthy of the divine nature. For neither does the earth, 'the footstool of' his 'feet' (Isa. 66: 1), lie, in a physical sense, under God himself who is seated in heaven. For how can 'heaven' be his 'throne' when it has been measured by his span?

And how can 'earth' be 'the footstool of' his 'feet' and itself have been encompassed by his hand? For Isaiah says, 'Who has

measured the water in his palm and heaven with his span and the whole earth with his hand?' (Isa.

40: 12). I think, therefore, that both near God and far from him are mental concepts. All, on the one hand, who are saints and live according to the will of the Father of the universe are also near God but the impious, on the other hand, are far from him. It is of the latter that the prophet says, 'Behold, those who remove themselves from you will perish'

(Ps. 72: 27). Therefore, just as one has been considered near God and another far from him, so must one consider the saints to be said to be at his right hand but the impious at his left, as it were, as the Saviour also says, 'The sheep will stand at the right hand but the goats at the left' (Matt. 25: 33). But also the phrase, 'having seated him at his right hand' means, 'having made him to sit down and having presented him a kingdom and sovereignty', in accordance with which Jesus, who has come to be 'above' all things because of the dispensation which is benevolent to all things, has the care of and sovereignty over the saints, helping them and sharing himself with them.

There are many, therefore, who have sovereignty over and rule those in need of the care which comes from him, and many who have authority, and many who have dominion. There are, in addition, many who share in his own power, some working in this age and some in the age to come.

None of these, however, has as great a sovereignty as the Son, for But that we might know that it is to be understood in a way other than that signified by the letter, the same Psalm teaches in subsequent words saying, 'You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek; the Lord is at your right hand' (Ps. 109: 4-5).

For how, when the Son is seated at the right hand of the Father, is the Father, on the other hand, said to be at his right hand? Or by what reckoning is earth the footstool of his feet and heaven his throne (Isa. 66: 1), when it is also said in Isaiah that he holds the earth in his fist, and heaven is measured by the spreading of his hand (Isa. 40:

12)? For he cannot be within that which is held by him, nor can he hold enclosed in his hand that by which he himself is enclosed in the manner of one who is seated. Therefore, just as being next to God or withdrawing far from him is not to be thought of in terms of spatial places but in accordance with merits, because the saints are near him but sinners, of whom the prophet says, 'Behold those who remove themselves from you will perish' (Ps. 72: 27), are removed from all proximity to him, so also is being on the right hand or the left hand of God to be interpreted, because the saints are at his right hand but sinners at his left. The Saviour confirms the same thing in the Gospel when he relates that the sheep are at his right and the goats at his left (Matt. 25: 33).

But also the word 'to sit' itself indicates the authority of royalty by which God confers benefit on those over whom he is considered worthy to sit because, of course, he rules over them and has them in his chariot, and turns the necks, which were previously wandering and unrestrained, to his own will.

Next, I ask 566 how that which follows can be understood:

'Above every principality and authority and power and dominion, and every name which is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come', since indeed we have already spoken of the right hand and left and of the sitting. Now I ask where the apostle found these four names which have been written, I mean 'principality, authority, power and dominion', and whence he has made them known. For it is not allowed that he who had been instructed in the divine text reflect on something mentioned which is not contained in the sacred books. I think, therefore, that he has made known these names which were either hidden from the traditions of the Hebrews or, perhaps, which have been recorded as history, as it were. He understands the law to be spiritual and has thought of it more sublimely, and he has understood that which the books of Numbers and Kings relate of kings and princes, and also of commanders, tribunes and centurions, as an image of other princes and kings, because, of course, there are principalities in the heavens, along with authorities, dominions, powers and other designations of administrations, which we cannot name nor has Paul himself been able, I think, to enumerate, seeing that he was situated in a heavy little body.

But if31 there are principalities, authorities, powers, and dominions, it is necessary that they have subjects who fear and serve them and those who are strengthened by their strength. This all those who have sovereignty need him to have sovereignty over themselves. However, those 'authorities' which are under the authority of Christ exercise authority better because the 'power' of God exceeds every other power. But even if some have been brought to a useful servanthood by those who exercise dominion well, it is necessary that these who exercise dominion, receiving knowledge of exercising dominion from the 'Lord of those who exercise dominion' (cf. Deut. 10: 17; Rev.

17: 14; 19: 16), exercise dominion over those whom they have dominion over. For which reason he who 'raised' Christ 'from the dead' seated him 'at his right hand in the heavenly places above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name named not only in this age but also in that to come'. For it is likely that some names which are named are not to be divulged. They are ineffable and are not to be apprehended by us in accordance with the disposition of the universe, some 'in this age', but some also in that to come. And from what source did the apostle have knowledge of these names other than from the Holy Spirit who revealed them to him?

end p.111 end p.112 end p.113

distribution of offices will exist not only in this present age but also in the future.

Consequently, by means of individual successes and honours, ascents and likewise descents, one either increases or decreases and comes to be under one or the other authority, power, principality, and 567 dominion.

If we little humans who are soon to be desolved into ashes and dust should, by the concord of men, be elevated to kings, we would have so many divisions and multitudes of servants that we could more easily imagine than mention them. For example, the prefect would have civilian judges throughout the provinces and his own rank, and again the military would be divided into an army of many parts with so many attendants, commanders, and tribunes. Do we think, then, that God, the Lord of lords and King of kings, is content with only a simple administration? end p.114

Origen Jerome Eph.1: 22-23 And he subjected all things to his feet, and made him the head over all things of the Church, which is his body, the fullness of him who is filled in respect to all in all.

And one must examine how it is said, 'And he subjected all things under his feet', since it is obvious how many myriads there are who are still not subject to the Logos of God. For 'we do not yet see all things subjected' (Heb. 2: 8). And the statement, 'He must reign until he put all his enemies under his feet' (1 Cor. 15: 25), reveals that 'all his enemies' are not yet 'under his feet'. Someone will say, then, that this too has been said in relation to foreknowledge. But another, having called attention to the ordering of God by which he orders each thing into a certain order, will say that 'he subjected' as many things as belong to the order of those being subjected 'under his feet'.

This appears contrary to that which is written elsewhere, 'For we do not yet see all things subjected to him' (Heb. 2: 8).

But there is also the statement, 'For he must reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet' (1 Cor. 15: 25). For if all things have not yet been subjected to him and he must reign until all things are subjected to him, how has God now subjected all things under his feet?

Especially since Paul himself also testifies in another place, 'But when all things shall have been subjected, then the Son also himself will be subjected

to him who has subjected all things to himself, that God may be all in all' (1 Cor. 15: 28).

Therefore, he has either related with foreknowledge that which will be as if it has already happened, like the interpretation which we gave above where it says, 'He has blessed us

with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ' (Eph. 1: 3) or, more likely, if it is to be understood of the past, we ought to take it in the sense that even those things which have not been subjected to him by their choice may be subject by the creation of their nature, for example, demons, Jews, and Gentiles. For they do not serve Christ nor have they been subjected to his feet and yet, because they have been created by him for a good portion, they have been placed under his authority without their willing it, even if they fight against him by the choice of their free will.

Origen Jerome 'And he made him head over all things in the Church, which is his body, [the fullness] of him who is filled in respect to all in all' (Eph.

1: 22b-23).

Since we find the Church designated 'body' of Christ, let us investigate whether we must ever think of it as an instrument of the head, like the rest of the body without the head or, just as the body of a man whose head is a part of his body, so the whole Church of Christ is the body of Christ which is animated by his divinity and filled by his Spirit, or whether we must understand these matters differently. If in truth it should be the That which follows is also in agreement with this sense, 'And he made him the head over all things of the Church, which 568 is his body'. For as the head has very many members subjected to itself, some of which are defective and feeble, so also our Lord Jesus Christ, since he is head of the Church, has all those as members who are gathered into the Church, saints, of course, and sinners. The saints, however, have been subjected to him by their choice while the sinners have been subjected by necessity. And so it happens that enemies too have been subjected to his feet.

Wherefore, in that he says 'all things', he appears to pose a question. For that which has been said, 'Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet' (Ps. 109: 1), and elsewhere, 'For he must reign until he places all his enemies under his feet' (1 Cor. 15: 25), does not particularly require an interpreter to point out that those things which are hostile are subjected to his feet when they have been overcome and pass over to the authority of the conqueror. But why 'all things', that is, angels, thrones, dominions, authorities and other powers which were never

second, it will be his more human part, even that part itself which obtains the whole body. The divine power, however, which animates the Church, as it were, will be the part that is divine and which makes the whole Church alive.

But we wish to know how the Church, which is the 'body' of Christ, is the 'fullness of him who is filled in respect to all in all' and why it is not said, 'Of him who fills all in all' but 'of him who is filled'.

For it would seem to be said more consistently that Christ is the one who fills and not the one who is filled. For he is not only the 'fulfilment of the law' (cf. Rom.

13: 10; Matt. 5: 17) but he is also the fulfilment of all fulfilments, since apart from him no perfecting would occur. But consider if the one speaking in this opposed to God should be subjected to his feet appears obscure.

This can be answered accordingly that no one is without sin. Even the stars themselves are not pure before God (Job 25: 5), and every creature is terrified at the coming of the creator. Whence also the Saviour's cross is said to have purified not only those things which were on earth but also those in the heavens. 32

32 Cf. Origen, Jo. 1.257; 13.412-13; below on Eph. 3: 10-11; and Rufinus, Apol. 1. 38. The catenist has omitted this but it is clearly a doctrine of Origen.

But another refers the 'all things' not to the whole universe but only to those things under discussion or takes it as follows: the whole city cried out does not mean that there was no one in the city who did not cry out, but that the minority are named from the majority. Paul the apostle says himself, 'All seek their own things, not the things which are of God'

(Phil. 2: 21) and, 'All have forsaken me' (2 Tim. 4: 16). It was not that Timothy and the other disciples who were with him at the time the epistles were being written had left him but, therefore, because many had deserted him he said 'all', that is, he complained that he had been deserted by the majority.

Something like this is said in the Psalm, 'All have turned away and they have also become useless, 569 there is no one who does

way can reply to these problems that, just as on account of the extensive relationship and fellowship of the Son with the rational creatures the Son of God is, so to speak, the fulfilment of all the rational creatures, so too he himself assumes their fullness, as it were, into himself and is rendered the most perfect in relation to each of the blessed.

And so that what has been said might become very clear, think of a king who, on the one hand, is filled with a kingdom in relation to each of those who strengthen the kingdom but who is emptied of it in those who revolt.

But nothing at all is more appropriate to the benevolent kingdom of this king Christ than each of those who help to fill it, who are benefited by him rationally and

perfected, who by fleeing to him help to fill his 'body' which is empty, perhaps, when it is without those who are being benefited. For this reason Christ 'is filled with all' those who approach, since he is lacking in them before they come to him. end p.116 good, no, not one' (Ps. 13: 3). For if all have turned away, then he who is speaking has also turned away himself. And elsewhere, 'And I said in the loss of my mind, Every man is a liar' (Ps. 115: 11). For what he said is either true or false. If every man is a liar, then he who is speaking is also a end p.117 liar. But if he who is speaking is a liar, not even this which he says is true, that every man is a liar. Again, if the sentence is true, the 'all' is to be taken as we said above, that is, that a large portion of humanity lies. The apostle also writes elsewhere, 'Teaching all men'

(Col. 1: 28), not that he has taught all men. For how many are there even to the present who have not heard the apostle's teaching or his name? [What he means is] that he teaches and admonishes all those who are in the Church and desire to know what things are of God.

There follows, 'The fullness of him who is filled in respect to all in all'. This indeed is to be taken in the same way as that other statement, 'Then he is subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all' (1 Cor. 15: 28). For at the present

God is in individuals in part. He is in one as justice, in another as purity, in another as moderation, in another as wisdom and in another as courage. It is difficult for all the virtues to be present equally even in holy and perfect men. But at the end of things and in the consummation of the world, when all things shall have been subjected to him, all things will be filled in all so that, as God is filled with all virtues, all things are filled in all, and all will have all things which they previously possessed singly as individuals.

But there is also this statement, 'And he made him the head over all things of the Church which is his body, the fullness of him who is filled in respect to all in all.' The Church can be understood to consist not only of humans but also of angels and of all powers and rational creatures. 33

33 See Rufinus, Apol. 1. 36. Jerome does not refer to this remark in his Apology. There is nothing in this entire section on Eph. 1: 22b-23 which could not have come from Origen.

I suspect that the catenist and Jerome have simply chosen different parts of Origen's discussion to take over for their own commentaries.

And also the statement, 'Who is filled in respect to all things in all' must by no means be interpreted so that it means to fill, for he did not say, Who fills all things in all, but 'Who is filled in respect to all things in all', 570 since indeed it is one thing to fill and another to be filled, because in the first case the verb is active and in the second passive.

Therefore, just as the emperor is filled if his army is enlarged daily and new provinces are created and a multitude of peoples grows up, so also our Lord Jesus Christ himself is filled in all things to the extent that all things believe in him and each day come to his faith so, however, that all things may be filled in all, that is, that those who believe in him may be filled with all the virtues and, according to the Gospel, may make him increase in age, wisdom, and grace not only with God but also with men (Luke 2: 52). 34

34 This final paragraph reflects the discussion in the catena fragment. end p.118

Origen Jerome Eph. 2: 1-5a And you who were dead in trespasses and your sins, in which you once walked in accordance with the aeon of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the spirit of the air which now works in the sons of disobedience, in which also we all once lived in the desires of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and we were children of wrath by nature, as also the rest. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, made us, too, who were dead in trespasses, alive with Christ.

Eph. 2: 1-5a And you, when you were dead in offences and your sins, in which you once walked, according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit which is now at work in the sons of disobedience, in which we all once lived in the desires of our flesh, doing the will of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature sons of wrath as also the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, on account of his great love with which he loved us even when we were dead in sins, has made us alive together with Christ.

Before we discuss the meaning of the individual words it seems to me that the order of the text should be restored as follows: 'And God, who is rich in mercy, on account of his great love with which he loved us, made you alive together with Christ, when you were dead in offences and your sins. And he made us alive together with Christ when we were dead in the offences in which we once walked, according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the The grammatical sequence is as follows: 'And you who were dead in trespasses and your sins, God, who is rich in mercy because of his great love with which he loved us, made alive with Christ.' 'And' he made us alive with Christ 'who were dead in trespasses in which' we 'once walked in accordance with the Aeon of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the spirit of the air which

air, the spirit which is now at work in the sons of disobedience, in which we all also once lived in the desires of our flesh, doing the will of our flesh and minds, and we were by nature sons of wrath.' This allows the phrase, 'he has made us alive together with Christ', to be understood as if it were said to these now works in the sons of disobedience, in which also we all once lived in the desires of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath. We consider the phrase which constitutes the difficulty of the passage, 'But God who is rich in mercy', either to have been falsely inserted in the copies or not to have been perceived as redundant by Paul who was 'untrained in speech' (2 Cor. 11: 6).

Now sins are clearly said to be the death of the soul by the phrase, 'and you who were dead in trespasses and your sins'. And since 'trespass' is a term peculiar to the Scriptures, one must investigate if it differs from 'sin' and especially since here they are mentioned in conjunction, 'and you who were dead in trespasses and your sins'. And we ask if those deeds which we have already completed in an evil manner are designated our 'sins' but their beginnings 'trespasses', as if they were not yet falls but proceed to our falling. And perhaps this is why it is said in the eighteenth Psalm, 'Who will understand trespasses?' (Ps. 18: 13). One, therefore, who understands the roots and beginnings of sins, which are 'trespasses', would be able, in addition, also to keep himself from falling into 'sins'.

What is it to walk 'in accordance with the Aeon of this world', and not in accordance with the Aeon of the better world to which the saints hasten? Someone, on the one hand then, will consider the 'Aeon of this world' rather simply

(in common).

But we think the causal conjunction there where it says, 'but God 571 who is rich in mercy', was either added by ignorant scribes and eventually the error was inserted, or was used unnecessarily by Paul himself, who was unskilled in speech, though not in knowledge (2 Cor.

11: 6). But clearly sin is said to be the death of the soul because he says, 'And you, when you were dead in offences and your sins', and furthermore in accordance with what is written in Ezekiel, 'The soul which sins shall itself die' (Ezek. 18: 20). And because the word 'offences', which are called παραπτ ματα in Greek, belongs, strictly speaking, to the Scriptures in accordance with the etymology of the same language (of course 'offences' are more correctly translated πλημμ

λειαι), we ask what they signify or in what they are separate from sins, that is, what is the difference between παραπτ

ας. For the Greeks say that πα ραπτ μαρτ

ματα are the beginnings of sins, as it were, when a silent thought creeps in and we, to some degree, embrace it. Nevertheless, it does not yet impel us to a fall. For this reason it is written in the eighteenth Psalm, 'Who understands offences?' that is, π α ρ απτ

ματα (Ps. 18: 13), for it is, of course, difficult to understand the roots and beginnings of sins. But there is sin, when something which has been completed in action attains its goal.

We also ask what the phrase means, 'In which you once walked, according to the course of this world'. Is there another course which does not pertain to this world but to other worlds, of which Clement also writes in his letter, 'The ocean and the worlds which are beyond it' (Clem. Rom. Cor.

20.8)?35 Or, is this 'world' the one which rolls along from the beginning of the age in which Adam was made up to its end and passes away? Or, perhaps, the prince of this air, who is now at work in the sons of disobedience, is indicated by the other name 'world'? It is also written to the Galatians, 'That he might rescue us from the present evil course'

(Gal. 1: 4). And in this same epistle, 'Redeeming the time, because the days are evil' (Eph. 5: 16). And Jacob's days are said to be modest and very bad (Gen.

47: 9) either because the time of this life which confines us in its 'course' is burdensome and difficult or, because Satan himself is of this world, as we said above, and bears the name 'course'.

Satan is referred to in the words which follow immediately. 'According to the prince 572 of the power of the air', he says, 'the spirit which is now at work in the sons of disobedience' (Eph. 2: 2).

The devil 'who is now at work in the sons of disobedience' is understood, to be sure, as the prince of the air, and the spirit of the power which is in that air.

For he cannot be at work in those who believe in the Lord, of whom Paul says later, 'Our battle is not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual powers of wickedness in heavenly places' (Eph. 6:

12). It is not that the devil and his retinue who wander through this world and introduce sins to people are able to dwell in heaven, from which they have as the time coextensive with the state of this world from its beginning to its end. But another, based on the grammatical sequence, will suppose that 'the ruler of the power of the spirit of the air which is now at work in the sons of disobedience' and 'the Aeon of this world' are not, therefore, the same, since he has arranged all these things individually, as Paul says, 'in which you once walked in accordance with the Aeon of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the spirit of the air'. And furthermore, he will consider the phrase in the epistle to the Galatians, 'to deliver us from the present evil Aeon' (Gal. 1: 4), to show that 'the present Aeon' is an 'evil' living being, being the same with 'the ruler of the power of the spirit of the air'. The saying from the epistle to the Galatians, however, has a contrary force since something like this is also said of days, which are admittedly not living, 'Redeeming the time because the days are evil' (Eph. 5:

16). Jacob also says, 'Few and evil' are 'the days which I have sojourned' on the earth (Gen. 47:

9). And the phrase, 'Through whom he made the Aeons' (Heb.

1: 3), will seem to say that the Aeons are a creation, one of whom can rebelliously have become 'evil' and be said to be the 'Aeon of this world' and the 'ruler of the power of the spirit of the air which is now at work in the sons of disobedience, in which also we all once lived'.

And we must note that he did not say, 'According to the ruler of

deservedly fallen. Rather that air which is above us is called heaven in accordance with the Saviour's words, 'Consider the birds of heaven' (Matt. 6: 26). It is obvious, to be sure, that the birds do not fly through heaven but through the air.

There follows the words, 'In which we all once lived in the desires of our flesh, doing the will of our flesh and thoughts'

(Eph. 2: 3). The 'in which' is to be referred to the 'offences'. For because he placed the two together above, 'And you, when you were dead in offences and your sins', and referred to 'sins' when he said,

'in which you once walked', but nothing like this was seen to follow in reference to 'offences' which could explain its meaning, he now says, 'in which offences we also all lived'. At the same time, lest he appear, on the basis of pride, to omit himself in his words, 'and your sins in which you once walked', he added, 'in which we also all lived'. But he who says that he has lived in offences in the past does not also confess that he does so at present.

We once lived, he says, not in one desire but in the desires of our flesh, 'for the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh' (Gal. 5: 17) doing not only one will of the flesh but many, and not only the wills of the flesh but also of our minds, for which the Latin manuscripts have 'thoughts'.

Now I think the difference between sin of the flesh and of our minds is this. Sin of the flesh is unchastity, sensuality, and those acts which are completely occupied with the lusts 573 of its service. An offence of our minds, on the other hand, pertains to doctrines which are contrary to the truth, and to heretical depravity.

Consequently, we can say that numerous heretics (although this is rare) do the wills of their minds and not the wills of the flesh. On the air', but 'the power of the air'.

We must investigate, therefore, 'the power of the air,' that we may in this way see its 'ruler'. But the phrase can also indicate something like this, 'According to the ruler of the power of the spirit', which spirit is the spirit of the 'air', 'which is now at work in the sons of disobedience'. Since, then, a ruler is ruler of something, you will wonder if perhaps the one now under discussion is ruler of all 'power' concerning the air, which power 'is at work' busying itself concerning the air in regard to 'the sons of disobedience' (but also, everyone who disobeys the divine doctrines when they are proclaimed is shown to be a 'son of disobedience' by his disobeying). And you will wonder if, perhaps, 'our wrestling' is 'with' these 'powers' (Eph. 6: 12), when we resist the activities which they wish to effect in regard to us too, wishing to make us 'sons of disobedience'. And it is not astonishing that these 'powers' are said to be 'in the heavenly places' (Eph. 6: 12) just as 'the principalities' and 'powers' and 'cosmic rulers' are 'in the heavenly places' (Eph. 6: 12), since the air around us is designated 'heaven' in accordance with a customary usage found in Scripture, for 'birds of heaven' (Matt. 6: 26) are mentioned but it is clear that these are mentioned in relation to the air.

And to what does the phrase, 'and in which we all once lived' refer other than to the trespasses?

For he did not append anything to the trespasses but to the sins

alone. After he said, 'And you who were dead in trespasses and your sins', he adds the phrase, 'in which you once walked'. And now he appends the phrase, 'and in which also we all once lived', to the phrase, 'in trespasses', that he not appear to make false pretensions, as it were, after he had said, 'in which you once walked in accordance with the Aeon of this world', but leaving himself unmentioned. Now Paul himself knows a 'desire of the flesh' and another desire of the spirit, when he says, 'The flesh desires against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh' (Gal. 5: 17).

But when we were living in trespasses, since we were in 'the desires of our flesh', we were doing not one but many 'wills', and not only 'of the flesh' but also 'of our thoughts'. And we ask what 'the wills of our thoughts' are, which are other than 'the wills of the flesh'. And we conjecture, at least, [that] by doing and taking pleasure in the works of the flesh one 'does the wills of the flesh', and by having fallen away from sound doctrine and correct thought we 'do the wills of our thoughts'.

And we do not know what those who introduce spiritual natures from the beginning will say on the statement, 'We were children of wrath by nature, as also the rest'. For let them explain how he who was a son of God by nature can be said to be a son 'of wrath' by nature. We think, however, that we have become 'children of wrath by nature' because of 'the body of our the contrary, many who belong to the Church do the wills of the flesh and not of their minds, and there are even more who do the wills of the flesh and of their minds equally. We have said these things, however, not because heretics do not also do the wills of the flesh (for there are more vices of the body with them than with our people), but so that what we meant could be understood more easily from an example.

'And we were', he says, 'by nature sons of wrath, as also the others' (Eph.

2: 3). Let the heretics who argue that there are diverse natures respond how Paul, who certainly without any doubt, is of a spiritual nature, was by nature a son of wrath as also the others who were still positioned in error. We say, however, that all humanity is first by nature sons of wrath, either because of the body of lowliness and the body of death (Phil. 3: 21; Rom. 7: 24), and because from youth the mind of man is set on evil (Gen. 8: 21), whence also Solomon says, 'There is no just man on the earth who will do good and not sin'

(Eccles. 7: 20) or because, from that time in which we are capable of knowledge of God and have come to maturity, we all sin either in deed, word, or thought.36

We were, therefore, by nature sons of wrath as also the others, and we are all saints who have been redeemed from wrath by the blood of Christ. For if Paul, who lived blamelessly in accordance with the justice which was in the law (Phil. 3: 6), says that he was a son of wrath by nature, why should we fear also to declare that saints were formerly sons of wrath? It can truly be said of all of these, 'but when the

lowliness' (Phil. 3: 21), seeing that our 'thought was on evil things from our youth' (Gen. 8: 21). For according to Solomon, 'There is no just man on the earth who will do good and not sin' (Eccles. 7:

20). commandment came, sin revived', but they themselves died (Rom. 7:

9-10). Now a son of wrath is to be interpreted as a son of perdition, a son of iniquity, and a son of death (John 17: 12; 2 Thess. 2: 3; Ps. 88:

23). It is not that there is a wrath,

end p.119 end p.120

end p.121 end p.122 end p.123 death, iniquity, and perdition which exists in its own nature and which has sons, but that they are called sons of that thing which is at work in the individuals, as those are called sons of Gehenna (Matt. 18: 15) who are to be consumed by the fires of Gehenna.

Another is of the opinion that they have been designated sons of wrath as sons of the devil. For the devil is perdition, wrath, and death. 'Death grew strong and devoured' and,

'The enemy death will be destroyed last' (1 Cor. 15: 26) and, in relation to the same devil,

'You have been made 574 perdition' (Ezek. 28: 19 LXX). 'Made', he says, by his own will, not so created from the beginning. 37

37 This is Origen's doctrine of the devil, expressed in relation to Ezek. 28: 19, as here, in Jo. 20.174, and points to the probability that this entire section was derived from Origen's commentary on Ephesians.

In the same way, then, as he is called death because 'by the envy end p.124 of the devil death entered into the world' (Wisd. 2: 24) and, because of him, those who were previously living died, and he is called perdition because he destroys whomever he deceives, so also he is called wrath because of that savageness which he employs against humanity. Those who think that that statement in the books of the Kings refers to the devil when David numbered the people of Israel and provoked the wrath of God among them, when the Scripture says, 'And the wrath of the Lord being inflamed was applied to Israel, and incited David saying' (2 Kgs. 24: 1), do so because according to the particular nature of the Greek language he did not use the feminine participle λ γōυσα, that is which (feminine) says, in agreement with (the feminine) wrath of God, but the masculine participle λ

γων, that is 'the wrath of God who (masculine) says, since the Lord sends his wrath and fury by evil angels (Ps. 77: 49).

God, therefore, who is rich in mercy and rich because of his love with which he loved the human race, and his love is not simple but manifold, made us alive when we were dead because of our offences, and he not only made us alive (inasmuch as this was not sufficient in his goodness and greatness), but he made us alive with Christ Jesus, granting to us to have one and the same life with Christ.

Some have translated 'by all means' or 'entirely' before 'nature' in the phrase, 'We were by nature sons of wrath', for that which we have now explained because the word φ

σει is ambiguous. But even if it means this, it is to be explained as we have done.

Eph. 2: 5b You Have Been Saved by Grace.

If the sufferings of this time are not worthy for the future glory which will be revealed in us (Rom. 8: 18), we have been saved by grace rather than by work. For we can give nothing back to the Lord for all the things which he has given us (Ps. 115: 12). end p.125

Origen Jerome

Eph. 2: 6 And raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places.

Eph. 2: 6 And he raised us up and made us sit together with Christ Jesus in the heavenly places.

The one who understands the phrase, 'raised us up together and seated us together', rather simply will say it has been said of God's foreknowledge and predetermination, as though what will be has already occurred. But one who perceives that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual will not hesitate to say that just as the one who is already holy is not in the flesh even if he may be said to be in the flesh by those who are rather simple, so he is not on the earth even if he may be seen to be on the earth so far as sense perception is concerned. For he who is in the spirit is not on the earth, and no one of those who are in the heavenly places are 'in the flesh but' are already 'in the spirit'

(Rom. 8: 9). Dispositions such as this, therefore, and the apprehension of things so great and of such kind are not earthly but heavenly. All those who already have their 'citizenship in heaven' (Phil. 3: 20) have been seated together 'with Christ in the heavenly places' since, indeed, 'the kingdom of God is' also 'within' us (Luke 17: 21) so that we, seated together with Christ and taking our station together with the Wisdom and Word of God, may He had said above that God has raised Christ from the dead and 'made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places above every principality, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name which is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come' (Eph. 1: 20-1). But now he adds, 'Because he has raised us up also and made us sit in the heavenly places at his right hand'.

I ask, therefore, how God, who has saved us and raised us up, 575 has made us sit together with Christ?

Now indeed one who is rather simple will answer that he has asserted this because that which will be has been said as if it has already happened in accordance with the foreknowledge of God and that it is the custom of the Scriptures occasionally that they are inflected in the past for future time. For example, it is said of the cross of the Lord, 'They have pierced my hands and feet' (Ps. 21: 17), and elsewhere of his passion, 'He has been led as a sheep to the sacrifice'

(Isa. 53: 7). Further, it is said of the injuries from the whips, 'With his bruise we have been healed' (Isa.

53: 5) and elsewhere, 'For the iniquities of my people he has been led off to death' (Isa. 53: 8,

thus have been seated 'in the heavenly places'.

LXX). Those future things, therefore, which God (with whom

end p.126 nothing is ambiguous) knows, are related as if they have already happened so that human hope will not fluctuate and vacillate because future things are always uncertain.

Consequently, because things past cannot be undone according to the philosophers, those who have heard would possess those things which will be as if they have already been done.

But another, who understands the resurrection and kingdom of Christ spiritually, will not hesitate to say that the saints already sit and rule with Christ. For just as the saint is by no means in the flesh when he lives in the flesh and has his citizenship in heaven (Phil.

3:20), when he walks on the earth and, ceasing to be flesh, is transformed totally into spirit, so it is when we sit in the heavenly places with Christ. The kingdom of God, indeed, is within us (Luke 17: 21) and where our treasure will be, there will our heart be also (Matt. 6: 21). We sit immovable and stable with Christ who is Wisdom, the Word, 38

38 The unitalicized portions in Jerome's comments on Eph. 2: 6, which add Scriptural citations and additional titles of Christ, probably represent sections that the catenist omitted from his excerpt on this verse.

Justice, and Truth.

But it can also be said that just as we have received the arrhabon (security) of the Holy

Spirit but his total fullness has not yet followed, so also we sit with Christ and rule, not yet having obtained the perfect sitting in the heavenly places.

Eph. 2: 7 That He Might Show in the Ages to Come the Abundant Riches of His Grace in Kindness Towards Us in Christ Jesus.

How great is the magnitude of his goodness and how manifold the grace by which the Lord makes us sit, free from the disturbances of this world, and rule with Christ. Or, from these words it is proved especially that 576 in the ages to come he will show his glory towards us and will demonstrate his riches, not to one but to the totality of all rational creatures.

But let us, who once were held by the law of the underworld and were thus destined for works of the flesh and punishments because of vices and sins, now rule in Christ and sit with him. Moreover let us not sit in some lowly place but let us sit 'above every principality, authority, power, and dominion and every name which is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come' (Eph. 1: 21). For if Christ has been raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God in the heavenly places above every principality, authority, and power, etc., and we sit and rule with Christ, we must sit above these powers which he sits above. end p.127

But he who is a diligent reader 39 39 Jerome, Apol. 1. 24, identifies the 'diligent reader' here as Origen (Append. B, 24;

Introd. § 3.2). He says he put forth a threefold interpretation of Eph. 2: 7, the first being his own opinion, the second that of Origen whom he says he called 'a diligent reader', and the third the view of Apollinarius. Rufinus, Apol. 1. 34, quotes this passage against Jerome to show that Jerome held the views of Origen, and identifies it with Origen's doctrine that the demons and Satan would share in Christ's kingdom and will at the end.

While Jerome, Apol. 1. 24, admits that he is putting forth Origen's interpretation here, he

claims that it is the opposite of his own, which he has put forth first. Rufinus' quotation begins with Jerome's initial comments on the verse, and makes no distinction between this part and what Jerome claims is the second part, namely Origen's comments. The passage does read as one piece, and the first part is a necessary assumption for the second part. It is quite likely, in my opinion, that the whole, from the initial comments, which Jerome claims for his own opinion, down to the introduction of the final section with the words, 'But another', all stem from Origen. In other words, Jerome accepts Origen's initial comments and reproduces them as his own view, but wants to separate himself from the additional more radical conclusions which Origen drew from these comments (see introd.

§ 3.3). immediately raises the question, What, then, is man greater than the angels and all the powers in heaven? Although it is dangerous to respond, I say that the principalities, authorities, powers, dominions, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in that which is to come (especially since all things have been subjected to the feet of Christ) will refer not to the good part of these powers but to their opposite. Consequently, he means that these are the apostate angels, the prince of this world (John 14: 30) and Lucifer, who used to rise early (Isa. 14: 12), over whom the saints will sit with Christ in the end imparting a benefit also to those who now roam about at random, unchecked, making evil use of their freedom, and rush headlong to make sinners fall. But when these evil powers have those who sit over them, they will begin to be governed by the will of those sitting.

But another 40 40 Apollinarius. See previous note. says that the statement, 'That he might show in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus', will refer to the view that we have been saved, not by our merit but by his grace. It is indicative also of a kindness on behalf of sinners that is greater than dying for those who are just, 'For someone might perhaps dare to die for a good man' (Rom. 5: 7). It will also refer to the fact that those things will be given 577 to us which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have they entered the heart of man (1 Cor. 2: 9). He has now given all of these things partially in Christ Jesus, because apart from Christ no good can be mentioned. end p.128

Eph. 2: 8-9 for You Have Been Saved by Grace by Means of Faith, and This Is not from Yourselves, for It Is the Gift of God, not from Works, That No One May Glory.

He says, therefore, that he will show the abundant riches of his grace in kindness in the ages to come because you have been saved by grace by means of faith, not by means of works. And this faith itself is not from yourselves but is from him who has called you.

Now so that the secret thought, 'If we have not been saved by means of our works, perhaps we have been saved by means of faith, and it is in another manner that we are saved of ourselves', not sneak into our thinking by chance in reference to this, he thus goes on and says that faith itself is also not of our will but is the gift of God. It is not that human free will is removed. In accordance with what the apostle says to the Romans, 'It is not of him who runs, or of him who wills, but of God who shows mercy' (Rom. 9: 16), the very freedom of the will has God as its author, and all things are referred to his benefaction, since it is he himself who permits us even to will the good. But all of this has been said so that no one might glory as if he has been saved by himself and not by God.

Eph. 2: 10 for We Are What He Has Made, Created in Christ Jesus in Good Works, Which God Has Prepared That We Should Walk in Them.

He has related the reasons why we have been saved by grace by means of faith, and this itself is not from ourselves but is from the gift of God, when he says, 'For we are what he has made'. That means that the fact that we live, breath, understand, and can believe comes from him because he is our creator.

And notice carefully that he has not said, 'We are his fashioning and forming' but, 'We are what he has made'. A 'forming', indeed, has its origin from the mud of the earth but a 'making' takes its beginning in accordance with the likeness and image of God. What has been written in the one-hundred and eighteenth Psalm points to different things, 'Your hands made me and formed me' (Ps. 118: 73).

What has been made holds the first position, then comes what is formed. 41

41 Rufinus cites these words as proof of the (Origenian) doctrine in Jerome's commentary that the soul was created first and the body later (Apol. 1. 38). Jerome has no response to Rufinus' charge.

And because the terms 'creating' and 'founding' are normally always joined with great works (for example, that city has been founded, and the world has been created from the beginning), 578 and each saint is a complete world in himself by means of the various teachings and virtues, for this end p.129 reason we say now that we are created in Christ and created in good works, whether those are works which we ourselves have done or will do, or those in other creations to which our citizenship (cf. Phil. 3: 20) is to be transferred, that we may walk in those things which God has prepared. We are recipients of this great hope now during the time in which we are to walk in these things which God has prepared with great difficulty.

Because we once encounter the name 'creature' in the Proverbs of Solomon, and Wisdom says that she has been created as the beginning of God's ways (Prov. 8: 22) many, in the fear that they may be compelled to say that Christ is a creature, deny the whole mystery of Christ and say that Christ is not meant by this Wisdom but the wisdom of the world.

We, however, boldly proclaim that there is no danger in saying that he is a creature, whom we acknowledge in the total fidelity of our hope to be a worm (Ps. 21: 7), a man, crucified and a curse (Gal. 3: 13), especially when in the two preceding verses Wisdom herself promises that she is about to declare the things which are to be after the ages. But since Christ made the ages, those things, too, which are said thereafter would be those things which Wisdom has promised to declare after the ages, and those things which follow are to be referred to the mystery of the incarnation, not to the nature of God, although the Hebrew manuscripts do not have, 'The Lord created me the beginning of his ways' but, 'The Lord possessed me'. There is, moreover, a big difference between possession and creation. He who is possessed certainly exists, remains, and is his own person as one who is possessed. But one is created who did not exist before he came to be, or who certainly is transferred into something else from that which he was, just as we also now are said to be created in Christ Jesus. We are created, to be sure, not because we did not exist previously, but we are created in good works. This is what David also prays for in the fiftieth Psalm when he says, 'Create in me a pure heart, O God' (Ps. 50: 11). He had certainly had a pure heart before his sin when the Lord said of him, 'I have found

David the son of Jesse to be in accordance with my heart' (1 Kgs. 16: 1, 12; Acts 13: 22).

But as there the creature cries out for restoration, so also a creating and making can be understood in us and in Christ by means of individual works and advances, so that Christ is created, born, and made 579 each day in believers because they are said, in accordance with their diverse merits, to be mountains, valleys, hills, and plains. end p.130 previous | next

Eph. 2: 11-12 for Which Reason Remember That at One Time You Gentiles in the Flesh,

Who Were Called Uncircumcised by That Which Is Called Circumcision Done in the Flesh by Hand, Since You Were at That Time Without Christ, Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel and Strangers to the Covenants of Promise, Having No Hope and Without God in the World.

By calling the Ephesians Gentiles in the flesh, he shows that they are not Gentiles in the spirit just as, on the contrary, the Jews are Gentiles in the spirit and Israelites in the flesh.

Jews and Gentiles, therefore, are divided into four parts. Some have been circumcised in flesh and spirit. Moses and Aaron belonged to this group, as did the apostles and Nathaniel, whose hidden Judaism the Lord 42

42 Dominum, however, is accusative and not nominative. It must, however, be the subject of ait. observed and said, 'Behold a true Israelite in whom there is no guile' (John 1: 47). There are others who have been circumcised in neither flesh nor spirit. Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh belonged to this group. Today there is a multitude of barbarian and Roman

Gentiles who do not believe in God. Third, there are those who have been circumcised only in the flesh and have an uncircumcised spirit, to whom the prophet says, 'Be circumcised to your God, and wish not to circumcise the flesh of your foreskin' (Jer. 4:

4), and elsewhere, 'All the Gentiles are uncircumcised in the flesh but the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart' (Jer. 9: 26). Finally, there are those of whom it is now said,

'That at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, who were called uncircumcised by that which is called circumcision done in the flesh by hands'. Today there is a whole crowd of believers and the whole world is full of Gentiles.

Therefore, to distinguish the spiritual Gentiles from the Jews, the Ephesians are called

Gentiles in the flesh because they are Israelites according to the spirit. For also, in another passage, Scripture recalls the Israel of the flesh and says, 'Behold Israel according to the flesh' (1 Cor. 10: 18), because it was not Israel in the spirit.

Moreover, he has qualified the words beautifully, 'You were called uncircumcised'. 'You were called', he says, not 'you were', 'uncircumcised' by that which is said to be circumcision done in the flesh by hand. It is not that it is circumcision, but that it assumes this name for itself, and it is truly a circumcision done by hand, not spirit. end p.131

Origen Jerome Eph. 2: 12 That you were at that time without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the

world.

At the same time it should be noted that he has spoken of us who were once without Christ and were aliens from the commonwealth 580 of Israel and strangers to the promises and covenant of God. Now, after we have believed in Christ, just as we have received his promises and covenants, so are we said also to belong to the commonwealth of Israel. In the same manner the whole legal commonwealth is fulfilled in us because, of course, the law is spiritual

(Rom. 7: 14) and we, rather, are circumcised and keep the Sabbath in spirit, offering up spiritual victims (1 Pet. 2: 5), since their temple and altar have been destroyed.43 It is we who offer tithes of our fruits to God. It is we who slay an unstained lamb and, with girded loins, eat the Passover unencumbered (Exod. 12: 6, 11).

For just as circumcision is said to be done in the flesh by hand, so another is understood in distinction from this circumcision to be, as we said, a circumcision, which is not done by hand but by spirit.

Now the fact that he says, 'Having no hope, and without God in the world', does not mean that the Ephesians did not have and worship many gods before they believed in Christ, but that the person who is without the true God has no God. And it is significant that he adds, 'without God in the world'. They had God, inasmuch as God knew beforehand those whom he would have, and they were not without God in God's foreknowledge but in the world they were without God.

It is possible to detect a good observation from this against those who suppose that those who have believed in Christ do not have citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel but in some other new commonwealth which has nothing in common with that one. For 'you were', he says, 'at that time without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel', because they are now no longer 'without Christ' but neither are they 'aliens from the commonwealth of Israel'. For it is the prerogative of all those who understand that 'the law is spiritual' (Rom. 7: 14) and live according to it to identify themselves with 'the commonwealth of Israel' even more than the physical Jews. And it follows consistently to assume that the one who is 'without Christ and an alien from the commonwealth of Israel' is also a 'stranger to the covenants of promise'.

And you will ask, perhaps, why it is said, 'Without God in this world', since those to whom the epistle is written were not 'without God' insofar as it is in the fore-knowledge of God.

end p.132

Origen Jerome

Eph. 2: 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far away have become near in the blood of Christ.

Eph. 2: 13-14a But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off, have been made near in the blood of Christ, for he is our peace.

God is everywhere, and he is everywhere entire. Who can be separated from him when all things are in him? And he himself says through the prophet, 'I am a God at hand, and not afar off' (Jer.

23: 23). And the Psalmist testifies, 'Far' and 'near' are used from the spatial concepts of far and near, for the removal of the choice far from God and its approach to his will. And we 'become near' when we have been cleansed 'in the blood of Christ' and 'purchased for this price' (1 Cor. 6: 20; 7: 23).

'If I ascend into heaven, you are there; if I descend into hell, you are present' (Ps. 138: 8).

Although, then, all things are in him, nevertheless he is said to be far away from the impious according to that statement, 'The Lord is far from the impious' (Prov. 15: 29).

He, from whom the impious are far, is near the saints. For although he was also far away from the Ephesians, in the blood of Jesus he has been made near. end p.133

Origen Jerome Eph. 2: 14a For he is our peace.

One must note that just as Christ is Logos, Wisdom, Power, and Life, so is he also Peace. And one must collect all the names which he is given from all Scripture that we might understand him more accurately. Therefore, just as the one who has him has reason, when he has 'sought and found'

(Matt. 7: 7) him as Logos (and he has the equivalent also in the case of 'wisdom and righteousness' (1 Cor. 1: 30)), so let us seek him also as 'Peace', that we may have him just as he 'is Peace' and the peace of all rational creatures. And the one who does not have peace does And very diligent attention should be given to the fact that no one draws near to God without the blood of the Lord Jesus because he is our peace, who says, 'My peace I give to you; my peace I leave with you' (John 14: 27). For in the same way that wisdom makes wise people, justice makes just, sanctification makes saints, and life makes living people, so also he, as peace, makes us to be peaceful so that we may say, 581 'With those who hated peace I was peaceable' (Ps. 119: 7). Now if Christ is believed to be peace, whoever is without peace consequently does not have

Christ.

Eph. 2: 14b-18 Who has made both one and, breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmity in his flesh, making void the law of commandments in doctrines, that he might make the two in himself into one new man, making peace, that he might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, killing the enmity in it, and coming, he preached peace to you who were far off, and peace to those who were near, since we both have access to the Father in one Spirit through him.

It was that middle wall and partition which separated each people from himself. A midwife speaks of this wall also in Genesis concerning the birth of twins, 'Why has the wall44 been destroyed because of you?' (Gen.

38: 29). After, therefore, the Saviour destroyed the wisdom of the flesh, which is enmity to God (Rom. 8: 7), in his flesh and exchanged the precepts of the law for the doctrines of the gospel so that he might make one Christian people from Jew and Gentile, he preached peace and harmony to us who were far off and to the rest of the Jews who believed from Israel through the apostles. Then we approached God through him and recognized that we have one Father in the spirit, and the Lord's words in the Gospel have been fulfilled, 'And there shall be one shepherd and one flock' (John 10:

16), and again, 'I have other sheep which are not of this sheepfold'

(John 10: 16), meaning us who not have Christ.

Eph 2: 14b, 15, 17 He has made the two one, and has broken down the wall of division, the enmity in his flesh, having destroyed the law of commandments with doctrines, that he might make the two into one new man . . . and he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.

These things are said concerning the divine powers and those men who are saved, the divine powers being also formerly 'near', and men being 'far off' (and he who says these things will apply to them the statement, 'Having made peace through the blood of his cross whether in reference to things on the earth or things in the heavens' (Col. 1: 20), and all the things thus described in that passage). They are said of the better powers because they were in a friendly relationship with God, and of men in the world because they were in 'enmity' towards him. And this 'enmity' was 'the wall of division' which prevented human nature from being united with the blessedness of the better powers. This 'wall of division', then, being 'enmity', was destroyed by the incarnation of our Saviour, and for this reason it is said 'to have been destroyed in his flesh'.

Pay attention to the grammatical sequence. Can the interpreter make the rather striking statement that, 'in the heavenly places', some were serving the true law, of which the

written code of Moses was a 'shadow and sketch' (Heb. 8: 5)?

That law is 'doctrines' rather than a 'law of commandments'. He who has been considered worthy to understand these doctrines, because the 'wall of division' which walls him off from the better powers has been destroyed, no longer lives by 'the law of commandments', for Christ abolishes 'the law of commandments with doctrines' that, when the doctrines made known by the law of commandments have been understood, the latter might be despised as 'the letter "of the law of commandments" which kills' (2 Cor. 3: 6; Eph. 2: 15).

When the Saviour, therefore, 'had abolished the law of commandments' through his manifestation of the 'doctrines' in them, he brought 'both' together 'into one new man'. By both I mean the divine powers and those men who believe. And the new 'man' is understood 'to be renewed' daily (2 Cor. 4: 16). He will also be settled in a new world because 'the heaven will be new and the earth will be new' (Isa. 65:

17).

The phrase, 'into one new man', however, will appear to contradict this interpretation. have been gathered from the Gentiles.

Now the enmity which has been destroyed in the flesh of the Saviour has also been killed by the cross. For it is written, 'That he might reconcile both in one body to God, by the cross killing the enmity in it'. It is not 'in himself' as the Latin manuscripts have it.

This arises from the ambiguity of the Greek pronoun.

can be understood both as 'in himself' and as 'in it', that is, the cross, because cross, that is σταυρ ς, is masculine gender in the Greek language.

The law also has been overthrown for doctrines. Afterwards circumcision, Sabbath observance, which remains for the people of God (Heb. 4: 9), Passover, Pentecost, and not appearing 582 empty before God (Exod. 23: 15) are understood at a higher level than they are expressed. By withdrawing from the letter which kills, we begin to follow the spirit which makes alive (2 Cor. 3: 6).

But it seems to me that when he says, 'Coming, he preached peace to you who were far off', that is the Gentiles, 'and peace to those who were near', that is the Jews, he has cited the testimony of Isaiah with other words, making use of the thought of Scripture as if it were his own. It has indeed been written

end p.134 end p.135 in that prophet, 'I saw his ways, and I healed him; I consoled him and I gave him true consolation; peace upon peace to those who are far off and who are near' (Isa. 57: 18-19).

These things have been said in accordance with the translation of the Vulgate.

But one who reads that which the apostle says of Christ, 'Making peace by the blood of his cross, for those who were on earth, and for those who were in heaven' (Col. 1: 20),

and the other things which are said in the same passage, will not suppose that we, who are called Israel according to the spirit were far off, and the Jews, who are only called

Israel in the flesh, were near. And he will apply this whole understanding to the angels, heavenly powers and human souls because Christ joined together in his blood earthly and heavenly beings who formerly were separated. 45

45 The italicized words in this paragraph up to this point have a parallel in the catena fragment which confirms the judgement of Rufinus (Apol. 1. 38) that this paragraph reflects Origen's teachings. Rufinus' quotation extends up to the citation of Luke 15: 8-9.

The final sentence in the paragraph also clearly reflects Origen's doctrine although it is not included in Rufinus' citation nor does it have a parallel in the catena fragment. See below, however, on Eph. 3: 11.

As the good shepherd he carried end p.136 back the sickly sheep to the mountains and restored it with the others (Luke 15: 4-7). He also joined the drachma which was lost with the drachmas which were safe (Luke 15: 89) and withdrew the commandments of the law in consequence of those teachings which were to be fashioned in the tabernacle whose type and image Moses saw (Exod. 25: 40).

And so it comes about that the cross of the Lord benefits not only the earth, but also heaven; not only humanity, but also angels; and every creature of the Lord has been cleansed by his blood.

Although 46 46 Rufinus cites the words from here to the end of the comments on this passage in Ephesians as proof that Jerome holds the same (Origenian) view of the resurrection which he had mocked in his Ep. 84 (Apol. 1. 39; Introd. § 3.2). the words, 'That he might make the two into one new man in himself', appear even more appropriately than those above to refer to Jews and Gentiles, the reader referred to above has adapted them to his interpretation in such a way that Paul means the man made in the image and likeness of God who, after the reconciliation, will receive the same form which the angels have even now and man himself has lost. Moreover, he calls him a new man 583 who is renewed daily (2 Cor. 4: 16). He will inhabit a new world, when there will be a new heaven and a new earth (Isa. 65: 17), drink the cup of Jesus new in the kingdom of God (Mark 14: 25), sing a new song (Ps. 32: 3; 97: 1) and rejoice in the reading of the truly New Testament. In addition, the words found elsewhere,

'Behold I do new things which are appearing now' (Isa. 43: 19), mean that he considers the beginning of the renewal to occur in the present age.

But he thinks the perfect and complete newness cannot yet be completed in this age. Just as we now see in a mirror enigmatically, but then face to face (1 Cor. 13: 12), so also the renewal of the new man is to be fully and perfectly completed then, when heavenly things and earthly things shall have been joined and we shall have approached the Father in one spirit, sentiment, and understanding.

Paul hints at something similar to certain wise readers in another letter (if only one accepts it) when he says, 'All these, receiving the testimony of their faith, did not receive the promise, God providing something better for us, that they not be perfected without us'

(Heb. 11: 39-40). Wherefore the whole creation groans with us (Rom. 8: 22) who groan in this tabernacle (2 Cor. 5: 4), and suffers with us who have conceived in the womb from the fear of God and suffer pain (cf. Isa. 26: 17-18) and wait for the revelation of the sons

of God (Rom. 8: 19), that it might be set free from the vanity of the servitude to which it has been subjected (Rom. 8: 20-1), that there may be one shepherd and one flock (John

10: 16), and the prayer of the Lord might be fulfilled when he prays, 'May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven' (Matt. 6: 10). end p.137

Origen Jerome Eph. 2: 19-22 Therefore you are no longer strangers and aliens, but fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building being fitted together will grow into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you too will be built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Eph. 2: 19-22 Therefore, you are no longer strangers and aliens, but citizens with the saints, and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building having been fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you too are built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

In relation to what he said above, 'Strangers to the covenants and promises', he now responds: 'Therefore you are no longer strangers and aliens'.

And in relation to what he said first, 'Alienated from the commonwealth of Israel', he now replies, 'You are citizens with the saints, and members of the household of God'. This passage sides against those especially who endeavour to introduce diverse natures. For how have strangers been made citizens with the saints, and how will 584 those once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel be members of the household of God, if a nature cannot be changed for the better or the worse?

But what follows, 'Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets', is more appropriate to the former interpretation than to the second, in which we said above that, prior to the passion of Christ, Israel was near and In contrast to the earlier words, 'strangers to the covenants of promise', he now says, 'therefore you are no longer strangers and aliens', and in contrast to 'aliens to the commonwealth of Israel' he says now, 'but fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God'.

One must apply these words to those who introduce the natures.

For how are strangers 'citizens' by nature 'of the saints', and how are 'strangers' by nature 'members of the household of God'?

And the words from the phrase, 'having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets' will appear to agree with the interpretation which applies the word 'near' to Israel, but far away to the nations.

And it will be proper to use

the Gentiles were far away. We can also use this testimony against Marcion and other old heretics who proclaimed one God of the law and another of the gospel.

For if by no means strangers and aliens, but citizens with the saints and members of the household of God have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building having been fitted together grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom the Ephesians also are being built together into a tabernacle of God in the spirit, then there is one God of one building and temple which has been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

But if the whole temple having been fitted together grows into a holy temple in the Lord, we must make every effort to these words against those who dissect the deity and think that the prophets belong to one God and the apostles to another. For if, those who are no longer 'strangers and aliens', but are 'fellow citizens of the saints and members of the household of God' are being built 'on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building being fitted together will grow into a holy temple in the Lord',47 we must strive to become well-fitting 'living stones' (1 Pet. 2: 5) in 'the whole building', so that 'having been built together' we may become 'a dwelling for God' containing all the teaching about him in ourselves.

end p.138 become those stones of which it is written, 'Holy stones are rolled on the land' (Zech. 9:

16). And when we shall have become 'living stones' (1 Pet. 2: 5), hewn on every side, smooth, polished, with no roughness, we may be built into the temple and become a dwelling place for God. And the ark of the covenant, the receptacle of the law of the Lord, may be formed in us, along with the Cherubim, that multitude of knowledge. Then the inner regions of our breast may be given a new name and may be called dabir because we can declare an oracle or a response and, to use a more contentious term, λαλητ

ριν, that is to say 'oracular shrine', so that, with the apostle, we may burst forth and say, 'Or do you seek a proof of him who speaks in me, that is Christ?' (2 Cor. 13: 3).

But the whole building constructed on the foundation of the apostles and prophets can refer not only to us but also to the heavenly powers, so that all equally become a dwelling place of God in the spirit. Indeed some say it is inconsistent that a building fitted together harmoniously from human beings should grow into a holy temple in the Lord end p.139 to become the dwelling place of God in the spirit, but that the angels and whatever blessed powers there be which serve 585 God in the heavenly regions should be thought to be separated from this happiness. 48

48 There is no parallel in the catena fragment but this paragraph reflects Origen's doctrine.

Cf. the italicized sections on Eph. 2: 14b-18 above.

The chief cornerstone, however, which holds each of the two peoples together or, if we take the second interpretation, joins heavenly and earthly beings, is Christ our Lord, the stone cut from the mountain without hands (Dan. 2: 45). The Psalmist also speaks of this stone saying, 'The stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the

corner. This has been done by the Lord' (Ps. 117: 22-3). It has been rejected, indeed, by the Pharisees, who seemed 586 to have knowledge of the law and to build the temple of God on commands of the law, and it has been taken up by God into the cornerstone that, being in the middle, it might hold together the two walls and, through it, each of the two peoples might have access to God. That cornerstone is a stone of offence and a rock of scandal to those who do not believe. The one who falls on it will be bruised, but it will grind to powder the one on whom it falls (Luke 20: 17-18). end p.140

previous | next Book II show chapter abstract and keywords hide chapter abstract and keywords Ronald E. Heine With your prayers, O Paula and Eustochium, we begin a second book to the Ephesians and are also about to send new little gifts to Rome. It is not that the council of teachers may consider these little gifts worthy to read and add them to the collections of the fathers, but because the holy Marcella in her letters continually demands that I do this very thing. Every time I recall her zealous activities, her character, her labour, I condemn myself for my inactivity. I, who am situated in the solitude of a monastery and see opposite me that manger in which the hastening shepherds implored a crying child (cf.

Luke 2: 16), cannot accomplish what this noble lady amid a noisy family and the management of a house performs in her spare time.

Wherefore I ask in general that she, yourselves, and any others who by chance will read these works understand that I am not producing a polished and carefully pondered discourse. I am using what is almost street language to reveal the mysteries of the Scriptures. Sometimes I go through up to a thousand lines in a single day so that the interpretation of the apostle which has been begun may be finished with the prayers of Paul himself whose epistles we are attempting to expound.

Origen

Jerome

Eph 3: 1-3 For this reason I Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles—if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God given to me for you, that the mystery was made known to me in revelation, just as I wrote above in a few words.

585 Eph. 3: 1-4 For this

reason I Paul am a prisoner of Jesus Christ on behalf of you Gentiles, if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God given to me for you, that the mystery was made known to me in revelation, just as I wrote above in a few words, accordingly by reading (them) you can comprehend my understanding in the mystery of Christ.

After we have attempted to restore the opening phrase so far as possible, we say that he has not provided an explanation for the words, 'For this reason I Paul, a prisoner'. He has not at all provided an explanation of the words, 'for this reason', in relation to what he has done or what has happened to him.1 Perhaps, since he was 'untrained in speech' (2 Cor. 11: 6), he has failed to record what corresponds to the phrase and has rendered the appropriate meaning obscurely, as though he had said, 'For this reason I Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus and a prisoner on behalf of you Gentiles', have made known 'the mystery' for the sake of sharing it with you also, 'as' I myself also 'wrote' briefly 'in the preceding words', but you ought 'to have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God given to me for you' who are from 'the Gentiles'. It is 'on behalf of' these things that I have become a 'prisoner of Jesus Christ.' But I think there is a solecism in the passage. For he should have said, 'For this reason

I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ, have made known the mystery.' But he says, 'For this reason I Paul, the prisoner, the mystery was made known to me in revelation.' Now if someone can prove intelligently that the phrase has turned out well as it is, one should give special attention to that person.

To what extent does the phrase, 'For this reason, I Paul am the prisoner of Jesus Christ on behalf of you Gentiles,' relate to the sequence of the discourse and the structure of the language which precedes it? Although we searched very diligently, we could find nothing which answers to it. He did not say, 586 for this reason I Paul have done this or that, or have taught this or that, but leaving the thought up in the air, he has passed over to other matters. Unless perhaps we should excuse in him that which he himself has confessed in the words, 'although untrained in speech, but not in knowledge' (2 Cor. 11: 6), and seek the order of meaning in the clause rather than in the order of the words. The meaning can be rendered as follows: For this reason I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus

Christ and a prisoner for you who are from the Gentiles, have made known the mystery that I might pass it on to you also, just as I have said 587 a little earlier in this same epistle. But you ought to hear of the dispensation of the grace of God which has been given to me for you who are from the Gentiles, for whom also I am the prisoner of Jesus Christ.

'In the few words' which

'precede' these it is truly possible for the one who has read carefully to discover the 'revelation' of the holy 'mystery' 'which has been made known' to Paul.

Paul's reference to being a prisoner of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles can also be understood of his martyrdom. When he had been thrown into prison at Rome he sent this epistle at the same time that he wrote to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Philippians as we have shown in another place. Or, because many passages refer to this body as the prison of the soul in which it is held as in an

end p.141 end p.142 enclosed cell, we might, perhaps, say that Paul is confined by the fetters of the body and could not return and be with Christ (Phil. 1: 23) so that his preaching among the Gentiles might be finished completely. Some, however, introduce another meaning at this point.

They say that Paul was predestined and sanctified to preach to the Gentiles from the womb of his mother (Gal. 1: 15), before his birth, and later accepted the bonds of flesh. 2

2 See Jerome, Apol. 1. 25 (Append. B, 25). There Jerome says the first view expressed in this paragraph is his own, the second, that of Origen and the third, that of Apollinarius.

Cf. Rufinus, Apol. 1. 40, and Jerome's similar interpretation of the body offered on Eph.

4: 1 below.

But I think that the manner of speaking is also defective in this passage. 3

3 Cf. Origen's criticism of Paul's style in Comm. in Rom. 3.1.

For instead of that which he ought to say, namely, For this reason, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ on behalf of you Gentiles, have made known the mystery, just as I wrote above in a few words, as you can read and understand, he says, 'For this reason, I Paul, the prisoner, the mystery was made known to me in revelation', etc. If someone can show, however, that the apostle was perfect and has not committed grammatical errors in relation to the coherence of the language and manner of speaking, then listen to that person instead. Whenever we note solecisms or similar things we do not defame the apostle as ill-willed people who make accusations but we rather defend him because, as a Hebrew of the Hebrews (Phil. 3: 15), lacking the polish of rhetorical speech, the knowledge of the proper arrangement of words and the grace of eloquence, he would never have been able to bring the whole world to faith in Christ unless he had preached

Christ in the power of God and not in the wisdom of speech. For he himself says to the

Corinthians, 'And when I came to you, brothers, I came not in the excellence of speech or wisdom, 588 announcing to you the testimony of God' (1 Cor. 2: 1). And again, 'And my speech and my preaching were not in the persuasive words of wisdom but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power, that your faith might not be in human wisdom, but in the power of God' (1 Cor. 2: 4-5). He, therefore, who committed solecisms in speech, who could not render a hyperbaton and round off a period, boldly claims wisdom for himself and says, 'That the mystery was made known to me in revelation, just as I wrote above in a few words'. 4

4 Cf. Origen's discussion of the Pauline hyperbaton in Rom. 1: 13-15 in Comm in Rom.

1.13.

For truly if one will contemplate the preceding words of this epistle one will see mysteries revealed, some small part of which Paul has briefly noted in his discourse, not so much to bring forth everything which he knew as to indicate modestly what he is passing over in silence. end p.143

Accordingly, when you read these words, he says, you can comprehend my understanding or wisdom in the mystery of Christ. This is what we meant in the preface when we remarked that no other epistle of Paul contains so many mysteries and is so wrapped in hidden meanings which the apostle boasts that he knows and briefly hints at so that we might pore very carefully over what he has written. 5

5 For my basis for considering this final sentence to be derived from Origen see my argument above in Introd. § 3.4.3.

Eph. 3: 5-7 and to other generations it was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the spirit, that the gentiles are joint heirs, belonging to the same body, and are co-partners of the promise in Christ through the Gospel, of which I was made a Minister according to the gift of god's grace which has been given to me according to the operation of his power.

It seems necessary to re-examine rather thoroughly how the mystery of Christ which the apostle related partially above was unknown to other generations. 6

6 This entire section must surely come from Origen, except in the few obvious insertions by Jerome concerning Latin style and language. Origen has a similar discussion of the meaning that the mystery was hidden in his exposition of Rom. 16: 25 in his Comm. in Rom. 10.43. There he says, 'But an investigation also needs to be made of his words, "the mystery kept in silence". Does he mean by this that it was kept in silence in the sense that absolutely no one understood it, not even the prophets who announced it, or should deeper grounds for the silence be understood here? It seems completely absurd to me to say that as the prophets were writing the way they did concerning the divine mysteries, they failed to understand the things they were speaking about. For the Scripture says: "A wise man understands what proceeds from his mouth, and bears understanding on his lips" (Prov. 16: 23). Consequently, if the prophets did not understand what was proceeding from their own mouths, they were not wise men. But if it is foolish to confess them to be prophets, and yet deny that they were wise, it follows that they were wise and that they understood what was proceeding from their own mouths, and they had understanding on their lips.' And again, 'The mystery which, to be sure, the prophets knew about, for that is obvious from the prophetic writings themselves, was kept in silence for long ages. They did not reveal it or make it known to men, i.e. universally, but

they covered it up in silence in accordance with the command of the eternal God, until the time arrived when the Word became flesh and dwelled among us. Then it was disclosed to all nations leading to the obedience of faith' (ibid.).

Were Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah and the other prophets ignorant of it or not?

Scripture relates that the advent of Christ and the calling of the Gentiles were predicted by these very people. Abraham, in fact, saw his day and rejoiced (John 8: 56) and it was said to him, 'All the Gentiles will be blessed in your seed' (Gen. 22: 18). Jacob says prophetically of him who is to arise from Judah, 'And he will be the expectation of the Gentiles' (Gen. 49: 10). Moses, too, considered the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt (Heb. 11: 26). 589 And Isaiah says, 'Behold a virgin will conceive and will give birth' end p.144

(Isa. 7: 14). And elsewhere, 'He will be the rod of Jesse, who will arise to rule the Gentiles; in him the Gentiles will hope' (Rom. 15: 12). And that the list not grow long, let it suffice to cite a few verses from the Psalms. 'And all the families of the Gentiles shall worship before him' (Ps. 21: 28). And again, 'All the Gentiles will serve him' (Ps. 71: 11).

And even more clearly of the people of Israel, and of our Lord the Saviour, 'Visit this vineyard and perfect that which your right hand planted, and look upon the son whom you have confirmed for yourself' (Ps. 79: 15-16). The dispensation of his body is also indicated in the following words, 'Let your hand be upon the man of your right hand, and upon the son of man whom you have confirmed for yourself' (Ps. 79: 18).

It must, then, either be accepted along with Montanus that the patriarchs and prophets spoke in ecstasy and did not know what they said or, if this is impious inasmuch as the spirit of prophets is subject to prophets (1 Cor. 14: 32), they understood by all means that which they spoke. 7

7 Cf. Origen, Comm. in Rom. 8.6, 'It is not the case, as some think, that the prophets were ignorant of what they were saying and prophesied, so to speak, while deprived of their senses.' For my arguments for understanding Jerome's comments on Eph. 3: 4-11 as coming from Origen see R. E. Heine, 'Recovering Origen's Commentary on Ephesians from Jerome', JTS (2000), 478-514.

And if they understood, I ask how Paul now says that what was not known to other generations has been revealed to the apostles of Christ. Either, then, one must answer that Paul has testified cautiously and distinctly that the mystery was unknown to the sons of men, not to the sons of God, to whom it is said, 'I said, You are gods, and sons of the Most High' (Ps. 81: 6), 8 8 This is the kind of distinction that Origen made in his frequent use of Ps. 81: 6. See Jo.

20.242, 266; and 32.233-4. because these, of course, who have received the spirit of adoption, to whom the patriarchs and prophets belonged, knew the mystery of God. Or, if this is not accepted but appears too violent and forced, the statement will be transformed so that it means that Paul has not made a definite and universal assertion that the mystery of the Lord was completely unknown to other generations but that the ancient patriarchs and prophets did not know it in the way in which it has now been revealed to his saints and apostles. It is one thing to recognize in the spirit the things that are to come but another to discern them when the work has been completed. This is also why John is said to be greater than all the prophets

(Luke 7: 28). He saw with his eyes him of whom the others had prophesied and pointed

to him with his finger saying, 'Behold, the lamb of God; behold him who takes away the sins of the world' (John 1: 29).

One can also explain the following saying in the same way, 'Many prophets and just men desired to see what you see and they did not see; and to hear what you hear and they did not hear' (Luke 10: 24). They desired, no doubt, to see and hear these things which they knew would be in the future. But if they did not know the things which were to come, how could they desire those things of which they were completely ignorant? We read in the books of the Kings that the Lord 590 makes a promise to Solomon in a dream and end p.145 says, 'Because you have asked this thing from me and you did not ask for many days for yourself nor did you request riches nor the lives of your enemies but you asked that you might understand and attend to judgement, behold I have performed your word and I have given you a judicious and wise heart. There was no one like you before you and no one similar to you will arise after you' (I Kgs. 3: 11-12). Now how can anyone think that a mystery has been revealed to the apostles of Christ of which Solomon was ignorant when Solomon was wiser than all the apostles? This divine testimony applies also to the patriarchs in retrospect. Solomon also says confidently of himself, 'God has taught me wisdom; I have known the understanding of holy things' (Prov. 30: 3 LXX). David, likewise, boasts of knowledge of hidden mysteries when he says, 'You have made manifest to me the uncertain and hidden things of your wisdom' (Ps. 50: 8). And God says through the prophet to him who prided himself in wisdom, 'Are you wiser than Daniel?' (Ezek. 28:

3).

Either, then, one must hold that interpretation which we previously referred to above, that the patriarchs and prophets were ignorant of the mystery of Christ as it is now revealed to the apostles, because it is one thing to hold something in the hands and another to see what will be in advance in the spirit, or we must say that in the same way that all faces are not alike so neither are hearts and, according to the apostle, there is a diversity of gifts. One has prophecy, another various kinds of tongues, another the gift of healing, others are helpers and administrators. This one is wise, that one faithful; this one has the capacity to understand secrets, that one is intent on simple faith alone (1 Cor.

12: 4-10, 28). For all have not likewise spoken, following Solomon's example, of the nature of beasts and birds and plants so that they should treat subjects from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop which comes out of the wall (3 Kgs. 4: 33). On the other hand, perhaps Solomon did not see all the kinds of sacrificial beasts and ways of worshipping

God in the way that Moses did, nor did the Lord speak to him face to face (Exod. 33: 11).

Nor did Solomon have or understand so massive an apparatus of vessels whose pattern the Lord showed Moses on the mountain (Exod. 25: 40). And just as we must believe that the patriarchs and prophets had some things which the apostles did not have so, on the other hand, in virtue of the favourableness of time and the preaching of the gospel the apostles have known the mystery of Christ more completely. For the holy men of old also knew indeed but not as the apostles on whom rested the necessity of preaching.

591 But what is this mystery which was not revealed to other generations as it is now? 9

9 Origen defines the 'hidden mystery' in a similar way in Comm. in Rom. 10.43, The mystery, he asserts, was made known at the advent of Christ, 'and insofar as it was not without adequate witnesses, it was declared by the unified voice of the prophetic

Scriptures. For in this way the command of the eternal God became visible, so that

indeed through the proclamation of the gospel the Gentiles might be called to the obedience of faith. And by the revelation of the mystery, as the wisdom of God was made known, glory and splendour should be rendered to the only wise God in the age of ages.'

Obviously it is that which follows, that 'the Gentiles are joint heirs, belonging to end p.146 the same body, and are co-partners of the promise in Christ through the gospel of which'

Paul 'was made a minister according to the gift of God's grace which has been given to' him 'according to the operation of his power'. I know that the juxtaposition of the ideas of his chain of thought, by which he says, 'joint heirs, belonging to the same body and copartners', makes an indecorous Latin sentence. But because it is so in the Greek text and individual words, syllables, tittles, and punctuation marks in the divine Scriptures are full of meaning, we choose to be in greater danger in the arrangement and order of words than in understanding.

The Gentiles, therefore, are joint heirs with Israel or, what we think is better, are joint heirs with Christ so that God is our inheritance and we are joint heirs of Christ. It is written in another passage, 'Heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ' (Rom. 8: 17). It is not that some possession is divided between us but that the Lord himself is our inheritance and possession. 10

10 See Origen on Eph. 1: 18-20a where Deut. 18: 2 is also cited to support this same idea.

Indeed, 'The Lord', it says, 'is your inheritance' (Deut. 18: 2) and elsewhere, 'The Lord is my portion, and my inheritance' (Ps. 15: 5).

'Belonging to the same body', moreover, means that just as there are many members in one body, for example, eyes, hands, ears, feet, belly, and knees and, although they are in one body, they have their differences, but they rejoice and feel pain reciprocally so, although those who believe in Christ have different gifts, nevertheless, they have been brought together into the one body of the Church.

Now, indeed, it would be possible to suspect some conflict in the one body on the basis of the two words above, that is 'joint heirs and belonging to the same body'. But all disagreement has been completely eliminated on the basis of the addition, 'and copartners of the promise in Christ Jesus'. For where there is one co-partnership, all things are in common.

Furthermore, to show that it is God's grace and not his own merit, Paul adds beautifully,

'Through the gospel of which I was made a minister according to the gift of grace which has been given to me according to the operation of his power.' For he also knew that he had been a persecutor and had devastated Christ's Church. On the basis of this humility the charge of arrogance is completely excluded. Some think he should be reprehended for his claim that a mystery has been revealed to himself which had been unknown to the patriarchs 592 and prophets. To be sure, a humble disciple who claims that the gospel of which he is a minister was not of his own merit but the grace of God would never be puffed up with presumptuous words.

Those who want the prophets not to have understood what they said, and to have spoken in ecstasy, as it were, attempt to confirm their doctrine by dragging in, along with the present testimony, this, too, which is found in many manuscripts to the end p.147

Romans,11 'Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret from

eternal times but now revealed through the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of our

Lord Jesus Christ' etc. (Rom. 16: 25-6; 1 Tim. 6: 14; 2 Tim. 1: 10). To these we must briefly respond that the mystery of Christ had been kept secret in times past not among those who were announcing that it was to be but among all the Gentiles to whom it was afterwards revealed. And it must be noted as well that the mystery of our faith cannot be revealed except through the prophetic Scriptures and the advent of Christ. Therefore, let those who do not understand the prophets nor desire to know them, but assert that they are intent on the gospel alone, know that they do not know the mystery of Christ which was unknown to all the Gentiles from eternal times.

Eph. 3: 8-9 to me, the lowest of all the saints, has been given this grace, to preach the unsearchable riches of christ among the gentiles and to enlighten all in respect to what is the dispensation of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in god who created all things.

I do not think that the apostle Paul had decided in the privacy of his own mind that he should say that he really was the least among all the saints, for example among those who were in Ephesus, or who were in Corinth, or who were in Thessalonica, or who had believed in the whole world. Even though it is an indication of humility to call himself the least of all the saints, it is the offence of lying to have one thing hidden in the heart and to utter another thing in speech. Proof, therefore, must be found that Paul truly was the least among all the saints and that, nevertheless, he did not fall short of the worthiness of an apostle. The Lord says to his disciples in the Gospel, 'Whoever wishes to be great among you must become least of all and whoever wishes to be first must be last of all'

(Matt. 20: 26-7). Paul fulfilled this in action saying, 'For I think that God has shown us apostles last, as if appointed for death' (1 Cor. 4: 9). Among all those, therefore, who desired to be weak because of Christ, the apostle Paul was weaker and, therefore, greater. 593 'For I', he says, 'have laboured more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God which is with me' (1 Cor. 15: 10). Because of this humility, seeing that he is the least of all the saints, this grace has been given to him to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ among the Gentiles and to teach the dispensation of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages in God who created all things.

If the riches of Christ are unsearchable, how are they preached among the people? If the mystery has been hidden from the ages in God, for what reason is it brought forth to the Gentiles by Paul? 'Unsearchable' and 'hidden', however, are to be understood in a twofold manner. The riches were previously unsearchable but now, after the passion of end p.148 the Lord, they have been revealed. Or perhaps the things which were unsearchable by human nature itself have been perceived by God's revelation of them. It is one thing by one's own curiosity to attain to a secret which ceases to be unsearchable as soon as it has been learned. It is another to be totally unable to understand by one's own diligence but by God's grace to know that which, once you know it and even make it known to others, continues none the less to be unsearchable. Although the mystery was made known to you, it continues to be as great as it was formerly. The Psalmist testifies that the riches of Christ are unsearchable when he addresses this same Christ and says, 'How infinite is the multitude of your goodness which you have hidden for those who fear you' (Ps. 30:

20).

These riches of his goodness had been hidden from all previous ages in God who is the creator of all things. Where are Marcion and Valentinus and all the heretics who assert that the maker of the world, that is, the visible world, was one and the maker of the invisible world another? They say that this one is just and that one, I know not whom since he is always unknown, alone is good who is the Father of Christ. Behold God in whom the mystery of Christ had been hidden from all previous ages is proclaimed to be the creator of all things. This shows that the God of the New Testament and of the Old

Testament is the same.

The mystery hidden from the ages can also be understood in the sense 594 that the ages themselves, that is, all the spiritual and rational creatures which were in the ages, were ignorant of it. Age, in fact, is frequently taken for those who live in an age. Paul, for example, addresses the Galatians and says, 'That he might deliver us from this present wicked age' (Gal. 1: 4). In another place he says, 'That he might show in the ages to come' (Eph. 2: 7). He means 'that he might show' to all who were to be in the ages to come.

Eph. 3: 10-11 that the manifold wisdom of god might become known now to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church according to the plan of the ages, which he made in christ Jesus our lord.

In accordance with the gift of God's grace which has been given to the apostle to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ and to teach the mystery which had been unknown from the ages, the mystery itself has been revealed to him so that the manifold wisdom of God, which was formerly established according to the ancient plan of the ages and is now seen to have been consummated in Christ, should be made manifest not only to the Gentiles but also to the principalities and powers through the Church.

Moreover, if the manifold wisdom of God which has now been revealed to them through the Church was unknown to the principalities and powers in heavenly places, whom we ought to understand as saints and ministers of God (although some take them end p.149 to be the prince of the air (Eph. 2: 2) and his angels), by how much more was it unknown to the patriarchs and prophets whom we have shown above were not ignorant of the mystery of Christ but did not know it as the apostles.

Indeed, the manifold wisdom of God, which is expressed by the Greek word πολυπο

κειλος , and as I said, is called multifarious, has now been revealed through the Church to both principalities and powers. We know what God formerly determined in his mind would be and has now been accomplished because we see it.

The cross of Christ, therefore, was not only for us but was also for the angels and all the powers in heaven, and revealed the mystery which they did not previously know.

Accordingly, they are amazed at God returning to heaven 595 with a body and say, 'Who is this who comes from Edom with scarlet garments from Bosra, so beautiful in his bright robe?' (Isa. 63: 1). And in another passage, 'Who is this king of glory? The Lord of the powers, he is the king of glory' (Ps. 23: 8). 12

12 Cf. Origen, Jo. 6.288, where these same two passages of Scripture are joined together to express the reaction of the powers in heaven when they see the Lord ascending 'with the body which arose from the dead'.

Let us not think, therefore, that in the Church there is a simple faith. There is a manifold and multifarious wisdom so that not only is it diverse but it is distinct in its great variety.

You consider the cradle of Christ; look equally at heaven (Luke 2: 7-14). You look at the infant crying in swaddling clothes but listen, at the same time, to the angels' praise (Luke

2: 7-14). Herod persecutes him but the magi worship him (Matt. 2: 16). The Pharisees are ignorant of him but a star points him out (Matt. 2: 2ff.). He is baptized by a servant but the voice of God is heard thundering from above (Matt. 3: 16-17). He is immersed in the waters but a dove, or rather the Spirit in a dove, descends (Matt. 3: 16). He comes to the passion and he fears the suffering; he wants the cup to pass him by but he censures

Peter because he feared the cup (Matt. 26: 37-9; 16: 21-3). What is wiser than this foolishness, more distinct than this variety, more obscure than this wisdom which God

'has made in Christ Jesus our Lord'?

For although, based on the order and connection of the words, many can understand the Church also 'to have been made', as also the πρ θεσις , that is 'plan', which we have represented in the neuter gender with the Latin word propositum, wisdom, nevertheless, resounds to a greater extent than the others as 'having been made' in Christ. 'The wisdom of God,' indeed, 'is foolish to men' (1 Cor. 1: 25). But if wisdom is said to have been made in Christ in accordance with the mystical meanings, the Arians understand falsely that she is glorified with respect to that testimony in which wisdom says that she has been created and brought forth and established at the beginning of the ways of God (Prov. 8:

22-23 LXX). She has been created, at any rate, according to them; she could not have been born. But if she was born, how is she said to have been established and created? end p.150

Origen Jerome Eph. 3: 12 In whom we have boldness and access in confidence through the faith in him.

Eph. 3: 12 In whom we have boldness and access in confidence through faith in him.

'If' our conscience 'does not condemn us, we have boldness with God' (1 John 3: 21). Now it is a great thing not simply 'to have boldness' but to have 'boldness in confidence', and to have 'access', because of its certainty again, 'in boldness'. But the beginning of this 'boldness in confidence' and 'access' is the 'faith' which is in Christ. We have often said that the one who does all things reasonably has believed in Christ as Logos and the one who comprehends wisdom has believed in Christ as wisdom, and Nothing can offer us boldness with God and purity of conscience, of which it is said, 'If our conscience does not condemn us we have confidence with God' (1 John 3: 21), except the Word, truth, wisdom, (and) justice, which are all understood to be in Christ (1 Cor.

1: 30). These things, therefore, give us boldness with God even as they give us access so that our understanding approaches him, diligently contemplates him, assumes and appropriates something of his majesty in itself, procures a certain colour and

the one who utters the truth clearly has believed in Christ as truth, and the one who lives righteously has believed in Christ as righteousness. splendour of light, as it were, from the rays of the sun and says, 'The light of your countenance 596 is signed upon us, Lord' (Ps. 4: 7). It is great, therefore, that we not only have boldness, but that we have it in confidence. We not only have access, but so that the access itself might be firmer, we have it in confidence. The principle and origin of this boldness and access is faith in Christ. Whoever, therefore, does all things with reason and order believes in Christ as Word and Reason; whoever can understand wisdom believes in Christ as Wisdom; whoever has understood truth believes in Christ as Truth; whoever has lived justly believes in him as Justice. It is not necessary to say more since the necessity of speaking of Christ in a similar manner has often rested on me. 13

13 Cf. the Greek fragment on this verse. This statement could only be made by Origen.

Note that Jerome even preserves the first person from Origen! end p.151

Origen Jerome Eph. 3: 13 Wherefore I ask that you do not lose heart in my afflictions for you, which is your glory.

Eph. 3: 13 Wherefore I ask that you do not lose heart in my afflictions for you, which is your glory.

That which the Latin translator has here rendered 'that you do not lose heart' can, on the basis of the ambiguity in the Greek expression, also be read as, 'that I do not lose heart'.14 Consequently, it would mean, 'Wherefore I ask that I do not lose heart in my afflictions for you', etc. This, therefore, is what the apostle asks for and earnestly seeks from the Lord, that he does not lose heart in his distresses. It appears, indeed, that he had preached the gospel from Jerusalem as far as Illyricum, had gone to Rome and had either passed through Spain or had determined to go there (Rom. 15: 19-25). The whole world was being removed from the power of its prince by Paul's teaching; idols were being deserted and the temples which

'He who wrestles on behalf of'

(Col. 4: 12) the disciples of Christ has many afflictions. 'Wherefore I ask', he says, 'that you do not lose heart in my afflictions for you', since he perceives that it is possible that they lose heart when he ventures to make these remarks.

had been deserted by worshippers were being filled with squalor and filthy things. Consequently, a whole army of demons, a whole uproar of hostile strength, had formed a military wedge and was struggling against him that, by means of tribulations and difficulties, he might cease to preach the gospel of Christ and, exhausted, might now at last rest.

This, therefore, is the meaning of his statement, 'I ask that I do not lose heart in my afflictions for you.'15 Everything which I suffer, for which I am afflicted, for which I am constrained, is for your salvation because I desire to proclaim the gospel to you. The things which are my afflictions constitute your glory.

Next we ask to what we shall apply the phrase, 'which is your glory'. One will say that he has made the phrase, 'which is your glory', dependent on the 'afflictions', as if he had said in the plural, 'which are your glory'.

Because 'glory' is singular, however, he, being 'untrained in speech', has rendered the 'which' singular instead of plural. But another will say that the phrase, 'which is your glory', will depend on either the 'boldness', the 'access', or the 'faith'. For this person would say, indeed, that 'boldness' is the glory of the one who possesses it, and 'access' is the glory of the one approaching God, and 'faith' is the glory of the one who believes.

Furthermore, he has spoken as if he were ignorant since he has joined the singular word 'glory' with the plural 'tribulations' and said, 'in my afflictions for you which is your glory', because what is your glory are afflictions.

It is possible, however, to Alternatively, someone may think

that this statement is to be referred in a more profound manner and by hyperbaton to the 'boldness', 'access', and 'faith' (cf. 3: 12), and mean, 'in whom we have boldness, 597 access, and faith, which boldness, access, and faith is your glory'. The earlier interpretation, however, is to be preferred. understand the statement, 'Wherefore I ask that you do not lose heart in my afflictions on your behalf,' as follows: 'Wherefore I ask on your behalf that you do not lose heart in my afflictions, which (plural) are your glory'. The words which follow will, indeed, seem more in agreement with this interpretation, 'For for this reason I bow my knees to the Father, that he may grant to you, according to the wealth of his glory to be strengthened with power' (Eph. 3:

14, 16). For one who will not lose heart in afflictions has need to be strengthened with power.

But someone will argue against the second view and say that it is reasonable, if the Ephesians are being afflicted, for Paul to ask on their behalf that they do not lose heart. On the other hand, it will appear ridiculous that, when Paul is being afflicted, the Ephesians have need of prayer that they do not lose heart in his afflictions. But we must compare with this the statement, 'You neither despised nor rejected your temptation in my flesh' (Gal. 4: 14). These words imply that a 'temptation' occurred for others 'in the flesh' of Paul.

Above all let us consider if many people do not find the teachings about foreknowledge especially troubling when they see the most holy and righteous people suffering countless afflictions and crises while the most lawless people experience things which are assumed to be good.

It is possible, however, in accordance with the Latin rendering, 'Wherefore I ask that you do not lose heart in my afflictions for you, which is your glory', that what is set forth is his petition for the Ephesians, namely that they do not grow weary in the apostle's oppressions and lose heart. The words which follow, in fact, accord better with this interpretation: 'For this reason I bow my knees to the Father . . . that he may grant to you according to the wealth of his glory to be strengthened with power' (Eph. 3: 14, 16). For they had need of strength so that they would not be overcome in afflictions.

The fact that Paul had suffered Another may say that if the

Ephesians were experiencing difficulties Paul could have prayed for them properly not to lose heart and grow weary. But it is ridiculous for Paul who is afflicted to ask that the Ephesians do not lose heart in his labour. But let that well-known example be applied to solve this little problem, 'You neither despised nor cast aside your temptation in my flesh' (Gal.

4: 14), since it is shown in this saying that temptation for others has originated in Paul's flesh. Let us give careful attention to people of the entire world and what it is that they all have in common, I mean those who are assumed to believe in Christ. Let us investigate and see that they are tempted more by this question than by all others, Why do holy men and servants of God suffer numerous misfortunes while the wicked, impious and murderers, on the contrary, flourish and thrive and are rich and powerful? David, expressing the words of these people, says in his many things in Ephesus and Asia has been recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. It is possible to learn the same thing from himself, however, when he says, 'What did I benefit if I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus only from a human standpoint, if the dead are not raised?' (1 Cor. 15: 32). And in the second epistle to the Corinthians he says, 'For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, concerning our affliction which occurred in Asia, because we were burdened beyond the measure of our strength, so that we were in doubt even of life. We had the decision of death in ourselves so that we might not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from such great deaths and delivers us, for we have hoped that he will also deliver us' (2 Cor. 1: 8-10). Notice that his afflictions were so many that he says, 'Who delivered us from such great deaths, and delivers us.'

end p.152 end p.153 own person, 'How good God is to Israel, to the upright in heart. But my feet have almost wavered, my steps have almost slackened, because I have been envious of the unjust as I saw the peace of sinners' etc. (Ps. 72: 1-3). He concludes on the same subject, 'But I said,

Therefore, for no purpose have I justified my heart and washed my hands among the innocent and been scourged the whole day' (Ps. 72: 13-14). end p.154

So it is no wonder, when Paul had been constrained by so many difficulties in Ephesus and Asia, that the Ephesians were tempted and had need of the help of his prayers that they would not lose heart in his oppressions. Moreover the Acts of the Apostles record that the apostle had endured many things in Ephesus and Asia. 598 But we learn even more in the epistles of Paul himself where he says, 'If according to man I fought with beasts at Ephesus what does it profit me if the dead do not rise?' (1 Cor. 15: 32). And he says in the second epistle to the Corinthians, 'I do not want you to be ignorant brothers of our affliction which occurred in Asia, because we were burdened beyond measure beyond our strength so that we despaired even of living, but we had in ourselves the answer of death so that we were not believing in ourselves but in God who raises the

dead, who has delivered us from such deaths and continues to deliver us; moreover we hope that he will also deliver us' (2 Cor. 1: 8-10). What great weight of afflictions do you suppose impelled him to say, 'Who delivered us from deaths so great and of such a kind'?

It is proper, therefore, that he ask that the faith of the Ephesians does not falter in the oppressions and difficulties which he suffered because he preached the gospel to the Ephesians. These oppressions indeed are punishments in the case of unbelievers but in the case of the faithful they are glory and victory because not to have erred in difficulties is to have been victorious among adversaries.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 3: 14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father.

Eph. 3: 14-15 Wherefore I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named.

To bow 'the knees' is symbolic of that other bending of the knee which occurs when we are subjected to God and have prostrated ourselves to him.

For the apostle also says on this word, 'That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of beings in heaven and on earth and under the earth' (Phil. 2:

10). We say that the heavenly beings by no means have bodies with

Just as we have shown previously that there are spiritual eyes in the likeness of the physical eyes, so now we must understand that there are knees of the exterior man and knees of the interior man. For that which Isaiah says, 'Be strengthened O drooping hands and weak knees' (Isa. 35: 3), and the apostle himself in another passage, 'That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth' (Phil. 2: 10), does not pertain to our physical knees but to the subjection of the mind and the condescension of the soul and the yielding of the heart, comparing itself to the earth, as the Psalmist also sings saying, 'My soul has clung to the pavement' (Ps. 118: 25). 17

17 For the subject matter of this sentence cf. Origen, Cant. Prologue 2; trs. Lawson, 27-8. Cf. R. E. Heine, 'Exegesis and Theology in Gregory of Nyssa's Fifth Homily on Ecclesiastes', in S. G. Hall (ed.), Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on Ecclesiastes (Berlin, 1993), 213-14.

For how

knees. The same applies likewise to those under the earth. Nor do souls which have been set free from this body have knees.

Eph. 3: 15

Family

Chrysostom understands 'family' as tribes, as does Origen.

And Origen has published 'family', and not 'league' which Theodore has. 16

16 These remarks stand in the margin of Coislin 204. In Pantocrator 28 a portion of this is joined with an abbreviated version of the comments above on Eph. 3: 14 in the text as follows:

(But Origen says that to bow 'the knees' is symbolic of that other bending of the knee which occurs when we are subjected to God and have prostrated ourselves to him, and he also has published 'family').

end p.155

could the soul, which is a spiritual reality without a physical body, cling to a pavement which is a physical object? Grant indeed that all earthly beings shall bow the knee at the name of Jesus. Can we affirm also that the angels and the other powers which continue in the heavens have a physical form that they may bow their knee at his name, or that the souls among the dead which have been freed from the bonds of the body will bow the knee which they do not have? As, 599 therefore, someone who has become subject to the Saviour is said to bow the knee to him, so one who is a servant to sin and has 'the spirit of bondage again to fear' (Rom. 8: 15) is recorded to have bowed his knee to sin. 'I have left

to me', the Lord said, 'seven thousand men who have not bowed their knees before Baal'

(Rom. 11: 4; 3 Kgs. 19: 18), meaning, of course, to the idol and to sin. He who is a fornicator and runs here and there for houses of prostitution and harlots bends his knee to lust. He who is full of rage worships anger on bended knee. He who takes up mammon and whose god is his belly bends his knees to avarice and luxury. And why must I go through individual examples? As often as we sin we bend our knee to the devil.

But when we expound these matters spiritually we do not then abolish the custom of praying that accords with the letter in which we humbly worship God situated on our knee and with our knee firmly fixed on the earth we obtain, on the whole, that which we ask from him. For we read that Paul prayed in this way on the seashore and that the women who were taught were kneeling in prayer (Acts 21: 5). But just as that edifies the simple so we teach that the true kneeling is in the soul because many who bend the physical knee have not bent the knee of their soul at all and end p.156 others, on the contrary, praying to God with their body erect have bowed themselves to a greater extent in their soul.

Furthermore, the addition found in the Latin manuscripts, 'To the Father of our Lord

Jesus Christ', is not to be read with the phrase which follows, 'To the Father from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named'. Read simply 'to the Father', so that the name of God the Father is joined not to our Lord Jesus Christ but to all rational creatures.

We must investigate, therefore, how 'all paternity in heaven and on earth has been named from' God 'the Father'. And at the same time, before anything is examined it should be noted that he did not say, 'from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth' has been born, or created, but 'from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named'. For it is one thing to be worthy of the title 'paternity' but another to have participation in its nature. We read of 'paternity'—which in Greek is called πατρι and in 600 Hebrew mesphath , that is 'kindred' or 'family'—also in Numbers: 'Take up the sum', he says, 'of the whole congregation of Israel according to kindreds and peoples, according to the houses of the paternities, according to the number of their names' (Num. 1: 2). And a little further on,

'These are the elect of the congregation, the princes of the tribes, the leaders of Israel according to their paternities' (Num. 1: 16). And again of the tribe of Levi, 'And the Lord spoke to Moses in the desert of Sinai saying, Number the sons of Levi according to the houses of their paternities, according to their peoples, according to their kindreds; examine every man from one month and upwards' (Num. 3: 15). This is the paternity of the people of Israel and of the priestly and levitical tribe.

When I occupy myself with the rest, that is, where I might also read the term paternity of the Gentiles, I do not, nevertheless, now discover another occurrence except for the testimony of the twenty-first Psalm where it is written, 'And all the paternities of the Gentiles shall worship in his sight' (Ps. 21: 28), and that of the twenty-eighth, 'Bring to the Lord, O paternities of the Gentiles, bring to the Lord the sons of rams' (Ps. 28: 1). As, then, God bestows the name of his essence and of his substance as well on other elements so that they themselves also are said to exist (not that they exist according to nature—for there was a time when all things did not exist and, if he wished, they might be turned into nothing again—but as they are said to exist they have the gift by the goodness of God), so also the name of paternity has been imparted to all from himself.

But to make this clearer, let me cite the testimony of the Scriptures. The Lord says in Exodus, 'I am who I am', and, 'You shall say this to the sons of Israel, "He who is sent me" ' (Exod. 3: 14). Was God alone and there end p.157 were no other things? There were certainly angels, heaven, earth or the seas, and Moses himself to whom the Lord was speaking, and Israel and the Egyptians to whom and against whom he was sent as leader and adversary. How does God lay claim to the common appellation of substance as peculiar to himself? The reason is, as we have said, that other things receive substance by the mediation of God, but God—who always is and does not have his beginning from another source 601 but is himself the origin of himself and the cause of his own substance—cannot be understood to have something which has existence from another source. Warmth, indeed, is something which belongs to fire, but something which has been warmed is something else. Fire cannot be understood without heat; other things which become warm from fire borrow its heat and, if the fire should withdraw, the heat gradually decreases and they return to their own nature and are by no means referred to as warm.

It is in this sense also that it is said in the Gospel to the man who thought of the Saviour not as the Son of God but as a good teacher, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God' (Mark 10: 18). We certainly read also of a good land, a good man, and a good shepherd. No one, however, is good by nature except God alone. Other things acquire goodness from his goodness so that they may be designated good. As, therefore, the good alone causes good, and the immortal alone imparts immortality, and he who is true alone bestows the name of truth, so also the Father alone, because he is the creator of all things and is the cause of the substance of all things, grants to others that they may be said to be fathers. From earthly things we may contemplate heavenly things. Adam, whom God formed first and was his creator and Father, certainly knew that he owed the fact that he existed to God the Father. Again those who have been born from Adam understand him from whom they have their origin to be their father. Whence also in the Gospel according to Luke when little by little the generation has been reckoned backwards from Christ to David and Abraham Scripture says at the end, 'of the son of Seth, of the son of Adam, of the son of God' (Luke 3: 38), so that it shows that the designation of paternity on earth has its origin in the first instance from God.

But we also ask why 'all paternity in heaven is named' from him. Just as we, who are not of the race of Abraham, are called sons of Abraham if we shall have held his faith, and we also say that the patriarchs and prophets are our fathers (if, that is, sins have not separated us from them), so I think the angels and the other powers too have the originators of their race in heaven whom they rejoice to call fathers. For archangel cannot be end p.158 mentioned except in reference to angels, and dominion and principality and power 602 are not mentioned unless they have inferiors who are their subjects (cf. Eph. 1: 21).

We can say, therefore, that because God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to his substance and the only-begotten is Son not by adoption but by nature, other creatures also merit the name of paternity by adoption. We know, furthermore, that whatever we say of the Father and the Son has been said of the Holy Spirit. Our Saviour also knew himself to be a father when he said, 'Son, your sins are forgiven', and,

'Daughter, your faith has made you well', and 'My little children, yet a little while I am with you' (Mark 2: 5; Matt. 9: 22; John 13: 33). All who are just are adopted as sons through the Holy Spirit. Valentinus supposes the προβολ ς (emanations) and marriages of his aeons to be confirmed by this passage especially. He does not understand at all, as we said above, that paternities in heaven and on earth do not come to be in the likeness of God the Father but 'are named'.

Origen Jerome Eph. 3: 16-19 That he may grant, in accordance with the riches of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power by his Spirit in the inner person, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith so that, rooted in love, you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height, and also to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Eph. 3: 16, 17a That he may grant, in accordance with the wealth of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner person, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.

His divinity appears to be designated his 'glory' in a usage peculiar to Scripture. Now God is rich in much divinity which is also difficult for a begotten nature to comprehend. By sharing this wealth of divinity and glory with those with whom he judges it necessary to share power and strength, he strengthens them 'with power through his Spirit' and he strengthens them by 'dwelling in the inner person' which contains 'Christ'. What is most paradoxical of all is that Christ, being a whole and living in and of himself, also dwells in those who partake of him.

'Through faith' he dwells 'in the inner person', that is in the ruling principle, for he goes on to say, 'in 'Wherefore,' he says, 'I bow my knees to the Father' in whose likeness 'all paternity in heaven and on earth is named' (Eph. 3:

15), praying to him and beseeching him 'that he may grant you power' to have fellowship 'with his glory,' that is his majesty, and might make you strong and confirm you by the Holy Spirit because there is no strength without the Spirit. But he would make you strong and confirm you 'in the inner person'. For we are not inquiring about people of the body but of the soul; we do not wish the exterior but the interior person to be made strong so that, after Christ has dwelt 'in the interior person', he may dwell in the ruling principle of the inner person himself, that

your hearts'. is in our hearts, by no means running about through all our members but dwelling in our reason and placing his dwelling and his seat in it. 603

Moreover, this whole thing comes about 'through faith' if we believe in him, wherefore he says that 'Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.'

This dwelling, moreover, which is constructed through the commencement of faith, has its roots and foundation in 'love' so that, since we are God's husbandry, God's building (cf. 1 Cor. 3:

9), all things might grow up and be built up in love.

Eph. 3: 17b-19 Being rooted and founded in love, so that you may be able to grasp with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge.

It seems clear to me that these words which follow are incorrect in reference to the preceding phrase. For it would have been consistent with the words, 'May he grant to you' to have said 'who are rooted and founded',18 yielding the following grammatical sequence: 'That he may grant to you who are rooted and founded in love to be strengthened in accordance with the wealth of his glory through his Spirit, so that Christ may dwell in your inner person through faith.' By 'your inner person', I mean in 'your hearts', that is your ruling principles.

But when we have been rooted and founded in love and know with the total confidence of our mind that Christ dwells in our inner person, then we begin with other saints to stretch ourselves out (cf. Phil. 3: 13) to those things which follow so that, keen in soul, 'we may comprehend what is the breadth and length and depth and height'. And this is not all, but we also desire 'to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge' so that after all these things are filled out in us in their order and plan, then 'we may be filled with all the fullness of God'.

First we must learn the meaning of breadth, length, depth, and height concerning physical things so that we may be able to pass over to spiritual things by means of them.

For example, let the 'breadth' of this heaven and earth, that is, of But consider whether one who wishes to restore the words in the passage so that there is no solecism will not be constrained, having restored it, to read the sentence in the following manner.

'For this reason I bow my knees to

the Father from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that he may grant, in accordance with the wealth of his glory, that you be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner person, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith so that, being rooted and founded, you may be able to grasp with all the saints what is the breadth and length', etc. To interpret in this way one must move the expression 'so that' which precedes the verbal phrase, 'so that you may be able', and place it before the participles, 'so that, being rooted and founded in love, you may be able to grasp'. the whole world, be from the east to the west, the 'length' from the south to the north, the 'depth' in the abyss and the infernal, and the height be that which is elevated beyond the celestial regions.

Because many, however, assert on the basis of Ecclesiastes that the heaven is round and is rolled like a ball (Eccles. 1: 5-6), and no round shape has breadth, length, height, and depth but is equal from all its parts, necessity compels us to understand 'height' as the angels and powers above, and 'depth' as the inhabitants of the infernal regions and what are below them.

'Length' and 'breadth', on the other hand, must be understood as those middle beings which exist between those who are above and those who are below. And because it follows that one is in the vicinity either of those above or those below, all those who begin to advance to the things that are better and to heavenly things and to rise up to the heights are designated 'length'. The term 'breadth', on the other hand, is imposed on those things which are next to the lower part and slip down to vices, since 'the way which leads to death is wide and broad' (Matt. 7: 13).

All these things can also be understood in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. 'Ascending, indeed, into the height he led captivity captive' and 'he descended into 604 the lower parts of the earth' (Eph. 4: 8, 9). And after the 'height and depth', the proclamation of his cross went out into all the earth so that it also contains 'the height, depth, length, and breadth'. It is no wonder that Christ dwells in 'those rooted and founded in love' for God, meaning, of course, love 'from the whole soul and the whole heart and the whole strength and the whole mind', and love 'for one's neighbour' (Mark 12: 30-1).

Those rooted in love are rooted in it like plants and are founded in love like a building. Paul himself

the cross of Christ should possess all things since even he who has been crucified with Christ may have the same power. He will first know indeed said, 'You are God's field, God's building' (1 Cor. 3: 9).

It is difficult to see to what 'breadth', 'length', 'depth', and 'height' now apply. The cross of Christ, however, contains them all. Through it he 'ascended into the height and led captivity captive' and 'he descended into the lower parts of the earth' (Eph.

4: 8-9), for the cross contained both height and depth. The cross has also spread 'into all the earth'

(Ps. 18: 4), having reached its 'breadth' and 'length'. And one who has been 'crucified with Christ' (Gal. 2: 19) and 'stretches forth' with him (cf. Phil. 3: 13) grasps the 'breadth and length and depth and height'.

And it is also the proper work of the saint to 'know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge'. No one who possesses the 'love which surpasses knowledge' can love anything which diverts and distracts from the apprehension of the knowledge which is loved exceedingly.

end p.159 end p.160

'breadth' as he begins from the lower things and becomes acquainted with lesser things; then 'length', referring to those who are based on the earth and hasten to things which are exalted and high; then 'depth', meaning the hostile and contrary powers which wage war against us in this world; and finally 'height', because after we have knowledge of these powers and place them under our feet we will then be worthy to ascend to the high and lofty places.

It should not be supposed that this constitutes the end of our labour so that 'rooted' and founded 'in love, we are able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and

length and depth and height', unless we also desire with all zeal to know 'the love of Christ which passes knowledge', so that we know not a simple 'love' but a 'surpassing love'. Furthermore, having knowledge of 'the surpassing love of Christ' is not the end unless we also add another term so that we attain to the 'love which surpasses knowledge'. We should notice from this that Christ has a love that is greater and end p.162 vaster than knowledge, 19 19 The adjectives are not comparative here, but must, it seems, be understood in that way in their use with the genitive form of 'knowledge' which is part of the quotation from Eph.

3: 19. that is for those who desire to know themselves, who meditate on his law day and night

(Ps. 1: 2), who convert words into works and accomplish with their hands what they meditate on with their mouth. But he who is worthy by his knowledge to possess the 'surpassing love of Christ' ought to reflect on nothing else in addition to knowledge. In this way 'he will be filled with all the fullness of God' not only in the present age but also in the future, so that he who has now begun to be full in zeal, work, and reading may afterwards be filled more perfectly by God, 'who is the fullness of all things', who himself fills.

Eph. 3: 20-1 now to him who is able to do all things more abundantly than we ask or understand, according to the power which works in us, to him be glory in the church and in christ Jesus in all generations forever and ever. amen.

In addition to what he said above, 'Wherefore I bow my knees to 605 the Father . . . from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named, that he grant to you according to his riches to be strengthened with power' etc. (Eph. 3: 14-16), he now introduces the words,

'Now to him who is able to do all things more abundantly than we ask or understand'. He shows by this that he has also requested things which appear advantageous for them in their human weakness. Otherwise, so far as it pertains to the truth of the matter itself,

God is capable of bestowing more than he is asked, and our hopes are overwhelmed by his accomplishments because we do not know how to pray for that which is necessary (cf.

Rom. 8: 26). In fact, we often pray against ourselves thinking that we are praying on our behalf. For how much better would it be for a fornicator to be ill and racked with infirmity than to make the temple of Christ members of a prostitute (cf. 1 Cor. 6: 19, 15)?

God is able, therefore, to bestow not only more than what we ask, but also more than what we understand. It sometimes happens that we do not express our meaning in speech and our words do not set forth our thought, and we pray in silent thought with inexpressible groans as the apostle himself says (Rom. 8: 26). I do not know what that is which we are not able to say.

God's gifts will surpass, therefore, that 'which we ask or understand according to that power which works in us', so that just as now it is not in accordance with our merit but beyond our wishes that he gives us things which we have not dared to ask for nor, if we have asked, have we thought end p.163 that we deserved them. In the same way he also gives other things which our mind cannot imagine nor our tongue declare.

May there be glory, therefore, to God himself, first 'in the Church' which is pure, 'not having spot or wrinkle' (Eph. 5: 27) and which can, therefore, receive the glory of God

because it is the 'body of Christ' (cf. Eph. 1: 22-3); then 'in Christ Jesus', because in the body of the man which was assumed and to whom belongs all the members of the believers, all divinity will dwell bodily (Col. 2: 9). This glory, indeed, is not prolonged in the present time alone and terminated in future ages, but continues, grows, and is increased in all generations forever and ever in inexpressible eternity.

606 Eph. 4: 1 I, Therefore, a Prisoner In the Lord, Pray That You Walk Worthy Of the Vocation In Which You Have Been Called.

It is possible that he writes these words when he had been placed in bonds and in prison before his martyrdom, but it is better if we say 'a prisoner of the Lord' in the love of Christ. Clement is also a witness to this fact when he writes to the Corinthians, 'Who will be able to expound the bond of the love of God' (1 Clem. 49: 2)? And in the first book of the Kings we read, 'And it came to pass after these words, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David' (1 Kgs. 18: 1). The prophet says of the apostles, 'After you follow men whose hands have been bound with iron' (Isa. 45: 14). For those who love Christ follow him bound with bonds of love.

There is also another explanation. Whether it is to be accepted or not will be the reader's decision. This body is said to be the 'bond' of the soul and, because Paul accepted a body for the sake of his ministry of the gospel, he was consequently called the 'prisoner' of Christ. Jeremiah also testifies that this body is said to be a 'bond' and that those who have been bound in the body are called prisoners of the earth when he says in his second alphabet, 'That he might abase under his feet all the prisoners of the earth' (Lam. 3: 34).

Elsewhere we read this same thing in the person of Christ when he says 'to those who were in bonds, "Come out", and to those who were in darkness, "Show yourselves" ' (Isa.

49: 9). The prophet can indeed show here that the 'bond' of sin and the darkness of ignorance have been dissolved by the advent and proclamation of Christ. But this higher sense also contains the theme that the body is a 'bond' and that this earthly habitation is darkness where there are 'rulers of darkness' (Eph. 6: 12) and dark mountains against which we are forbidden to dash our feet (Jer. 13: 16). 20

20 Cf. Eph. 3: 1 above, where I have noted that Jerome attributes a similar understanding of the body to Origen. end p.164

Because he says 'that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you have been called', that person is to be thought to walk worthy of the vocation who enters by him who says,

'I am the way' (John 14: 6), and declines neither to the right nor to the left but turns his foot from every evil way (Prov. 4: 27) and is made complete in that 'the steps of man are guided by the Lord' (Prov. 20: 24).

Eph. 4: 2a with all humility and meekness, with patience.

He who knows that he is earth and ashes and after a little while is to be dissolved into dust will never be exalted 607 with pride. He, moreover, who has perceived the eternity of God and reflects on how brief and momentary the space of human life is will always keep death before his eyes and will be humble and cast down. 'For the corruptible body weighs down the soul and this earthly tabernacle presses on the understanding which troubles itself about many things' (Wisd. 9: 15). Therefore, let us say 'with all humility',

'Lord, my heart has not been exalted nor have my eyes been lifted up' (Ps. 130: 1). 'All humility', however, is not so much in our speech as in our mind, so that our conscience

knows that we are humble and we never regard ourselves either to know or understand or to be something.

'Meekness' is that which no passion disturbs and no anger or rage tears. He who would possess the blessing which the voice of the Lord promised acquires meekness that he may possess the earth (Matt. 5: 5), that is, may rule over his own body and have dominion over his subjected body. Not to le in a fleshly manner in the flesh should be his first inheritance. Some, with wrinkled forehead, lowered eyebrow, and weighed words assume the authority of teachers and judges for themselves. It is not that they themselves know something worthy of arrogance but that it might appear that their simple brothers are ignorant by comparison.

Eph. 4: 2b suffering one another in love.

If anyone understands what 'suffering one another in love' means he will not think that this command is appropriate among saintly people but among those who are at the beginning of the virtuous life. Saints, indeed, will not behave among themselves in a way which demands that they should 'suffer one another', but rather those who are human, as it were, and are still overcome by some passion would do such. It is not surprising that he should address these words to the Ephesians since there are some in the multitude of believers who are still under obligation that they 'suffer end p.165 one another'. This seems to me to mean the same as that which is written to the Galatians,

'Bear your burdens mutually' (cf. Gal. 6: 2).

It is possible to interpret each of the two testimonies in another manner so that they mean that we who are rich and alleviate the need of the poor may say that we bear their burdens mutually or that we perfect them to 'suffer one another in love'. If someone offers a service to an ill brother he suffers him in love; if someone, maintaining the blessed life in celibacy, helps and encourages in any way he can another who has a wife and children and can scarcely provide food for himself, he will be praised for bearing the burden of another. 608 If someone should extend a helping hand to him who perceives his mother or sister languishing in poverty as a widow and cannot help her, he has 'sustained' him 'in love'. But whether we follow the previous meaning or the latter, one who lacks 'love' and despises the exhortation of the apostle, 'But we who are stronger ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves' (Rom.15: 1), encourages neither a sinning brother nor a needy one.

Origen Jerome Eph. 4: 3-4 Diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit, just as you were also called in one hope of your calling.

Eph. 4: 3 In love being eager to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

It is rightly said to the Ephesians who have already attained the unity of the Holy Spirit, 'Diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace'. For He who 'has been perfected in the same mind and in the same judgement' (1 Cor. 1: 10) of the truth and of the Logos and of

one who has something is admonished to be diligent to keep it but one who does not have it is ordered to be zealous that he may be able to have it. This passage is especially useful against the heretics who, when the 'bond of peace' has been dispersed and destroyed, think that they hold 'the unity of the Spirit', whereas 'the unity of the Spirit is preserved in the bond of peace'. For whenever we do not all speak the same thing and one says, 'I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas' (1 Cor. 1: 12), we divide the unity of the Spirit and tear it into parts and members. wisdom with his neighbour 'preserves the unity of the Spirit'.

But we dissect it into many parts whenever 'we' do not 'all speak the same thing', and for this reason 'there are21 schisms among' us (1 Cor. 1: 10) and we are not 'eager to preserve the unity of the Spirit'. Even though God gives 'diversities of gifts', he, nevertheless, preserves 'the same Spirit', and even though 'diversities of ministries' are given, he, nevertheless, maintains 'the same Lord', and even though 'diversities of activities' are given, nevertheless 'the same God who works all things in all' continues (1 Cor. 12: 4-6).

He says to the Ephesians, then, who already possess 'the unity of the Spirit' and need to preserve it, 'In love being eager to preserve the unity of the Spirit.' But he would say to those who do not yet have 'the unity of the Spirit', 'Being eager to "come to the unity" of the Spirit' (Eph. 4: 13) or, 'to do the things of the unity of the Spirit'. The unity of the Spirit is preserved when love binds those together who are united in the Spirit and brings them together into the 'one body' of Christ.

Let no one immediately object, 'How, then, are there diverse graces and various gifts when 'the unity of the Spirit' is to be guarded?' 'There are, indeed, various gifts, but in the same Spirit; and diverse ministries but the same Lord; and manifold works but it is the same God who works all things in all' (1 Cor. 12:

5).

The statement, however, 'One body and one Spirit', is to be understood to refer either simply to the one body of Christ which is the Church or, perhaps, to that body which he considered it worthy to assume from the virgin.

end p.166

It must not be thought to refer to the many bodily manifestations which appeared in the Old Testament. The 'one' Holy 'Spirit' is indeed the giver of all things and the sanctifier of all. It could also be that 'one body' refers to the life and works, which in Greek are called πρακτικ ος, and 'one spirit' refers to knowledge and contemplation which are properly situated in the heart and are called θεωρ ςβ

α by the Greeks. When, then, someone shall be a member of the Church and not separated from its one body he will consequently be 'in one hope of the calling'.

It is asked how there is 'one hope of the calling' when there are diverse 609 dwellings with the Father (John 14: 2). We reply to this that the 'one hope of the calling' is the kingdom of heaven understood as if it were one house of God the Father in which house are various dwellings, for there is one glory of the sun, another of the moon and another of the stars (1 Cor. 15: 41). Or, it may indicate rather subtly that at the end and consummation of things all things are to be restored to their original condition, when we all are made 'one body' and are transformed into a perfect man and the Saviour's prayer end p.167 for us is fulfilled, 'Father, grant that as I and you are one, so also they may be one in us'

(John 17: 22).22

I am not unaware of the fact that in that clause which I have just now explained, 'Diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace', many do not take 'Spirit' to be the Holy Spirit but the disposition and sentiment of the mind in the sense that 'there was one soul and one heart of' all 'the believers' (Acts 4: 32), and in the sense that the apostle admonishes a virgin to be holy in body and spirit (1 Cor. 7: 34), meaning, of course, in works of the flesh and disposition of mind. The general explanation, however, can also be related to the particular interpretation because 'he will keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace' who is not 'carried off by every wind of doctrine' (Eph. 4: 14) nor changed like the moon in the manner of a fool (Sir. 27: 12), now serving the devil, now God. He has, instead, 'one body' of good works and always shows that his flesh is the temple of God (1 Cor. 6: 19). Moreover, he has 'one spirit' which always thinks the same things 'in one hope of the calling', so that he has no doubts at all about the promises but believes in the resurrection and restoration of all things with his whole mind.

Origen Jerome Eph. 4: 5-7 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, and above all and through all and in us all.

But to each of us grace was given in accordance with the measure of the gift of Christ.

Eph. 4: 5-6 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.

He has applied the word 'Lord' to the Son and 'one God' to the Father because of those who confuse Father and Son. One must also use the saying, 'one As faith is different from baptism, God, and Lord, so baptism, Lord, and God are different from the three individuals which are named together. Now I say this because of

Sabellius, who thinks God the Father and the Son are the same and confuses the persons, since he detects the same divinity in each. Behold the Son is very clearly designated 'one Lord' and the Father 'one God'. baptism' against the Valentinians who administer two baptisms.

This has also been written more fully to the Corinthians, 'But for us there is one God the Father from whom are all things . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and we through him' (1 Cor. 8: 6). For just as the Son does not take anything away from 610 God the Father so that he should not be Lord when the Son alone is said to be Lord, so also the Father does not remove anything from the Son that he should be God because God alone is designated Father. We read also in another passage, 'Know that the Lord himself is God' (Ps. 99:

3), and elsewhere, 'The Lord your God, the Lord is one' (Deut. 6: 4).

For if, as the Arians think, God the Father alone is God, by the same logic Jesus Christ alone will be Lord, and neither will the Father be Lord nor the Son God.

But God forbid that there should not be deity in dominion or dominion in deity. The Lord is one and God is one because the dominion of the Father and the Son is one; the divinity is one. On that account faith is also said to be one, because we believe in the same way in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

Baptism also is said to be one because in the same manner we are baptized in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, we are immersed

Now he is 'God and Father' of all in the sense that he is God but not Father of some and he is both God and Father of others. Take ten men for example, five of whom are sons of a particular man and five his servants. One can say, 'This man is Lord and Father of the ten.'

three times that the mystery of the Trinity might be seen to be one, and we are not baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but in one name because God is understood.

And I am amazed at the logic of Arius, Macedonius, and Eunomius, who suspect a diversity of nature in the one name, in the same work and in the same sacrament, discord being harmonized in impiety.

Furthermore, by holding that there is the muddy fountain of a creature in the Son and Holy Spirit they have produced diverse rivulets of heresies.

We must, furthermore, carefully examine the difference between the prepositions 'above', 'through', and 'in'. The sun is 'above all' who are on the earth in position, so to speak but, by its rays, it would be said to be 'through all' and, if the power of its light were also to reach into the depth of each one, it would also be said to be 'in all'.

So also, then, in relation to spiritual matters, we think that God's pre-eminence is revealed by the 'above all', that his sufficiency to each one is revealed in the 'through all', and that the reaching 'in all' belongs to the power of God, so that no one is altogether empty of him through the 'in all'.

'One baptism' is also useful against Valentinus, who contends that there are two baptisms and against all heretics We think the statement, 'But to each of us grace was given in accordance with the measure of the gift of Christ', has the following meaning: On the one hand, God, 'whose greatness has

no end' (Ps. 144: 3), 'does not give the Spirit' and grace 'by measure'

(John 3: 34) but, on the other hand, he takes into consideration those who receive and he gives a due measure, since each one has the capacity for no more than what he profitably receives. But since what is given is grace—and it is not 'on the basis of works since grace would no longer be grace' (Rom. 11: 6)— 'grace' is given 'in accordance with the measure of the gift of Christ'.

Although grace is not 'on the basis of works', it, nevertheless, is given for something, indeed, which is under our control. For grace is given 'on the basis of faith' (Rom.

4: 16) so that, with the cooperation of grace, faith, furthermore, is fitted out with works. Consequently, the one who received grace said, 'And his grace to me was not' in vain, 'but I have laboured' so very much (1 Cor. 15: 10).

end p.168 end p.169 that they might know that they do not possess baptism but that the fountain of life is in the one Church of Christ. It is also possible that the phrase one baptism is intended in the sense that, although we are baptized three times because of the mystery of the Trinity, nevertheless, it is reckoned one baptism. It is one baptism also in water, in Spirit, and in fire, of which the Lord says, 'I have a baptism to be baptized' (Luke 12: 50), and elsewhere, 'You are baptized in my baptism' (cf. Mark 10: 39).

Moreover, the difference of the prepositions, in which it is said, 'One God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all,' suggests a different understanding. For 'God the Father' is 'over all' because he is the author of all things. The Son is 'through all' because he traverses all things and goes 'through all things'. The Holy Spirit is 'in all things' 611 because nothing is without him. But the phrase 'one God and Father of all' is not to be imagined in common, that is to say so that the name 'Father' can be applied even to irrational beasts of burden. For example, if we should say without distinction among ten men, five of whom are sons and five servants, 'There is one lord and one father of these ten', we would by no means be designating him father of all nor lord of all.

In the same way also he is to be taken as Father of some and God of others in the phrase,

'One God and Father of all'. It was something such as this that Zeno with his Stoics suspected about creatures and God. Virgil followed him and said, 'For truly God pervades

all, both lands and the expanse of the sea' etc. (Georg. 4. 221-2) and, 'In the first place, a spirit within nourishes heaven and earth and the bright plains and the shining globe of end p.170 the moon and the Titanian star, and a mind infused through the members moves the entire mass and mingles itself in the great body' (Aen. 6.724-7).

Some think the words, 'Over all and through all and in all,' refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in such a way that the 'Father is over all' things because he is the author of all things, the Son is 'through all' because all things have been created through the Son, and the Holy Spirit is 'in all' for he is given to believers (cf. John 7: 39) and we are the temple of the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son dwell in us (cf. 1 Cor. 6: 19).

Eph. 4: 7 but grace has been given to each one of US according to the measure of the gift of christ.

Although God the Father is over all things and through all and in all, nevertheless, 'grace is given' to the believers 'according to measure'. It is not that God gives the Spirit and grace in a limited degree, for there is no end of his grandeur (Ps. 144: 3), but that he pours in the liquid according to the capacity of the little vessels. He imparts as great a gift as the capacity of the recipient allows. For God does not give the Spirit in a limited degree nor is it possible to have a measure because he has been poured forth equally everywhere.

Let us take an example to make this clearer. It is imperfect and not completely parallel but, nevertheless, it makes the statement understandable. The sea is certainly immense and its capacity is known to God 612 alone. If someone wishes to deliver some of the sea to many people in relation to their capacity, he must give it to each one in a limited degree and they must receive portions of that of which the dominion is immeasurable in a measured way. So also the Holy Spirit is immense indeed and is confined by no boundary. Nevertheless, he is given to each one according to that which is profitable. It is to be noted at the same time that this same grace which is now asserted to have been given has been given to us 'according to the measure of the gift of Christ'.

Eph. 4: 8 wherefore he says, ascending on high he led captivity captive; he gave gifts to men.

Because he had said above, 'But to each of us grace has been given according to the measure of the gift of Christ', he now confirms that these very gifts, which he also enumerates a little later when he says, 'And he gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers' etc., have been given by the Saviour, by adding the testimony of the sixty-seventh Psalm that we might know that end p.171 these are the spoils which Christ earned as victor, because 'ascending on high he led captivity captive' and distributed gifts to people.

Although we from the Gentiles who now believe in Christ were the creation of God, we had been captured by the devil and distributed to his attendants. Therefore, our Lord

Jesus Christ came, like Ezekiel, carrying the vessels of captivity with him and with his head covered so that he would not be recognized by his adversaries (cf. Ezek. 12: 1-20).

He proclaimed remission to those who had been captured and release to those who were held in bonds (cf. Isa. 61: 1). He set us free from the chains of our enemies and their shackles, just as he did that woman in the Gospel of whom he said, 'But ought not this

daughter of Abraham whom Satan has bound now for eighteen years be released from this bond on the Sabbath?' (Luke 13: 16).

And he has led us, who have been set free and plucked out of the old captivity for the new captivity, with himself into heaven and has given various gifts of graces to these whom he snatched as victor from the hand of their enemy. He has judiciously stated here,

'He gave gifts to people', although it is written in the Psalter, 'He received gifts among people' (Ps. 67: 19). There he is said to have 'received' because it had not yet happened but was promised for the future; here, however, when the 613 apostle writes that he has already given them and they have been poured out on the entire circle of the Church it is not written that he had 'received' but that he had 'given'.

Others have interpreted this passage in the sense that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to the heavens as victor so that he might send angels and other powers from there for the protection of his churches. And because this earthly region is unworthy to have the presence of powers from on high, they experienced a captivity in a sense, for it was for this reason, they maintain, 'he ascended on high, so that taking captivity captive', he might give 'gifts to people'.

Moreover, because he had said above, 'Suffering one another in love, careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace' (Eph. 4: 2-3), the apostle takes this whole matter up again so that he might teach that the Church is harmonious with diverse charisms and that an occasion for schisms and dissensions is not immediately provided because,

'according to the measure of the gift of Christ, each one of us has received gifts' which differ but we 'have all been called in one body and one Spirit', that is, that just as 'there is one Lord and one faith and one baptism and one God the Father' (Eph. 4: 5-6), so also we might be the same 'in love, keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace' (Eph. 4:

3). end p.172

Eph. 4: 9 but what is it that he ascended unless that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth?

He who is now said to have 'ascended' 'ascended because he had' previously 'descended'.

For let this sound forth, 'But what is it that he ascended unless that he also descended?'

Consequently, we must investigate the words written elsewhere of him, 'No one ascends into heaven except him who descends from heaven, the Son of man' (John 3: 13). How shall he have 'ascended' before 'descending'? For when this was said after his descent from heaven it indicated that he had formerly 'ascended' to heaven. In fact, we must also re-examine as well how the descent and ascent themselves are to be imagined, whether in the body in a spatial sense or beyond the body in a spiritual sense, or possibly both ways.

Now the 'lower parts of the earth' are taken to be the realm of the dead to which our Lord and Saviour 'descended' that as victor he might lead away to heaven with him the souls of the saints which were kept confined. As a consequence, many bodies of the just were seen in the holy city after his resurrection. Moreover the Psalmist also testifies that the realm of the dead is 'in the lower part of the earth' when he says, 'The earth opened and swallowed up 614 Dathan and covered the congregation of Abiron' (Ps. 105: 17). The same thing is stated more fully in the book of Numbers (16: 31-5). We read also in another passage, 'Let death come upon them and let them descend alive into the realm of the dead' (Ps. 54: 16).

Eph. 4: 10 he himself who descended is also he who ascended above all the heavens that he might fill all things.

Does he go beyond and transcend in a physical sense 'all the heavens' and all the heights and circles of the heavens, which the philosophers call 'spheres', and stand at the highest arch and 'vault', to use the very word, of heaven? Or perhaps disdaining and despising all physical things and contemplating eternal things he is to be believed to have stood 'above the heavens', that is above the invisible things. I think the latter is preferable.

The Son of God 'descended', therefore, into the lower parts of the earth and 'ascended above all the heavens' that he might fulfil not only the law and the prophets but also certain other secret dispensations which he alone knew with the Father. For we cannot know how the blood of Christ benefited both angels and those who were in the realm of the dead and yet we cannot be ignorant that it benefited them.23 'He descended' also to the lower regions and 'he end p.173 ascended' to heaven that he might fill those who were in those regions in accordance with their capacity. From this we learn that before Christ descended and ascended all things were empty and in need of his fullness.

This passage is especially useful against Ebion and Photinus. For if it is the same one who ascends into heaven who had previously descended from heaven, how does our Lord

Jesus Christ not exist prior to Mary, but only after Mary? It is likewise useful against those who in their insane error fabricate two sons, a Son of God, of course, and a Son of man. Here it is stated as clearly as possible that it is the same one who ascends and descends. So that by making these statements we do not immediately give occasion for another heresy which declares a dispensation of Christ which has been halved, let us thus confess one Son of God and man so that we, by believing in part, do not mutilate in part the dispensation of the man who was assumed by which dispensation we have been saved.

Origen Jerome Eph. 4: 11-12 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ.

Eph. 4: 11-12 And he gave some indeed as apostles, and some as prophets, but others as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers for the instruction of the saints in the work of ministry in the building up of the body of Christ.

He adds these words immediately after the preceding ones. For since Christ is 'above all and through all and in all' but 'grace was given to each' of the saints 'according to the measure of the gift of Christ', consequently 'some' are 'apostles, some prophets', others The one divinity of the Father and the Son is most clearly confirmed by this passage because this which Christ is here described 615 to have given, God the Father is related to have given in the first epistle to the Corinthians. 'For God', he says, 'appointed some in

'evangelists', and after these 'pastors' and finally 'teachers'. the Church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles and gifts of healing, helpers, administrators, and various kinds of tongues' (1 Cor.

12: 28).

If, then, to be a teacher is a gift given 'in accordance with the measure of the gift of Christ', clearly also the pastor who pastors with understanding needs to have a gift to pastor. And how will someone be an evangelist if 'the feet' of his soul, so to speak, are not 'beautiful' (Rom. 10: 15)? God must supply them with beauty that they may be so. But a prophet, whom we must consider to have been appointed by 'God' 'in the Church' (1 Cor. 12: 28), also 'reproves' and 'judges unbelievers'

(1 Cor. 14: 24), for this is the work of the prophet of the new covenant. Now if these offices can exist continually in the Church, perhaps apostles, too, can be found even now to whom it is given 'to produce the signs of an apostle' (2 Cor. 12: 12).

Because he does not understand this Sabellius confuses the Father and the Son for he does not think the work of the different gifts is the same. At the same time it is to be noted that Christ is said here to have given 'apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers', and the Father is related there to have appointed the same.

The Father and the Son, therefore, appointed or gave first apostles, second prophets—not those who foretell future things such as we read about in the Old Testament, but those who reprove and judge the unbelievers and ignorant (such indeed he defines prophets of the New Testament to be in another epistle [cf. 1 Cor. 14: 24])— third evangelists, whose feet are beautiful for announcing peace (Isa. 52: 7; Rom.

10: 15).

Apostles, prophets, and the others are needed 'for the perfecting of the saints' that they may be perfected for 'the work of the ministry' of Christ so that the 'body of Christ' might be built up from 'living stones' (1 Pet. 2: 5) [and] made effective.

It is not to be supposed, however, that just as he said in the previous three that some are apostles, others prophets, others evangelists, so he also appointed different offices in pastors and in

end p.174 teachers. For he does not say, 'and others pastors and others teachers', but 'others pastors and teachers', so that he who is a pastor ought also be a teacher, nor ought one assume the title of pastor for oneself in the churches, however holy one might be, unless one can also teach those whom one pastors. Or perhaps it should be understood otherwise so that one and the same guardian of the Church is pastor and teacher, pastor of the sheep and teacher of humans, since 'You save humans and beasts, O Lord' (Ps. 35: 7).

I also think that in the churches today just as prophet and evangelist, as well as pastor and teacher, are found so also an apostle can be found in whom both the signs and proofs of the office of apostle are fulfilled. On the contrary there are a large number, so without as within, so in the Church as in heresies, who are false apostles, false prophets, false evangelists, and false pastors and false teachers. Now there is no doubt that the heresies have all things false in end p.175 consequence of their false faith. But do there not seem to you to be false pastors in the churches who do not feed the sheep with instruction but, like mercenaries, take no thought at all for the salvation of the flock, neither turning back what has strayed nor seeking what is lost, but who only take milk and 616 wool from the sheep, that is, of course, food and clothing?

We do not think that the apostle has suddenly rushed into these matters without any order. Because he had said above that 'God is over all things and through all things and in all' and 'grace has been given to each of the saints according to the measure of the gift of Christ', he now adds that some have been distributed in the Church 'as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers' who are necessary for the perfection and 'instruction of the saints in the work of ministry, in the building up of the body of Christ', because, inasmuch as the body of Christ is the Church and the Church is constructed from living stones, these whom we mentioned above as persons appointed in the Church have as their work to build up the Church of Christ, that is his body, in accordance with the dispensation and duties entrusted to them. If, therefore, someone does not 'build up' the Church of Christ nor instruct the people who are subject to him so that the Church of Christ is constructed from the subjected people, that person is not to be called an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, or teacher.

Origen Jerome Eph. 4: 13-15 Until we all come to the unity of the faith and the recognition of the Son of God, to a perfect person, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, that we Eph. 4: 13-15 Until we all come to the unity of the faith and of the recognition of the Son of God, to a perfect person, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ, that we may

may no longer be infants, buffeted and carried about by every wind of doctrine with the trickery of men, in cunning with the scheming of error, but speaking the truth in love we may all grow up in all things in him who is the head namely Christ. no longer be infants tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine in the intrigue and cunning of men to the defrauding of error, but doing the truth in love let us increase in all things in him who is the head, Christ.

We must investigate who the 'all' are who, he said, 'come to the unity of the faith'. Are they all humans, all the saints, or perhaps all who are capable of thought? Now he seems to me to speak of all humans because there are many 'winds of doctrines' and, when the waves have been stirred up by their blowing, humans are carried here and there in uncertain course and manifold error.

Whence we must labour with all zeal to 'come to the unity of the faith', then to have 'the recognition of the Son of God' in the same unity. Once we possess these things securely and cease to be infants and receive the 'measure' of the inner person, which 'measure' is the 'measure of the fullness of Christ', we will obtain the designation 'perfect person'. The goal, therefore, is that the whole multitude of believers might reach the complete 'age of the fullness of Christ' and by no means be 'tossed to and fro' by dogmas and borne on the uncertain sea of faithlessness like infants, while the winds, meaning heresies, 617 of course, or the wisdoms of the world and the diverse systems in contention, blow over them from this side and that and either cause or threaten shipwreck to the hearers.

There are some who proclaim things which are false, even though they do it unintentionally. Others, however, cunningly devise snares of error and are eager to deceive and subdue us. But when the saints have 'come to' and reached the

One must ask who 'we all' are who will 'come to the unity of the faith'. Is it 'all' mankind in general or we who have been appointed in Christ? It will appear to be the first suggestion because the 'winds of doctrine' are many and they 'buffet' 'all', more or less or, at least, most, and 'carry' them 'about in the trickery of men, in cunning with the scheming of error'.

'measure' of the above-mentioned 'person' then, understanding the love of Christ (cf. Eph. 3: 19), they will 'increase' in him in all the seeds of truth which they have received, having the Lord Jesus as 'head' of his body the Church.

But one must strive to 'come to the unity of the faith' and, in reference to the unity of the faith, to come also to be in 'the unity of the recognition of the Son of God'. When this has occurred and we humans have put aside all childishness, we shall be called 'perfect', having fully received 'the measure of the stature' 'inwardly'

(Rom. 2: 29). This 'measure of the stature' is the 'measure of the fullness of Christ'. All who have attained the measure of the previously mentioned stature contain 'the fullness of Christ'.

They will 'no longer' be 'infants' nor will they stumble about like infants because they are unstable and in doubt about doctrines as if they were 'being carried around' by a 'wave' of plausible arguments concerning each false doctrine and yielding themselves to 'every wind of teaching'. There are some people who are not disposed [to speak falsely] but teach deceitfully, and others deceive with all 'cunning' and skill by using countless schemes of error against us. Whenever the saints 'come to' the previously mentioned 'perfect person' then, by having apprehended 'love' and 'speaking the truth in' it, they 'will grow in all things into Christ' who has given them the seeds of truth and they will be subject to the 'head', namely 'Christ', as the body is

But because he says, 'that we may no longer be infants tossed to and fro' etc., attesting that he too is 'tossed to and fro' and is an 'infant', it appears that we must examine whether he said this in humility or, perhaps, because he sees in part and knows in part (cf. 1 Cor. 13: 9), he understands how far he is from perfect knowledge and has poured forth words coming truly from his conscience. If, then, someone wishes him to have said this in humility let him use that example, 'When I was a child I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I understood as a child. But when I became an adult I put away the things of a child' (1 Cor. 13:

11). Another, however, may respond to these things and say that the apostle had reached 'the age of the perfect person' in comparison with the multitudes but in respect to those things which have been stored up for the saints he is still called a 'child' since the prophet relates that all the apostles who believe in Christ are children when he says, 'Behold, I and the children whom God gave to me' (Isa. 8:

18).

subject to its head.

After this we must examine carefully whether it was really in humility that the apostle said he was not only a 'child' but also 'tossed to and fro and carried in different directions by every wind of doctrine in the intrigue of men' in wickedness 'to the defrauding of error'.

The person who wants Paul to have revealed this not from humility but on the basis of his knowledge will say, 'The apostle Paul was a man of keen and penetrating genius and one who would have foreknown what arguments were to be introduced against the very first attempt of those contending with shrewd mind.' He saw, therefore, that things are often said pro and con and that assertions which resemble the truth are made of contrary things in such a way that they cause the hearer to doubt.

Consequently, as a human and still situated in this fragile little body he was 'carried about' indeed 'by every wind of doctrine' 618 but he was not shattered on the rocks nor was his ship filled by the raging seas. He stood, in fact, at the helm holding the rudder and broke the foaming billows of the heresies with the security of his faith. Nevertheless, he did not, unshaken and secure or calm and placid, watch the winds blowing over him from this side and that and, with attentive ear, seize and overcome the contrary ideas. On the contrary there was no easy victory for him. Because, then, the words and arguments of the adversaries with which they were attempting to overturn the truth did not appear capable of being overthrown easily, for they were full of cunning and intricately constructed from the art of dialectic with the help of the devil, he hoped for the help

And since he says, 'That we may no longer be infants', we ask whether he made this remark in a relative sense and included himself who was not an infant or whether, considering how minimal perfection is in one 'who knows in part and prophesies in part' (1 Cor. 13: 9), he meant that he was truly an infant. One who says that he made these remarks in a relative sense will use the statement, 'When I was as an infant, I spoke as an infant, I thought as an infant, but when I became an adult, I put away the things of an infant' (1 Cor. 13: 11).

Another, however, will respond that Paul had become an adult in comparison to the multitudes, but that he was still an infant in relation to the perfections stored up for the saints for, indeed, the prophetic word designates all children when it says, 'Behold, I and the children whom God has given me' (Isa. 8: 18).

of God that he might drive every You will inquire next whether Paul speaks relatively not only when he says that he is an 'infant' but also when he says that he is one who is 'buffeted and carried about by every wind of doctrine' etc. Certainly one who says that Paul did not make this statement in a relative sense either will point out that he was a keenly intelligent man who perceived that the arguments offered for false doctrines are sufficient to divert one who perceives their plausibilities and put him in rough water. For this reason Paul, too, as a human, 'was carried about by every wind of teaching', although he was neither diverted nor shipwrecked but was like a ship struggling against diverse winds.

He also saw the arguments of the opponents who were teaching 'with trickery', as it were, not to be negligible but expressed so 'cunningly' that they were capable of deceiving. He also hoped that he would, at some time, obtain God's help to 'lay aside every' distraction (Heb. 12: 1) and to 'speak the truth' 'unhindered' (1 Cor. 7: 35) and 'to grow into Christ in love', whom he knew to be 'head' of himself and 'of the whole body' of the Church.

end p.176 end p.177 end p.178 deliberation from his mind and have a faith that was sure and unmoveable without any vexation and that he might increase this faith in the love of Christ whom he knew to be his own head and the head of Christ's body, the entire Church.

You should know that this passage is clearer in Greek, but because I have translated it word for word into Latin the complicated meanings of the words make what is said obscure.24 end p.179

Eph. 4: 16 from which the whole body, joined and glued together by every connection of the structure according to the operation in the measure of each member causes the body to increase in the building up of itself in love.

At the end of things,25 when we shall have begun to see God face to face and have arrived at 'the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ' (cf. Eph. 4: 13) from whose fullness we have now all received (cf. John 1: 16), so that Christ is not in us partially but totally, and the first principles of infants have been left behind (cf. 1 Cor. 13: 11) and we shall have grown up into that man of whom the prophet says, 'Behold a man, his name is the Orient'

(Zech. 6: 12), and to whom John the Baptist refers in the words, 'After me comes a man who came to be before me because he was before me' (John 1: 30), then in the meeting of one faith and one recognition of the Son of God (cf. Eph. 4: 13) whom, because of the diversity of opinions, we now know neither in one nor the same faith and recognition, 'the whole body', which previously had been scattered and torn into different parts will be restored in its joint and 'connection' so that the one 'structure', the same 'operation', and the complete perfection of the one age will cause the whole 'body to increase' equally and 'all its members' will increase in age in accordance with their 'measure'.

But this whole 'building up' by which 619 the 'body' of the Church is increased through its parts will be completed in mutual love for itself. We understand all rational creatures under the example of one rational animal and whatever we may say of its members and parts we know is to be referred to each rational creature. Let us suppose that this animal has been torn apart throughout its limbs, veins, and flesh so that bone does not cling to bone nor is nerve joined to nerve. Let us suppose that the eyes lie apart, the nose lies separately, the hands occupy one place, the feet have been thrown into another, and the remaining members have been scattered and divided among themselves in this way.

Imagine that some physician comes who possesses so much knowledge that, like the fables of the Gentiles, he can imitate Aesculapius and can raise up Virbius in a new form and with a new name (Virgil, Aen. 7.761-77).26 He will have to restore each member to its place, join joint to joint and make one body when the parts have been restored with some glue. Our analogy has proceeded to such a point. Now another example may be brought into the same analogy to clarify that which we wish to be understood. A child grows up and, unperceived, matures in time to full age. The hand will have increased its size, the feet will undergo their growth, the stomach, without our knowledge, is filled out, the shoulders, although our eyes are deceived, have broadened, and all the 'members' throughout the parts thus increase according to their 'measure' yet end p.180 in such a way that they appear not to be increased in themselves but in the body. So, therefore, it will be in the restoration of all things when Christ Jesus, the true physician, shall come to heal 'the body' of the whole Church which is now scattered and torn apart.

Each one, according to the 'measure' of his 'faith and recognition of the Son of God'

(whom he is said to recognize because he had known him earlier and afterwards had ceased to know him) will receive his place and will begin to be that which he was, yet not so that, as another heresy has it, 27

27 See Append. B, 27. all are placed in one age, that is all are transformed into angels, but each individual member is perfected in accordance with its 'measure' and duty 620 so that, for example, the rebellious angel begins to be that which it was created and human beings, who were cast out of paradise, are again restored to the cultivation of paradise. But all these things will happen in such a way that they are mutually joined among themselves in love. And while member rejoices with member and is delighted in the advancement of another, the body of Christ, the Church of the first-born, will dwell in the heavenly Jerusalem which the apostle calls the mother of the saints in another passage (cf. Gal. 4: 26).

These statements are rather obscure for us because, as we said above, they are said

(metaphorically) in Greek and when a metaphor is translated literally from one language into another the ideas and buds are choked by thorns, as it were. 28

28 This statement is another clear indication that Jerome is translating directly from Origen's commentary here.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 4: 17-19 This, therefore, I say and testify in the Lord, so that you no longer walk as the Gentiles walk in the futility of their minds, darkened in their understanding and alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. They have become calloused and have abandoned themselves to sensuality to perform every act of impurity in coventousness.

Eph. 4: 17-19 This, therefore, I say and add my testimony in the Lord, so that you no longer walk as the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their understanding, being darkened in their mind and alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance which is in them, because of the blindness of their heart, who despairing have delivered themselves to shamelessness in the working of all uncleannness in covetousness.

When the 'mind' is engaged in worldly affairs and applies its power to them or is engaged in doctrines which have been devised as true but are not, it is 'in futility'. For every worldly thought is 'futile' and all arguments which pretend to be true are false. And when 'the understanding', which is the rational process of discernment,29 has become confused and perceives neither the nature of the things which are said nor is able to follow the This, therefore, I say to you, he says, O Ephesians, and add my testimony to you that, because you have come to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ, 'you should not walk as the Gentiles walk', who serve idols and misuse their 'understanding' and 'mind' for perverse things who, although they received a soul and intellect in order that they might know God, have been 'alienated from his life' (which we have not known apart from Christ) 'and walk in the

subtleties of the things said, then it would properly be said to 'be darkened'. We must, therefore, avoid both being 'in futility of mind' and being 'darkened in understanding', so that we may not be 'alienated from the life of God', because of our 'ignorance' and 'hardness of heart'. blindness of their own heart'. And furthermore would that to have sinned would suffice and they should express repentance late, if you will, and condemn the vices at which they continually gape! It would be a remedy to recover their senses after their error. But now, 'despairing' and immersing themselves in filth and the abyss in the manner of irrational beasts, 'they have delivered themselves to shamelessness' and luxury, doing whatever the body wants, the mind desires, and passion suggests. And although they have neglected nothing at all which is unclean, they do all of this 'in covetousness' because they are never satisfied in their excessive indulgence nor does 621 their desire have an end. Or, perhaps they go on to things beyond the allowed union of a man with a woman, 'men practising obscenity with men and receiving the wages for their error in themselves'

(Rom. 1: 26-7).

'Vanity of understanding' and 'darkness of mind' are distinguished in two ways: in relation to the affairs of this age and in relation to the wisdom of the age, when we are either engaged in affairs which belong to this world and quickly pass over them, or we recognize that they are not beneficial. Does it not seem to you that one engages in 'vanity of understanding' and 'darkness of mind' who, day and night, is twisted in the art of dialectic, who, investigating natural philosophy, lifts his eyes beyond heaven and plunges them And should these things be distributed quite fully in our soul—I mean futility of mind and darkness of understanding which alienate us from the life of God and grant entrance to ignorance and bequeath hardness of heart— then we shall fall into obtuseness and force our consciousness onto sinful things. We shall hardly resist 'the desires of the flesh' (1 Pet. 2:

11) at all and we shall 'abandon ourselves to sensuality to perform every act of impurity' with 'coveting', but coveting those whose marriages we corrupt.

deeper than the depth of the earth and the void of the abyss, or who composes iambic poetry and studiously adorns and collects such a large forest of verses in his heart? Or, to pass on to another aspect, does it not seem that one engages in 'vanity of understanding' and 'darkness of mind' who seeks wealth both lawfully and unlawfully by flattering rulers, hunting for inheritances belonging to others, and accumulating riches which he will leave in a moment to someone whom he does not know?

And if we wish to understand the words, 'They have become calloused and have abandoned themselves to sensuality', let us compare those who have a bad conscience and are tortured when they recognize some trivial fault in themselves with those who sin abundantly with no fear at all. The former have not yet 'become calloused'. They still feel pain and, therefore, can be healed if they obtain rational help so that they may live blamelessly for the rest of their lives. But those who sin without feeling pain and, for this reason neither offer any resistance nor exercise self-control, 'have abandoned themselves to sensuality to perform every act of impurity in covetousness'.

Everyone who is 'in futility of mind' and 'is darkened in understanding' is subject to the danger of falling into all of these things. On this account we must give attention to our 'mind and understanding', so that, when the 'true light' (John 1: 9), which is the

Now the phrase 'despairing of themselves', that is ς, indicates something quite different in Greek from in Latin. Those who 'despair' are indeed called πηλγηκ τες αυτο

τες are those who feel no grief after they have sinned and, lacking all perception of their fall, are borne downward and rush to death like beasts although they see the sword. Assume with me two people caught in the same vice. Let one understand and lament what he has done. Let the other take delight in his wickedness and not only feel no grief but even boast and think that he has attained some prize and victory for his disgraceful acts. Does the former not seem to you to suffer grief and the latter to suffer no grief at all?

Let us represent it word for word if we can and say that πηλγηκ

τες are those who are 'insensible to grief' or who are 'calloused', for a certain philosopher also proclaimed πηλγηκ

ναλγησ αν, that is 'callousness'.

Logos of God, has dissolved the darkness, our 'understanding' may be enlightened and our 'mind' may be turned back from its passionate attachment to futile things and presented to God through the Logos of wisdom.

Let those who introduce various natures know that the 'Gentiles walk in vanity of understanding with their minds darkened because they give themselves to ignorance and blindness'.

For no one is called ignorant and 'blind' except one who has the possibility of knowing and seeing. We do not say that a stone is 'blind' and that a brute animal is ignorant, for we do not look for such things in them nor does it belong to the nature of the one to know or to the other to see. But if it was in the nature of the Gentiles to understand and see the life of God,

If it is true that those who are alienated from the life of God are alienated 'because of ignorance' and 'hardness of heart' because their mind exists in futility and their understanding in darkness, then those who are alienated from life are alienated not on the basis of nature but on the basis of causes which arise from ourselves and which are under our control.

But I think 'impurity in covetousness' refers to adultery, for Paul says this elsewhere in the first epistle to the Thessalonians where you find these words, 'For this is the will of God, that you abstain from fornication, that each of you know how to acquire his own vessel in holiness and honour, not in the passion of desire like the Gentiles who do not know God, not to transgress or covet a brother in this matter because the Lord is an avenger of all these things, as we have told you before and have testified. For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness and honour.

Therefore, one who rejects this does not reject man but God who gives his Holy Spirit to you' (1

Thess. 4: 3-8). Now observe carefully that he exhorts us to purity and says that one 'covets a brother in this matter' if he should take the wife of his 'brother'. But 'the Lord is an avenger of all these things', whether it is 'brothers' or unbelievers who have been coveted.

end p.181 end p.182 end p.183 this is 622 not a matter of material and spiritual natures but of the will.

We said above that the phrase, 'the working of all uncleanness in covetousness', does not pertain simply to 'covetousness' but to lust and luxury. We ought to confirm this end p.184 understanding by the testimony of another passage. It is written in the first epistle to the Thessalonians, 'For this is the will of God, your sanctification, that you abstain from fornication, that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honour, not in the lust of desire as also the Gentiles who do not know God, so that no one may transgress and cheat his brother in this matter because the Lord is an avenger of all these things as we have also told you previously and have testified. For God did not call us to uncleanness but to sanctification' (1 Thess. 4: 3-7). Notice carefully that calling us forth to purity and wishing us to be content with our wives alone he has said, 'So that no one may transgress and cheat his brother in this matter', that is, that one should not leave his own wife and seek to violate the wife of another. Where we have 'and cheat his brother in this matter' it says in Greek, α means covetousness which we, by rendering the sense of the word, can express as follows in the present passage: 'So that no one transgress and covetously defraud his brother in this matter.' What is the logical sequence between unchastity and uncleanness or purity and conjugal love and the quite extraordinary and unexpected designation 'covetousness' either in that section which we have just now cited as an example or in this to the Ephesians which is our main concern which we are attempting to explain? Do not be annoyed if we tarry a long time on obscure matters, for we discussed the fact in the beginning that among all of Paul's epistles this one especially is complicated in its words and meanings.

Origen Jerome Eph. 4: 20-22 But you did not so learn Christ, if indeed you have heard him and were taught in him, just as truth is in Jesus, to put away in relation to your former manner of life the old self which is corrupted by

Eph. 4: 20-21a But you have not so learned Christ, if moreover you have heard him and have been taught in him.

deceitful lusts.

If all those who appear to hear Christ hear him, the apostle would never say to the Ephesians, and certainly never to those to whom he was revealing the mysteries of Christ, 'If moreover you have heard him'. Now to 'learn Christ' is the same thing as to know virtue, and to 'hear' him does not differ from saying to 'hear' wisdom, justice, courage, temperance, and the other titles by which Christ is designated. 623 If someone, therefore, 'has heard Christ and learned' him he will not walk in the vanity of his understanding nor go darkened in his mind nor will he be alienated from the life of God. He will also possess knowledge because his ignorance has been dispelled and, because the light has been dispatched against the darkness, all blindness will be removed from the eyes of his heart. When he possesses this he will not deliver himself to unchastity nor will he work all uncleanness in covetousness going beyond the allowed limits of marriage.

To 'learn Christ' is the same as learning virtue and to 'hear him' does not differ from understanding the teaching of the concepts of the Son of God which have been recorded. If, then, anyone has learned Christ and heard him, then he has learned that he is wisdom and he has heard him as the Logos of God. If he has accepted what he has learned and heard, he will not 'walk in the futility of his mind' nor will he be 'darkened in understanding' nor 'alienated from the life of God'. Therefore, let us 'learn Christ' and 'hear him'.

One must not reject, to be sure, also being taught by the divine power which whispers the perfect and true teaching concerning Christ to our mind once it has been purified.

But if it should happen at sometime that he is overcome by a passion, he will experience grief over his defeat and will suffer torments of conscience because he has lost his undisturbed brow and the purity of an unstained mind. 'Let us learn Christ', therefore, 'and let us hear him.' If there is anyone who can say, 'Do you seek a proof of Christ who speaks in me?' (2 Cor. 13: 3), let us run to him day and night and cling to his mouth and to his speech.

'Just as truth is in Jesus.'

Christ speaks in us. They are the words of the Holy Spirit which he utters. For 'God appointed in the Church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers' (1 Cor.

12: 28). But it is not to be discounted that Christ himself may sometimes speak in our minds and teach us himself and not seek the instrument of another's mouth. If only we are not subject to sin and transgressions do not possess our body then it will walk in wisdom.

Paul taught what it is to 'learn Christ' and to 'hear' and be taught when he said, 'Just as truth is in Jesus.' For the archetypal essence of the truth is in Jesus alone who says, 'I am the truth' (John 14: 6).

Eph. 4: 21b As the truth is in Jesus.

The name 'Jesus' sometimes shows him to be the man which was assumed from the virgin by God the Word in accordance with the statement, 'You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save the people from their sins' (Matt. 1:

21), and elsewhere, 'Jesus, therefore, being tired from the journey' etc. (John 4: 6). But sometimes it indicates God the Word, for to us 'there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things' (1 Cor. 8: 6). Therefore, whenever Jesus says, 'I am the way and the truth' (John 14: 6), he speaks in accordance with the fact that he is the Son of God. But when Paul writes, 'As the truth is in Jesus', he speaks of the temple of the body in which God dwelt as Word. For 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1:

14). Unless perhaps each is to be understood of God the Word. For

And see if we can restore the incoherent statement, 'to put away, in relation to your former manner of life, the old self', as follows: 'But you did not so learn Christ, if indeed you have heard him and have been taught in him to put away, in relation to your former manner of life, the old self which is corrupted by deceitful lusts, just as truth is in Jesus.' This yields the sense that as 'truth is in Jesus', so will it be in you who have learned Christ, heard him, been taught in him and have put away, in relation to your former manner of life, the old self which is corrupted by deceitful lusts.

how will life dwell 'in him' and he himself be the life? 'For as the Father has life in himself so also has he given to the Son to have life in himself' (John 14: 6). The Son is also said to be 'truth' and truth is shown to dwell 'in him'. Now we make these remarks not to separate Jesus from Christ 624 nor again God the Word from him whom he assumed saying that the man is another but, in accordance with our understandings of the One must believe that he means the 'old self' which has been made old by sin and which already should have been 'put away'. For this self is always being corrupted by sinning 'in relation to the former manner of life' and 'deceitful lusts', and never does anything that belongs to incorruption. It performs the full complement of the works of corruption. 'Deceitful lusts', therefore, and the 'former manner of life' effect its corruption. It has not yet been completely corrupted as long as it does these things, but 'is being corrupted'. The Logos of God, however, will not corrupt but will kill the old man to make him alive, for he says, 'I will kill and I will cause to live' (Deut. 32:

39) and, 'When he killed them then they sought him' (Ps. 77: 34).

You will ask, further, how the 'old self' is said to have been made old by evil. Perhaps just as virtue renews and remakes, so its opposite, evil, makes old. And perhaps wrinkles occur on the soul, as it were, as signs of age in

the same way that they occur on ageing bodies. For this reason Christ 'presented the Church to himself glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing'

(Eph. 5: 27). So far as the Church has signs of age, it also has wrinkles but whenever it has put away the 'old self', it is in its prime and every wrinkle completely disappears.

And 'deceitful lust' is a fallacious and thoughtless lust.

end p.185 previous | next

end p.186 end p.187 operations or places, naming him one or the other whom we believe to be the one Son of man and Son of God both before the virgin and after the virgin.

But the phrase, 'As the truth is in Jesus', can also be understood another way. The truth was in no patriarch, in no prophet, in no apostle but was in Jesus alone. For others knew in part, prophesied in part, and saw in a mirror darkly (cf. 1 Cor. 13: 12). In Jesus alone the truth of God has appeared, which says confidently, 'I am the truth' (John 14: 6). The truth has given freedom to those who believe in it (cf. John 8: 32) according to the analogy of faith. He who knows the truth is pardoned by the truth for freedom, for the truth itself assumed the form of a servant and humbled itself, being made obedient to the Father unto death in order that it might make the servant free again (cf. Phil. 2: 8). For where the Spirit of God is, there is freedom (cf. 2 Cor. 3: 17). If we wish to have the form of a free man in Jesus and to recognize the face of truth, let us ascend the mountain with him and see him transfigured there. His clothes, that is the Scriptures which prophesy of him, are changed and Moses and Elijah as well, that is the law and the prophets, are seen in glory. As long as the Lord did not alter the form of the servant nor ascend the mountain the law remained in a base state and the prophets in squalor. When he ascended to higher places and wished to change his clothes, and the understanding of the servant was clear and free, then the faces and clothing of Moses and Elijah as well were changed.

Eph. 4: 22 that you put off, in accordance with your former manner of life, the old self who is being corrupted according to the desires of error.

Because the thought appears to gush forth according to the order and composition of the sentence, it should be read as follows: 'But you did not so learn Christ, if indeed you have heard him and have been taught in him, to put off, in accordance with your former manner of life, the old self who is being corrupted according to the desires of error, as the truth is in Jesus.' Consequently the sense is, 'As the truth is in Jesus', so it will be also in you 'who have learned Christ and have heard him and have been taught to put off, in end p.188

accordance with your former manner of life, the old self who is being corrupted according to the desires of error. '

Now I think the old self, whom he directs is to be put off, is called old on the basis of wickedness. For that self,625always erring and indulging in the work of corruption in accordance with his former manner of life and the desires of error, 'is being corrupted' and violated. And because he remains incessantly in the 'desires of error' and never ceases from vice, he is by no means said to be 'corrupt' but 'to be corrupted' because every day, every hour, instant by instant and moment by moment he is being corrupted, he is being carried off, he is being violated. But the Word of God which on that account kills that he might make the dead live and that the one made alive might seek the Lord whom he did not know before his destruction, does not corrupt but kills the 'old self'. 'For I', he says, 'kill and I make alive' (Deut. 32: 39), and, 'When he killed them then they sought him' (Ps. 77: 34).

Let us not suppose that what he says here, 'Who is being corrupted according to the desires of error', goes against that which is written in another passage, 'And if our outer person is being corrupted, nevertheless our inner person is being renewed from day to day' (2 Cor. 4: 16), because the corruption of the outer person is the renewal of the inner person and, on the contrary, the corruption of the inner person is the renewal of the outer person.

Someone might think that Paul said in a simple manner, 'If anyone corrupts the temple of God, God corrupts him, for the temple of God is holy, which you are' (1 Cor. 3: 17). But something may lie hidden even there which, among us, appears concealed. If we are the temple of God in accordance with the words, 'For the temple of God is holy, which you are', and there is one who corrupts the temple of God and another which is the temple which is corrupted, we must investigate who that one is who corrupts the temple. If you should discover enemies corrupting Jerusalem and violating the temple constructed from stones, you will see equally everyone corrupting and violating the temple of God whom

God will corrupt and violate when he avenges the corruption of his temple. Nevertheless the temple too, which has equipped itself (since indeed it is living and capable of perception) with snares of destruction, will undergo punishment by this very fact that, corrupted and violated, it has lost the spirit of incorruption. end p.189

Origen Jerome Eph. 4: 23-4 But be renewed in the spirit of your understanding and put on the new self who has been created according to God in justice and the holiness of truth.

Eph. 4: 23 But be renewed in the spirit of your mind.

We are not 'renewed' 'in understanding' without 'the Spirit', nor 'in the Spirit' without 'understanding', but 'we are renewed at the same time 'in the Spirit 626 of our understanding', so that as we

If one must 'be renewed', according to this text, neither simply in spirit nor in mind but 'in the spirit of your mind', we must ask specifically what our 'mind' is

sing with the Spirit, we sing also with 'understanding', as we pray 'in the Spirit' we pray also 'with understanding'

(cf. 1 Cor. 14: 15), so 'we are renewed in the Spirit of our understanding'.

Consequently, when our 'understanding' is pure and has been cleansed from every stain of sordid materiality then the Spirit of another is also joined to it and they are united in such a way by a certain glue of unity between themselves that it is by no means simply said to be 'the Spirit', but 'the Spirit of understanding'. and what its 'spirit' is. Pay attention also to the statement, 'I will sing with my spirit and I will sing also with my mind; I will pray with my spirit and I will pray with my mind' (1 Cor. 14: 15). You will wonder, then, if just as there are many spirits and each one identifies itself with someone, so there is a spirit which identifies itself with our mind. Once our mind is purified and has shed all its mist, this spirit identifies itself with our mind and renews us.

But when we shall have been renewed in 'the Spirit' which is 'the Spirit of our understanding', then 'we shall put on the new self who has been created according to God'. I think that this indeed is the same thing which is said in other words in another passage, 'Put on Christ Jesus' (Rom. 13:

14). He indeed is the 'new person' whom we all ought to put on by believing in him and with whom we ought to be clothed. For what was there in the person who was

Eph. 4: 24a And put on the new self which has been created according to God.

If we wish to 'put on the new self which has been created according to God', let us understand the words, 'Become imitators of me just as I am of Christ' (1 Cor. 11: 1) and, 'I no longer live, but Christ lives in me' (Gal. 2: 20), and we will show in general that 'Christ has been formed in us' wholly and in every action.

end p.190 assumed by our Saviour that was not new? Were not his conception, nativity, birth, infancy, teaching, life, virtues, and, at the end, the cross and passion of him who completely despoiled the principalities in it and held the contrary powers for a spectacle

(cf. Col. 2: 15), as well as his resurrection and ascension to heaven all new? He, therefore, has truly 'been created in justice and the holiness of truth', because true God was Son of true God and in him all religion and justice has been completed by the truth of God.

One, therefore, who can imitate the manner of life of that man and portray all the virtues in himself, so that he is meek as that man was meek and humble in heart, lays down his life for his friends as that man did for his sheep and, when he is struck, does not respond by cursing nor return abusive language but overcomes arrogance with humility, has 'put on the new self' and can say with the apostle, 'I no longer live but Christ lives in me' (Gal.

2: 20) and, 'Be imitators of me as I am of Christ' (1 Cor. 11: 1). This person can also claim the words of John, 'He who says he believes in Christ ought himself to walk as Christ walked' (1 John 2: 6).

But the phrase which he uses, 'Who has been created according to God', does not mean the same thing in Latin as it does in Greek. 'Creation' indeed is expressed by us as 'begetting' or 'birth' but with the Greeks the concept of 'forming' or 'founding' is understood under the name 'creation', and that for which we use the term 'founding' the Greeks designate with the term 'creation'. On this basis heresy 627 calumniates the birth of Christ and uses the example from Solomon, 'The Lord has created me the commencement of his ways' (Prov. 8: 22). One must observe, therefore, that 'creation' and 'founding' are never mentioned except in the case of great works such as, 'the world has been created' or 'a city has been founded'. A house, however, although it may be large, is said to be 'built' rather than 'founded' or 'created' for the term 'founding' or 'creating' is adopted only for great works. One should notice from this that that 'new self' who has been 'created' in Christ 'according to God' is a great work of God and is more prominent than the other creatures since he is thus said to have been founded as the world and the commencement of God's ways and has been created in the beginning of all the elements. end p.191

Origen Jerome

Eph. 4: 25a Wherefore having put aside lying speak the truth each with his neighbour.

Eph. 4: 25 Wherefore put away lying and each of you speak the truth with his neighbour because we are members of one another.

The apostle has not enjoined in a simple or moral manner, as some think, 'when lying has been left behind, the truth is to be spoken with our neighbours'.

Otherwise, if we 'speak the truth' only 'with our neighbours' whoever is not a neighbour ought to hear falsehood. But indeed it is also enjoined in the Law, You shall not commit adultery with the The simple will think that this is nothing more than a moral statement. But because we are persuaded that 'lying' is opposite to the truth and truth is properly spoken only to the neighbour, we seek to put aside that lying which is a false opinion. It is not just any task whatever to put aside lying in this manner in addition to putting

aside that former lying also. We must, indeed, be 'approved money-changers'30 and 'prove all things' sufficiently that we may 'hold fast' only 'the good' and 'abstain from every form of evil' (1 Thess. 5: 21-2). The saving truth is the opposite to lying in relation to false opinions. wife of your neighbour (cf. Exod.

20: 17). If 'neighbour' is taken to mean only one who is near or a friend, adultery with strangers is permitted by law. But he calls every person who has been begotten from the same parent with us our 'neighbour'. That parable, indeed, about the man who fell among thieves when he The statement, 'Speak the truth each with his neighbour', has been taken from Zechariah (8: 16).

was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho indicates this. When the priest and the Levite passed him by he was cared for by a Samaritan and carried back to an inn. Moreover, after this the Lord affirms that he was 'neighbour' who showed him mercy. He wishes to show that all people are neighbours to all. And when this, indeed, has been so understood, he edifies the listeners.

On the other hand, that which follows, 'Because we are members of one another', seems to me to indicate a mystery and to speak of those who are our neighbours in faith and virtue. They are, indeed, not 'members of one another' except the faithful of the faithful,

Christians of Christians and the perfect of those who are full of virtue in the highest degree. end p.192

For this reason Paul, himself perfect, said in another 628epistle, 'But we speak wisdom among the perfect' (1 Cor. 2: 6). He orders, therefore, that each one 'speak' those things

'with his neighbour' which are mystical and secret and which are full of the truth of God, and day will utter speech to day and night will make known knowledge to night (cf. Ps.

18: 3), that is, he should make known everything which is clear and conspicuous to those who deserve to hear, 'You are the light of the world' (Matt. 5: 14). Furthermore, he should relate those things which are dark, obscure, and veiled in the complete night of mysteries to those who are themselves night, who are darkness or gloom, of whom it is said, 'And gloom was under his feet' (Ps. 17: 10), meaning, of course, God's feet. For also on Mount Sinai Moses entered into the storm and gloom where God was (cf. Heb.

12: 18; Deut. 4: 11) and it is written of God himself, 'He made darkness his hiding-place'

(Ps. 17: 12).31

'Let each one', therefore, 'speak the truth' and mysteries 'with his neighbour', and let him not give what is holy to the dogs nor cast his pearls before the swine (cf. Matt. 7: 16).

May he lead those who have the oil of truth, whoever they are, into the bridechamber of the spouse and the inner chamber of the king (cf. Ps. 44: 16). Let us recognize, furthermore, that the words, 'Each of you speak the truth with his neighbour', have been taken from the prophet Zechariah (Zech. 8: 16).

Origen Jerome

Eph. 4: 26a Be angry and do not sin.

Eph. 4: 26a Be angry and do not sin.

There is no doubt that this has been taken from the fourth Psalm (Ps. 4: 5) and that it seems to be contrary to that which is said elsewhere, 'But now put away all anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, and filthy speech from your mouth' (Col. 3: 8).33

It is clear that this has been taken from the fourth Psalm (4: 5).

The expression 'be angry' has two meanings. One is anger which is not deliberate. Some call this propensity.32 Even the perfect will experience this when some chance occurrence stirs them to anger without any deliberation on their part. The other refers to that anger which occurs when the conscious assent admits in advance that one assumed to have been wronged has the right to seek vengeance.34

It is the latter, which is under our control, that the apostle commands that we 'put aside'. It is the former of the two meanings, therefore, which is indicated in the words, 'Be angry and do not sin', which is the same as saying, 'Even if at some time you admit anger, nevertheless abandon it without taking action.'

But in addition, understood in a singular manner, 'anger' is harmful so long as it is imagined as a bridle that has been released. The term 'anger', however, is taken in a twofold manner by the philosophers as well as by us. It applies either to when, provoked by a wrong, natural incitement impels us or, once the fury is past and the rage has died down and our mind has regained the capability of discernment, it none the less desires revenge on the assumed offender. I think, therefore, that the present saying pertains to the first meaning of anger and that it has been granted to us as humans that we may be moved at the sight of

end p.193 something intolerable and a gentle breeze, as it were, may disturb our tranquillity of mind. We are, nevertheless, by no means to be lifted up in the violent whirlpools of rage by the impulse.

Our Firmianus has written a book on the anger of God in a learned and eloquent style.

This work can, I think, sufficiently and abundantly supply the reader with an 629 understanding of anger.

Origen Jerome Eph. 4: 26b Do not let the sun Eph. 4: 26b Do not let the sun

set on your anger. set on your anger.

If we understand this 'sun' simply as that which is seen with the eyes of flesh, we sin whenever we are angry and our anger continues when the sun sets. We do not sin, however, when, for example, we are angry from the first hour till the eleventh and we do that which indignation, rage, and anger prompt. Nothing appears more absurd to me than this interpretation, as if someone cannot rage out of control from the rising of the sun to its setting in evil so great that he could not atone for it with the tears of his entire life. Or at least let anger have no more If we understand this to be the sun which our senses perceive, we will sin if we become angry and retain our anger after sunset, which I think to be strange. Perhaps, then, just as the true 'sun' will set on the evil prophets according to the words, 'The sun will set on your prophets at midday' (Mic. 3: 6; Amos 8: 9), so also it sets on all who sin and does not rise for them so long as they continue sinning.

Paul commands us, therefore, not to do such things in anger which would cause the sun to set on us and night to exist in our souls.

end p.194 place in the day, since we spread our anger about in the day. Night, at any rate, is the repose of rage and sleep follows even if we are angry.

Because, therefore, just as the true 'sun sets' on the evil prophets according to that which is written, 'The sun sets on your prophets at midday' (Mic. 3: 6; Amos 8: 9), so also it sets on all sinners and by no means grants the light of its rising to them. The apostle now commands that we, overcome by rage, do not do such things for which the sun may set on us and the ruling faculty of our heart be enveloped in darkness. Some think this is to be taken simply as also that of the fourth Psalm where the same thing appears to be affirmed, 'What you say in your hearts be sorry for on your beds' (Ps. 4: 5), that is, by means of subsequent repentance, make atonement by night for whatever sin you have committed in the day whether in deed, word, or thought, and let your anger be brief and not protracted till tomorrow.

Origen Jerome Eph. 4: 27 Nor give place to the devil.

Eph. 4: 27 Nor give place to the devil.

This is like what is said in Ecclesiastes, 'If the spirit of one who exercises authority ascends against you do not leave your place, for pacification will put an end to great sins' (Eccles. 10: 4).35

'Devil' is a Greek word which is expressed in Latin by 'accuser'. He is called 'Satan' in the Hebrew language, that is 'adversary' or 'opponent', and 'Belial' by the apostle, which means 'without yoke' because he cast subjection to God from his neck. Aquila

translated this as 'apostate'. You should know that wherever 'sons of pestilence' is written in the Old Law, as in the passage, 'But the sons of Eli were sons of pestilence' (1 Kgs. 2: 12), the Hebrew volumes have 'Belial', that is, 'the devil' is represented by 'pestilence', although many 630 corruptly read 'Belian' in the apostle for 'Belial'.

We give 'place to the devil' or 'to the spirit exercising authority which ascends against' us when our intellect is not full of holy doctrines, or of faith which saves and thoughts which excel and advise us to seek excellence.

According to Zechariah, the father of John, 'Satan dwells on the inclinations of the soul',36 and such assents to inferior things as we have mentioned and inclinations to these assents summon the devil to enter our souls. It has been written, indeed, in the case of Judas the betrayer, that first 'the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray him' and then, 'after the morsel Satan entered him' (John 13: 2, 27). It is as if, although 'the devil had put into [Judas'] heart' that he 'should betray' the Lord, had Judas stood firm against what 'had been put', Satan would not have found 'place' later 'to enter' into him.

Wish not, therefore, he says, to give 'place to the devil', because as a roaring lion (1 Pet. 5: 8) he seeks an entrance through which he can burst in. Just as the Father and the Son stand before the door and knock that they may enter and dine with one who receives them (Rev. 3: 20), so the adversary also is always prepared to burst into us and, when we give him place, he enters. But before he comes he is accustomed to hurl javelins in advance and to make thought the

end p.195 is allowed, no wrath is permitted, and no anger occurs with good reason. It is said in the thirty-sixth Psalm, since all anger is sin (and likewise also wrath), 'Cease from anger, and leave wrath' (Ps. 36: 8). It is never possible, therefore, to be angry with someone with good reason.

And not only must we strive that all bitterness, all wrath, all anger, and all blasphemy be removed from us, but these 'along with all evil'. We understand 'evil' to mean either the state opposite to virtue or wickedness.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 4: 32 But be kind to one another, merciful, giving to yourselves as also God has given to you in Christ.

Eph. 4: 32 But be good to one another, compassionate, showing favour to ourselves just as also God has shown favour to us in Christ.

We said above that the opposite to bitterness is sweetness, which the apostle has now designated with the other word, χρηστ

We said that sweet is opposite to bitter.10 Paul, however, seems now to say metaphorically, on the basis of foods, that the contrary to bitterness is goodness, so that we can understand the command, 'Be good to one another', as if he had said, 'Some are affable, sweet, and gentle in disposition'. τητα, that is 'pleasantness' rather 638 than 'kindness'. He admonishes us, when all bitterness and wrath, anger, clamour, blasphemy, and violent emotion have been condemned along with a stern brow, to be gentle and pleasant, spontaneously attracting people to our friendship so that no one fears to approach us. This friendship is formed especially on the basis of mercy.

And this occurs if we put aside what is cruel, unmerciful, and unsympathetic concerning our neighbour and become 'compassionate' to all people and show favour through them not only to our neighbours but also to ourselves in the greatest things.

['Showing favour'] to ourselves differs from 'showing favour to one another' because all our welldoing in showing kindness to others, because of its goal and because we are 'of the same body'

(Eph. 3: 6), has reference to us rather than to those whom we think we have benefited. And we show favour to ourselves in respect to all the things

Nor after we aid others do we ourselves cease to have what we have given, for there follows the words, 'giving to yourselves'. What one does that is good for another is restored in greater quantity to the person who gave the aid than what was given to the other. He who is compassionate to the poor will himself be filled (Prov. 14: 21), and he who gives to him has lent to God (Prov. 19: 17).

concerning which 'God also has shown favour to us in Christ'. It is as if, once we accept these favours we observe and imitate the one who shows favour and the manner of his showing favour.

But someone else, who thinks the phrase 'showing favour to ourselves' is no different from 'showing favour to one another', will think it is equivalent to 'showing favour to one another', especially because of the clause, 'Just as God has shown favour to us in Christ'. And this person will refer these words to the forgiveness of sins and say that we must 'forgive those who sin against us, as also' God 'has forgiven us our sins' (cf. Matt. 6:

12 ff.). But how has God shown favour to us 'in Christ' in relation to our sins? Or is it that the Father, being in Christ, 'has forgiven us our trespasses'? But 'he has shown favour to us in Christ' also in respect to good things, since indeed wisdom is in Christ, and he has shown favour to us in wisdom, truth, and justice.

Or perhaps we should take it to mean that because we are pleasant and 'merciful' and have left behind the disturbances which were bothering us and passed over to gentleness and moderation it is granted to us ourselves and 'given', once we have changed from evil people to good, that we also give these very things to ourselves which God the Father has given us in Christ. For if we have laid aside vices and follow virtues (now all the virtues, namely wisdom, truth, justice, gentleness, and the rest, are understood in relation to Christ), when we shall have possessed these virtues we may also procure these very virtues for ourselves by our zeal with the result that we possess the virtues which 'God has given to us in Christ'.

But another will take the words, 'giving to yourselves' in a simpler manner so that, as was said above, 'But be pleasant among one another', so also now it is said, 'giving to yourselves', because it means, 'giving to yourselves among one another, so that as God in Christ has forgiven us' our sins, so also we should remit the sins of those who have sinned against us. And to prove that the remission of sins is called

a gift in the Scriptures he will use

end p.206 that which is written in Luke where one man owed five hundred denarii to a creditor and another owed fifty. The creditor pardoned each man's debt. He who had been questioned by the Saviour replied that the man to end p.207 whom more has been given feels more gratitude (Luke 7: 41-7). It is also said in the Lord's prayer, 'Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors' (Matt. 6: 12).

But 'God has given to us in Christ', not being positioned outside him, but dwelling in him because the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. Nor is he less in whom it is given than him who gives in himself, for the apostle also 639 says, 'And I, if I have given you anything it is in the person of Christ' and of God (2 Cor. 2: 10).

Eph. 5: 1 Therefore, be Imitators as God as Dear Children.

One who understands the meaning of the words, 'Be perfect as your heavenly Father also is perfect' (Matt. 5: 48), will know the meaning of the present words, 'Be imitators of God'. Indeed, writing to the Corinthians Paul says, 'Be imitators of me as I also am of Christ' (1 Cor. 11: 1). They could not immediately become imitators of Christ. It was a great thing for them if they could be imitators of an imitator. But to the Ephesians, as if he were addressing those to whom he had already taught great mysteries, he does not say,

'Be imitators of me', or 'imitators of Christ', but 'imitators of God'. It is not that being an imitator of Christ is less than being an imitator of God (since Christ is God), but that it is one thing to imitate him in a human way and another in a divine way. For even if we have previously known Christ according to the flesh, we now no longer know him according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5: 16). The Saviour himself also says, showing the lowliness of his required situation, 'Whatever he has seen the Father doing, the Son does these same things likewise' (John 5: 19). It is not that the Father made one thing heaven and another earth and that Christ has made one thing heaven and another earth and the other elements in their likeness, but that whatever the Father works, the Son does the same.

But because we are capable of becoming like God he testified above and said, 'Giving to yourselves as also God in Christ has given to you' (Eph. 4: 32). I do not think that a person can imitate God in other things and do whatever God does but, just as he is kind and sends rain on the good and evil etc., for example, so we too pour forth our goodness on all persons. When we have done this we will be 'beloved sons' either of Paul himself or, what I think is better, of God. end p.208

Eph. 5: 2 and Walk in Love as also Christ has Loved us and Delivered Himself for us an Oblation and Sacrifice with a Sweet Odour to God.

One who struggles against sin for the salvation of others to the point of shedding his blood (Heb. 12: 4) and, as a consequence, also delivers his life for them is walking in love and imitating Christ who loved us so much that he endured the cross for the salvation of all (Heb. 12: 2). For just as Christ delivered himself for us, so that person, too, can deliver himself for those for whom he freely dies. In this he will imitate him who delivered himself to the Father as an oblation and sacrifice 640 with a sweet odour and will himself also become an oblation and sacrifice with a sweet odour to God.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 3-4 And let not fornication and any uncleanness or covetousness be mentioned among you, as is fitting for saints, and obscenity and foolish or vulgar speech, which is not proper, but rather thanksgiving.

Eph. 5: 3-4 But let not fornication and uncleanness or covetousness be named among you as befits saints, and obscenity and foolish speech or vulgarity which is to no purpose, but rather the giving of thanks.

If it were not for a certain Cynic philosopher who has taught that no stimulation of the flesh and release of semen resulting from rubbing and touching of whatever kind is to be avoided at the proper time and several sages of the world who have agreed with this filthy and shameful heresy, the holy apostle would never, when writing to the Ephesians, have connected to 'fornication' also 'all uncleanness' and have joined 'covetousness' to 'uncleanness', not meaning the covetousness in which we desire to accumulate money but that of which we spoke above, 'That one not transgress and, being covetous, defraud his brother in this matter' (1 Thess. 4: 6). Because, of course, man is insatiable and unsatisfied, he runs to and fro for the sake of every sort of filthiness and lewdness.

Sexual intercourse with a prostitute is designated 'fornication' in the custom of Scripture. But every sin of physical stimulation related to this subject, not only concerning adulteries and corruptions of boys but also concerning all the others human disregard for sexual restraints has contrived in aberrations of every kind, has been given the general name 'uncleanness'. And one must include 'covetousness', either in general, or in the sense of adultery, as we have shown it sometimes means in other places when we used the exhortation that 'each man not transgress and covet his brother' (1 Thess. 4: 4, 6).11

'As befits saints', he says.

Consequently, no one can be called a saint who is discovered in any uncleanness and covetousness of pleasures which seduce him, not to mention fornication. But if anyone thinks 'covetousness' is not to be taken in that sense in which we have taken it, let him explain why Paul has placed 'covetousness' with excessive frequency right in the middle of fornication, uncleanness,

And one must be on guard against all 'uncleanness' since this 'is fitting for saints'.

filthiness, foolish speech, and vulgarity.

Furthermore, in my opinion 'foolish speech' applies not only to those who tell dirty stories to make people laugh and, by feigning foolishness, cause more amusement for those whom they want to please, but also to those who are thought to be the sages of the world and who argue about matters of natural philosophy and say that they have clearly comprehended the sands of the seashores, the drops of the ocean, the space of the heavens, and the point of the earth. There is also 'foolish speech' in the Church whenever someone, deceived by the word of Isaiah (whom he has not understood (cf. Isa. 6: 1-3)), imagines the sky to be a curved vault and thinks there is a throne in the heavens with God sitting on it, like an emperor and judge, with angels standing around it who obey his words of command and are sent off with diverse duties.

But because 'vulgarity' follows 'foolish speech', 'foolish speech' should be applied rather to foolish and senseless fables.

There is an 'obscenity' in relation to each form of disregard for sexual restraints. In a similar manner indeed, 'obscenity' is also 'uncleanness', for each action related to the subject of sexual activity exhibits both what is unclean and what is obscene. One must make these remarks in the case of actions contrary to nature, not in the case of marriage.

And let us also see what 'foolish speech' is which also must 'not be mentioned among the saints'.

Someone who has taken the word literally will say that 'foolish speech' is that practised by clowns and jesters. But see if one must not say that all, whoever they be, who have been alienated from wisdom and understanding, utter foolish speech and are foolish in There is this difference, however, between 'foolish speech' and 641 'vulgarity'. 'Foolish speech' contains nothing sensible and worthy of the human heart.

'Vulgarity', on the other hand, descends from a knowing mind.

There is a certain kind of vulgarity, which we can designate with the term 'jocularity', which deliberately attempts to provoke laughter in the hearers with words

the doctrines they teach. which are witty and clownish or obscene and facetious. But this too is to be cast forth completely by holy men for whom weeping and mourning are more appropriate as we also read in the Hebrew Gospel that the Lord says to his disciples, 'You shall never be cheerful except when you look at your brother with love.'

'Vulgar speech', however, which is appended, will appear to agree with the literal understanding of 'foolish speech'.

The ordinary usage of common people applies this not only to those who make them laugh by 'foolish speech' but by any means whatsoever.

He seems thus far to have introduced nothing beyond the plan, logic, and sequence of the order. But someone may raise a question concerning what follows and stands at the end, 'But rather the giving

And this, too, 'is not proper among the saints', 'but rather thankfulness' to God in all things, that is to say, 'thankfulness' in the sense in which we say that certain people are gracious and refined.

We must not, then, be foolish and vulgar in speech but gracious and refined. And since it is not customary to say, 'but rather graciousness (ε α)', perhaps in place of this he used the word found elsewhere and said, 'but rather thankfulness (ε χαριτ

α)'.12 And perhaps it is the custom of the Hebrews to use the word 'thankfulness'

α) and 'thankful'

ριστος) in place of 'graciousness' (ε χ

ας and 'gracious' (ε χαριτ

του). But we have considered it to be such as also is said in Proverbs, 'A thankful (ε χαρ

awakens glory for her husband'

(11: 16) in place of a gracious (ε ριτος) woman. And we would appear to distort the meaning by understanding ε χ

ριστος to be used for 'a gracious woman' instead of ε χ

ριτος, did not the other versions agree with this interpretation. For Aquila translated as follows, 'A gracious (χ χ

ριτος) woman helps the glory', and Theodotion and Symmachus, 'A gracious (χ

ριτος) woman will help the glory'.

end p.209 end p.210 previous | next

Book III

show chapter abstract and keywords

hide chapter abstract and keywords Ronald E. Heine 633-4 I have provided a sufficient discussion of the subject of Paul's epistle to the Ephesians in the preface to the first book, O Paula and Eustochium, and I have shown in brief and scattered remarks wherever the opportunity occurred that the blessed apostle wrote to no other church in such a mystical manner revealing the 'mysteries hidden from the ages' (Eph. 3: 9). Since, therefore, with the aid of your prayers and those of the holy

Marcella, I am now dictating the third and last book on the same epistle, it seems proper that I explain that the etymology of the name Ephesus itself corresponds with the understanding which I have set forth above.

Ephesus means 'will' in the Latin language or 'my purpose is in her', or, to be sure, 'my soul is in her'. The will and purpose and soul of God is in him who can say, 'For he himself has given me knowledge of all things' (Wisd. 7: 17). Furthermore, because uncertain and hidden aspects of God's wisdom have been revealed to him, he obtains the testimony of him who says, 'I have found David of Bethlehem the son of Jesse to be a man after my heart who will do all my will' (Acts 13: 22). The prophet Hosea also indicates a man of this nature when he asks, 'Who is wise and understands these things, who is sensible and knows them?' (Hos. 14: 10). Furthermore, as you are aware, there is a great difference between a just man who is simple and a just man who is wise. Notice for example the glory of each which they obtain in the resurrection of the dead, 'And many of those who sleep will arise from the mire of the earth; some to eternal life and some to reproach and eternal confusion. And those who have understanding will shine as the brightness of the firmament and many of the just as the stars forever' (Dan. 12: 2-3). The just, it says, will shine as the stars forever and those who have understanding (that is those who have knowledge of the Scriptures) as the brightness of heaven. It is not that a learned man need not also be just, but that unless he who is just is well informed he may

be as far from the wise just man as the glitter of the stars is from the brightness of the firmament. But if someone instructed by meditation alone on the law neglects his life he also does not dare say, 'I have understanding from your commandments' (Ps. 118: 104),

'therefore I was directed to all your commandments' (Ps. 118: 128). Such a person is as sounding brass and a clanging cymbal and, as salt without taste, is to be trampled down into dung (cf. 1 Cor. 13: 1; Matt. 5: 13). But if it should be a matter of choosing between the two (the one who has end p.201 wisdom set apart and the one who has justice), I would prefer just country manners to learned wickedness because in 635-6 the one, although less, nevertheless it is the glory of the stars to be like the brightness, in the other the punishments are greater in accordance with the progress of his knowledge: 'The mighty indeed suffer torments mightily' (Wisd.

6: 7) and, 'The servant who knew the will of his lord and did not do it will be beaten with many stripes' (Luke 12: 47).

I have said this, therefore, that I might teach you why the name of the Ephesians, who have abandoned the deceptions of the arts of the magicians and have transferred their zeal for error to devotion to the truth, signifies the 'soul' and 'purpose' and 'will of God'. It was for their salvation that Paul fought with so much sweat that he wrote to the Corinthians,

'If I fought with beasts at Ephesus in a human manner what does it profit me if the dead do not rise?' (1 Cor. 15: 32). What are those beasts? Without doubt they are those of which the psalmist speaks when he says, 'Do not hand the soul of the one who confesses to you over to the beasts' (Ps. 73: 19) and, in another passage, 'Rebuke the wild beasts of the reed' (Ps. 67: 31). Our adversary the devil goes about like a roaring lion (cf. 1 Pet. 5:

8). When he perceived that the chief city of Asia was snatched from his jaws to the teaching of Paul he gathered all the armies of his attendants and attempted to suppress him and, exalting himself beyond measure, he wanted to set that nest of his on high like an eagle (cf. Jer. 49: 16). The apostle perceived this and protected his heart with all care

(he would not, to be sure, be ignorant of the devil's cunning) and said after the victory, but not a victory without bloodshed, 'For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of our tribulation which occurred in Asia, since we were oppressed beyond measure beyond our strength so that we were weary even of living' (2 Cor. 1: 8).

The fact that the epistle is sent by Tychicus also accords very well with the mysteries of the same epistle. The title of the ninth Psalm, 'For the hidden things of the Son', was also written in advance about these mysteries. Tychicus means 'silent', that is, one who does not throw pearls before swine nor give what is holy to dogs (cf. Matt. 7: 6), but openly says to God, 'I have hidden your words in my heart that I might not sin against you' (Ps.

118: 11). 1

1 Although I have not placed any of this prologue in italics, it is likely that Jerome has followed Origen in the subject matter, at least, of the prologue. See above, Introd. §3.4 and esp. §3.4.3. end p.202

Origen Jerome Eph. 4: 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and blasphemy be Eph. 4: 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and blasphemy be

removed from you, along with all evil. removed from you with all evil.

'Bitterness' is the opposite of sweetness, whence people are designated bitter and sweet by the multitude. Jeremiah also speaks of this when he says, 'And your bitterness ascended to me' (Isa. 37: 29). 3

3 Note that Origen had ascribed this saying to Jeremiah (p. 204).

But wrath is anger in its initial stage when it begins to boil with indignation in the soul. Anger, however, of which bitterness and wrath are species, is that which, once wrath has been extinguished, desires revenge and wants to injure the person whom it supposes to have done the harm. Although these, indeed, are often referred to God in accordance with the saying, 'Lord, do not rebuke me in your wrath nor chastise me in your anger' (Ps.

37: 2), they are not to be reckoned to be disturbances of soul as they are in us because in him all things are regulated and orderly. The punishments by which sinners are corrected are designated with our terminology. But if we are angry we are disturbed and, ravaged by wrath, we cease to be ourselves. For this reason all bitterness, wrath, and anger are to be removed from us completely.

Furthermore, 'without cause' has been added in vain to that statement of the Gospel, 'Whoever shall be angry with his brother without cause will be liable to judgement' (Matt. 5: 22), because it has not been granted to us to be angry with cause, since the apostle says very clearly now, 'Let bitterness and wrath and anger be removed from 637 you', and the thirty-sixth Psalm removes all agitation of the soul in general, 'Cease from anger and leave wrath' (Ps. 36: 8). If anger desires revenge and all revenge wishes to store up evil for the one thought

Some have thought that anger is the generic passion and have ordered it under the genus of desire and defined anger as follows, 'Anger is a desire for vengeance on one thought to have wronged you undeservedly.'2

And after describing many forms of anger, they classify 'bitterness' as one form and say that it is anger 4 4 SVF iii.96.3f.

that is difficult to accept or has immediately burst forth 5 5 SVF iii.96.18, 40.

(and they say that the 'difficult to accept' has been taken in the sense that it is not readily accepted by people in general). 'Wrath', however, is anger in its initial stage. 6

6 SVF iii.96.15f., 38.

responsible for the injury, and if a Christian ought not repay evil for evil but overcome evil with good (Rom. 12: 17,

21), and if 'Revenge is mine, I will repay, says the Lord' (Rom. 12: 19), then everyone who is angry sins since 'the anger of man does not work the justice of God' (James 1: 20).

Scripture, however, in many places seems to know a distinction between wrath and anger as in the statement, 'Do not rebuke me in your wrath, Lord, nor chastise me in your anger' (Ps. 37: 2). We will not define God 's rebuking wrath and the wrath which must 'be removed from' us in a similar manner nor say that the chastising anger of the Lord is like our own anger. These remarks are made figuratively of God but those made of us refer, admittedly, to passions and sins.

After 'bitterness, wrath, and anger', 'clamour and blasphemy' are also properly forbidden in us because once one has been overcome with wrath he necessarily breaks forth in clamour and, raging confusedly, flutters hither and thither like a leaf and says, 'O the unfairness of things!' 'How unjust are God 's judgements!' and other things which those who have lost their rational discernment through the rage of indignation usually say.

'Blasphemy', moreover, is not only open and born of anger but is also produced without anger whenever, with calm mind, someone makes a pretext of the government of this world and says, 'That ought not to be so, but this ought to be so.' Or perhaps someone who belongs to the Church and believes in God wavers in significant doctrines, holding, for example, an opinion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which is not true, or does not believe in the resurrection of the dead as the Scriptures

The mention of 'bitterness' is found also in Jeremiah, for he says, 'And your bitterness ascended to me' (Isa. 37: 29).

teach, or perhaps emulates foreign wisdom and says that one who belongs to the catholic faith holds false views.

Again, one who says the sweet is bitter and the bitter sweet (Isa. 5:

20) declares the catholic to be heretical for the flattery to which he yields himself. For this reason we must read the Scriptures with all zeal and meditate on the law of the Lord day and night (Ps. 1: 2), that as approved money-changers we may know what coin is genuine and what counterfeit.

I think, therefore, that the apostle uses 'bitterness' now just as we say that some are bitter in opposition to sweet,7 for ordinary language also knows people to be sweet and bitter. Wrath becomes anger which is arising against someone in the soul, but anger may not be the genus of these and related things, but may be that which is ready and active in relation to the 'vengeance on the one who is believed to have wronged you'.8

Furthermore, let us remove 'bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, and blasphemy from us' so that 'they may be removed with all evil'. 'Evil', moreover is to be understood either as the opposite to virtue, which we designate with the other term 'vice', or as 'wickedness' and 'vileness', which is experienced in subterfuge and cunning.

Since 'clamour' usually follows these passions, when those who are embittered, wrathful, and angry shout and speak tumultuously and utter words of bitterness, wrath, and anger, we must, therefore, train ourselves that 'clamour may be removed from' us along with the former

passions.

The 'blasphemy' which he here commands 'to be removed from' us is, in my opinion, that which springs from the passions when people are angry and often dare to attack even the divine in their anger, taking up every accusation against anyone at all in the blasphemy. For those who speak abusively are said to blaspheme those against whom they speak abusively. [Wherefore], subsequent to the passions of bitterness, wrath, anger, and clamour, it is said that 'blasphemy' too must be put aside.

If, however, we apply blasphemy also to every utterance spoken abusively of the divine, when people speak slanderously not only from grief and wrath in times of distress but also often in ignorance of the true doctrine, as is clear from the doctrines of the heterodox, then one who declares the true doctrine false or the false true also blasphemes, especially when it is a question of God and the acts of God. Who, then, is

an 'approved money-changer' and knows how 'to prove all things' and 'to hold fast the good but to abstain from every form of evil'

(1 Thess. 5: 21-2)? 9

9 Cf. on Eph 4: 25a above.

Since some think that anger sometimes occurs with good

end p.203 end p.204 reason because they improperly add to the Gospel the word 'without cause' in the saying,

'Whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement' (Matt. 5: 22)—for some have read, 'Whoever is angry with his brother without cause'—let us convince them of their error from the statement under discussion which says, 'Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and blasphemy be removed from you.' For the term 'all' here clearly applies to all the nouns in common, so that no bitterness end p.205 is allowed, no wrath is permitted, and no anger occurs with good reason. It is said in the thirty-sixth Psalm, since all anger is sin (and likewise also wrath), 'Cease from anger, and leave wrath' (Ps. 36: 8). It is never possible, therefore, to be angry with someone with good reason.

And not only must we strive that all bitterness, all wrath, all anger, and all blasphemy be removed from us, but these 'along with all evil'. We understand 'evil' to mean either the state opposite to virtue or wickedness.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 4: 32 But be kind to one another, merciful, giving to yourselves as also God has given to you in Christ.

Eph. 4: 32 But be good to one another, compassionate, showing favour to ourselves just as also God has shown favour to us in Christ.

We said above that the opposite to bitterness is sweetness, which the apostle has now designated with the other word, χρηστ We said that sweet is opposite to bitter. 10

10 See above on Eph. 4: 31.

Paul, however, seems now to say metaphorically, on the basis of foods, that the contrary to bitterness is goodness, so that we can understand the command, 'Be good to one another', as if he had said, 'Some are affable, sweet, and τητα, that is 'pleasantness' rather 638 than 'kindness'. He admonishes us, when all bitterness and wrath, anger, clamour, blasphemy, and violent emotion have been condemned along with a stern brow, to be gentle and pleasant, spontaneously attracting people

gentle in disposition'. to our friendship so that no one fears to approach us. This friendship is formed especially on the basis of mercy.

And this occurs if we put aside what is cruel, unmerciful, and unsympathetic concerning our neighbour and become 'compassionate' to all people and show favour through them not only to our neighbours but also to ourselves in the greatest things.

['Showing favour'] to ourselves differs from 'showing favour to one another' because all our welldoing in showing kindness to others, because of its goal and because we are 'of the same body'

(Eph. 3: 6), has reference to us rather than to those whom we think we have benefited. And we show favour to ourselves in respect to all the things concerning which 'God also has shown favour to us in Christ'. It is as if, once we accept these favours we observe and imitate the one who shows favour and the manner of his showing favour.

Nor after we aid others do we ourselves cease to have what we have given, for there follows the words, 'giving to yourselves'. What one does that is good for another is restored in greater quantity to the person who gave the aid than what was given to the other. He who is compassionate to the poor will himself be filled (Prov. 14: 21), and he who gives to him has lent to God (Prov. 19: 17).

Or perhaps we should take it to mean that because we are pleasant and 'merciful' and have left behind the disturbances which were bothering us and passed over to gentleness and moderation it is granted to us ourselves and 'given', once we have changed from evil people to good, that we also give these very things to ourselves which God the Father has given us in Christ. For if we have laid aside vices and follow virtues (now all the virtues, namely wisdom, truth, justice, gentleness, and the rest, are But someone else, who thinks the phrase 'showing favour to ourselves' is no different from 'showing favour to one another', will think it is equivalent to 'showing favour to one another', especially because of the clause, 'Just as God has shown favour to us in Christ'. And this person will refer these words to the forgiveness of sins and say that we must 'forgive those who sin against us, as also' God 'has forgiven us our sins' (cf. Matt. 6:

12 ff.). But how has God shown favour to us 'in Christ' in relation to our sins? Or is it that the Father, being in Christ, 'has forgiven us our trespasses'? But 'he has shown favour to us in Christ' also in respect to good things, since indeed wisdom is in Christ, and he has shown favour to us in wisdom, truth, and justice. understood in relation to Christ), when we shall have possessed these virtues we may also procure these very virtues for ourselves by our zeal with the result that we possess the virtues which 'God has given to us in Christ'.

But another will take the words, 'giving to yourselves' in a simpler manner so that, as was said above, 'But be pleasant among one another', so also now it is said, 'giving to yourselves', because it means, 'giving to yourselves among one another, so that as God in Christ has forgiven us' our sins, so also we should remit the sins of those who have sinned against us. And to prove that the remission of sins is called a gift in the Scriptures he will use

end p.206 that which is written in Luke where one man owed five hundred denarii to a creditor and another owed fifty. The creditor pardoned each man's debt. He who had been questioned by the Saviour replied that the man to end p.207 whom more has been given feels more gratitude (Luke 7: 41-7). It is also said in the Lord's prayer, 'Forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors' (Matt. 6: 12).

But 'God has given to us in Christ', not being positioned outside him, but dwelling in him because the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father. Nor is he less in whom it is given than him who gives in himself, for the apostle also 639 says, 'And I, if I have given you anything it is in the person of Christ' and of God (2 Cor. 2: 10).

Eph. 5: 1 Therefore, be Imitators as God as Dear Children.

One who understands the meaning of the words, 'Be perfect as your heavenly Father also is perfect' (Matt. 5: 48), will know the meaning of the present words, 'Be imitators of God'. Indeed, writing to the Corinthians Paul says, 'Be imitators of me as I also am of Christ' (1 Cor. 11: 1). They could not immediately become imitators of Christ. It was a great thing for them if they could be imitators of an imitator. But to the Ephesians, as if he were addressing those to whom he had already taught great mysteries, he does not say,

'Be imitators of me', or 'imitators of Christ', but 'imitators of God'. It is not that being an imitator of Christ is less than being an imitator of God (since Christ is God), but that it is one thing to imitate him in a human way and another in a divine way. For even if we have

previously known Christ according to the flesh, we now no longer know him according to the flesh (2 Cor. 5: 16). The Saviour himself also says, showing the lowliness of his required situation, 'Whatever he has seen the Father doing, the Son does these same things likewise' (John 5: 19). It is not that the Father made one thing heaven and another earth and that Christ has made one thing heaven and another earth and the other elements in their likeness, but that whatever the Father works, the Son does the same.

But because we are capable of becoming like God he testified above and said, 'Giving to yourselves as also God in Christ has given to you' (Eph. 4: 32). I do not think that a person can imitate God in other things and do whatever God does but, just as he is kind and sends rain on the good and evil etc., for example, so we too pour forth our goodness on all persons. When we have done this we will be 'beloved sons' either of Paul himself or, what I think is better, of God. end p.208

Eph. 5: 2 and Walk in Love as also Christ has Loved us and Delivered Himself for us an Oblation and Sacrifice with a Sweet Odour to God.

One who struggles against sin for the salvation of others to the point of shedding his blood (Heb. 12: 4) and, as a consequence, also delivers his life for them is walking in love and imitating Christ who loved us so much that he endured the cross for the salvation of all (Heb. 12: 2). For just as Christ delivered himself for us, so that person, too, can deliver himself for those for whom he freely dies. In this he will imitate him who delivered himself to the Father as an oblation and sacrifice 640 with a sweet odour and will himself also become an oblation and sacrifice with a sweet odour to God.

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 3-4 And let not fornication and any uncleanness or covetousness be mentioned among you, as is fitting for saints, and obscenity and foolish or vulgar speech, which is not proper, but rather thanksgiving.

Eph. 5: 3-4 But let not fornication and uncleanness or covetousness be named among you as befits saints, and obscenity and foolish speech or vulgarity which is to no purpose, but rather the giving of thanks.

If it were not for a certain Cynic philosopher who has taught that no stimulation of the flesh and release of semen resulting from rubbing and touching of whatever kind is to be avoided at the proper time and several sages of the world who have agreed with this filthy and shameful heresy, the holy apostle would never, when writing to the Ephesians, have connected to 'fornication' also 'all uncleanness' and have joined 'covetousness' to 'uncleanness', not meaning the Sexual intercourse with a prostitute is designated 'fornication' in the custom of Scripture. But every sin of physical stimulation related to this subject, not only concerning adulteries and corruptions of boys but also concerning all the others human disregard for sexual restraints has contrived in aberrations of every kind, has been given the general name 'uncleanness'. And one must include 'covetousness',

covetousness in which we desire to accumulate money but that of which we spoke above, 'That one not transgress and, being covetous, defraud his brother in this matter' (1 Thess. 4: 6). Because, of course, man is insatiable and unsatisfied, he runs to and fro for the sake of every sort of filthiness and lewdness. either in general, or in the sense of adultery, as we have shown it sometimes means in other places when we used the exhortation that 'each man not transgress and covet his brother' (1 Thess. 4: 4, 6). 11

11 See above on Eph. 4: 17-19.

'As befits saints', he says.

Consequently, no one can be called a saint who is discovered in any uncleanness and covetousness of pleasures which seduce him, not to mention fornication. But if anyone thinks 'covetousness' is not to be taken in that sense in which we have taken it, let him explain why Paul has placed 'covetousness' with excessive frequency right in the middle of fornication, uncleanness, filthiness, foolish speech, and vulgarity.

And one must be on guard against all 'uncleanness' since this 'is fitting for saints'.

Furthermore, in my opinion 'foolish speech' applies not only to those who tell dirty stories to make people laugh and, by feigning foolishness, cause more amusement for those whom they want to please, but also to those who are thought to be the sages of the world and who argue about matters of natural philosophy and say that they have clearly comprehended the sands of the seashores, the drops of the ocean, the space of the heavens, and the point of the earth. There is also 'foolish speech' in the Church whenever someone, deceived by the word of Isaiah (whom he has not understood (cf. Isa. 6: 1-3)), imagines the sky to be a curved

There is an 'obscenity' in relation to each form of disregard for sexual restraints. In a similar manner indeed, 'obscenity' is also 'uncleanness', for each action related to the subject of sexual activity exhibits both what is unclean and what is obscene. One must make these remarks in the case of actions contrary to nature, not in the case of marriage.

vault and thinks there is a throne in the heavens with God sitting on it, like an emperor and judge, with angels standing around it who obey his words of command and are sent off with diverse duties.

But because 'vulgarity' follows 'foolish speech', 'foolish speech' should be applied rather to foolish and senseless fables.

There is this difference, however, between 'foolish speech' and 641 'vulgarity'. 'Foolish speech' contains nothing sensible and worthy of the human heart.

'Vulgarity', on the other hand, descends from a knowing mind.

There is a certain kind of vulgarity, which we can designate with the term 'jocularity', which deliberately attempts to provoke laughter in the hearers with words which are witty and clownish or obscene and facetious. But this too is to be cast forth completely by holy men for whom weeping and mourning are more appropriate as we also read in the Hebrew Gospel that the Lord says to his disciples, 'You shall never be cheerful except when you look at your brother with love.'

And let us also see what 'foolish speech' is which also must 'not be mentioned among the saints'.

Someone who has taken the word literally will say that 'foolish speech' is that practised by clowns and jesters. But see if one must not say that all, whoever they be, who have been alienated from wisdom and understanding, utter foolish speech and are foolish in the doctrines they teach.

'Vulgar speech', however, which is appended, will appear to agree with the literal understanding of 'foolish speech'.

The ordinary usage of common people applies this not only to those who make them laugh by 'foolish speech' but by any means whatsoever.

He seems thus far to have introduced nothing beyond the plan, logic, and sequence of the order. But someone may raise a question concerning what follows and stands at the end, 'But rather the giving

And this, too, 'is not proper among the saints', 'but rather thankfulness' to God in all things, that is to say, 'thankfulness' in the sense in which we say that certain people are gracious and refined.

We must not, then, be foolish and vulgar in speech but gracious and refined. And since it is not customary to say, 'but rather graciousness (ε α)', perhaps in place of this he used the word found elsewhere and said, 'but rather thankfulness (ε χαριτ

α)'.12 And perhaps it is the custom of the Hebrews to use the word 'thankfulness'

α) and 'thankful'

ριστος) in place of 'graciousness' (ε χ

ας and 'gracious' (ε χαριτ

του). But we have considered it to be such as also is said in Proverbs, 'A thankful (ε χαρ

ριστος) woman awakens glory for her husband'

(11: 16) in place of a gracious (ε χ

ριτος) woman. And we would appear to distort the meaning by understanding ε χ

ριστος to be used for 'a gracious woman' instead of ε χ

ριτος, did not the other versions agree with this interpretation. For Aquila translated as follows, 'A gracious (χ χ

ριτος) woman helps the glory', and Theodotion and Symmachus, 'A gracious (χ

ριτος) woman will help the glory'.

end p.209 end p.210 previous | next

end p.211 of thanks', and ask, 'What does "the giving of thanks" mean after fornication has been prohibited along with uncleanness, lewdness, filthiness, foolish speech, and vulgarity?' If he was once free to propose any virtue whatsoever, he could have said, 'But rather justice,

truth, love'. Moreover, as this latter phrase does not follow logically, so also those former words could be without logical connection and, by the same freedom, have no order.

Perhaps, then, 'the giving of thanks' has not been mentioned in this passage in the sense that we give thanks to God but in the sense that we are designated grateful or gracious and salty among people. It is not fitting that a Christian be a babbler and a jester. But it is fitting that a Christian's speech be seasoned with salt (Col. 4: 6) that it may have grace with those who hear it (Eph. 4: 29). And because it is not customary, except among the learned who say ε α with the Greeks in distinction from thanksgiving, that is 'to be gracious' and 'to give thanks', I think that the apostle, a Hebrew of the Hebrews as it were, used the common word and wanted to define its sense with the meaning of another word, especially since 'gracious' and 'giving thanks' are expressed with one word, as they say, by the Hebrews. This, I think, is why the following statement occurs in the Proverbs, γυν χαριστ

642 δ ξαν, 'A grateful woman awakens glory for her husband' (Prov. 11: 16) because she is 'gracious'. We might appear to deal violently with Scripture and audaciously take a woman 'who gives thanks' for 'gracious' were it not that the other versions agree with our opinion. For Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus have translated, γυν ε χ ριστος γε ρει νδρ

ριστος, which pertains to the giving of thanks. end p.212 ριτος, that is 'a gracious woman' and not ε χ χ

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 5 For know this, that no fornicator or unclear person or covetous person, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Eph. 5: 5 For know this, that no fornicator or impure or covetous person, that is one who serves idols, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

It is to be noted that although six vices were prohibited above, namely 'fornication, uncleanness, covetousness, obscenity, foolish speech, and vulgarity', he has now put forth only three, 'fornication, uncleanness, and covetousness'. One who is liable to these three vices cannot have 'an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God'. For if the babbler and jester were thus unsuitable for the kingdom of God, as the three whom he has specifically severed, it would appear to be a cruel judgement not to excuse the weakness of human fragility when our words might condemn us even on account of a joke.

For one who does not slip in We must note that, although he has forbidden six sins, fornication, uncleanness, covetousness, obscenity, foolish speech, and vulgar speech, he does not add in relation to the six that one entangled in any of them 'does not have an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God', but in relation to three, that is, fornication, all uncleanness, and covetousness. For if the person guilty of foolish and vulgar speech also 'had no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God', this might appear rather cruel to someone as a judgement which

makes no allowance at all for our weak nature. At all events, these things are not 'proper' but committing them does not result in one falling from 'the inheritance of Christ and of God'. speech is perfect (James 3: 2). It is not, however, that by making these comments we would give occasion for foolish speech and vulgarity since they are not excluded from the kingdom, but because there are different mansions with the Father and star differs from star in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead.

Although someone may be a stranger to fornication, uncleanness, and lewdness, nevertheless, if he were a babbler and jester he will not possess that place which he would have possessed had he been free of this vice.

Someone may respond, Grant that 'foolish speech and vulgarity' may not carry the same guilt that 'fornication, uncleanness, and covetousness' carry, but ought he not also to name obscenity with the above three? One must say to this that 'obscenity' here refers to a secret thought when our feeling is inflamed to lust and our soul, ignited by the stimulations of the flesh, is set on fire but is, nevertheless, restrained by the fear of God and the sound judgement of our mind. Furthermore, he mentioned the three above equally without 'obscenity',

643 saying, 'But let not fornication and all uncleanness and covetousness be named among you.' Then 'obscenity' is numbered with 'foolish speech and vulgarity'. Just as 'foolish speech and vulgarity' are not utterly lost and excluded from the kingdom forever, so is it also with 'obscenity' understood in this way.

It remains also to say something about obscenity. You might think, then, that it would be reasonable to say, 'No fornicator or unclean person or covetous person' or obscene person 'has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God'. But perhaps there is obscenity in a person who has been defiled passively in secret alone and, although he has been inflamed, he has restrained the urge for fornication or uncleanness. After he has separately named those sins mentioned above which prevent having 'an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God', he says, 'let them not be mentioned among you'. Then, in their own place and distinguished from the former sins, he subjoined obscenity and foolish and vulgar speech.

And since we considered But because in our discussions above

we took the following words in a different way, 'Nor let him transgress and, being covetous, defraud his brother in this matter' (1 Thess. 4: 6) and said that 'covetousness' was used for adultery, we ask whether the present statement, 'Or a covetous person, that is one who serves idols', agrees with that interpretation or with the common one. We have found idolatry to be called fornication in many passages in the prophets. 'They were committing fornication', it says, 'after their idols' (1 Chron. 5: 25; Ezek. 20: 30), and 'They were led astray by the spirit of fornication'

(Hos. 4: 12). Fornication can, covetousness to have been applied to adultery in the sins above, let us ask whether the phrase, 'or a covetous person which is an idolator', overthrows that interpretation or, if it is still possible. In many passages of the prophets we have found idolatry designated fornication in the phrase, 'They committed fornication after' their idols (1 Chron. 5: 25; Ezek. 20: 30; etc.).

One can also apply fornication to idolatry from the saying, 'They went astray in the spirit of fornication' (Hos. 4: 12). And if a 'covetous person' should be someone who procures money for himself from a forbidden source, covetousness is called idolatry as if those who love money serve the idols engraved on the silver coins.

It is as if they also love the idols imprinted on the coins along with the coins themselves. I think the love of money is also designated idolatry somewhere by the apostle.

end p.213 end p.214 therefore, be understood in relation to idolatry. But if he is understood as covetous who, seeking to accumulate money in any way whatsoever, longs to have coins by right and wrong and is seduced by a full purse, that person is an idolater in that he worships the engraving of the coin itself and venerates the images concealed on them. Just as the belly is the god of consumers (Phil. 3: 19) so also money can most appropriately be said to be the god of the desirous, especially since the apostle calls desire idolatry in another passage (Col. 3: 5).

In addition to these matters we should consider what he wanted to declare when he said,

'in the kingdom of Christ and of God'. Is there one kingdom of Christ and another of God or is it the same kingdom of the Father and the Son? And if he had indeed said, 'In the kingdom of the Son and the Father', we would come to the Father through the Son and even though there is a diversity of persons, nevertheless there is one majesty of those who rule. But now, since he has said, 'In the kingdom of Christ and of God', we understand

God himself and Christ, because also when he shall have delivered the kingdom to God and the Father, the Father will not be all in all, but 'God will be all in all' (1 Cor. 15: 28).

But where God is, there the Father can be understood, as also the Son. Furthermore, let us also suppose the same thing of the Holy Spirit that we say of the Father and the Son.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is for this reason that the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.

Eph. 5: 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words for it is for this reason that the wrath of God comes on the sons of disbelief. 13

13 Jerome's comments suggest that he understood θεια in this sense rather than in the more usual sense of 'disobedience'. For the meaning s.v. πε

θεια in W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th edn., trs. W. F.

Arndt and F. W. Gingrich (Cambridge/Chicago, 1957).

Words which deceive and overthrow are empty and vacuous.

But 644 words which build up the hearers are full, complete, and dense. Because, therefore, those who speak are many, the punishments for their sins are not future, nor are their torments to be employed from without, but the sin itself which takes possession of one 14 14 I have taken the final quod possidet in the sentence with peccatum because peccatum is the only neuter singular antecedent in the sentence, except for corde which seems to me to make less sense as the antecedent. and the consciousness of the offence are for punishment so long as the worm does not die in the heart and the fire is kindled in the soul (Isa. 66: 24; Mark 9: 43) like a fever which does not torture the sick person from without but punishes by taking possession of the bodies themselves without an application of tortures from without.

He seems to declare 'words' to be 'empty' which want, by their persuasiveness, to overturn the word concerning the punishments which are coming on those who have lived an evil life. He says that such words belong to deceit and are empty, therefore, 'the' so-called 'wrath of God is' assuredly 'coming on the sons of disobedience'.

Therefore, he has called these opinions And he calls the disobedient

'sons of disobedience', as if evil becomes their mother in disobedience and, once they are born, they possess the character, as it were, of their mother. And thus it is possible to find in many passages of Scripture sons and 'children of fornication', sons of death, 'sons of hell' and others similar to these.

end p.215 and fraudulent snares, which appear to contain a certain embellishment of speech and to flatter sinners, 'empty' and vacuous 'words'. Although they make much of faith, they lead rather to eternal punishments. God is thus angry on the basis of no actual deed; it is as if he is angry because the sinner is proud and, elevated and inflexible, is not overcome with weeping nor requests mercy for his sin. For it is 'for this reason that the wrath of God comes on the sons of disbelief', or of those who lack the capacity to be persuaded, for απε

θεια can be understood to have more to do with 'persuasion' than with 'faith'. Moreover they are said to be 'sons' of the incapacity to be persuaded or 'disbelief', like the 'sons of perdition', and 'sons of fornication', and 'sons of death', and 'sons of Gehenna' and other similar expressions which can be found very easily in various passages of Scripture. end p.216

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 7

Therefore, do not become fellow participants with them.

Eph. 5: 7 Therefore, be not fellow companions with them.

You will observe the expression 'companion' and 'fellow companion'. Perhaps 'companion' is preferable speech and 'fellow One becomes a participant or 'fellow participant' with the 'sons

companion' less preferable as in the statement, 'For this reason God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions' (Ps. 44: 8) and, 'For we have become companions of Christ, if indeed we hold the beginning of the substance firm till the end' (Heb. 3: 14). I do not recall the term 'fellow companion' used elsewhere outside the present passage but it is obvious here that 'fellow companion' is less preferable. 15

15 Gregg notes that Origen has overlooked the appearance of the word in Eph. 3: 6. Note, however, that Origen's comments on this passage are not preserved in the catena fragments, so that we cannot be sure what his text read there.

of disbelief' if one is found 'in fornication and uncleanness and covetousness for which reason the wrath of God comes on the sons of disbelief'. And one is a participant with them because one participates and has communion with evil works but one is called a 'fellow participant' if one is a participant with others.

'Participant' is also understood in 'fellow participant', but 'fellow participant' is not immediately understood in 'participant'. Note carefully the word 'fellow

participant' and 'participant'. For I think that in Scripture 'participant' is always understood in a good sense and 'fellow participant' in a bad. For example, 'For this reason God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your participants' (Ps. 44: 8), and in another passage, 'For we have been made participants of Christ if moreover we hold the beginning of the substance firm to the 645 end' (Heb. 3:

14). Furthermore, I do not recall that I have read the term 'fellow participant' outside the present passage. Nevertheless, it is clear that here it has not been used in a good sense, but in the contrary sense. end p.217

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 8a For you were once darkness, but now are light in the Lord.

Eph. 5: 8a For once you were darkness but now you are light in the Lord.

If darkness can be turned into light, there is no nature which perishes and is incapable of receiving salvation as some of the heretics say. Let us ask those people, therefore, who make up those stories whether all the impious are darkness or whether some of them, although they were called darkness because of evil, have turned to better things and are now called 'light in the Lord'.

If it is possible for the 'once darkness' to change and become 'light', then they are not perishing natures.

Moreover, just as the just are the light of the world, so the impious are consequently called darkness. And the just, indeed, since they are light, 'will see light in light' (Ps. 35: 10), but the unjust, since they are darkness, are people who sit in darkness and see nothing (Matt. 4:

16; Isa. 9: 1). We understand the difference and distance between them from their fruits, for everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light. He is dark and is a son of the night and of darkness. But one who does the truth and comes to the light is light and a son of light and of day (John 3:

20-1). Moreover those who are light or dark are known by either the light or darkness of their heart.

And in the same way that the just are the 'light of the world'

(Matt. 5: 14), so the impious would be said to be darkness. And the just, on the one hand, being light, 'will see light in light' (Ps. 35:

10) but the unjust, being darkness, are 'people sitting in darkness'

(Matt. 4: 16; Luke 1: 79; cf. Isa. 9:

1) seeing nothing.

And 'from their fruits we will know' (Matt. 7: 16, 20) those who are light or darkness, 'for everyone who does evil hates the light and', by not coming 'to the light', is darkness and a son of darkness and night. 'But everyone who does the truth' comes 'to the light' and is light and a son of light and day (John 3: 20-1).

You may inquire in addition to these matters whether it may be because of a distinction between those who are light but not light in the Lord that it is said of the just, 'but now you are light in the Lord'. It is also properly written to the Furthermore, consider if it is

not said of the just, 'but now are light in the Lord' because some are lights but not 'in the Lord'. It is especially fitting that the phrase 'but now are light in the Lord' is addressed to the Ephesians who have been enlightened with the light of knowledge.

end p.218

Ephesians who had ascended to the height of knowledge that they are 'light in the Lord'.

Neither, however, is the darkness itself turned into light nor the light changed into darkness. If these, who on the basis of what they are deserve the name either of virtue or vice, have been converted from one to the other, μως (by the same name) with these things by which they are possessed they receive the designation either of darkness or of light. μων

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 8b Walk as children of light.

Eph. 5: 8b Walk as children of light.

If 'God is light and there is no darkness in him' (1 John 1: 5), children of God are

'children of light'. And also, if Christ is the true light, his children also If 'God is light and there is no darkness at all in him' (1 John 1:

5), the children of God are 'children of light'.

to whom he says, 'My little children, yet a little while I am with you', are children of the true light. It follows from this that the same ones who are children of Christ Jesus are children of God the Father.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 9 For the fruit of the light is in all goodness and justice and truth.

Eph. 5: 9 For the fruit of the light is in all goodness and justice and truth.

Let us bring this testimony forward against Marcion (who separates the just God from the good and thinks the Creator is just 646 but that another, I know not who, is alone the good God, whose son is that Christ who comes) since 'the fruit of light' is not only 'in goodness' but also 'in justice and truth'.

Where there is goodness, therefore, there is also justice, and where justice, These words are useful against those who separate the just from the good and think the Creator is just but that there is a good God above him, since 'the fruit of the light' is in 'goodness and justice and truth'. Where goodness is, therefore, there is justice, and where truth is there is justice. If goodness and truth are with the

there, it follows, is also truth. There is 'goodness and truth', therefore, with the good Father of Christ, as they themselves also acknowledge.

But where there is 'goodness and truth', good Father, then justice is also with him and not with another.

Consider these words also from the standpoint that Christ is 'justice' (1 Cor. 1: 30). end p.219 with this same one and not with another, there is 'justice', as the apostle now teaches.

Let Marcion also understand that Christ himself is called 'goodness, truth, and justice'

(cf. Eph. 4: 21; John 14: 6; 1 Cor. 1: 30): 'goodness' in that he gives grace to those who believe in him not in accordance to their works but according to his mercy, 'justice' in that he gives to each one what he deserves, and 'truth' since he alone knows the causes of all creatures and things.

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 10 Proving what is pleasing to the Lord.

Eph. 5: 10 Proving what is pleasing to God.

All things are to be done with deliberation so that, cautious and careful like the most experienced moneychangers who test an engraved coin not only with the eye but also by its weight and ring, we may do those things alone which we know are pleasing to God.

But because the coherence of the language in this passage appears to be disordered and to gush forth with its total thought, the discussion should be restored in the following order: Therefore, do not become fellow participants with them, proving what is pleasing to God, for although you were once darkness but are now light in the Lord, walk as children of light, exhibiting the fruits of the light in all

It is necessary to do all things with deliberation so that, when we have carefully examined each thing to be done as 'approved money-changers',16 we may accept 'the things that are approved' and 'pleasing to God' on the basis of our scrutiny and throw off the things that are unapproved and displeasing to him.

goodness, justice, and truth.

Since the words of the phrase have been detached, it seems good to me to restore them as follows:

'Be not fellow companions with them, therefore, proving what is pleasing to the Lord.' Although 'you once were darkness but now' are 'light in the Lord, walk as children of light', exhibiting the 'fruits of the light in all goodness and justice and truth'.

Eph. 5: 11a And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.

Eph. 5: 11a And do not share in the unfruitful works of darkness.

He applies the name of fruit to the Spirit but work to the flesh also in the epistle to the Galatians, 'But the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication' etc., 'but the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace' etc. (Gal. 5: 22). Furthermore, in the present situation he has designated them 'the unfruitful works of darkness' in which those who do them share in communion.

In other passages, too, he has applied the term 'fruit' to the Spirit and the term 'work' to the flesh when he said, 'But the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication', etc., 'but the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace' etc.

(Gal. 5: 19, 22). Now, however, he says that 'the works of darkness', with which one who does these things 'has fellowship', are 'unfruitful'.

Eph. 5: 11b But rather reprove them.

Eph. 5: 11b But rather reprove them.

It is extremely bold that reproving sinners can also belong to the commandments. But only he can do this We must consider 'reproving' also to be among the commandments.

For this reason the person who will do this would not be one who

who does not deserve to hear, "Yποκριτ would hear the words, 'Hypocrite, first cast the beam out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to cast the mote out of your brother 's eye' (Matt. 7: 5). For this reason the prophets, too, being by no means liable to reproaches, reproved sinners.

(Hypocrite), first cast the beam out of your own eye and then you will be able to cast the mote out of your brother 's eye' (Matt. 7: 5). It was because the prophets were polluted by no filth of sins nor did they possess 647 a seared conscience, that they were able to reprove others who were transgressing. It is to be observed from this that he can reprove who himself is not proved guilty in himself.

end p.220

Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 12 For the things done by them in secret are shameful even to mention.

Eph. 5: 12 For it is shameful even to mention the things which are done in secret by them.

To whom does 'them' refer? He has by no means clearly mentioned 'them' previously unless, perhaps, one should refer the word back to 'the sons of disobedience', so that it means that 'the things done in secret by' the sons of disobedience 'are shameful even to mention', which were 'fornication' and 'uncleanness'.

The discussion does not seem to me to cohere (so that what is now said, 'for the things which are done in secret by them', depends on the words above and it can be known to whom in particular it is to be referred), unless perhaps a very profound hyperbaton is rendered and it is joined to 'the sons of disbelief' so that it can mean,

'For the things which are done in secret by the sons of disbelief are shameful even to mention, which are fornication, all uncleanness and covetousness.

end p.221

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 13-14 But all things reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything made manigest is light. Whereas he Eph. 5: 13-14a But all things which have been reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything which is made

says, 'Awake, o sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.' manifest is light.

'All things' refers, without doubt, to 'those things which are done in secret by the sons of disbelief', for these things 'which have been reproved are made manifest by the light'. Now the light has reproved those things which 'previously were darkness and afterwards have been made light in the Lord', so that because they are reproached they may be changed to the better and, having been changed, they may be made manifest openly and disclosed as light because 'everything which is made manifest is light'.

Because the works of darkness 'which are reproved' 'are made manifest by the light' when the things which are reproved change into 'light', he says to those who are asleep and dead because they have done 'the unfruitful works of darkness', 'Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.'

But someone will ask who is speaking in the words, 'Wherefore he says, Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead.' One will say, then, that the apostle has recorded here words which he read in one of the prophets. But another will say that the apostle himself is dramatizing words spoken by the Spirit for an exhortation to repentance.

Eph. 5: 14b Wherefore he says, Awake you who sleep and arise from the dead and Christ will illuminate you, or Christ will rise like the sun on you.

And you will ask further, how the same person is addressed, first as if he is alive and sleeping, 'Awake, O sleeper', and then, as if he is dead, 'Arise from the dead.'

Perhaps, then, since there is both a 'spirit of man which is in him'

(1 Cor. 2: 11), which we have observed refers to the better part of man, but there is also the soul, a second part of man, which is

Because the works of darkness which have been reproved are made manifest by the light in the light, when the things which have been reproved have been changed it is said to those sleeping and dead because they have done the works of darkness, 'Awake you who sleep and arise from the dead.'

receptive of sickness and death from sins, 'Awake, O sleeper', is said because of the spirit but, 'Arise from the dead', is said because of the soul, since 'the soul which sins shall die' (Ezek. 18: 20).

We have found the death of the spirit mentioned nowhere.

Someone may ask, 'Who is it who says, "Awake you who sleep and arise from the dead"?' or, 'Whose testimony has the apostle used?' One who is content with a simple answer will say that he has brought these words forth for public knowledge which were in the hidden prophets and in those which are called

And Christ, the 'true light'

(John 1: 9), 'will shine' on the one awakening from sleep and arising from the dead. κρυφα (apocrypha) (since it is clear that he has done this in other passages). This does not mean that he completely approved of the apocrypha, for he also used the verses 648 of Aratus, Epimenides, and Menander to verify at the appropriate time π

end p.222 those things which he wished. Paul's testimony that these latter said some things correctly does not mean that everything which Aratus, Epimenides, and Menander wrote is holy.

Another, however, will say that the apostle fashioned these words for an exhortation to repentance as if it were a προσωποποι αν (dramatization) of the Holy Spirit.

I, to be sure, have never found this statement while carefully sifting, in my poverty of understanding, through all the versions of the old Scriptures including the volumes of the Hebrews. Or should we, perhaps, say that just as the prophets used to say, when contending with the people, 'Thus says the Lord', and 'Since the Lord has spoken', so also the apostle, filled with the Holy Spirit, suddenly interrupted the words which Christ was speaking in him and said, 'Thus says the Lord'?

Likewise, we must discuss how it is said to one and the same person, as if he were living,

'Awake, you who sleep', and as if he were dead, 'Arise from the dead.' Because, therefore, a human being has a spirit which, we recall, is always referred to the good part, and a soul of whose sicknesses and deaths from sins we read, the present words, 'Awake you who sleep', are referred to the spirit and those which follow, 'Arise from the dead', end p.223

are applied to the soul. For 'the soul which sins shall die' (Ezek. 18: 20), but nowhere at all have we read of the death of the spirit. 'Christ', therefore, the true 'light' will 'rise like the sun' on him who has awakened from sleep and arisen from the dead.

I know that I have heard someone preaching about this passage in church. As a theatrical marvel he presented a model never before seen by the people so that it was pleasing. He said of this testimony, that it is said that Adam was buried at Calvary where the Lord was crucified.17 The place was called Calvary [i.e. skull], therefore, because the head of the ancient man was buried there. At the time when the Lord was crucified, therefore, he was hanging over Adam's grave and this prophecy was 649 fulfilled which says, 'Awake',

Adam, 'who are asleep and arise from the dead', and not as we read, πιφα σει σοι

Xριστ σει, that is, 'Christ will touch you'. That was because, of course, by the touch of his blood and hanging body

Adam would be made alive and would arise. That type was also truly fulfilled at the time the dead Elisha awakened the dead (4 Kgs. 4: 32-5). Whether these things are true or not I leave to the reader's decision. They were certainly pleasing at the time they were spoken among the people who received them with applause and by stamping their feet. I mention one thing which I know: that understanding does not fit with the interpretation and coherence of this passage. ς, that is, 'Christ will rise like the sun on you', but πιψα

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 15-17 Consider carefully, then, how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, redeeming the time because the days are evil. For this reason do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Eph. 5: 15 See, therefore, how carefully you walk, not as unwise but as wise.

'He who proves what is pleasing to the Lord' in each thing which he says, does, and thinks will also be able to 'consider carefully' from his great diligence 'how he walks', and he who considers carefully how he walks is by all means 'wise'. And since some have very good intentions and wish to consider carefully how they walk but are not wise, he has added, 'Not as unwise but as wise'.

Now 'considering carefully' and morals are a work of wisdom.

It is properly said to the Ephesians that they should walk carefully, seeing that they have their senses exercised to discern good and evil and, proving all things, they were retaining that which they had determined to be good (Heb. 5:

14; 1 Thess. 5: 21).

'Redeeming the time because He, moreover, who sees how he

the days are evil.' walks and how carefully he directs his step lest he strike his foot against a stone (Ps. 90: 12) and says, 'Your word is a lamp to my feet, Lord' (Ps. 118: 105), is undoubtedly wise. I do not think any της (uneducated person), even if he should wish to walk carefully, can fulfil this precept because it is commanded to the wise and not to the unwise. From this we understand the moral precepts also, which many think are clear because it is said in the eighteenth Psalm, 'The commandment of the Lord is lucid, illuminating the eyes' (Ps. 18: 9), to be in need of wise and carefully considered exposition because that lucid precept illuminates the eyes of those who have left foolish things behind and have given themselves to the study of wisdom. δι

It is as if we buy 'the time' for ourselves which possesses 'evil days' in relation to human life.

When, therefore, we use up the time for something needful we have purchased it and bought it for ourselves with the money received as if it were sold for the evil of men. No one, however, who lives in the manner of the world and is involved in its thoughts and concerns has bought 'the time' for himself, but only one who uses it for something necessary and for the acquisition of the blessed life.

Eph. 5: 16 Redeeming the time because the days are evil.

But 'when we redeem the time' which is 'in evil days', it is as if we transform the evil days into good and make them the good days, as it were, of the 'age to come' (Gal.

He who is wise and, therefore, walks carefully, redeems the time.

But he redeems the time because 'the days are evil'. Whenever we consume time in a good work we buy it

and make our own what has been sold by the malice of humanity. But no one seeking the necessary things of this life and thinking about riches and cares, 1: 4; Heb. 6: 5) for us and not the 'evil' days 'of the present age'.

end p.224 which the Gospel calls thorns (Matt. 13: 22), can redeem the time for himself. Moreover, when we 'redeem the time' which is in evil days, we change it, to a certain degree, and turn the evil days into good and make them days not of the present age but of the future.

650 This passage can also be explained in another manner. O you Ephesians, on whom

Christ the sun of justice has risen because you have risen from the sleep of this age, walk carefully and prudently and, having end p.225 cast off foolishness, hold to wisdom by which you can avoid being altered with the variety of times and can cause the diversity of times to be one time for you. Because there are so many persecutions (indeed, when the faith was new the churches were harassed almost daily), hold to the one course and know that you are to preserve this. Do not be changed like the moon, as the foolish are, but hold to what you once began with a firm mind. Consequently, if you see a judge who is a persecutor you are not to be changed by the will of the judge, nor again, if another appears who praises your teaching should you, on his account, confess to be Christians. Rather, preserve what you are at all times. 18

18 This application of the verse to persecutions is more likely to have come from Origen than from Jerome.

Let us cite an example from the Scriptures so that what we are saying may be clearer.

Joseph's one intention was to please God. No difference in the times changed this, not the jealousy of his brothers, not the condition of slavery, not the inducements of his age, not the promises of his mistress, not the squalor of prison, nor after this the excitement of the power of Egypt. His intention always continued the same and, as we said, redeeming the variety of the times for himself, he turned the evil days into good. This same thing can be understood also of Job because when he was harassed by various temptations he was not changed, whether the temptations came from riches, losses, bereavement, calamity, the reproach of friends, solitude, or, after this, the restitution of all his good things. He redeemed the time for himself and made the evil days good.

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 17 For this reason do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Eph. 5: 17 For this reason do not be foolish, but understand what the will of God is.

Why should you 'not be foolish', other than 'to Because the time is evil and, as we said above, is to be redeemed, wisdom must first be sought so

consider carefully how you walk, not as unwise but as wise'? For if you will be foolish, you will walk neither carefully nor as wise. that it may enable us to understand 'what the will of God is'. We cannot walk carefully unless the will of God has been understood previously. In every work, therefore, one must first consider what God wills and, when a decision has been made, one must then do what one has confirmed to be pleasing to him. 20

20 This resembles the statement concerning 'action' in the catena fragment on this verse. It must be noted, however, that Gregg thought the style of this catena fragment to be that of Severian rather than Origen.

He attaches to these words the command to examine 'the will of the Lord', and to 'understand' it, so that where they grasp something concerning action they should do it as the 'will of the Lord', and where they suffer they should bear it as occurring in the will of the Lord.19

Eph. 5: 18 And be not drunk with wine, in which is debauchery, but be filled with the spirit.

Eph. 5: 18 And do not be drunk with wine, in which is wantonness, but be filled with the Spirit.

On the one hand, Just as we cannot serve two lords,

these words can be understood literally, since there is 'debauchery' in the use of 'wine' which causes 'drunkenness'. But on the other hand, 'wine in which there is debauchery' can also be understood of what is said in the great song, 'Their wine is the wrath of dragons and the incurable wrath of asps' (Deut. 32:

33). All who have lost their wits and are drunken drink this disposition which contains much 'debauchery'.

God and mammon, so we cannot be filled with the Spirit and with wine at the same time. One who is filled with the Spirit possesses wisdom, meekness, 651 shame, and purity, but one who is filled with wine possesses foolishess, rage, shamelessness, and lust. I consider 'wantonness' to express this in one word. If certain persons had understood this, they would never have accused me of rashness and heresy because I said in 'The Preservation of Virginity' that wine is to be avoided by the young, and oil is not to be thrown on the flames nor the natural heat of the flesh to be increased by the stimulations of pleasure (Jer. Ep.

22.8.1-2).

On the contrary, 'one who has been filled with the Spirit' and who receives all things containing the divine is understood in contradistinction to that 'wine which causes drunkenness in which there is debauchery'. We have frequently observed the noun 'spirit' written without qualification because

But 'wine in which there is wantonness' can also be taken in the sense of that which is said in the song of Moses, 'Their wine is the rage of dragons and the incurable rage of asps' (Deut.

it is used of the better part of a human being, which is also indicated in this case. end p.226 end p.227

32: 33). All who are drunk with the thought of this age drink this wine and are insane and vomit and fall headlong and, in accordance with the fable of the Lapithae and Centaurs, suffer mutual destruction (cf. Homer, Od. 21.295-304). That wine which the the Lord promised that he will drink with us in his kingdom is the opposite to this wine (Matt. 26:

29).

We have frequently noted the word 'Spirit' without any addition used in a good sense. 21

21 Note that Jerome uses Origen's first person expression.

This seems, indeed, also to be the case in the present text.

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.

Eph. 5: 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts.

The 'hymns' proclaim the power and divinity of God. One skilled in speaking of God would be engaged in 'spiritual hymns'. But perhaps one who thinks about things to be done and things in which one must take action through our physical instrument, like a psaltery, is engaged in 'spiritual psalms'. One, however, who inquires into the nature of the order of the cosmos and the other created things is engaged in 'spiritual songs'. One must also 'sing' in relation to the study of natural phenomena and 'make melody to the Lord' in relation to the discussion of morals, being genuinely well disposed to what is said, for this is to 'make melody and sing in the heart to the Lord'.

One who has abstained from the drunkenness of wine in which there is wantonness, and in place of this has been filled with the Spirit, can take all things spiritually as 'psalms, hymns, and songs'.

We learn most fully in the Psalter what the difference is between a psalm, a hymn, and a song. Now, however, briefly, that is to be designated a hymn which proclaims the power and majesty of God and always expresses wonder at his benefits or deeds. All psalms, however, contain the term 'Alleluia' either at the beginning or appended. Psalms, moreover, properly pertain to an ethical topic so that we may know what we should do and what we should avoid with the instrument of the body. But the keen disputant who investigates higher subjects and explains the harmony of the universe and the order

end p.228 and concord of all creatures sings a spiritual song. Or perhaps, to say what we wish more clearly for the sake of the simple, a psalm has reference to the body and a song to the mind. We ought, therefore, to sing and make melody and praise 652 the Lord more with our soul than with our voice. This is indeed what is meant by 'singing and making melody to the Lord in your hearts'.

Let the young hear these words. Let those hear them who have the duty of making melody in the Church. One should sing to God with the heart, not with the voice, nor should the throat and pharynx be rinsed with sweet medicine in the manner of the tragic actors so that theatrical rhythms and songs are heard in the Church. Let them, rather, be rinsed with fear, work, and knowledge of the Scriptures. Although someone may be κακ

φωνος (ill-sounding), as others are accustomed to saying, if he has good works, he is a sweet singer with God. Let the servant of Christ sing in such a way that it is not the voice of the singer but the words which are sung which are pleasing, that the evil spirit which was in Saul may be cast out of those whom he has possessed in like manner to Saul and not be introduced into those who make a public theatre of the house of God.

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 20 Always giving thanks to God and the Father for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph. 5: 20 Giving thanks always to God and the Father for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He has written something similar to this in the first epistle to the Thessalonians:

'Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all things' (1 Thess. 5:

He says in the first epistle to the Thessalonians, 'Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks' (1 Thess.

16-18). That person alone can keep this precept who knows that the five sparrows which are sold for two pence and not one of them has fallen into the snare without the Father's will are guided by the providence of God (Luke 12: 6).

5: 16-18). One who has thought about the anticipated providential care will take note of this command also in relation to the words, 'Five sparrows are sold for two farthings, not one' of which 'falls into a trap without the Father in heaven' (Luke 12: 6; Matt. 10:

29).

Furthermore, the words 'giving thanks', 'always', and 'for all things' are to be considered in two ways. First, we should return thanks to God at all times and for all things which befall us.

Second, our joyful mind should burst forth in laudation of God, not only for things which we think are good but also for those which constrain us and come contrary to our will. We should say of the latter, 'Naked I came forth from my mothers's womb and naked I shall return . . . as it has pleased the Lord so has it happened, let the name of the Lord be blessed' (Job. 1: 21).

This is what it means to give thanks 'in everything' and to give thanks 'for all things'. One must, therefore, also give thanks for adverse circumstances, since they too belong to those things for which one must give thanks. And just as one who is in the world must give thanks by participating in the world and contemplating its beauty and beholding the multitude and variety of things which have occurred on account of reason, so also must one give thanks for those things which are incomplete.

This giving of thanks is observed among the wise both in general and in particular. In general, we should give thanks to God because the sun rises on us, the day runs its course, the night is changed to rest, the darkness is moderated by the brightness of the moon, the seasons are altered and return by the rising and

But one who gives thanks 'to God and the Father' must give thanks in the 'mediator of God and man' (1 Tim. 2: 5), so that to give thanks to 'God and the Father' we do it 'in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ'.

end p.229 setting of the stars, the rains serve us, the earth brings forth, the elements attend us, such a great variety of animals have been given to us for carrying, working, eating, clothing, or 653 to be an example or a wonder. Finally, we should give thanks in general because we have been born, because we exist, because we bear the management in the world as if it were the house of a very powerful head of a household and we understand that everything in the world has been produced for our sake. We give thanks in particular when we

rejoice in the benefits of God which have befallen us. But the Gentile also does this, as does the Jew, the publican, and the heathen. It is the special virtue of Christians to return thanks to the Creator also in those things which are thought to be adverse: if one's house has fallen to the ground, if a dearly loved wife and children have been snatched away either by captivity, poison, or shipwreck, if our wealth has been confiscated, if innumerable illnesses have broken our health and the miserable infirmity of gout is all we can anticipate. Those who think themselves to be holier are accustomed to thank God that they have been freed from dangers or from miseries. But according to the apostle the greatest virtue is that we give thanks to God in the dangers and miseries themselves and always say, 'Blessed be God. I know that I am end p.230 suffering things that are less than what I deserve. These sufferings are insignificant compared to my sins. Nothing which I deserve has been inflicted on me.' This is the soul of the Christian. This person takes up his cross and follows the Saviour (Matt. 10: 38).

Neither bereavement nor losses debilitate such a person of whom it can be said, as Flaccus says in his lyric poem, 'If heaven should break and fall, its ruins would strike him undaunted' (Horace, Carm. 3.3.7-8).

But one who, as we said, 'gives thanks to God and the Father in' the mediator between God and man, gives thanks 'in Christ Jesus' because we are not able to approach the Father except through him.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 21 Subjected to one another in the fear of Christ.

Eph. 5: 21 Being subject, he says, to one another in the fear of Christ.

This completely destroys all desire to rule and be first. The following command has been given to all, 'For although I am free from all I enslaved myself to all that I might gain all' (1 Cor. 9: 19). The command which says, 'Be slaves to one another' (Gal. 5: 13), also prescribes this. Wherefore, the apostles 'were slaves' to the churches 'because of love' (Gal. 5:

13), ministering and being servants for the salvation of humanity. Even the Saviour assumed 'the form of a slave'

(Phil. 2: 7) for no other reason than to be a slave to the disciples.

Consequently, he once 'put water in a basin' to wash 'the feet of the disciples' (John 13: 5). Furthermore, Let the bishops hear these words, let the presbyters hear them, let every order of teachers hear them, that they be subjected to those who are subjected to themselves and imitate the apostle who says, 'For although I was free from all I made myself a servant to all that I might gain all' (1 Cor. 9: 19), and in another passage, 'Serve one another through love'

(Gal. 5: 13). This is why he himself also served all the churches of the Gentiles with the same love. Our Saviour also took the form of a servant that he might serve his disciples and wash their feet (Phil. 2: 7; John 13: 5). This is the difference between the rulers of the Gentiles and of Christians.

The former dominate their subjects but we serve, and we are

greater in this service if we shall be least of all (Matt. 20: 25-7). one who has understood the statement, 'He who wishes to be great among you shall be the slave of all' (Matt. 20: 26-7), 'will be subject' to serve those whom it is necessary to serve.

It is possible, however, that although one who serves performs the appropriate services for those he serves he may seem not to be subject, when those being served, in addition to being ignorant of what is fitting, command those who wish to serve them to do things for them which are inappropriate. But even then he who acts for his advantage and serves is also subject to the need of the person whom he serves because of the serene 'fear' which produces happiness in accordance with the word of God.

For I think this is revealed by the phrase, 'in the fear of Christ'.

But the words, 'in the fear of Christ', are also to be understood so that the subjection itself does not occur for the sake of human 654 glory but because of the fear of Christ, since we fear to offend him.

But another will interpret 'subjected to one another in the fear of Christ' in such a way that he says this general notion is divided and distributed in the words which follow: 'Let wives be subject to their husbands' and, 'Children, obey your parents' and, 'Servants, obey your masters in the flesh with fear and trembling'

(Eph. 5: 22; 6: 1, 5), so that not only is a wife subject to her husband, and children to their parents, and servants to their masters, but also husbands are to be subject to their wives according

end p.231

to the duty which is commanded, and fathers to children so that they do not provoke them to wrath, and masters to servants that they may abstain from threats and offer them the necessary things of life which they possess (Eph. 5: 25; 6: 4, 9). They should be subject to one another and do this from 'the fear of Christ' so that as he was subject to his servants, so also these who appear to be greater may be subject to those lesser than themselves by rendering the duties which are commanded.

We can also take 'fear' here from ε βεια, that is reverence, which is nearer to love. For it is by no means appropriate for the Ephesians that they should do something from the fear of, and not the love of, Christ. end p.232 λ

Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 22-3a Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord since the husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the Church.

Eph. 5: 22-3 Let the wives be subject to their own husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is head of the wife as also Christ is head of the Church.

This teaching wishes the whole married state of husband and wife to be a symbol of Christ and the Church. The husband, if he regulates the matters of marriage in accordance with reason, imitates Christ, the bridegroom of the Church. The wife, if she lives with her husband in wedlock as she ought, as the Church, is zealous (if I may speak this way) for the companionship with Christ. For as the 'husband' will be 'head of the wife', likewise then also is 'Christ of the Church'. If, however, husband and wife were not united with one another in this manner, it would not be said in the case of these that this one here 'is head of the wife as also Christ of the Church'. Let each husband, therefore, aspire to relate to his wife as Christ relates to the Church, and each wife to relate to her husband as the Church relates to Christ. And let the husband think on and do all the things of

The verb 'let them be subject' which has been added in the Latin copies is not contained in the Greek codices since the phrase is referred back to the words above, 'Subjected to one another in the fear of Christ', and the verb is understood so that it expresses

(in common) the idea, 'and wives subjected to their husbands . . . as to the Lord'. But this is better understood in Greek than in Latin. As, therefore, the Church is subject to Christ so let the wife be subject to her husband. A husband and wife are bound to the same order in respect to pre-eminence and subjection which Christ and the Church have.

Christ, and the wife those of the Church.

It is to be observed that as the union is holy between Christ and the Church so also the bond should be holy in the case of a husband and wife. Moreover, just as no congregation of heretics can be said to be the Church of Christ nor is Christ their head, so not every married woman can properly be called a wife

but may rather be an adulteress because she has not been united with her husband in accordance with the precepts of Christ. But otherwise the wife is subject to her husband as to the Lord because she turns to end p.233 him 22 22 Ad ipsum conversio eius est appears to be a translation of the Septuagint's πρ ς τ ν

σου (Gen. 3: 16, cf. 4: 7). and he shall rule over her (Gen. 3: 16 LXX), for Sara also called Abraham lord (1 Pet. 3:

6). This voluntary servitude will be much greater than a will which has been subjected.

By its obedience it begins to be equal to, no rather to reduce to 655 servitude, the one who rules it.

Some interpret this passage anagogically (secundum νδρα ποστροφ

ν) so that they say that the wife is to be understood by the body and the husband by the soul. And just as the Church is subject to Christ, so the body ought to be subjected to the understanding and reduced to one spirit if it has been joined to the Lord. 'For he who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit' (1

Cor. 6: 17).

Eph. 5: 23b He Himself as Saviour of the Body.

Because the nature of the Church is denser than and inferior to the substance of Christ I think it has been named the body of Christ of which body Christ Jesus, that is the Word,

Wisdom, and the other virtues by which the Son of God is understood, is the Saviour.

Search very carefully to see if you can find the term 'flesh' used for the Church anywhere in the divine volumes. If indeed the Church is nowhere designated 'the flesh' but only 'the body' of Christ, it is clear, furthermore, that whatever is flesh is consequently also body, but whatever is body is not consequently also flesh. ναγωγ

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 24 But as the Church is subject to Christ, so also should the wives be to their husbands in everything.

Eph. 5: 24 But as the Church is subject to Christ so also let wives be to their husbands in all things.

If 'the wives' must 'be subject to their husbands as the Church is subject to Christ', it will be necessary that the wives be subject to their husbands living in a holy, passionless, and sinless manner, just as 'the Church is subject to Christ', living in a holy, passionless, and sinless manner.

The Church of Christ 'is glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing' (Eph. 5: 27). One, therefore, who is a sinner and stained with any filth cannot be declared to belong to the Church of Christ nor be said to be subject to Christ. It is possible, however, that as the Church which first had

end p.234 wrinkle and spot has afterwards been restored in its youth and purity, so also a sinner may run to the physician (for the healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick (Luke 5: 31)) and his wounds may be healed and he may become a member of the Church which is the body of Christ.

Speaking rather tastefully and circumspectly to the Ephesians he says, 'As the Church is subject to Christ so also let' wives 'be to their husbands'. For if a wife is to be subject to her husband as the Church is to Christ, the union between the husband and wife will be holy. They will never be subject to the passions of the body. But if someone should oppose us with the instructions to the Corinthians, that a husband should render his debt to his wife and a wife to her husband, let him take note of the fact that there is a great distance between the Corinthians and the Ephesians. To the Corinthians, among whom were dissensions and schisms (1 Cor. 1: 11; 3: 3) and it was heard that there was fornication such as not even the Gentiles practised (1 Cor. 5: 1), he writes as if to little children and sucklings. It is for this reason that he concedes to them that after prayer they return to 'the same thing' (1 Cor. 7: 5) so that they are not tempted by Satan. Even there, however, he says in the following words that he is excusing them not in accordance with his will but as a 656 συγκατ βασις (concession) (1 Cor. 7: 6-7). The Ephesians, on the other hand, with whom he spent three years and to whom he revealed all the mysteries of Christ (Acts 20: 31; Eph. 3: 9), are instructed otherwise. Each of us has the free power of will to follow either the Corinthians or the Ephesians and to be saved either by the servitude of the Corinthians or by the freedom of the Ephesians. 'Woe', the Saviour says,

'to those who are pregnant and giving suck on that day' (Matt. 24: 19), that is the day of judgement. These are especially the works of marriage in the proper sense. Let us, therefore, strive with all our strength to emulate the Ephesians rather than the Corinthians. And let us not be caught in the flood, as it were, while buying and selling, marrying and joining in marriage, but with our loins girded let us hold our lamps in our hands (Luke 17: 26-8; 12: 35).

Eph. 5: 25-7 Husbands Love Your Wives as Christ also Loved the Church and Gave Himself Up for It That He Might Sanctify It, Purifying It by the Washing of Water in the Word, That He Might Present It to Himself a Glorious Church not Having Spot or Wrinkle or Anything of This Kind, But That It Might be Holy and Unstained.

Although a husband and wife are held by their love for each other (as the wife of Hasdrubal is remembered who, when her husband had been end p.235

captured, cast herself into the fire in her fatherland, and other wives who did not wish to live after the death of their husbands), a wise man will never compare that love to the love between Christ and the Church. This love, therefore, is to be understood to be holy.

It is the love with which Isaac loved his wife Rebecca, whose name means 'patience'. 23

23 See Origen, Hom. 1-16 in Gen. 10.2.

She led him from the land of Mesopotamia, which is surrounded on every side by the floods of this age, into that land of promise that he might be comforted for the death of his mother. Christ has tempered the death, indeed, of the synagogue by his union with the Church.

When we say these things we give opportunity to the heretics, who think all marriages without exception are to be repudiated and make use of this testimony especially. I must respond to them briefly that it is passions, uncleanness, and wantonness between husband and wife that are here forbidden by the apostle, not a holy union. Otherwise, if he was prohibiting marital union altogether why did he need to say 'your wives' when he could have said, 'Men, love women or wives'? For the word 'your', strictly speaking, signifies marriage. This is indicated again in the words which follow, 'Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies', and it is even clearer in the words, 'He who loves his wife loves himself, for no one ever hates his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it', because according to the edict of the ancient law and its repetition in the Gospel, 657 a husband and wife are made one flesh (Gen. 2: 24; Matt. 19: 4-5). In the marriage of the free, as we have said, the works have disappeared. 24

24 Cf. on Eph. 5: 24 above.

Moreover, the pleasures which are enjoyed from the embraces of prostitutes are condemned in a wife. When I say this let every husband and wife understand that after conception they should devote themselves to praying rather than to sexual union. And let what the law of nature itself has prescribed among animals and beasts, for the pregnant not to copulate up to the time of birth, be recognized among humans by their free will so that there may be a reward for abstinence from pleasures.

But because we have said that, tropologically, husbands are souls and wives bodies, so let the soul love the body as Christ the Church, that 'he might give himself up for her salvation and sanctify her by the word of doctrine, that he might present her to himself not having spot or any wrinkle of age', especially since he knows that she is to be saved in the resurrection and to see the salvation of God (Luke 3: 6). Such a man has Christ as his head and, when he shall have become one flesh with his wife, and humbles himself for the salvation of her flesh and draws her back to the spirit then, joined with the Lord, he ceases to be flesh. end p.236

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 27 That he might present the Church to himself glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it might be holy and blameless.

And because it was said of marriage, he has also beautifully drawn 'spot and wrinkle' from the example of women for the beauty of the Church. For just as warts are usually despised on the bodies of women, or wrinkles diminished or freckles altered, and women exert all their effort to remove blemishes and to appear lovely to their husbands, so also souls are to be cleansed of all the filth of sins so that the wrinkles of the old man are stretched out by youth and renewed into a new man from day to day.

'Spots', for example, are moles which appear on the body. There are black spots, leprous spots, and warts. A wife would be more beautiful if these were removed.

And let things analogous to these be considered to appear also on the soul. Only the Logos can remove these, 'that he might present' his own bride 'to himself', he says, 'not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and blameless'.

'Wrinkles' are a sign of old age.

If someone thus has traces 'of the old man' remaining, who is not always 'being renewed' (Col. 3:

9-10), this person would be said to be wrinkled in his soul.

Eph. 5: 28a So also men ought to love their wives as their own bodies.

It has also been written in Genesis in the person of Adam speaking, 'This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' (Gen. 2: 23).

The same thing is affirmed in the Gospel when the Lord afterwards says, 'He who created them from the beginning made them male

and female and said: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and they two shall be in one flesh' (Matt. 19: 4-5). Since, therefore, a man and woman are 658 one flesh, we must care for our wives as for our own bodies. No one, moreover, loves his own body in a shameful way or loves himself on account of sexual intercourse, but cherishes and nourishes his body as if it were a vessel of his soul so that the vessel might not be broken and that which was contained flow out and burst forth.

In fact, a woman also possesses this difference in respect to a man which the body has in respect to the soul in the literal sense inasmuch as a woman is devoted to birth and children. If, however, she should wish to be devoted to Christ more than to the world, she will cease to be woman end p.237 and be said to be man, because we all desire to attain to the perfect man (Eph. 4: 13). But if we also take this tropologically we will love our body and the senses of the body, which are, to be sure, of a lower rank than the soul, but are the means by which our bodies may pass over to the understanding of the good practices and virtues of discipline.

Eph. 5: 28b-9 He Who Loves His Wife Loves Himself, for No One Has Ever Hated His

Own Flesh, But Nourishes and Cherishes It, as Christ Does the Church.

So far as it pertains to the simple understanding, holy love has been commanded between husband and wife, and now we are ordered to 'nourish and cherish our wives' that, of course, we may provide for them sustenance, clothing, and those things which are necessary. 25

25 Jerome claims this first statement to be his own view (Append. B, 29).

But we can object that the judgement of the apostle is not true when he says, 'No one ever hated his own Flesh', since those suffering with leprosy, tuberculosis, 26

26 I take pthisi to be the Greek φθ σις. cancer, and catarrhs prefer death to life and hate their own bodies.

Therefore, let the saying rather be referred to the tropological understanding and let us say 27 27 See Apol. 1. 28 (Append. B, 28) where Jerome identifies the words from here to the end of his comments on 5: 28b-29 as a quotation from Origen's Commentary on Ephesians. that the soul loves, nourishes, and cherishes that Flesh which will see the salvation of God, educating it with disciplines, fattening it with the heavenly bread, and supplying it with the blood of Christ to drink so that, renewed and with the look of health, it can follow its husband with free course and be unencumbered by weakness or burden.

Excellently furthermore, in the likeness of Christ nourishing and cherishing the Church and saying to Jerusalem, 'How often did I wish to gather your children as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing' (Matt. 23: 37), souls also cherish their bodies so that this corruptible may put on incorruption (1 Cor. 15: 53) and, suspended 659 on the lightness of wings, may be lifted more easily into the air.

Therefore, let us husbands cherish our wives and let our souls cherish our bodies so that wives may be brought into the rank of men and bodies into the rank of souls. And may there be no diversity of the sexes at all, but as there is no man and woman among the angels, so also let us, who will be like angels, even now begin to be that which has been promised to us in the heavens. end p.238

Eph. 5: 30 Since We Are Members of His Body.

Because we are 'members of the body of Christ' and 'Christ nourishes and cherishes the Church', therefore, we also nourish and cherish our flesh which no one ever hates. We are members of the body of Christ, however, not according to the nature of his eternal divinity but in accordance with that which he considered it worthy to assume as a human.

Although the man himself, also, who was assumed had the nature of our body, he did not have our origin, for we were coagulated from human seed but he was born of the Holy

Spirit.

It can also be said otherwise that since the body of Christ is the Church and the Church is gathered from all who believe, Paul and the Ephesians are members of his body, that is of the Church of Christ.

Origen Jerome Eph. 5: 31 On this account a man shall leave his father and Eph. 5: 31 For this reason a man shall leave father and

mother and the two shall become one flesh. mother and the two shall be in one flesh.

We show here what we have often observed, namely that the apostles and evangelists do not use the same words in the copies of the Old Testament which are contained in our own volumes since this particular testimony is written as follows in Genesis, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall be in one flesh' (Gen. 2: 24). But now the apostle has put We must observe, just as we have also done in other passages, that often those who write the New Testament do not quote the Old Testament word for word. This stands written as follows in Genesis, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' (Gen. 2: 24). Here, however, Paul has written 'on this account' instead of 'for this reason'. He has also failed to mention 'his' after both 'father' and 'mother'. Moreover, he has omitted the words, 'he shall be joined to his wife'. του (that is: for this reason) for the ντ το

του which appears there. This latter cannot be expressed in different words in Latin. Then he has removed the pronouns with 'his father and his mother' and has put only 'father and mother', and he has

completely omitted, 'And shall cleave to his wife', which is said in the middle and he has joined only the saying which follows it and put, 'And the two shall end p.239 be in one flesh'. We have taken note of all this now, therefore, so that we should by no means rush immediately to the absurdities and 660 nonsense of the apocrypha in other passages where testimonies, as it were, of the prophets and of the Old Testament have also been used by the apostles but are not found in our codices. We should know that these things have been written in the Old Testament indeed, but the apostles have not related them as they were written, but have rather used their sense. Furthermore, it is not easy to discover where they have been written, except for the learned.

He has taken Adam and Eve, therefore, as an example for an exhortation to mutual affection between a wife and husband. Just as a rib is taken from Adam and is built into a wife and the wife herself again is brought back into the one flesh of the husband, because he who loves his wife loves himself (Eph. 5: 28), so also let us love our wives.

But this same example is interpreted allegorically in Christ and the Church, so that Adam prefigures Christ and Eve the Church. 28

28 The Church historian, Socrates, connected this interpretation with Origen (HE 3. 7).

See above, Introd. §4.3.1.

For 'the last Adam has been made into a life-giving spirit' (1 Cor. 15: 45). And just as the whole human race is born from Adam and his wife, so the whole multitude of believers has been produced from Christ and the Church. This multitude, which has been made the one body of the Church, is again placed in the side of Christ and the place of the rib is filled up and the one body of a man is formed, as the Lord himself requests it in the

Gospel, 'Father, grant that as I and you are one so also they may be one in us' (John 17:

21).

Let us ask Marcion with what consequence that passage which is used from the old document can be interpreted in relation to Christ and the Church since, according to him, the Old Scripture does not pertain to Christ at all.

Eph. 5: 32 This is a Great Mystery, But I Speak in Regard to Christ and the Church.

It is not, as many think, that the whole story which has been written of Adam and Eve in Genesis can readily be related to Christ and the Church, but only what stands in the present passage, namely, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall be in one flesh.' For Adam, the first man and the first prophet, prophesied of Christ and the Church that our Lord and Saviour would leave his Father God and his mother the heavenly Jerusalem (Gal. 4: 26) and come to earth for the sake end p.240 of his body the Church, 29 29 This identification of Christ's father and mother derives from Origen. See Comm. in Matt. 10-17, 14, 17 and above, Introd. §4.3.1. and he would form her from his own side, and it was for her sake that the Word became

Flesh (John 1: 14).

Because all mysteries are not equal, but one is greater and another is lesser, he now says, therefore, 'This is a great mystery.' There is, at the same time, an indication of his humility when he concludes, 'But I speak 661 in regard to Christ and the Church'.

Gregory Nazianzus, a very eloquent man and especially well-informed in the Scriptures, used to say, when he discussed this passage with me, 'Notice that the mystery of this section is so great that when the apostle interprets it in regard to Christ and the Church, he does not declare that he has expressed it in a manner demanded by the dignity of the testimony, but says, as it were, "I know that this passage is full of ineffable mysteries and requires a divine heart in the interpreter." ' I, in accord with the insignificance of my understanding, nevertheless, think this is to be understood in regard to Christ and the Church, not that something is greater in regard to Christ and the Church, but that it is difficult to interpret everything which is said about Adam and Eve in regard to Christ and the Church.

Eph. 5: 33a Nevertheless Let Everyone of You Individually Love His Wife as Himself.

It may seem that the apostle commands the same love between husband and wife which has been commanded in respect to a neighbour, for it is written, 'Love your neighbour as yourself' (Matt. 19: 19), and now it is said, 'Let everyone love his wife as himself.' There will be, therefore, the same love for the neighbour and for the wife. But if every human being is a neighbour to a human being as the Saviour understood it (Luke 10: 36-7), then there will be no difference between love for a wife and love for any person whatsoever.

This is a very ridiculous assertion. For in the case of a neighbour a comparison is made so that you love your neighbour and desire him to be saved in the same way as you do yourself. But in the case of a wife, the adverb of comparison 'as' does not signify comparison but approval and confirmation with a certain weightiness. It is as we say of a man, 'He did it as a man', and it is written of the Saviour, 'We beheld his glory, the glory as of an only begotten' (John 1: 14), not that the Saviour himself had a glory in comparison with another 'only begotten', for he alone is the 'only begotten', and if another

should also be 'only begotten' he could not be called 'only begotten'. He did not, therefore, require the end p.241 example of another 'only begotten', but as an 'only begotten', that is himself, he possessed the glory thought fitting for an 'only begotten' to have. According to the Greeks, however, the beginning of the seventy-second Psalm expresses this same thing,

, which we have translated, 'How good God is to Israel, to the upright in heart' (Ps. 72: 1). With the Greeks, however,

ς, that is 'as', appears to signify 662 a comparison rather than to indicate the sureness of what is said, as if you should hear it not as a confirmation but as if it were an example.

At the same time it is to be noted that a husband is ordered to love his wife but a wife to fear her husband, for love is suitable for a man and fear for a woman. When he speaks of a servant, however, he mentions not only fear but he also attaches trembling, whence he says in the words which follow, 'Servants, obey your masters in the flesh with fear and trembling' (Eph. 6: 5).

Eph. 5: 33b and Let a Wife Fear Her Husband.

If fear of God because of fear of punishment does not permit one who fears to be perfect

(1 John 4: 18), how much more will a wife be imperfect who fears not only God but also her husband? For this reason we must inquire whether wife, and the fear belonging to a wife, is to be understood in a fleshly manner, since wives are frequently found who are much better than their husbands. They rule over them, manage the household, educate the children, and maintain the discipline of the family while the husbands revel and run around with harlots. I leave it to the decision of the readers whether these women ought to rule their husbands or fear them.

But if, as we said above, wife is understood allegorically in relation to the body and husband in relation to the soul, it is not unsuitable that she fear her husband as a handmaid, since she has been made for a secondary rank and with a baser substance. 'We use the rule of the soul', as Crispus says, 'more than the servitude of the body' (Sallust,

Catilina 1.2).

One, however, who follows the simple understanding of wife and husband will show that there are two meanings in the word fear. He will say that one meaning is that of which John says, 'He who fears has punishment, and he who fears is not perfect' (1 John 4: 18).

So far as this meaning is concerned, servants also have a spirit of servitude in fear (Rom.

8: 15) for which they are driven away by the Lord who says to them, 'If I am a father where is my glory? And if I am a master, where is my fear?' end p.242

(Mal. 1: 6). But there is another meaning of fear which the philosophers call ε

β εια and which we can call 'reverence', although this does not express its full significance.

The prophet, who says in the thirty-third Psalm, 'There is no want among those who fear him' (Ps. 33: 10) also knows a fear which belongs to the perfect. He who has experienced this fear is perfect. It is possible, therefore, that fear is here commanded to the wife understood in the simple sense, so that she should fear, that is reverence, her husband. λ

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for Eph. 6: 1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for

this is just. Honour your father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise, that it may be well with you, and you will live long on the land. this is just. 'Honour your father and your mother', which is the first commandment with a promise, 'that it may be well with you and you may have a long life on the earth.'

It is ambiguous whether children ought to obey in the Lord 663 their parents or, perhaps, children ought to obey their parents in the Lord. This is to be done in each case, so that we obey both those parents who have begotten us in the Lord, such as Paul and the apostles, and we do those things which they have commanded, and that we also submit, in the Lord, to our parents from whom we have been born in the flesh by fulfilling those things which are not contrary to the will of the Lord. At the same time we will also constrain those heretics who do not want the Old Testament to be from the good God whose son Christ is, because the apostle of Christ, the son of the good God, makes use of the Scripture of the Creator and infers the obedience of children from the old law.

The saying is ambiguous. It is necessary either that 'children obey their parents in the Lord', or that 'in the Lord children obey their parents'. One need not reject either of the interpretations, for one must obey 'the parents in the Lord', of the sort that Paul was to the Corinthians [and one must obey the parents according to the flesh], but 'in the Lord', when they command things not in opposition to the will of the Lord.

To obey is 'just' in each case.

The context of this testimony in Exodus is as follows, 'Honour your father and your mother that it may be well with you and you may have a long life on the land which the Lord your God will give to you' (Exod. 20: 12). Paul has omitted the final words. This is the fifth commandment in the decalogue; therefore, we must investigate why he has now said, 'Which is the first commandment'. The first commandment is, 'You shall not have foreign gods before me' (Exod. 20: 3). This is why some thus read, 'Which is the first commandment with a promise', as if the other four commandments which have preceded this one do not contain promises and this one

At the same time you will also notice in relation to the heterodox who separate the just God from the good one, that he commands the disciples of the good God, as they say, with an ordinance of the other God, as they would say. For the other, indeed, is just, but Paul says it is 'just' that children obey their parents in the Lord, or in the Lord obey their parents.

alone discloses a promise which is added, 'That it may be well with you and you may have a long life on the land which the Lord your God will give to you'.

They seem to me, however, not to have observed that a rather subtle promise is also associated with the second commandment. There it says, 'You shall not make for yourself an idol nor any likeness of those things which are in heaven above and which are in the earth below and which are in the waters under the earth; you shall not worship them and you shall not sacrifice to them, for I am your God, a jealous God, who repays the sins of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation to those who hate me and shows mercy on thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments' (Exod. 20: 4-6).

Observe that the following are words of promise, 'Showing mercy on thousands to those who love me and keep my commandments'. Perhaps, therefore, because the decalogue is given as the first law to the people departing from Egypt, each commandment of the decalogue is to be called 664 the first commandment in comparison with those precepts which have been written later in the law.

One who will attempt to maintain the exposition given above says that in the fact that Paul has separated the words, 'which is the first commandment with a promise', the command, 'Honour your father and your mother', has been given separately and afterwards the promise has been described with its own subject,

'That you may have a long life on the land which the Lord your God will give to you'. In the second commandment, however, that is, 'You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness', it is not so much that a promise has been given separately but, under one construction The saying has been taken from Exodus, where it is as follows:

'Honour your father and your mother that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the land which the Lord your God is giving to you' (Exod. 20: 12).

Here, however, the apostle has omitted 'your' after 'mother' when he quotes the text and, in place of 'and that you may live long', he has written, 'and you will live long' and, after the phrase 'on the land', he has omitted the words, 'which the Lord your God is giving to

you'. and discussion, a thought has been concluded to the praise of God 'who shows mercy on thousands to those who love him and keep his commandments'.

On the other hand, the one who argues against these that every commandment of the decalogue is a first commandment, will show that the promise containing the words, 'That you may have a long life on the land which the Lord your God shall give to you', pertains not only to those who obey their parents but also to innumerable other precepts. It will be necessary, furthermore, for this person to repeat all the commandments in which this reward and recompense is promised, 'That they may have a long life on the land which the Lord their God will give to them'. The interpreter who holds the opposite view will have to claim that this teaches that those commandments which have been cited by the opponent have preceded this commandment. If he cannot prove this he will mention in vain that this promise has been added to other precepts.

Since this is the fifth commandment of the Decalogue, we must investigate how one must understand the phrase, 'which is the first commandment', since the first commandment mentioned is, 'You shall not have other gods besides me' (Exod. 20: 3). Some, therefore, have read it as follows:

'Which is the first commandment with a promise', since the commandments before this one do not contain a promise. For they think the first promise occurs in this commandment, namely, 'that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the land which the Lord your God is giving Next, one must discuss the fact that it has not been promised in a Jewish and carnal sense that children will have a long life on the land which the Lord their

God gives them for honouring their father and mother. There have been many believers who were obedient to their parents but, nevertheless, died young, and there have been many who were impious toward their parents who have reached an extreme old age. Let the Jews and those like them reply to this question: If it is length of this life that is meant in the promises, and to remain in the body a long time is good fortune, why did the Psalmist wish the following for himself in the Psalms, 'Woe to me, because my residence has been prolonged!

I have dwelt with the inhabitants of

to you'.

Kedar' (Ps. 119: 5)? Furthermore, there is this statement of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, 'I have praised all the dead who have died in time past above the living who live to the present, 665 and better than these two is he who has not yet been born and has not seen all the evil work which is done under the sun' (Eccles. 4: 2-3). And a little later, 'If a man has begotten a hundred and has lived many years and his days be numerous and his soul filled with good things and he have no burial, I have said that an abortion is better than him because he has come in vanity and But these seem not to have noticed the promise which appears in the second commandment. For he says, 'You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor an image of anything which is in heaven above, and which is in the earth below, and which is in the waters below the earth. You shall not worship them nor serve them. For I am the Lord your God, a jealous God who repays the sins of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation for them that hate me, and who shows mercy to thousands for those who love me and keep my ordinances' (Exod.

20: 4-6). Notice that the words, 'who shows mercy to thousands for those who love me and keep my ordinances' is a promise.

Perhaps, then, since the Decalogue is said to be the first legislation for the people after the exodus from Egypt, each of the ten commandments is said to be first among the firsts of those that

follow.

One, however, who wishes to persist in the explanation of the phrase, 'which is the first commandment with a promise', will say that the promise, 'that you may live long on the land which the Lord your God is giving to you', which accompanies the commandment, 'Honour your father and your mother', is specific, whereas the promise, 'who shows mercy to thousands for those who love me and keep my ordinances', which accompanies, 'You shall not make for yourself an idol nor an image of anything', is not specific.

On the other hand, one who interprets the whole Decalogue to contain first commandments will object to this. For he will say that the long time to be 'on the land which the Lord God is giving' to the saints has been given not because of the commandment, 'Honour your father and your mother' alone, but also because of countless other commandments.

Such a person must also gather commandments to which are added the words, 'that you may live long on the land which the Lord your God is giving to you'.30

Next one must ask about the promise which is given concerning long life 'on the land which the Lord God is giving' to the saints. One must not fail to remark that the Jews think that this occurs literally. We see,

however, that this is not at all true, and the prophet also says, 'Woe to me, because my sojourning is prolonged' (Ps. 119: 5).

One must seek, then, 'the good land which the Lord God gives'

(Deut. 1: 35) in promise to the one who has left the spiritual Egypt and, with much patience and endurance, has traversed 'the vast and terrible wilderness' (Deut. 1:

19), and who has conquered 'great kings' whom the Lord 'smites', and 'mighty kings' whom the Lord destroyed (Ps. 135: 17-18).

end p.243 end p.244 end p.245 his name is covered in darkness and he has not indeed seen the sun' etc. (Eccles. 6: 3-5).

If the dead are praised above the living and, according to some who think that souls live in the heavenly places before they descend into these bodies, one who has not yet been born is said to be better than both, and if all this life is a trial and, according to Job, the death of a man is rest (Job 3: 11-13) and, according to Job and Jeremiah, the day on which we are born is accursed (Job 3: 1-3; Jer. 20: 14-15), how is it now promised to those who honour their father and mother that they will have a long life on the land which the Lord their God shall give to them?

That land, therefore, is to be sought which the Lord promises and grants to those who leave spiritual Egypt and, with all patience, cross the great and terrible desert of this life, conquer great kings whom the Lord smites, cross over into Judaea which flows with milk and honey and, under Jesus as their leader, when Jericho falls and Ai, which means

'broken', has been ravaged, come to Jerusalem and a temple is built for them under Solomon the peace-making king and possess the land which has been prepared for the meek. 'Blessed', indeed, 'are the meek, since they shall possess the land' (Matt. 5: 4) which is truly the land of the living as the Psalmist also says, 'I believe that I will see the good things of the Lord in the region of the living' (Ps. 26: 13). Wisdom will have length of this life in her right hand while holding riches and glory in her left (Prov. 3: 16).

Eph. 6: 4 and Fathers Do not Provoke Your Children to Anger, But Educate Them in the Discipline and Manner of Life of the Lord.

It is a sin for children not to obey their parents and, because parents can order something wrong, he has added 'in the Lord'. It is a sin for parents, however, to provoke small children and sucklings to 666 anger or, perhaps at present, to demand things which are harsh from adolescents and those more mature. Therefore, just as obedience and the rewards of subjection have been demonstrated among children, so parents are ordered to keep their authority within due bounds that they may know that it is their children whom

they command and not their slaves, as it were. Nor has he stopped with this limit of the precept but he adds, end p.247

'Educate them in the discipline and reproof of the Lord.' What we read as 'reproof' 31

31 Correptio, but the text Jerome quotes above for Eph. 6: 4 has conversatio. is said better in the Greek word νουθ α which signifies 'admonition and instruction' more than 'harshness'.

Let the bishops and presbyters read this who instruct their sons in secular literature and make them read comedies and sing the disgraceful works of the mimes. They have been instructed, perhaps, from the expenses of the Church. The grammar teacher and professor converts what the virgin or widow, or any poor person at all who pours forth her whole substance (cf. Mark 12: 42-4), has offered into the treasury for sin, to a quick New Year's gift, or a Saturnalian gift, or a Minervan present, or he converts it into household expenses, or donations for a temple or for disgraceful prostitutes. The priest Eli was a holy man himself but, because he did not instruct his sons in 'all discipline and reproof', he fell backwards and died (1 Kgs. 4: 18). He was not able to stretch forth 32

32 The infinitive is passive, but it is a clear allusion to Phil. 3: 13 where the verb is active in Latin. Perhaps Jerome has translated the Greek middle participle which occurs in Phil.

3: 13 with the passive. to the things which are before (Phil. 3: 13), but fell backwards and, having fallen with the incurable opisthotonos 33 33 Lewis and Short define this as 'a disease that causes a person to fall backwards'. in his back, he looked back at Sodom with Lot's wife (Gen. 19: 26). He certainly reproved his sons when he said, 'Why have you done these evil things which I hear about you from all the people? Do not do it, my sons, for it is not a good report which I hear of you' (1 Kgs. 2: 23-4). Isaiah complains of such fathers saying with tearful voice, 'And sons of foreigners have been born to them' (Hos. 5: 7).

If he has given this command to the Ephesian laity and multitudes saying that it is customary among people who are occupied in the affairs of this life to instruct their children in all discipline and admonition of the Lord, what is to be thought of the priests of whose order he writes to Timothy saying, 'Having children in obedience, with all honour' (1 Tim. 3: 4)? He impresses the same thing 667 on Titus and repeats, 'Having faithful children, not accused of wantonness and not insubordinate' (Tit. 1: 6) and, as if the vices of the children are imputed to the parents, he inserts a causal conjunction and says, 'For a bishop must be without reproach as the steward of God' (Tit. 1: 7). That bishop, therefore, is not without reproach whose son has not been subordinate and is accused of wantonness. end p.248

Eph. 6: 5-8 Servants, Be Obedient to Your Masters in the Flesh With Fear and Trembling and Simplicity of Your Heart as to Christ, not Serving to the Eye as if Pleasing Men, But as Servants of Christ Doing the Will of God from the Soul, Serving With Faithfulness as to the Lord and not to Men, Knowing That What Good Each One Does, This He Will

Receive from the Lord Whether Slave or Free.

The prophet says to Jerusalem, 'Of what sort are you that you fear a mortal man and the son of man?' (Isa. 51: 12), and Peter says in his epistle, 'Fear not their fear, but sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts' (1 Pet. 3: 14-15), and the Saviour sounds the same note, σ

'Fear not those who can kill the body and have nothing more which they may do to you, but fear him who can kill both soul and body in Gehenna' (Matt. 10: 28). Solomon also attests similar things, 'Sons, honour the Lord and you will be greatly strengthened before him, and fear no other' (cf. Prov. 7: 1). The apostle, however, appears to give conflicting commands when he says that 'servants' should obey 'their masters in the flesh with fear and trembling', and that 'a wife should fear her husband'. One who is of simpler understanding will respond to these assertions that he does not say these things to perfect servants and that he has not established 34

34 I have followed the text in PL and read constituit rather than constitui with Peri. I also assume that the initial non negates this second verb as well as the first. these precepts for those who have known the secrets of wisdom but for those who possessed the first principles of the faith and were in need of more humble doctrines. But another may assert that one who does not possess the spirit of bondage again to fear

(Rom. 8: 15) is by no means subject to this judgement that one obey one's 'masters in the flesh with fear and trembling', and this same thing will be said of the wife who is ordered to fear her husband. Furthermore, a third person will think that in this passage as also in the case of the wife, fear is used for 'reverence'. This meaning will be limited, however, because 'trembling' has been added to 'fear'. Reverence can be appropriate for a wife in order that she fear her husband in reverence, but where there is 'trembling', anxiety will not signify reverence, but 'fear'.

It was necessary to add to the term 'servants', therefore, that after 'fear' of the 'master' they should also have 'trembling'. In distinction to the spiritual Master, the master is now designated as the 'master in the flesh'. Consequently, it is not improper for any servant

668 who has believed in God and has not yet reached the peak of knowledge to serve his master in the flesh 'with fear and trembling, in simplicity of' his 'heart' and thus to end p.249 serve him faithfully 'as Christ, not serving to the eye', as those do who desire 'to please men' but that he might convert the necessity into 'will' and acquire a reward from his servitude, especially when the master of the flesh does not command things different from the Master of the spirit. For this is what he says, 'Not serving to the eye as pleasing men, but as servants of Christ doing the will of God'. But let the servant not hold faithfulness itself as something compelled, but as something voluntary and thus serve his master from his soul 'as Christ' 'from whom' the faithful servant 'will receive the reward' of his servitude no less than if he had served voluntarily as a free person.

It is to be noted at the same time that he has subjoined different things to the obedience of children and to the obedience of servants. He says to children, 'Obey your parents in the Lord', but to servants, 'Obey your masters in the flesh with fear and trembling', so that just as there is a difference in the meaning of fear between the cases of servants and wives, so also obedience differs between children and servants. And when he commands that servants be obedient to their masters he adds excellently 'as if to Christ' and again, 'as servants of Christ doing the will of God', so that, of course, the servant should not listen to his master in the flesh if he wants to command things contrary to the precepts of God.

But as he wrote back to the Corinthians, in accordance with the time (cf. 1 Cor. 7: 29), that divorces between husbands and wives ought not to occur because of faith in Christ if one of the two was not a believer (1 Cor. 7: 12-13) so, because many at the beginning of the faith thought that heathen masters were to be despised, he has now set up precepts

moderately governing their circumstances in relation to the Ephesians and the Colossians, that he might not appear to stir up the class of slaves against their masters and, again, that he by no means might teach that masters are to be heeded if they command things that are wicked and impious. end p.250

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 9 And masters do the same things to them, forgoing threatenings, knowing that their Lord and yours is in heaven and there is no respect of persons with him.

Eph. 6: 9 And masters, do the same to them.

To which of the things previously mentioned does 'the same' refer? I think that it refers to 'in singleness of heart' and to 'doing the will of God' both 'from the soul' and 'with enthusiasm' in relation to the household slaves.

What are these things which he has commanded above that he should say that the same things are to be done to the

servants? I think that they are the following things which he mentioned: 'in simplicity of heart', 'doing the will of God', 'from the soul' and 'with faithfulness' or benevolence to the servants, since ε νοια can mean either. 669 For each one will receive from the Lord what good he does, whether he has served as a servant, as was mentioned previously, or he has ruled as he ought as a free man. He ought not be dreadful and quick to flog, but should know that he too has a Lord in heaven who shows no respect of persons and who will judge the wills alone of people and, according to their wills, prefer the better to the worse, choosing the deeds and not the persons.

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the might of his strength.

Eph. 6: 10 Finally, be strengthened in the Lord and in the power of his virtue.

To 'be strong in the Lord' is to be strong in reason and wisdom and the contemplation of the truth and in all the aspects of Christ, whose35 greatest is 'the might of his strength', which is even mightier than virtue and its forms, which are all powers, just as evils I know that in Greek 'strength', that is ν, has been written for 'virtue' because they call 'virtue' σχ

. But the common usage of our Scriptures designates both ρετ

indifferently as 'virtue', especially since 'strength' of body is considered a virtue of σχ ς and ρετ

are weaknesses. the soul, although even with the philosophers strength is placed among the four virtues which, in any case, demonstrates that it belongs to the soul and not to the body.

But that virtue called strength (as those in the know about these things say), gets its name from a certain resemblance to physical strength. This virtue is not seen and another is, being named beauty from physical beauty. It is of this beauty that it is said, 'Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, in your comeliness and your beauty' (Ps. 44: 4) and, to the bride in the Song of Songs, 'You are wholly beautiful, my neighbour, and there is no blemish in you' (4: 7) and again, in the forty-fourth Psalm, 'And the king shall desire your beauty' (44: 12).

Because, therefore, he says, 'Be strengthened in the Lord and in the power of his virtue', the whole is to be imagined in Christ so that those who have believed are strengthened in all the virtues which are understood of him.

And, after the particular commandments which are to be observed by husbands and wives, fathers and children, masters and servants, he now wisely

end p.251 commands in general to all in common that they be strengthened in the Lord and in his power so that they might prepare themselves against the devil of whom he writes in what follows.

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 11 Put on the whole armour of God that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Eph. 6: 11 Put on the whole armour of God that you may be able to stand against the cunning devices of the devil.

From what we read below and from those things which are said in all the Scriptures about our Lord the Saviour, it is most clearly confirmed that 'the whole armour of God' with which we are now ordered to be clothed is understood of the From what follows and from the things recorded of the Saviour, it is possible to say that Christ is the 'whole armour of God' so that 'putting on the whole armour of God' is the same as 'putting on the Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom. 13: 14).

For [if]'the truth' is a 'girdle' and 'justice' is a 'breastplate', and the

Saviour, so that there is no difference between saying, 'Put on the whole armour of God' and, 'Put on the Lord Jesus Christ'. If the 'girdle' is 'truth' and the 'breastplate' is 'justice' (Eph. 6: 14), and our Saviour is called 'truth' and 'justice' (John 14: 6; 1 Cor. 1: 30), there can be no doubt that he himself is both the 'girdle' and the 'breastplate'. He will also, accordingly, be 'the preparation of the gospel of peace, and the shield of faith, and the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit which is the word of God' (Eph. 6: 15-17), 'a living and effectual word and sharper than any twoedged sword' (Heb. 4: 12).

Saviour is 'the truth' and 'justice'

(John 14: 6; 1 Cor. 1: 30), it is clear that the Saviour is the girdle and the breastplate. And parallel to these, he would be 'the preparation of the gospel of peace','the shield of faith','the helmet of salvation', and 'the sword of the Spirit' which is 'the word of God','the word which is living, effective and sharper than any two-edged sword' (Heb. 4:

12). What other kind of 'whole armour of God' can one conceive to be meant, which one who will resist 'the wiles of the devil' must put on, than the virtue which is Christ? When one has put Christ on in all his aspects, he will be sufficient 'to stand against' all 'the wiles' of evil which is brought about by 'its father' the 'devil'

(John 8: 44).

Moreover, what other 'armour of God' can we imagine with which one who has to contend against the cunning devices of the devil is to be clothed than the virtue which Christ is? 670 The person who shall have been clothed with everything which is understood of Christ will be able to resist all the plots of the devil.

Insofar as he has been girded with truth he will not easily be led off to false teachings. Insofar as he has put on the 'breastplate of justice' he will not be able to be pierced by the darts of iniquity.

Likewise, when he shall have been shod with those beautiful shoes, the 'preparation of the gospel of peace', it is as if he who has prepared his works for the end (cf. Prov. 24: 27 LXX) and, To the extent that someone has 'girded himself with the truth' he will not be dragged off to assent to persuasive and sophistical words of falsehood and, to the extent that 'he has put on justice', he will not be wounded by the 'arrows' of injustice, since none of them reach him and make him who has clothed himself with justice unjust. And one who has 'put on' the beautiful shoes of the 'preparation of the gospel of peace' and has also 'prepared' his 'works for the exodus' (Prov. 24:

27) and, therefore, has become a man of peace, will neither do anything warlike and factious, nor will he be condemned with the unprepared. And hostile unbelief will have no place in the salvation of the human race where 'the

therefore, has become a man of peace, will not do anything belligerent or turbulent nor will he be condemned with those who are unprepared. shield of faith' is. And the one wearing 'the helmet of salvation' will be kept indomitably safe in respect to the head of the soul where the divine and intellectual faculties are found. But also the one who holds 'the sword of the Spirit which is the word of the Lord' will, like a true soldier, cut down and destroy all opposing doctrines with the truth.

Unbelief, too, which is the enemy of faith, will have no power where the 'shield of faith' is present. The head also, the ruling principle of the heart and soul where all our senses are located, which has been enclosed in the 'helmet of salvation' will not be impaired. Finally, holding the 'sword of the Spirit, that is the word of God', in his hand like a man armed and strong he will cut down, kill, and slay all doctrines contrary to the truth.

The apostle, therefore, wishing to show the manifold abilities of the devil with which he endeavours to take us captive through those places where we do not guard our heart with all care has mentioned his μεθΟδε

αζ, that is 'inventions' or 'cunning devices'. For if we abstain from

end p.252 end p.253 the pleasures of the body, he captures us because we have not been cautious enough in regard to covetousness. But if we also despise covetousness along with pleasure, he steals in by means of wantonness and makes our belly our god and by means of wantonness conquers even those places which appear to be strong. Just as wise leaders of armies are accustomed to assault especially those places of a city which are least protected so that,

when they have broken in through those places, the protected areas may be easily captured, so also the devil seeks to break in and reach the very citadel of our heart and soul through those places which he sees lying open or perhaps not shut up firmly.

And why must I speak of his many 'plots' when other forms of his 'cunning devices' can be recognized from these which we have mentioned. The Greek name 'devil', moreover, means 'accuser'. But in accordance with the proper meaning of the Hebrew word, because the tribe of Zebulon also has a certain similarity with this name καταρρ ων, that is flowing downward', it can be said that he has flowed down gradually, of course, from virtue to vice and has fallen from the heavenly realms to the earthly.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 6: 12 Because our wrestling is not against blood and flesh, but against rulers, against authorities, against the cosmic powers of darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens.

Eph. 6: 12 Because our wrestling is not 671 against blood and flesh, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens.

I do not think Paul could have said, Your 'wrestling is not against blood and flesh', when writing to the Corinthians to whom he said, 'Let no temptation seize you except a human one. Moreover God is faithful, who does not permit you to be tempted beyond that which you are able'

(1 Cor. 10: 13). I think, in fact, that the struggles which there are called human temptations are 'against flesh and blood', when the flesh lusts against the spirit (Gal. 5: 17) and provokes us to do its works: 'fornication, uncleanness, wantonness, idolatry, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, heresies, plots, drunkenness, revellings, and the remaining things like these' (Gal. 5:

19-21). Furthermore, it is not a human temptation nor a 'battle against flesh and blood' when Satan himself, having been transfigured into an angel of light, either attempts to convince us that we think he is an angel of light, or does something similar to these things in all virtue, using signs and false portents, in all deception

I think 'against blood and flesh' refers [again] to those 'temptations' he calls 'human' (1 Cor. 10: 13), when 'the flesh has lusted against the spirit' and summons us to do 'its works'

(Gal. 5: 17, 19). But no longer is it a 'human temptation' nor 'wrestling against blood and flesh' when 'Satan' either 'disguises himself as an angel of light' (2 Cor.

11: 14) and contends to persuade us to devote ourselves to him as an angel of light, or disguises himself in something which resembles these things which occur 'in all power and signs and false wonders and in all deceit of wrongdoing' (2 Thess. 2: 9-10).

of iniquity. For when the enemy has ensnared someone so that he accepts him and says in him, 'Thus says the Lord', it is not as if flesh and blood have deceived him or a human temptation but 'a principality, a power, a ruler of darkness, and spiritual wickedness'.

Wherefore let us not give place to the devil (Eph. 4: 27). Furthermore, if a spirit of him who possesses power should spring upon us, in accord with the following words, 'Let us not give place to him.'36

Someone may say that his statement, 'Our wrestling is not against blood and flesh but against principalities and powers' and the other things which follow, is made, therefore, that we might be taught that those vices which we think the flesh provides are not of flesh or blood but are offered to us by some spiritual wickedness. For there are certain demons which assist loves and amorous songs.

The prophet refers to these when he says, 'They were seduced by a spirit of 672 fornication' (Hos. 4: 12). Certain barbarian names are also said to belong to the demons. Those, whom the common people truly call enchanters, are often acknowledged, and enchantments, curses, various colours, and diverse kinds of metals or foods to which demons have been summoned, are said to assist them also to capture unfortunate souls.

But other demons arrange for deeds of wrath, rage, and war, and still others are in charge of enmities and stir up hatreds among people. Therefore, they say, because the apostle wants to teach us that vices of this kind are not produced from the nature of the body and the material of flesh and blood but at the instigation of demons, he says, 'Our wrestling is not

And if the enemy should persuade someone to recognize him as the Lord so that he says, 'Thus says the Lord' in himself and supposes himself to have become a prophet of the God of the universe, the enemy would not have done these things as 'blood and flesh' or a 'human temptation' since he has 'wrestled' with one who has guarded himself against these things. Wherefore, we must by no means 'give [place] to the devil' (Eph. 4: 27).

against blood and flesh, but against principalities and powers' etc.

But someone will say that the statement, 'Our wrestling is not against blood and flesh but against rulers, against authorities' etc. is made that we might learn not even to think in the first instance that the sins thought to come to us from 'the mind of the flesh' (Rom.

8: 6, 7) come to us from flesh and blood but come from certain powers which effect these sins.

For there are certain demons which effect amours and love charms, as the prophet reveals when he says, 'They were deceived by the spirit of fornication' (Hos.

4: 12). One can say the same thing also about other demons which cause wrath and anger. The superstitious are said to be able to restrain anger against a person by appealing to these demons. And someone will reasonably argue, on the basis of the so-called charms for producing hatred, that when we hate we do not do it without the demons who effect hating. Since, then, he says, the apostle wants to teach us that our sinning does not arise from the nature of the body, for this reason he says, 'Our wrestling is not against blood and flesh, but against rulers, against authorites' etc.

We have, therefore, now made known these examples of those who, as depraved beings, assist the magical arts and are asserted to do these things, so that we may blunt the opinion of those who think that all vices are of flesh and blood and that the demons have no power to incite us to sin. We think that Jacob, too, experienced such wrestling in which he contended, of course, 'not against flesh and blood' when he remained alone and a man wrestled with him, helping and strengthening him against another who contended with excessive sweat.37 And notice at the same time if they are not ridiculous who think that Jacob wrestled the whole night like a wrestler. Why is it important, if he wrestled as they say, whether he had the upper hand or was overcome? One should believe, however, that in accordance with a wrestling that was rational and appropriate to the patriarch, his wrestling was like that of those And if we ask about the basis for Paul's words in the ancient Scriptures which have been revealed and made manifest to him, we surmise that they are derived from the records of wars

and individual battles, such as that between David and Goliath, and the sons of Israel against the Philistines or the nations against which they fought and were victorious. For it is likely that each of these is a symbol of spiritual rulers which are either overcome or prevail.

'Our wrestling', then, 'is against' certain 'authorities' which are neither visible nor of the flesh, and against 'the cosmic powers of the darkness' which embraces the human race, and 'against the spiritual powers of wickedness' which inhabit the 'heavenly' region, that is, the air. And he said in other places, 'In which you once walked in accordance with the Aeon of this world, according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit which now works in the sons of disobedience' (Eph. 2: 2), for the air diffused around us seems to be full of opposing powers.

end p.254 end p.255 who can say, 'Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood'. It is not necessary now to investigate the whole mystery of that passage, since it is to be discussed more fully in its place if I live so long.

We ask where Paul has read these things in the Old Testament or on what authority he has published things which have not been written at all. And we conclude that they come from those things which have been written in the Law and Joshua and the Book of Judges and of Kings and Chronicles about battles and individual struggles, for 673 example, of David against Goliath and of the children of Israel against the Philistines and other nations. The apostle has understood this in a higher sense and has imagined a spiritual war from the war of the flesh. Fighting in this war they are conquered or they conquer.

The satraps of each place, indeed, represent celestial powers. The kings of the individual nations are said to be images of those who are now 'rulers of the world and of darkness' and he has designated evil men to be 'spiritual wickedness in the heavens'. It seems to us that the apostle says the following, but not in these words: O Ephesians, what you have

read about the battles of Israel against the nations appear, indeed, to signify flesh or blood

(for example: of the Egyptians, Idumaeans, Ammonites, Moabites, and the other nations), end p.257 but if you wish really to understand, recognize that all those things happened figuratively to them but they have been written for our sakes on whom the ends of the ages have come

(1 Cor. 10: 11) that we might understand from those things that 'our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against' certain spiritual and invisible 'powers, against rulers' of that 'darkness' which lies upon this world and spreads error to men of unbelief and 'against the spiritual forces of wickedness' which dwell 'in the heavens'. 38

38 For the hermeneutic set forth in this paragraph see Origen, Hom. 1-13 in Exod. 5. 1, t;

Jo. 6. 227-8; Princ. 4. 3. 9. Cf. also the commentary above on Eph. 1: 20b-1.

It is not that the demons sojourn in the heavens but that the air above us has received this name. It is for the same reason that birds which fly through the air are said to be birds of heaven. For in another passage the apostle says of demons which rove about in that air,

'In which you once walked according to the course of this world, 674 according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit which is now at work in the sons of disobedience'

(Eph. 2: 2). It is, moreover, the view of all teachers that that air which divides between heaven and earth and is called empty space is full of contrary powers.

We must next investigate from whom the principalities and powers and rulers of the darkness of the world and the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens have received the power that they should be this. Someone might say that the apostate, the devil, has committed diverse duties to his attendants and that God is not the author of these distributions. A careful reader can bring the following forward against this person. And how is it written, 'There is no power except from God' (Rom. 13: 1)? And if this is said of men, by how much more does it apply to those of a subtler and better nature? One who holds this opinion does not immediately incur the charge of blasphemy because each one has been allotted diverse ministries in accordance with his own will. Just as we see in cities those who have committed something disgraceful either feeding beasts or cutting marble or cleaning out the filth of sewers, or serving gladiators and appointed to pour the blood out of things, so also the demons, on the basis of the freedom of their own will, have been allotted the province of plots, frauds, wicked deeds, perjury, and the rest of the vices with the result that they are 'rulers of the darkness' because they did not want to be princes of light.

When, then, these rulers of the world and of darkness wrestle against someone and throw him down and make him fall they immediately bind him to their world and the darkness which they rule. This is why we who have heard the words, 'I have chosen you from this world, and you are no longer 675 of this world, for if you were of the world the world would love end p.258 what is its own' (John 15: 19), must strive more vigorously that we do not return to the world or be subjected to it. Instead, let the world be crucified to us and we to it so that Jesus, the ruler of light, might unite us to his own world and cause us to be under the Father's sovereignty, rescued from the power of spiritual wickedness and from their heaven which is to pass away (Matt. 5: 18) and cannot be called the seat of God (Isa. 66:

1; Acts 7: 49). It is impious, indeed, that the 'spiritual forces of wickedness in the

heavens' should be thought to hold that heaven of which God says, 'Heaven is my throne'

(Isa. 66: 1).

One, therefore, who understands how many things in this world occur on our behalf both when we are present and when we are absent, although, because of this fragile earthly body of our lowliness which envelops the soul or because the more subtle nature does not display itself to eyes of the flesh, we cannot see those things, will see what the darkness is which the apostle now mentions. Either, of course, the whole earthly life is referred to as darkness—'The light', indeed, 'shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it' (John 1: 5)—or our earthly body, the body of death and humility, overshadows, covers, and obscures the light and senses of the soul. But let us be aware that, with the exception of the present passage, we have never encountered either in the Old Testament or in the New Testament the word κοσμοκρ τορας, that is, 'rulers of the world'. The apostle Paul, therefore, has invented this name because, when preaching to the Ephesians, he needed to fit new names to new and invisible things.

Yet because his phrase 'in the heavens' seems ambiguous we must say that this phrase can be supplied with all the phrases, so that it is, 'Our wrestling is 39

39 I have omitted the negative which stands in the text. The negative appears in the text of Eph. 6: 12 but the dropping of the words 'against flesh and blood' from the quotation makes it inappropriate with the remaining phrases. against powers in the heavens and the rulers of this darkness in the heavens and the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens', and not only 'against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens', especially if we understand, as we already stated above, that they are named heavens because of the 'birds of heaven' and because rain is customarily said to come from heaven, not that rain comes from heaven. The philosophers indeed say that the clouds, from which the rains pour and the shower moistens, are not more than two thousand paces 40 40 i.e. two Roman miles. distant from the earth. In this sense the καταρ

κται (floodgates) of heaven are also reported to have been opened (Gen. 7: 11). Nevertheless, the worse end p.259 someone may be the nearer he will be to places of the earth and to the denser substance, since indeed both the earth and the air around 676 us have their own density. Some say also that souls which have been freed from bodies will not inhabit the denser places but will be near God who is without body if they have been emaciated in the present life and worn away to a thin body by the file, if I may speak in this way, of

σεως 41 41 So spelled by Pieri, but more usually σχ

(asceticism) and of the virtues. But if they are such of whom it can be said, 'Sons of men, how long will you be with a heavy', or fat, 'heart?' (Ps. 4: 3), they are dragged down, in accordance with the weight of their density, to the lowest regions and encumbered with fatness.

After this we must also discuss equally the question whether there is some denser place than this earth and air, which many call Gehenna, where those abide who are said to be buried. But this is not the time to discuss what those may be and what affinity or difference they may have with those who are called 'the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens'. σκ

It remains that we should learn more clearly with the apostle what the difference is in the two troops between the 'wrestling of flesh and blood' and the 'rulers of this darkness' and the 'spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens'. For when he wants to indicate human temptations, that is the 'wrestling of flesh and blood', despising and disdaining them he says, 'Who will separate us from the love of God? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine and nakedness, and danger and the sword? As it is written, For your sake we are put to death the whole day; we are considered to be sheep for the slaughter. But in all these things we overcome because of him who has loved us' (Rom. 8:

35-7). But when he wants to teach us about 'contrary powers and rulers of darkness and spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavens', he begins from a different point, as it were, and says, 'For I am certain that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing whatsoever will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord' (Rom. 8: 38-9).

The discussion of this section has, perhaps, been longer than the reader might wish, but I beg him to be forbearing in view of the difficulty of the passage itself and of the character of the Ephesians who, after experiencing the magical arts, needed to know by whom they had once been deceived. end p.260

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 13 That you may be able to resist, he says, in the evil day.

Eph. 6: 13 Therefore, take up the whole armour of God that you can resist in the evil day, and having done all things, to stand.

He has shown that 'the evil day' is the present time of which he said above, 'Redeeming the time because the days are 677 evil'. He said this because of the distress and toils of this life, since we do not attain the prize without sweat and struggle or, perhaps, because of the consummation and judgement, when the devil, the enemy and avenger, will want to keep us in his portion from which he who understands about need and poverty will be set free (Ps. 40: 2), for in the evil day the Lord has set him free. This is the day of which it is also written in another passage, Behold the day of the wrath of the Lord is coming, and elsewhere, For the day of the Lord will come, an incurable day of fury

One who seeks 'to resist in the evil day' ought to have 'the whole armour of God' which the apostle set forth. Having this, 'the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us'

(Tit. 2: 8). The opponent is the devil who is the 'accuser of our brothers' (Rev. 12: 10). He deceives them as his own, since sinners have also come to belong 'to his portion' (Wisd. 2: 24).

and wrath (cf. Isa. 13: 9), and again, But someone else will say that the present age is the 'evil day'.

And there will be a third argument, in addition to these two interpretations, which says that the struggle has not ended for one who has departed this life but that one who has conquered here will also struggle with opposing cosmic forces which appear in another 'evil day'.

'Woe to those who desire the day of the Lord. Why do you want the day of the Lord? It is darkness and not light. It is as if a man flee from a lion and encounter a bear, and enter his house and lean his hand on the wall and a snake bite him. Is the day of the Lord not darkness and not light, and gloom with no brightness?' (Amos 5: 18-20). For how is this day not evil which is enveloped in darkness and gloom? The prophet Joel also mentions this day saying, 'Blow the trumpet in Zion, cry out on my holy mountain, and let all who inhabit the earth be confounded, because the day of the Lord is at hand, because the day of darkness and confusion is near, the day of cloud and gloom' (Joel 2: 1-2). And Zephaniah speaks of the same day saying, 'The great day of the Lord is near, it is near and very end p.261 swift. The voice of the day of the Lord is bitter and harsh and loud; that day is a day of wrath, a day of distress and destiny' etc. (Zeph. 1: 14-15). After this he adds, 'And I will afflict people and they will walk like blind people because they have sinned against the Lord' (Zeph. 1: 17).

In order, therefore, to resist the devil in that day, because he is the accuser of our brothers, let one take up 'the whole armour of God' (for this is the meaning of πανοπλ α, not as it has been translated simply as 'armour' in Latin) and, girded with all the weapons and armour which is set forth in the following phrases, let him know that he can then

'stand' if he has 'done all things' so that, full of all the virtues, he may fix his position firm and not be moved from the front line, and may belong to those of whom the Lord says,

'There are some of those standing here' (Matt. 16: 28), and in another passage, 'And indeed stand in the faith' (1 Cor. 16: 13), and the Psalmist says, 'He has set my feet on a rock' (Ps. 39: 3).

A third interpretation is also introduced surreptitiously by some who say that the whole battle against the devil is not ended by death but when we shall have departed from this

age then our struggle will be fiercer and more exposed than the present struggles against the present powers. This is how they explain the words, 'Nor things 678 present, nor things to come', which we cited a little earlier. They say that the things to come are these struggles which are to be encountered after this life. And they also think, that in the statement, 'Wherefore we strive to please him, whether in the present or in the future' (2

Cor. 5: 9), the present indicates this life and the future that after death. They also refer the present words, 'And having done all things, to stand', to the same understanding, as if one could not 'do all things' in the present life but what one does is 'in part', just as one sees 'in part' and prophesies 'in part' (1 Cor. 13: 9), and one is able 'to stand' perfectly only at that time when he shall have 'done all things'.

Another expounds these words more simply and says that the Ephesians are exhorted and admonished to do all things by which they may be able to stand in the faith of the gospel and not fall in persecution in relation to future temptations and persecutions which the apostle Paul saw, by means of the prophetic Spirit, would arise for them after this epistle.

We think, moreover, that the phrase 'the evil day' in the present passage has been cited from the forty-eighth Psalm (Ps. 48: 6). end p.262

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 14a Stand, therefore, having girded your loin with truth.

Eph. 6: 14a Stand, therefore, having your loins girded with truth.

No one doubts that the Scriptures speak of all the members of the soul by using the names of the members of the flesh and the body. This is true, I think, of the present mention of 'loins' which we are commanded to gird with It is also written in Luke 's Gospel, 'Let your loins be girded' (Luke 12: 35). We now perceive what the 'girdle' is. He who has restricted his sexual activity and no longer serves it but strives for immortality 'has girded his loin'.

truth. It is also written in the Gospel

(According to Luke), 'Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning in your hands' (Luke 12: 35). Because, therefore, loins are always interpreted in relation to generation and seed in accordance with the statement, 'I will place someone on your throne from the fruit of your loin' (Acts 2: 30; cf.

Ps. 131: 11), and elsewhere, 'Levi was still in the loins of his father Abraham when

Melchizedek met him' (Heb. 7: 10), that man seems to us 'to have girded his loins' who by no means renders his debt to his wife nor serves lust but imitates the unbegotten God who does not engage in the affairs of generation. I think the following signifies the same thing, 'John had a leather girdle around his loins' (Matt. 3: 4). He did not belong to the unclean who, having been cast out of the camp because of the emission of semen, cannot dwell with the ark of the Lord (cf. Lev. 15: 16-17), nor did he belong to those of whom it is written in Numbers, 'His garments are open' (Lev. 13: 45). He who has been girded with Christ as the truth (John 14: 6) gathers these garments on high and draws them up

from below and covers the ugliness of his bare sides with a spiritual girdle. He draws them tight, encloses them and is prepared for battle. He has his works 679 shining, which are said to be burning lamps (Matt. 5: 16; Luke 12: 35).

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 14b And having put on the breastplate of justice.

Eph. 6: 14b And having put on the breastplate of justice.

Just as it is difficult for one to be wounded, especially in the vital areas, who has put on a strong breastplate thick with hooks and iron loops connected with each other, so one who has been enclosed in the manifold attire of justice will not receive an arrow in the liver like a stag (Prov. 7: 23), nor will he fall in desire and in regard to passions, but he will be pure in heart (Matt. 5: 8) having God as the maker of his breastplate, who fashions the whole armour for each saint and does not permit him to be pierced by the spear which flies by day nor, as well, to be set on fire by flaming arrows (Ps. 90: 6).

In the same way that one who 'has put on a breastplate' is not easily affected when he is hit by enemies, especially in relation to his vital parts, so one who has dressed himself in 'justice' would not be wounded 'like a stag struck in the liver with an arrow' (Prov. 7: 23).

He is attacked neither in his passion nor his desire and, furthermore, he remains 'pure in heart' (Matt. 5: 8) by having put on 'the breastplate of justice' which has been forged for him by God, the craftsman of all things who has prepared and gives the 'whole armour' to each of the saints. end p.263

Eph. 6: 15 And having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace.

Eph. 6: 15 And feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.

Observe carefully that he has designated a certain power of the soul 'feet' with which we walk on him who says, 'I am the way' (John 14: 6), and which we must shoe 'with the preparation of the gospel of peace'. The antecedent to the figure of these shoes is those shoes in Exodus which those who ate the Passover and were prepared to make the journey were commanded to wear. The following command is given, 'You shall eat this with your loins girded, with your shoes on your feet and your rods in your hands, Observe that he designated a power of the soul 'feet' with which we go, as it were, walking on the one who said, 'I am the way' (John 14: 6), and which one must shoe with the 'preparation of the gospel of peace'. I think the 'shoes' recorded in Exodus, which those eating the Passover and being prepared for the journey had to have, are symbols of these shoes.

For he says, 'Eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet

and you shall eat it quickly, for it is the Passover of the Lord' (Exod. 12: 11).

Eating in haste and with shod feet is a sign of preparation so that, strengthened by the Passover food, they can pass through the wide and terrible desert. and your staves in your hands, and eat it with haste; it is the Passover of the Lord' (Exod. 12: 11). Both eating 'with haste' and eating with one's shoes on are a part of the 'preparation' so that, strengthened by the foods, they might be able to travel.

Let the one who is still travelling wear shoes; but let the one who has already crossed the Jordan and entered the promised land uncover his feet. 'Remove the shoe from your feet', he says, 'for the place where you are standing is holy ground' (Exod. 3: 5). If someone is neither Joshua the son of Nave nor an apostle, let him put shoes on his feet in 'preparation of the gospel of peace'. But if someone is an apostle and can be numbered among the twelve let him by no means carry his shoes on the way nor cover his heel to avoid scorpions and snakes (Luke 10:

19) but, since he has already been brought to the highest degree and perfected, let him stand on the holy

Let the traveller, then, wear shoes but let the one who has arrived at holy ground take them off, for he says, 'Loose your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you stand is holy ground'

(Exod. 3: 5; Acts 7: 33).

For this reason let not the apostle shoe his 'feet with preparation of the gospel of peace', and let the apostle no longer 'take shoes for the way' (Matt. 10: 10; Luke 9: 3; 10:

4), since he has already been perfected and is in 'the place' where both 'standing' and walking he is 'on holy ground', living in Christ.

end p.264 ground and live in Christ and follow the lamb wherever he goes (Rev. 14:4).

We ask whether he has now said 'gospel of peace' in distinction from another gospel or whether it is, perhaps, characteristic of the gospel to be named the 'gospel of peace'. One, therefore, who has peace has been shod with the gospel of Christ and when one has been shod one has been prepared. And when one has been prepared one does not consider

oneself to be perfect but one is prepared to proceed and, proceeding, 680 one arrives at the goal.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 6: 16 Above all taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

Eph. 6: 16 In all things having taken up the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the fiery arrows of the wicked one.

'Arrows of the wicked one' are wicked thoughts. He will not, then, be able to shoot them into the heart at all whenever one protects oneself 'with the shield of faith', since 'all the fiery arrows' of the enemy 'are quenched' by it.

And one who wears the shield of faith will say, 'I have trusted in the Lord. How will you say to my soul, "Flee to the mountains like a sparrow"? Behold sinners have stretched their bow; they have prepared arrows in their quiver to shoot the upright in heart in the dark' (Ps. 10: 1-2). For my 'confidence', he says, is 'in the Lord'. 'How' will you counsel me not to stand against the 'bows' of sinners which have been 'stretched' against me and their 'arrows which have been prepared' 'in the quivers' by those who wish to wound 'the upright in heart'? For behold I have both stood and I do not flee, and 'all the fiery arrows of the wicked one', so far as they have not yet been quenched, will be quenched.

It is as if he had said, 'In every work carry the shield of faith that, covered and protected, you may be able to intercept the coming arrows and to avoid them from this side and that by the art of war.' This is the faith concerning which Abraham too, after many works and virtues, could scarcely deserve so that Scripture should say of him, 'But Abraham believed God and it was reputed to him for justice' (Gen. 15: 6).

But 'the arrows of the evil one' which he wants to hurl into our hearts through evil thoughts are clear. He cast one of them into the heart of Judas that he should betray the Saviour.

Therefore, the enemy will be able to have no initial point, indeed, for wounding the soul if we shall have held fast the 'shield of faith with which' not only the coming missiles are broken, but also the fire itself of the missiles is extinguished. The prophet also laments this fire saying, 'They are all adulterers, as an oven' in their hearts (Hos. 7: 4). One, therefore, who has held this shield of faith with a strong

end p.265 hand and has trusted in the Lord may know that he is safe from the coming missiles and may say undaunted, 'I trust in the Lord; how do you say to my soul, "Migrate to the mountains like a sparrow"? For behold, sinners have bent their bow; they have prepared arrows in their quivers to shoot the upright in heart in the dark' (Ps. 10: 1-2). Since, then, he says, I trust in the Lord, for what reason do you counsel me not to stand against the attack of my enemies and the missiles which they have prepared against me in their quivers, since they want to strike not only me but also all the upright in heart? For behold, I also stand upon a rock and will not migrate to the dark mountains. All the missiles of the enemies have been repulsed and turned back against the very one who aimed them.

Eph. 6: 17a and Take the Helmet of Salvation.

Because of this 'helmet of salvation' all of our powers of perception have continued unharmed in our head, and especially our eyes, of which Solomon says in Ecclesiastes,

'The eyes of a wise man are in his head' (Eccles. 2: 14). He knew what the head of a man is and what those eyes are which are located in the head of a man. If Christ is the head of a man and the eyes of a wise man are in his head it follows that all our powers of perception, our mind, thought, speech, and counsel (if, end p.266 at least, we are wise) are in Christ. Moreover they are in Christ as Word, Light, Truth,

Justice, and all the virtues. 42

42 See Origen, Dial. 160-2 on this whole discussion based on Eccles. 2: 14.

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 17b-19a And the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, through all prayer and entreaty, praying at all times in the Spirit, and to this end being watchful in all perseverance and entreaty for all the saints, and for me.

Eph. 6: 17b-19a And the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God, through all prayer and entreaty praying at all times in the Spirit and being watchful in the same with all persistence and 681 intercession for all the saints and for me.

The word of God flows from the Holy Spirit but the opposite speaks of the earth and takes its beginning from there,

'For he who is of the earth speaks of the earth, but he who comes from heaven is above all and testifies to that which he has seen and heard' (John 3: 31-2).

Furthermore, the word of God is the sword of the Spirit of which Paul now says, 'the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God'. 'The word of God, indeed, is living and effectual and sharper than any two-edged sword penetrating even to the joints of the soul, the bones and the marrow' (cf. Heb. 4: 12).

The 'sound word' flows from the divine Spirit, but the opposite speaks of the earth, for 'he who is of the earth, is of the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all things and bears testimony to that which he has seen and heard'

(John 3: 31-2). And the word of the Spirit is a sword, wherefore Paul says here that 'the sword of the Spirit' is 'the word of God'.

'For the word of God which is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword and which pierces until the separation of soul and spirit' (Heb. 4: 12) both cuts and divides, being effective also 'through prayer and entreaty' for those who 'pray at all times' and who pray 'in the Spirit' in accordance with the statement, 'I will pray in the Spirit' (1 Cor. 14:

15). It is 'effective' both for those who are 'watchful' because they are rich in the word of God and for those who 'persevere' in the acquisition of this wealth in order to enrich others and to be at work in those enriching others through their prayers.

This Spirit cuts through and divides, accomplishing much through the prayer and entreaty of those who at all times pray to the Lord in the Spirit in accordance with the saying, 'I will pray in the Spirit and I will pray with the mind' (1 Cor. 14: 15). And what one accomplishes in this is that by one's watchfulness and persistent intercession the apostle is enriched in the word of God and doctrine. All this wealth contributes to the salvation of others so that it also benefits the very people who pray for him.

Observe also the humility of the apostle who asks for 'entreaties for' himself from the Ephesians.

At the same time the humility of the apostle is also to be admired who requests that the Ephesians offer entreaties for himself. He says, indeed,

'With all persistence and intercession for all the saints and for me', so that he mentions the saints separately from himself.

end p.267

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 19b-20 That speech may be given to me in the opening of my mouth to make known the mystery of the gospel in confidence, for which I am an ambassador in a chain, so that in the same I may be bold to speak as I ought.

Eph. 6: 19b That a word may be given to me in the opening of my mouth in boldness to make known the mystery of the gospel.

The present statement, 'In the opening of my mouth', and those found elsewhere, 'My mouth is opened to you, O Corinthians'

(2 Cor. 6: 11), and 'Opening his mouth he taught his disciples saying' (Matt. 5: 2), and 'I opened my mouth and drew in my breath'

(Ps. 118: 131), and 'I will open my mouth in parables' (Ps. 77: 2), and other statements similar to these are to be understood as if he had said, The treasure-houses are opened and the hidden secrets of the age are thrown open so that the Holy Spirit may enter to bring forth those things which lie hidden. The following words, 'To make known the mystery of the gospel in confidence', show the meaning of the testimony, 'That speech may be given to me in

When the mouth is opened and a word has been given, then 'the mystery of the gospel' is 'made known'. It is no longer in figures and parables as the Saviour also says, 'The hour is coming when I shall no longer speak to you in figures, but I shall report to you in boldness about the Father' (John 16: 25).

He alone and everyone who has a heart which does not condemn him is able to contain the 'word in boldness' since, 'if our heart does not condemn us we have boldness with God, and whatever we ask we receive from him' (1 John 3:

21-2). For this reason also he who 'makes known the mystery in boldness' is rare, because the one who has 'boldness with God' is rare. For 'who will boast to have a clean heart or who will openly declare that he is pure from sin'

(Prov. 20: 9)? end p.268 opening of my mouth'. This speech is by no means in proverbs and parables, which the prophets and the Lord himself used to use when he was still in a body as he says, 'The hour is coming when I will by no means speak to you in proverbs but I will boldly declare to you about the Father' (John 16: 25).

He alone can 682 obtain this word of confidence whose heart does not censure him, 'For if our heart does not censure us, we have confidence with God and whatever we ask we shall receive from him' (1 John 3: 21-2). He is rare, therefore, who makes known the mystery of the gospel in confidence because he is rare who has confidence with God. For who will boast that he has a clean heart, or who will stand and say that he is pure from sins (Prov. 20: 9)?

We must next briefly treat his statement, 'For which I am an ambassador in a chain, that I might', of course, 'make known the mystery of the gospel'. One, indeed, who understands this in a simple manner will say that he has asserted that he has sent these lines from prison and chains at Rome for the testimony of Christ. But another will contend that because Paul has also spoken of the body of humility (Phil. 3: 21) and this chain with which we are bound (cf. Acts 28: 20) and said we do not yet know according to that which we ought to know and we see through a mirror enigmatically (1 Cor. 13: 9, 12), that he could truly open the mystery of the gospel in confidence only at that time when he has put aside the chain and has gone forth from the prison free. It might also be, however, that one is to be thought to be in bonds without bonds who has his citizenship in heaven

(Phil. 3: 20) and of whom it can be said, 'But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if only the Spirit of God dwells in you' (Rom. 8: 9)

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 21-2 But that you may also know the things concerning me, what I am doing, Tychicus, my beloved brother and faithful servant in the Lord will make all things Eph. 6: 21-2 But that you also may know the things concerning me, what I am doing, Tychicus, my beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, will make known to

known to you, whom I sent to you for this very reason, that I might know the things concerning you, and he might comfort your hearts. you all things. I have sent him to you for this very purpose that you may know the things concerning us and that your heart may be comforted.

Because the whole life of the apostle, including his every deed and activity, occurred in the Word of God, for 'Christ lived in him'

(Gal. 2: 20), he sends Tychicus, who reports the rule of his life and the order of his deeds to the Ephesians. It was appropriate for the apostle to 'send' Tychicus for 'this very reason' that the Ephesians might have an example of a good way of life. And they would also be 'comforted' when they learned of the deeds which were most excellent and fitting for an apostle that Paul had accomplished.

Take this in two ways. Either, he has sent Tychicus to Ephesus that he might report to them that the bonds of the apostle Paul had been made known in the whole imperial bodyguard and that his chain had contributed to belief in the gospel. This would have been at the same time that he also wrote to the Colossians and said, 'Tychicus, my beloved brother and minister and fellow servant in the Lord, will make known to you all things concerning me. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know the things concerning us and your

end p.269 heart may be comforted, along with Onesimus, a very dear and faithful brother, who is from you. He will make known to you all the things which are being done here' (Col. 4:

7-9). For it was a great comfort to hear of Paul triumphing from prison and bonds at Rome in the mistress of cities and in the citadel of Roman rule.

Or, the other way to understand this is that perhaps Tychicus has been sent to report to them the life and conversation of Paul 683 of which they were ignorant and to give those who were becoming acquainted with the deeds and virtues of the apostle and wanting to imitate him a kind of example for living, as it were. Nor could this be a small comfort for those desiring to emulate what they had learned that the apostle had done.

Origen Jerome Eph. 6: 23 Peace to the brothers and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph. 6: 23 Peace to the brothers and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

If there are any other gifts which are given 'from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ' 'peace' ranks among the most important of them. It surpasses

If any other gift is given 'from God the Father and' our 'Lord Jesus Christ', 'peace', too, is given.

Peace is one of the most

all understanding and keeps the hearts and minds of the saints (Phil. 4: 7). It is a serenity and tranquillity of the soul at rest causing every storm and whirlwind of the passions to flee. honoured gifts; it 'surpasses all understanding' and 'will guard the hearts and the thoughts' of the saints (Phil. 4: 7), since it is a stillness and tranquillity of soul, alien from every storm, confusion, and passion. 'Love with faith', like peace, is also a gift given 'from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ'. It is love to God, as has been written, 'from the whole heart' etc., and to 'the neighbour as oneself' (Mark 12: 30-1; Luke 10: 27). But one who has received love as a gift manifests it also to 'enemies', hating no one and praying for 'those who abuse' him (Luke 6: 27-8; Matt. 5: 44).

'Love with faith' is like it, which God the Father and the Son give at the same time that we may love God with our whole heart and our neighbour as ourselves (Matt. 22: 37-9) and pray for our enemies (Matt. 5: 44). Only those who deserve to be called by the name 'brothers' have this peace and love which the apostle invokes on the believers. 'Peace', he says, 'to the brothers and love with faith' and peace. Therefore, as the Father exhibits both love

end p.270 and peace, so too does the Son, and the heresy which does not want the Son to have the same capabilities as the Father becomes dumb.

Origen Jerome

Eph. 6:24 Grace with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption.

Eph. 6: 24 Grace with all those who love the Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption.

Some have explained the phrase Some have

interpreted this to mean 684 that one who is a stranger to works of corruption, taking works of corruption to mean sexual intercourse, loves our Lord Jesus Christ. They argue that custom and common speech will also refer to virgins and those who have not known sexual intercourse with women as 'incorrupt', but refer to those who have tasted pleasure of this kind as 'corrupt'.

They add this testimony in addition, 'If anyone corrupts the temple of God, God will corrupt him'

(1 Cor. 3: 17). I do not know, however, if they can explain the following statement, 'Each one has his own gift from God, one indeed in this way but another 'loving' him 'in incorruption', to mean being pure from the works of corruption. The works of corruption are those related to sexual intercourse, whence also ordinary language designates those pure from sexual intercourse 'incorrupt', and those who have partaken of sex 'corrupted'. Some, straining to the uttermost the statement, 'If anyone corrupts the temple of God, God will corrupt him' (1 Cor. 3: 17), have understood it in this sense, although they cannot maintain a meaning like this for the statement, 'But each one has his own gift from God, one in this way and another in that' (1 Cor. 7:

7).

in that' (1 Cor. 7:

7).

Let us see, therefore, if it is not better, perhaps, to understand every sin as a corruption of the soul and for those who are free from sin to be called 'incorrupt'.

These, then, are those who love 'the Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption' since they are not held by the bonds of sin and the grace of God is with them.

But see if every sin can be a corruption of the soul, and 'incorruption' be total abstinence from sin, so that those who 'love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption' are those who abstain from all sin, 'with all' of whom is 'the grace' of God. 43

43 In the catena fragments on 1 Cor. 3: 16-20 and 6: 19-20 Origen defines incorruption as virginity and quotes Eph. 6: 24 (Jenkins,

'Origen on I Corinthians', 246, 372). He seems to understand incorruption and Eph. 6: 24 in the same way in Hom. 1-13 in Exod.

13.6 where he joins 'the grace of incorruption and virginity' and, likewise, in Hom. 1-16 in Gen. 5.4. He appears to have a broader understanding of incorruption in mind, however, when he alludes to Eph. 6: 24 in Cels. 3.60.

At the same time I think that it is assumed here that those have the grace of Christ who love him in incorruption in distinction from those who love the Lord Jesus Christ but not in incorruption.

For how many love the Lord and are ready to endure exiles,

Since there are some, however, who 'love the Lord' but who do not 'love' him 'in incorruption', Paul says, 'Grace with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in incorruption.'

martyrdoms, need, and all kinds of abuses for him but are, nevertheless, overcome by the

end p.271 passion of the flesh. 44

44 This appears to be a relapse into the first interpretation offered which was subsequently rejected.

The apostle does not invoke grace on these because the 'grace' of the Lord is 'with all who love' him 'in incorruption'. end p.272 previous | next

Appendix A Selections from Jerome's Epistles 33, 61, and 84 Epistle 33.4, to Paula1 You will ask why I have mentioned Varro and the man of bronze of the Greeks. 2

2 In 33.1 Jerome refers to someone the Greeks admired as their man of bronze but does not name him.

To come to our own Adamantius 3 3 Cf. Eusebius, HE 6.14.10. and man of bronze, of course, who put so much work into his commentaries on the Holy

Scriptures that he has quite rightly been referred to as made of steel, would you like to know how many written works he has left behind? The following titles will show you . . .

On the New Testament: 25 books on Matthew, 32 books on John, 1 book of scholia on certain parts of John, 15 books on Luke, 15 books on the apostle Paul's epistle to the Romans, 15 books on the epistle to the Galatians, 4

4 This number is probably incorrect for Galatians, since in the preface to his Commentary on Galatians Jerome mentions everything that Origen had written on the epistle and says that Origen wrote a commentary of 5 books on Galatians (PL 26.369-70, Vall.).

3 books on the epistle to the Ephesians, 1 book on the epistle to the Philippians, 2 books on the epistle to the Colossians, 3 books on the first epistle to the Thessalonians, 1 book on the second epistle to the Thessalonians, 1 book on the epistle to Titus, 1 book on the epistle to Philemon . . .

Epistle 61.2, to Vigilantius 5 5 This selection and the next are translated in NPNF, 2nd ser. vi.131-2; 176. I have followed this translation but have revised it in accordance with the more recent critical text of I. Hilberg in CSEL 54 and 55 and in accordance with modern English usage.

Origen is a heretic. What has that to do with me? I do not deny that he is heretical on a great many points. He has erred on the resurrection of the body; he has erred on the state of souls; he has erred on the repentance of the devil; and, even more serious than these points, he has testified that the Seraphim are the Son and the Holy Spirit. If I were not to admit that he has erred and were not to anathematize these errors daily, I would be a partner in his error. For we must not accept his good points in such a way that we are also compelled to defend his bad ones. But at the same time, he has interpreted the Scriptures

well in many places. He has explained obscure passages in the prophets and has revealed tremendous mysteries in the New Testament as well as in the Old. Am I, then, to be censured if I have translated what is good in him and have either omitted or corrected or passed over in silence what is bad, so that through my work Latin readers may have what is good in him and be ignorant of what is bad? . . . Am I not permitted to reject and condemn perverse teachings because I have often condemned them? Read my books on the epistle to the Ephesians, read my other works, especially my commentaries on Ecclesiastes, and you will clearly see that never, from the time I was a youth, has anyone's authority so frightened me that I have acquiesced in the depravity of heresy. 6

6 See Rufinus, Apol. 1. 22.

Epistle 84.2, to Pammachius and Oceanus 7 7 See n. 5 above.

They throw in my face the question why I have sometimes praised Origen. If I am not mistaken, there are two passages. One is the little preface to Damasus in the homilies on the Song of Songs and the other is the prologue in the book of Hebrew Names. What is said there about Church doctrine? Is there anything about the Father, Son, and Holy

Spirit, or about the resurrection of the flesh, or about the state and substance of the soul? I praised his plain interpretation and his teaching in plain speech. My praise included nothing concerning his faith and nothing concerning his doctrines. The moral level alone is discussed and the cloud of the allegory is dispersed by his clear exposition. I have praised the commentator not the innovator, his genius not his faith, the philosopher not the apostle. But if they want to know my opinion concerning Origen let them read my commentaries on Ecclesiastes, let them open my three books on the epistle to the Ephesians and they will perceive that I have always opposed his doctrines. 8

8 See Rufinus, Apol. 1. 22; 2. 28.

For what kind of stupidity is it to praise someone's teaching in such a way that you also follow his blasphemy? . . . We must not detract from the good points of our opponents if they possess something worthy, nor must we praise the defects of our friends. Each case must be judged on the merit of the facts and not of the persons. Lucilius is assailed because his rhythm is disorderly but his cunning and charm are praised nevertheless. end p.274

Appendix B Selections from Jerome's Apology against the Books of Rufinus , Book 1 1

1 The Latin text for Book 1 appears in PL 23.457-90 (Vall.). The text of Book 1 is translated into English in NPNF, 2nd ser. iii.482-500. I have consulted this translation but the translation offered here is new.

16. . . . In my commentaries on Ephesians I followed Origen, Didymus, and Apollinarius

(who certainly hold conflicting doctrines) to the extent that I should not lose the truth of my own faith. What is the task of commentaries? They explain the statements of another; they set forth in plain speech things which have been written obscurely; they reflect on the opinions of many and say, 'Some explain this passage in this way and others interpret it as follows. Those attempt to prove its meaning and interpretation with these testimonies and this argument.' The result is that when the intelligent reader has read and become acquainted with the differing explanations of the many commentators he will, by either approbation or rejection, judge which is the more likely explanation and, like a good

banker, reject the money of counterfeit coin. Is he who has stated the expositions of so many in the one work which he has set forth to be held responsible for the differing interpretations and conflicting meanings? . . .

21. Now since my brother Paulinian has related that my opponent has censured certain points from my commentaries on Ephesians and he has committed a few of these points to memory and has pointed out the texts themselves to me, I must not avoid them. I ask the reader for pardon that I must be a bit profuse in setting forth and removing his charges. For I am not accusing another but attempting to defend myself and to refute the calumny of heresy which he has thrown out against me. Origen wrote three volumes on Paul's epistle to the Ephesians. Didymus and Apollinarius also composed their own small works. I either translated these or imitated them. I append what I wrote in the prologue of that work: 'I bring the following to your attention also in the preface that you may know that Origen, whom we have also followed in part, has written three volumes on this epistle. Apollinarius and Didymus have also published some brief commentaries.

Although we have plucked a few things from the latter, we have also added or removed some things as it seemed proper to us. Consequently, the studious reader may know at the very beginning that this work is both another's and ours.' I will acknowledge as my error and not another's, therefore, whatever can be demonstrated to be false in the explanation of this epistle, if I cannot show it to stand in the Greek volumes which I said I translated into Latin. Nevertheless, so end p.275 that I do not appear, on the other hand, to be jesting and, by this artifice of making excuse, not to dare attack his position, I will set forth the passages themselves which are cited as my offence.

22. First of all, in the first volume I interpreted Paul's testimony where he says, 'as he chose us in him before the constitution of the world, that we should be holy and unstained before him' (Eph. 1: 4), in such a way that I did not say, like Origen, that it refers to the election of those who previously existed, but I referred the words to God's foreknowledge. 2

2 See Rufinus, Apol. 1. 25-7.

I said, in fact, 'But the fact that he has declared that we were chosen before the creation of the world "that we should be holy and unstained before him", that is, before God, pertains to God's foreknowledge for whom all future things have already been done and all things are known before they come to pass. Just as Paul himself is predestined in the womb of his mother and Jeremiah is sanctified in the womb, Paul is chosen, confirmed, and sent as a prophet to the Gentiles in the type of Christ.' There is certainly nothing wrong with that exposition. Although Origen says things contrary to this, I followed the understanding of the Church. 3

3 While Jerome claims to follow common Christian tradition in this interpretation, one should not necessarily conclude that he did not find this interpretation in Origen's commentary as well as the following one which he explicitly attributes to Origen. Origen, as was noted in the Introduction, often gave more than one interpretation of a passage and, usually, did not choose between the interpretations which he gave. When Jerome found interpretations in Origen's work with which he agreed he took them over as his own views without calling attention to the source of the interpretations. It was only when

he wanted to dissociate himself from a particular interpretation found in Origen that he made some effort to point out that the interpretation in question was not his own.

But because it is the duty of a commentary to cite the opinions of many and I had promised in the Preface to do this I also cited Origen's explanation, but without the odium of his name, when I said, 'But another, who attempts to show that God is just because he chooses each, not on the basis of the prejudgement of his knowledge but on the basis of the merit of those chosen, says that before there were visible creatures, sky, earth, seas and all the things which are in them, there had been other invisible creatures in which were also souls which, for reasons known only to God, were cast down into that valley of tears, into the place of affliction and our sojourning, where the saint who had been placed there prayed that he might return to that original habitation saying, "Woe to me, because my residence has been prolonged. I have dwelt with the inhabitants of Kedar; my soul has sojourned long" (Ps. 119: 5-6). And the apostle says, "I am a miserable man. Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7: 24). And, "It is better to return and be with Christ" (Phil. 1: 23). And elsewhere, "Before I was humbled, I sinned" (Ps. 118: 67), and other passages like these' which it would be tedious to record. Pay attention to what I said: 'But another, who attempts to show that God is just'. I said, 'attempts to show', not,

'shows'. But if you find it offensive that I have related Origen's very extensive argument in a brief discussion and have revealed his sense to the reader end p.276 and, because I passed over nothing which he said, I seem to you to be his secret follower, consider if I did not have to do this so as to avoid your calumny. Would you not have accused me of being silent on points which he strongly asserted and said that he argues more strongly in the Greek text? Therefore, I cited everything, although rather briefly, which I found in the Greek text so that his recent disciples might have nothing which they might present to the ears of the Latin people, for we more easily despise things which we know than things which we didn't anticipate.

23. I will state the second passage briefly which my brother has shown me has been censured by my adversary, because it is so insignificant and displays his obvious calumny. 4

4 See Rufinus, Apol. 1. 35-6.

In that passage where Paul says, 'Making him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, above every principality and authority and power and dominion, and every name which is named not only in this age, but also in that which is to come' (Eph. 1: 20-1), when I arrived, after a many-sided exposition, at the offices of the ministers of God and spoke of principalities and authorities and powers and dominions, I also added this: 'It is necessary that they have subjects who fear and serve them and those who are strengthened by their strength. This distribution of offices will exist not only in this present age but also in the future. Consequently, by means of individual successes and honours, ascents and likewise descents, one either increases or decreases and comes to be under one or the other authority, power, principality, and dominion.' And after I cited the example of an earthly king and gave a complete description of his palace by which means

I showed the diverse offices of the ministers of God, I added, 'Do we think, then, that God, the Lord of lords and King of kings, is content with only a simple administration?'

How is an archangel mentioned if it does not mean one who is superior to angels?

Likewise also principality, authorities, and dominions are not named if they should not

have some who are subjects and of lower rank. But if he thinks that I am following

Origen because I assume advances and honours, ascents and descents, increases and exemptions in my exposition let him know that there is a great difference between saying that angels, Seraphim, and Cherubim become demons and human beings, which Origen affirms, and saying that the angels have been allotted different kinds of offices among themselves, which is not contrary to Church teaching. Just as there is a diverse order among human beings based on the differences of their work, since bishop, presbyter, and every ecclesiastical rank has its own order, but they, nevertheless, are all human beings, so also there are diverse merits among angels but they all continue, nevertheless, in the rank of angel. Angels do not become human beings nor are human beings, in turn, changed into angels.

24. The third passage which he censures is that in which the apostle says, 'that he might show in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus' (Eph. 2: 7). 5

5 Ibid. 1.34.

I provided three interpretations of this passage. The first contains what seemed correct to me, the second contains that adduced by Origen, and the third contains the simple explanation of Apollinarius. Forgive me for my modesty that I did not cite their names. I was under obligation end p.277 not to carp at those whom I was partly following and whose opinions I was translating into Latin. 'But', I said, 'he who is a diligent reader immediately raises the question.' And I said again at the end, 'But another says that the statement, "That he might show in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace", will refer to another view.' Behold, you say, you have laid out the opinions of Origen in the person of the 'diligent reader'. I admit my error. I ought not to have said 'diligent' but 'blasphemous'. Had I done so and had I known by some prophetic power that you were a student of such trifles I would also have avoided your words of calumny. Is it a great crime that I said Origen was a diligent reader, whose seventy books I have translated and whom I have lifted up to heaven in praises? Two years ago I was compelled to defend myself for the latter in a brief little book in response to your publications against me. You put forth in your praises that I had designated Origen a teacher of the churches. Do you think I ought to be fearful now if, as an enemy, you accuse me of having said he was a 'diligent reader'? . . .

25. The fourth passage to be censured occupies the beginning of the second book where I explained Paul's statement, 'For this reason I Paul am the prisoner of Jesus Christ on behalf of you Gentiles' (Eph. 3: 1). 6

6 See ibid. 1.40.

Because the passage itself is clear in and of itself I cite only that portion of my explanation which is subject to his calumny. 'Paul's reference to being a prisoner of Jesus

Christ for the Gentiles can also be understood of his martyrdom. When he had been thrown into prison at Rome he sent this epistle at the same time that he wrote to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Philippians as we have shown in another place. Or, because many passages refer to this body as the prison of the soul in which it is held as in an enclosed cell, we might, perhaps, say that Paul is confined by the fetters of the body and could not return and be with Christ so that his preaching among the Gentiles might be finished completely. Some, however, introduce another meaning at this point. They say

that Paul was predestined and sanctified to preach to the Gentiles from the womb of his mother before his birth, and later accepted the bonds of flesh.' I gave a threefold exposition here just as I did above. 7

7 i.e. in ch. 24.

The first contains what seemed correct to me; the second what Origen asserted; and the third contains Apollinarius' opinion running contrary to Origen's teachings. Read the Greek commentaries. If you do not find it so I will admit my error.

What is my sin in this passage? That, no doubt, for which I made a defence above—that I did not name the authors of the remarks. It would have been superfluous to state, for each statement of the apostle, the names of those whose works I had indicated in the Preface I would be translating. And furthermore, it is not an absurd interpretation that the soul is said to be bound in the body until it return to Christ and in the glory of the resurrection exchange the corruptible and mortal body for an incorruptible and immortal one. It is in this sense that the apostle also says, 'I am a miserable man; who will deliver me from the body of this death?' He calls it a body of death because it is subject to defects, diseases, disturbances, and death until it rises with Christ in glory and the previous fragile clay end p.278 is baked by the fervour of the Holy Spirit into a solid brick, changing in glory, not in nature.

26. The fifth passage is the most important, in which I explain this statement of the apostle, 'from which the whole body, joined and glued together by every connection of the structure according to the operation in the measure of each member causes the body to increase in the building up of itself in love' (Eph. 4: 16). 8

8 See Rufinus, Apol. 1. 42-3.

I abridged in a brief discussion Origen's very lengthy exposition and reflection with diverse terminology on the same ideas omitting none of his examples or proofs. And when I reached the end I added the following: 'So, therefore, it will be in the restoration of all things when Christ Jesus, the true physician, shall come to heal the body of the whole Church which is now scattered and torn apart. Each one, according to the measure of his faith and recognition of the Son of God (whom he is said to recognize because he had known him earlier and afterwards had ceased to know him) will receive his place and will begin to be that which he was, yet not so that, as another heresy has it, all are placed in one age, that is all are transformed into angels, but each individual member is perfected in accordance with its measure and duty so that, for example, the rebellious angel begins to be that which it was created and 9

9 I have read et with Pieri's text of the commentary. The text of the Apology (PL

23.419A) has ut. human beings, who were cast out of paradise, are again restored to the cultivation of paradise', etc.

27. I marvel that you have not understood the manner of my exposition since you are such a wise man. For when I say, 'yet not so that, as another heresy has it, all are placed in one age, that is all are transformed into angels', I show that those things which I am discussing are heretical and that they differ from another heresy. What, then, are the two heresies? One states that all rational creatures are transformed into angels. The other asserts that each being, in the restoration of the world, will be what it was created. For example, because demons come from angels they become angels again, and the souls of

men are transformed so that they are as they were created. They are not transformed into angels, but into that which they were created by God. Consequently, both the just and sinners become equal. Finally, that you may know that I was not explaining my own position but was comparing heresy with heresy, both of which I had read about in Greek,

I concluded my discussion as follows: 'These statements are rather obscure for us because, as we said above, they are said

(metaphorically) in Greek and when a metaphor is translated literally from one language into another the ideas and buds are choked by thorns, as it were.' If you do not find these same things in the Greek text consider whatever was said to be mine.

28. The sixth passage, which is also the last (if, that is, my brother has not forgotten something in between) which he is said to bring up against me is: 'He who loves his wife loves himself, for no one has ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church' (Eph. 5: 28b-9). 10

10 See Rufinus, Apol. 1. 23-4.

Why, he asks, when I end p.279 interpret that passage of the apostle, do I, after giving the simple explanation, state the question of Origen and say in his person without mentioning his name, 'But we can object that the judgement of the apostle is not true when he says, "No one ever hated his own flesh", since those suffering with leprosy, tuberculosis, cancer, and catarrhs prefer death to life and hate their own bodies.' I immediately added my own opinion: 'Therefore let the saying be referred to the tropological understanding.' When I say tropological I indicate that what is said is not true but is expressed figuratively in a cloud of allegory.

Let me, nevertheless, cite the precise words which are contained in the third book of Origen's commentary. 'Let us say that the soul loves, nourishes, and cherishes that flesh which will see the salvation of God, educating it with disciplines, fattening it with the heavenly bread, and supplying it with the blood of Christ to drink so that, renewed and with the look of health, it can follow its husband with free course and be unencumbered by weakness or burden. Excellently furthermore, in the likeness of Christ nourishing and cherishing the Church and saying to Jerusalem, "How often did I wish to gather your children as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing", souls also cherish their bodies so that this corruptible may put on incorruption and, suspended on the lightness of wings, may be lifted more easily into the air.

'Therefore, let us husbands cherish our wives and let our souls cherish our bodies so that wives may be brought into the rank of men and bodies into the rank of souls. And may there be no diversity of the sexes at all, but as there is no man and woman among the angels, so also let us, who will be like angels, even now begin to be that which has been promised to us in the heavens.'

29. Before that I expressed the simple explanation which seemed right to me in that passage when I said, 'So far as it pertains to the simple understanding, holy love has been commanded between husband and wife, and now we are ordered to "nourish and cherish our wives" that, of course, we may provide for them sustenance, clothing, and those things which are necessary.' These are my views. I show, therefore, that everything which follows after this and can be brought forward against me ought not to be understood to derive from me but from adversaries.

Though my reply is short and detached and, in relation to that which I said above, also distorted by the clouds of allegory from that which is to that which was not, still I shall approach it more particularly and ask what it is which displeases you in this discussion.

No doubt it is because I said that souls cherish their own bodies as men their wives 'so that this corruption may put on incorruption and, suspended on the lightness of wings, may be lifted more easily into the air'. When I say, 'this corruption may put on incorruption', I do not alter the nature of bodies but I increase their glory. It is the same in relation to the following words, 'suspended on the lightness of wings, they may be lifted more easily into the air'. One who receives wings, that is, immortality, that he may fly lightly up to heaven does not cease to be what he was. But, you say, the following words disturb me: 'Therefore, let us husbands cherish our wives and let our souls cherish our bodies so that wives may be brought into the rank of men and bodies into the rank of souls. And may there be no diversity of the sexes at all, but as there is no man and woman among the angels, so also let us, who will be like angels, even now begin to be on earth that which has been promised to us in the heavens.'

These words should rightly disturb you had I not said after the earlier words, 'Let us even now begin to be that which has been promised to us in the heavens.' When I say, 'Let us begin here on earth', I do not annul the nature of the sexes, but lust, and I remove the intercourse of men and women, as the apostle says, 'The time is short; it remains that those who have wives be as though they have none' (1 Cor. 7: 29). And when the Lord was asked in the Gospel who of the seven brothers should have her as wife in the resurrection, he said: 'You err, knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they will neither marry nor be married, but they will be as the angels of God in heaven' (Matt. 22: 29-30). In fact, where there is chastity between man and woman there begins to be neither male nor female but, still situated in the body, they are being changed into angels among whom there is neither man nor woman. This fact is also stated in another passage by the same apostle: 'Whoever has been baptized into Christ has put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus' (Gal. 3: 27-8). end p.281

Bibliography Bammel, C., 'A New Witness to the Scholia from Origen in the Codex von der Goltz', in Origeniana et Rufiniana, VL 29 (Freiburg, 1996), 137-41.

—— 'Origen's Pauline Prefaces and the Chronology of his Pauline Commentaries', in Origeniana Sexta: Origène et la Bible/Origen and the Bible, ed. G. Dorival and A. Le

Boulluec, BEThL 118 (Leuven, 1995), 495-513.

—— 'Die Pauluskommentare des Hieronymus: Die ersten wissenschaftlichen lateinischen Bibelkommentare?', in Christianesimo Latino e cultura Greca sino al sec.

IV, SEAug 42 (Rome, 1993), 187-207.

Bardenhewer, O., Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, ii (Darmstadt, 1962, reprint).

Birdsall, J. N., 'The Text and Scholia of the Codex von der Goltz and its Allies, and their bearing upon the Texts of the Works of Origen, especially the Commentary on Romans', in Origeniana: Premier colloque international des études origéniennes (Montserrat, 1821 septembre 1973), ed. H. Crouzel, G. Lomiento, and J. Rius-Camps, QVetChr 12 (Bari,

1975), 215-22.

Blanc, C. (ed., tr.), Origène: Commentaire sur saint Jean, v, SC 385 (Paris, 1992).

Bonnard, É. (ed., tr.), Saint Jérôme commentaire sur S. Matthieu, i, SC 242 (Paris, 1977).

Brésard, L., Crouzel, H., and Borret, M., Origène: Commentaire sur le Cantique des

Cantiques, i, SC 375 (Paris, 1991).

Brown, D., Vir Trilingus: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome (Kampen,

1992).

Brummer, I. (ed.), Vitae Vergilianae (Stuttgart, 1969).

Busse, A. (ed.), Porphyrii Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium, CAG 4

(Berlin, 1887).

Butterworth, G. W., Origen: On First Principles (New York, 1966).

, BZ 18 (1928), 84-5.

--> Casel, O.,

, BZ 18 (1928), 84-5.

Chadwick, H. (tr.), Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge, 1965).

Chênevert, J., L'Église dans le commentaire d'Origène sur le Cantique des Cantiques,

Studia: Travaux de recherche 24 (Brussels/Paris/Montreal, 1969).

Clark, E. A., The Origenist Controversy (Princeton, 1992).

—— 'The Place of Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist Controversy: The Apokatastasis and Ascetic Ideals', VC (1987), 154-71.

Cocchini, F., Il Paolo di Origene (Rome, 1992).

Cramer, J. A. (ed.), Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum, vi, vii (Oxford,

1842, 1843; repr. Hildesheim, 1967).

Crouzel, H. Origen, tr. A. S. Worrall (Edinburgh, 1989).

Daniélou, J., The Development of Christian Doctrine before the Council of Nicaea, i: The Theology of Jewish Christianity, tr. J. A. Baker (London/Chicago, 1964).

Deniau, F., 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur Ephésiens nous permet-il de connaître celui d'Origène?', in Origeniana: Premier colloque international des études origéniennes

(Montserrat, 18-21 septembre 1973), ed. H. Crouzel, G. Lomiento, and J. Rius-Camps,

QVetChr 12 (Bari, 1975), 163-79.

Devreesse, R., 'Chaines exégétiques grecques', in Dictionnaire de la bible, suppl. 1 (Paris,

1928), 1084-1233.

Doutreleau, L. (ed., tr.), Didyme l'aveugle sur Zacharie, i, SC 83 (Paris, 1962).

Froehlich, K., 'Which Paul? Observations on the Image of the Apostle in the History of Biblical Exegesis', in B. Nassif (ed.), New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff (Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 1996), 279-99.

Geerard, M., Clavis Patrum Graecorum, iv (Turnhout, 1980).

Goltz, F. von der, Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts, TU

2.4 (Leipzig, 1899).

Görgemanns, H., and Karpp, H. (eds., trs.), Origenes vier Bücher von den Prinzipien,

TzF 24 (Darmstadt, 1985).

Gori, F. (ed.), Marius Victorinus Pars II: Opera exegetica, CSEL 83.2 (Vienna, 1986).

Gregg, J. A. F., 'The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians', JTS, os 3

(1902), 233-44, 398-420, 554-76.

Grützmacher, G., Hieronymus i-iii, SGTK 6.3, 10.1-2 (Leipzig, 1901; Berlin, 1906, 1908; repr. Darmstadt, 1969).

Guéraud, O., and Nautin, P., Origène: Sur la Pâque (Paris, 1979).

Hadot, I., 'Les Introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens', in M. Tardieu (ed.), Les règles de l'interprétation

(Paris, 1987), 99-122.

Hammond Bammel, C. P., Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes: Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins, AGLB 16, 33, 34 (Freiburg, 1990, 1997, 1998).

Hanson, R. P. C., Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London, 1954).

Harl, M., 'Origène et les interprétations patristiques grecques de l' "obscurité" biblique',

VC (1982), 334-71.

Harnack, A., Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, ii.2 (Leipzig, 1958, reprint).

—— 'Origenistisches Gut von kirchengeschichtlicher Bedeutung in den Kommentaren des Hieronymus zum Philemon-, Galater-, Epheserund Titus-brief', Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes, TU 42.4 (Leipzig,

1919).

Heine, R. E., 'Can the Catena Fragments of Origen's Commentary on John be Trusted?',

VC (1986), 118-34.

—— 'Evidence for the Date of Origen's Commentary on Ephesians', ZAC (2000), 149-57.

—— 'Exegesis and Theology in Gregory of Nyssa's Fifth Homily on Ecclesiastes', in Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on Ecclesiastes, ed. S. G. Hall (Berlin, 1993), 197-222.

Heine, R. E., 'In Search of Origen's Commentary on Philemon', HTR (2000), 117-33.

—— 'The Introduction to Origen's Commentary on John Compared with the Introductions to the Ancient Philosophical Commentaries on Aristotle', in Origeniana

Sexta: Origène et la Bible/Origen and the Bible, ed. G. Dorival and A. Le Boulluec,

BEThL 118 (Leuven, 1995), 3-12.

—— (tr.), Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 1-10, FOTC 80

(Washington, 1989).

—— (tr.), Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, Books 13-32, FOTC 89 (Washington, 1993).

—— (tr.), Origen: Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, FOTC 71 (Washington, 1982).

—— 'The Prologues of Origen's Pauline Commentaries and the Schemata Isagogica of Ancient Commentary Literature', SP 36 (Leuven, 2001), 421-39.

—— 'Recovering Origen's Commentary on Ephesians from Jerome', JTS (2000), 489514.

—— 'Restringing Origen's Broken Harp: Some Suggestions Concerning the Prologue to the Caesarean Commentary on the Psalms', paper delivered at the conference 'The Harp of Prophecy: The Psalms in Early Christian Exegesis' at the University of Notre Dame,

Indiana, 1998.

Hieronymus, S. Eusebius, Apologia adversus libros Rufini, PL 23. 397-492.

—— Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Ephesios, Libri Tres, PL 26. 467-590.

Hilberg, I., (ed.), Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae, Pars I-III, CSEL 54, 55, 56.1

(Vienna, 1996).

Holl, K., 'Die Zeitfolge des ersten origenistischen Streits', in K. Holl, Gesammelte

Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, ii (Darmstadt, 1964), 310-50.

Jay, P., L'exégèse de saint Jérôme d'après son 'Commentaire sur Isaïe' (Paris, 1985).

Jenkins, C., 'Origen on I Corinthians', JTS, os 6 (1905), 231-47, 353-73, 500-14; 10

(1909), 29-51.

—— 'The Origen-Citations in Cramer's Catena on I Corinthians', JTS, os 6 (1905), 11316.

Kelly, J. N. D., Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York, 1975).

Kroll, G. (ed.), Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem Publicam Commentarii, i (Leipzig,

1899).

Lake, K., and New, S. (eds.), Six Collations of New Testament Manuscripts, HThS 17

(Cambridge, Mass., 1932).

Lawson, R. P. (tr.), Origen: The Song of Songs, Commentary and Homilies, ACW 26 (New York, n.d.).

Layton, R. A., 'Judas Yields a Place to the Devil: The Appropriation of Origen's

Commentary on Ephesians by Didymus of Alexandria', in Origeniana Septima, ed. W. A.

Bienert and U. Kühneweg, BEThL 137 (Leuven, 1999), 531-41.

—— 'Origen as a Reader of Paul: A Study of the Commentary on Ephesians', Ph.D. diss.

(University of Virginia, 1996).

Lossau, M. J., Untersuchungen zur antiken Demosthenesexegese, Palingenesia 2 (Berlin/Zurich, 1964).

Mansfeld, J., Prolegomena Mathematica: From Apollonius of Perga to Late Neoplatonism, PA 80 (Leiden, 1998).

—— Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author, or a Text, PA

61 (Leiden, 1994).

Nautin, P., 'La Date des commentaires de Jérôme sur les épîtres pauliniennes', RHE 74

(1979), 5-12.

—— Origène (Paris, 1977).

Neuschäfer, B., Origenes als Philologe, SBA 18.1-2 (Basel, 1987).

Origenes, Opera Omnia: Origenis Fragmenta, PG 14. 1293-1310.

Oulton, J. E. L., and Chadwick, H. (trs.), Alexandrian Christianity, LCC 2 (Philadelphia,

1954).

—— and Lawlor, H. J. (trs.), Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History, i, ii (London, 1927,

1928).

Pagels, E., The Gnostic Paul (Philadelphia, 1975).

—— The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon's Commentary on John (Nashville, 1973).

Pieri, F. 'L'esegesi di Girolamo nel Commentario a Efesini. Aspetti storico-esegetici e storico-dottrinali. Testo critico e annotazioni', doctoral diss., Università degli Studi di

Bologna, 1996/7.

Praechter, K., 'Die griechischen Aristoteleskommentare', ByZ 18 (1909), 516-38.

Ramsbotham, A., 'The Commentary of Origen on the Epistle to the Romans', JTS, os 13

(1912), 209-24, 357-68; 14 (1913), 10-22.

Richard, M., 'Les Premières Chaînes sur le psautier', in Centre National de la Recherche

Scientifique, BIIRHT 5 (1956), 87-98.

Rietz, W., De Origenis Prologis in Psalterium (Jena, 1914).

Robinson, J. A., The Philocalia of Origen (Cambridge, 1893).

Rufinus Aquileiensis Presbyter, Apologiae in sanctum Hieronymum Libri Duo, PL 21.

541-624.

Schaff, P., and Wace, H. (eds.), A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd ser. iii, vi (Edinburgh; reprinted. Grand Rapids, 1989).

Schatkin, M. A., 'The Influence of Origen upon St. Jerome's Commentary on Galatians',

VC (1970), 49-58.

Scherer, J., Le Commentaire d'Origène sur Rom. III.5-V.7, IFAO 27 (Cairo, 1957).

Sorabji, R. (ed.), Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and their Influence

(Ithaca, NY, 1990).

Souter, A., The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St Paul (Oxford, 1927).

Staab, K., 'Neue Fragmente aus dem Kommentar des Origenes zum Römerbrief', BZ (1928), 72-82.

—— Die Pauluskatenen, SPIB (Rome, 1926).

—— Stählen, O. (ed.), Clemens Alexandrinus, iii, GCS 17 (Leipzig, 1909).

Studer, B., 'John Damascene', Encyclopedia of the Early Church, i (Cambridge, 1992),

442-3.

—— Die theologische Arbeitsweise des Johannes von Damaskus, SPB 2 (Ettal, 1956).

Turner, C. H., 'Greek Patristic Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles', A Dictionary of the Bible, 'extra volume' (Edinburgh/New York, 1904), 484-531.

Vogels, H. J. (ed.), Ambrosiastri qui dicitur Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas, Pars IIII, CSEL 81.1-3 (Vienna, 1966, 1968, 1969).

Vogt, H. J., Das Kirchenverständnis des Origenes, BoBKG 4 (Cologne/Vienna, 1974).

Völker, W., 'Paulus bei Origenes', ThStKr (1930), 258-79.

↑ Back to top