Heine, Ronald E.

, Professor of Bible and Theology at Puget Sound Christian College,

Washington

The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St.

Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians
Print ISBN 0199245517, 2002

Table of Contents
Preface
Introduction
Translations of Origen's and Jerome's Commentaries on Ephesians
The Commentaries of Eusebius Jerome the Presbyter on the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to
the Ephesians
Book II
Book III.
Appendix
Bibliography
Index

Introduction
Ronald E. Heine
Jerome reports that Origen wrote commentaries on the epistles of Paul to the Romans,
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, the two epistles to the Thessalonians, and
those to Titus and Philemon. He refers also to homilies of Origen on 2 Corinthians,
Thessalonians, 1
1
Jerome does not say whether on 1 or 2 Thessalonians.
Galatians, Titus, and Hebrews. 2
2
Ep. 33.4.
None of these Pauline commentaries or homilies have survived in the Greek language in
which Origen wrote them. Only the commentary on Romans has survived in something
like its original fullness in the Latin translation of Rufinus. 3
3
C. P. Hammond Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes: Kritische Ausgabe
der Übersetzung Rufins, AGLB 16, 33, 34 (Freiburg, 1990, 1997, 1998).
Rufinus reduced even this treatise from its original fifteen books to ten in his translation.
A Greek text of the commentary on Romans 3: 5-5: 7 was discovered among the Tura
papyri in 1941 but even this does not provide a continuous text of the section preserved. 4
4
J. Scherer, Le Commentaire d'Origène sur Rom. III.5-V.7, IFAO 27 (Cairo, 1957).
There are also some Greek fragments of the commentary on Romans in catena
commentaries and in the Philocalia. For the latter see A. Ramsbotham, 'The Commentary
of Origen on the Epistle to the Romans', JTS, os 13 (1912), 209-24, 357-68; 14 (1913),
10-22; K. Staab, 'Neue Fragmente aus dem Kommentar des Origenes zum Römerbrief',
BZ (1928), 72-82; J. A. Robinson, The Philocalia of Origen (Cambridge, 1893).
There are Greek excerpts of the remaining commentaries and homilies of Origen on the
Pauline epistles in Jerome's list in catena commentaries only on the commentary on
Ephesians5 and the homilies on Hebrews.6 There is an additional short excerpt from the
homilies on Hebrews quoted by Eusebius.7 There are also several Greek excerpts from
Origen on 1 Corinthians in catena commentaries.8 It is not known if these latter fragments
come from commentaries or homilies as Jerome mentions
end p.1
nothing written by Origen on 1 Corinthians. In addition to these few Greek remains, there
are some brief identified fragments from Origen's works on Galatians, Ephesians,
Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews preserved in Latin in works
of Jerome and in Rufinus' Latin translation of the Apology for Origen by Pamphilus.9
One additional source for Origen's Pauline exegesis lies in the four commentaries written
by Jerome on the epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Titus, and Philemon.10 All four
commentaries depend in some degree on Origen. The extent of this dependence can be
shown most convincingly in the case of the commentary on Ephesians because of the
Greek catena fragments of Origen's commentary on this epistle which have been
preserved.
In the body of this study I place translations of the Greek fragments from Origen's
commentary on Ephesians parallel to the comments of Jerome in his continuous
commentary on Ephesians. By reading the two in juxtaposition one can see not only how
extensively Jerome depends on Origen for his exegesis of the epistle but also the different
ways that Jerome uses Origen's work, sometimes reproducing it literally and at other
times only reflecting Origen's ideas. Additional passages from Origen's commentary in
Jerome's commentary on Ephesians, beyond those having parallels in the catena
fragments, can be identified from the Apology which Jerome wrote against Rufinus (see
below, §3.2). Finally, a comparison of Origen's treatment in his other works of topics
discussed by Jerome in his commentary on Ephesians suggests that further passages in
the latter were drawn from Origen's commentary on Ephesians although there are no
catena parallels or specific identifications by Jerome (see below, §§ 3.3-4; 4.3).
This comparison of texts does not provide the opportunity to reconstruct the original text
of Origen's commentary on Ephesians. Neither the catena fragments of that commentary
nor Jerome's use of Origen's commentary are complete enough for such a task. We can,
nevertheless, recover Origen's exegesis of Ephesians to the extent that we can hear his
voice, admittedly sometimes muffled or cut short, speaking about the mysteries of this
epistle.
end p.2
1. The Place of Origen's Commentary on Ephesians in the Early Exegetical Tradition
Origen may have been the first to have composed a continuous commentary on the epistle
to the Ephesians. 11
11
Jerome is our primary witness to this commentary. See Append. A, Ep. 33.4, Append.
B, 21, and the concluding paragraph in the prologue to Book I below (543-4, Vallarsi;
henceforth Vall.). See also the remarks of K. Froehlich, '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), 285.
His is, at least, the earliest commentary on the epistle of which we have any sure
knowledge and also the earliest of which any part is extant. Thirty-nine rather lengthy
excerpts of this commentary have survived in the Greek manuscript tradition of a catena
commentary which will be discussed below (§4.1). 12
12
K. Staab, Die Pauluskatenen (Rome, 1926), 62; M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum
Graecorum, iv (Turnhout, 1980), 252.
E. Pagels has stated that there is evidence of earlier Valentinian exegesis in these excerpts
from Origen's commentary. 13
13
The Gnostic Paul (Philadelphia, 1975), 115. Cf. K. Froehlich, 'Which Paul?', 285.
I have seen nothing, however, which would suggest that there was a Valentinian
commentary on Ephesians. The Valentinians appear to have used passages or concepts
from Ephesians to develop or support their theology. 14
14
See Pagels, Gnostic Paul, 115-33.
Eusebius informs us that Clement of Alexandria set forth Pantaenus' interpretations of the
Scriptures in his Hypotyposeis and that this work included 'concise explanations of all the
Canonical Scriptures'. 15
15
HE 6.13.2; 14.1. Tr. J. E. L. Oulton and H. J. Lawlor, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical
History, ii (Cambridge, Mass./London, 1928), 47.
Only a few Greek fragments of this work survive along with a Latin translation by
Cassiodorus of brief comments on 1 Peter, Jude, and 1 and 2 John which appear to have
come from the Hypotyposeis. 16
16
See O. Stählin (ed.), Clemens Alexandrinus, iii, GCS 17 (Leipzig, 1909), 195-215.
These demonstrate that the Hypotyposeis had the form of scholia. None of the preserved
fragments come from comments on Ephesians though Ephesians must have been covered
in the scholia. Eusebius also mentions that works of Heraclitus 'on the apostle' had been
preserved until his own time but we know nothing more of these works or of
Heraclitus. 17
17
HE 5.27.1. See also C. H. Turner, 'Greek Patristic Commentaries on the Pauline
Epistles', A Dictionary of the Bible, 'extra vol.' (Edinburgh/New York, 1904), 489.
In the Greek fragments which are extant of Origen's commentary on Ephesians there is
one reference to an earlier exegete in the comments on
end p.3
Ephesians 1: 13. The introductory words are vague, 'Someone before us said' (
), and it is not clear that the exegete made his remarks
specifically in relation to Ephesians 1: 13. The comment of the earlier exegete was that
'because of his great love for Jesus Paul has made mention of him continuously, even
superfluously, as it were'. This may have been a general comment which Origen applied
to Ephesians 1: 13. It certainly does not prove that this earlier person had composed a
commentary on Ephesians. 18
18
See also HE 5.27.1.
When Jerome wrote his commentary on Ephesians he took notice only of the three Greek
volumes of Origen on Ephesians and two brief Greek works on the epistle by
Apollinarius (4th cent.) and Didymus (4th cent.). 19
19
See Jerome's prologue to Book I below (543-4, Vall.). The commentaries of both
Apollinarius and Didymus have perished. A few brief remarks in Jerome's commentary
can be identified as derived from Apollinarius but none can be identified as coming from
Didymus.
There were also two earlier commentaries on Ephesians in Latin which Jerome either
ignored or of which he had no knowledge. He ignored the Latin commentary Gaius
Marius Victorinus had written on the epistle sometime after ad 360. In the prologue to
book 1 of his commentary on Galatians, which was written immediately before that on
Ephesians, 20
20
See the prologue to Book I below (539-40, Vall.).
Jerome notes that Victorinus had 'published commentaries on the apostle' but dismisses
them because they show no knowledge of the Bible. 21
21
PL 26.369-70 (Vall.). A. Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St
Paul (Oxford, 1927), 9. Victorinus' commentaries on Ephesians, Galatians, and
Philippians are extant. Souter thinks Victorinus was probably the first Latin commentator
on these three Pauline epistles (ibid. 21). For the text of Victorinus' commentaries see
Marius Victorinus Pars II: Opera exegetica, ed. F. Gori, CSEL 83.2 (Vienna, 1986).
Jerome appears to have been ignorant of the Latin commentary on the Pauline epistles
produced between ad 366 and 384 and known under the name Ambrosiaster. 22
22
See A. Souter, Latin Commentaries, 44-9, 107. This author, whose identity is
unknown, wrote commentaries on Romans-Philemon. For the text of his commentaries
see Ambrosiastri qui dicitur Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas Pars I: In epistulam ad
Romanos; Pars II: In epistulam ad Corinthios; Pars III: In epistulas ad Galatas, ad
Efesios, ad Filippenses, ad Colossienses, ad Thessalonicenses, ad Timotheum, ad Titum,
ad Filemonem, ed. H. J. Vogels, CSEL 81.1-3 (Vienna, 1966, 1968, 1969).
end p.4
2. The Relation of Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians to Origen's
Jerome notes in the prologue to Book I of his commentary on Ephesians that he has
followed Origen, Apollinarius, and Didymus in his own work and, especially, that he has
followed Origen. In the prologue to his translation of Origen's De Principiis done in ad
398 Rufinus remarks that Jerome had translated (transtulisset in Latinum) more than
seventy of Origen's homilies and some of his commentaries on Paul's epistles (aliquantos
. . . de tomis in apostolum scriptis) and that he had polished and altered the offensive
elements in these writings of Origen in such a way that a Latin reader would not be
offended by them. 23
23
Princ., Praef. Ruf. 2.
We have seventy-eight homilies of Origen translated by Jerome on Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Canticles, and Luke. Since the commentaries on Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians,
and Titus are the only commentaries on Paul that Jerome produced, Rufinus' remark must
refer to these four commentaries. C. Bammel has noted that Jerome refers to these
remarks of Rufinus in his Apology (1. 8) and that he does not deny that he has translated
many of Origen's commentaries (multa de tomis) into Latin. As none of Jerome's Biblical
commentaries are presented as translations of Origen's commentaries we can only
conclude that some, at least, of the commentaries which bear Jerome's name are
translations of Origen. Jerome's only reply to Rufinus' assertion that he translated some of
Origen's Pauline commentaries is that his translations had not stirred up trouble in
Rome. 24
24
Apol. 1. 8; C. P. Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare des Hieronymus: Die ersten
wissenschaftlichen lateinischen Bibelkommentare?', Cristianesimo Latino e cultura
Greca sino al sec. IV, SEAug 42 (Rome, 1993), 191. In the second book of his Apology
Jerome says, 'I myself . . . translated seventy homilies of Origen and parts of his Tomes'
[i.e. commentaries] (2.14; tr. NPNF, 2nd ser. iii.508). In referring to Rufinus' attack on
his translations of Origen in Apol. 3. 12 Jerome tacitly admits that his commentary on
Ephesians is one of the commentaries on Paul which he had translated.
This tacit admission of Jerome to translating Origen's commentaries on Paul should not
be taken, however, to suggest that we have anything like either a word-for-word
translation of Origen's Greek text or even a paraphrastic translation of the whole. Jerome
explained his approach to translating in a letter to Pammachius. Except in translating the
Bible, where even the order of the words has significance, he translates sense for sense
and not word for word (Ep. 57. 5). He cites a passage from the
end p.5

prologue of Cicero's translation of the orations of Aeschines and Demosthenes to support

this manner of translating. Cicero says,
I have rendered them not as a translator but as an orator, keeping the sense but altering
the form by adapting both the metaphors and the words to suit our own idiom. I have not
deemed it necessary to render word for word but I have reproduced the general style and
emphasis. I have not supposed myself bound to pay the words out one by one to the
reader but only to give him an equivalent in value. 25
25 Ep. 57.5; tr. NPNF, 2nd ser. vi.114.
Jerome's alteration of texts of Origen, however, involved more than free translation. It
also involved the omission and modification of controversial materials. Writing to
Vigilantius, Jerome admits that Origen was a heretic, at least on certain points of his
theology, but argues that he interpreted the Scriptures brilliantly in many places. He then
defends his translations of Origen's expositions of Scripture by saying that he has
'translated what is good in him' and has 'either omitted or corrected or passed over in
silence what is bad'. 26
26 Append. A, Ep. 61.2.
Furthermore, Jerome insists that his commentaries, and that on Ephesians in particular,
contain material from various earlier commentators, 27
27 See Append. B, 16 and his reiteration of this statement in relation to his commentary
on Ephesians in the preface to his commentary on Jeremiah written late in his life (tr. in
NPNF, 2nd ser. vi.499).
although I will point out later that this assertion must be treated with great caution. 28
28 See below, §3.3.
Taking these points into consideration we may, nevertheless, safely assume that Jerome's
commentary on Ephesians closely follows Origen's in all of its major lines of thought.
Jerome's admission that he followed Origen's commentary on Ephesians noted above and
the exchange between Rufinus and Jerome about the latter translating some of Origen's
Pauline commentaries bear this out. The juxtaposition of the catena fragments with
Jerome's text shows that nearly all the catena fragments have parallels in Jerome's
commentary. 29
29 J. A. F. Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians', JTS, os
3 (1902), 233-44, 398-420, 554-76, cites the parallel passages in Jerome's commentary on
Ephesians in the footnotes to his edition of the catena fragments. See also F. Deniau, 'Le
Commentaire de Jérôme sur Éphésiens nous permet-il de connaître celui d'Origène?',
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), 166-8, 176-7; J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New
York, 1975), 145-6; and G. Grützmacher, Hieronymus, ii, SGTK 10.1 (Berlin 1906; repr.
Darmstadt, 1969), 37-8.
A. von Harnack was so convinced of the extensive dependence of Jerome on Origen in
his
end p.6
commentary on Ephesians that he said, 'In a publication of the complete works of Origen
one will have to ask oneself seriously if one should not publish Jerome's commentary on
Ephesians as an appendix.' 30
30 'Origenistisches Gut von kirchengeschichtlicher Bedeutung in den Kommentaren des
Hieronymus zum Philemon-, Galater-, Epheser- und Titusbrief', Der
kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes, TU 42.4 (Leipzig,
1919), 156 n. 3.
Jerome's commentary constitutes a major witness to what Origen said in his commentary
on Ephesians. This is significant for, as I noted above, Origen's commentary stands at the
fountain-head of the exegetical tradition on Ephesians and, consequently, is of
fundamental importance for that tradition (§1). I stress again, however, that this
juxtaposition of the two texts allows us to hear only Origen's voice. It does not constitute
a reconstruction of the actual text of Origen's commentary for, as I have indicated above
and will show in more detail below (§3.3), Jerome's working methods do not allow for
that nor, as we shall also see, do those of the catenist (§4.1.1).
3. Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians
3.1. The Setting of the Commentary in Jerome's Life
In 386 Jerome settled in Bethlehem, where the noble lady Paula and her daughter
Eustochium, who had earlier come under Jerome's influence in Rome, built three
convents for women and a monastery for men. Jerome spent his remaining life presiding
over this monastery and devoting his time to the study of the Scriptures and to writing.
Early in this period Paula and Eustochium pressed him to produce expositions of the
Pauline epistles for them. 31
31 Ephes. I. Praef. (539-40, Vall.).
Jerome, somewhat reluctantly, then composed commentaries on the four Pauline epistles,
Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus, in that order. 32
32 There is a hint at the beginning of his comments on Philemon 1 that Jerome intended
to treat all the Pauline epistles but if this was his intention he never carried it out for these
four commentaries constitute all his commentaries on Paul (746, Vall.; see Kelly, Jerome,
149).
He wrote the commentaries rapidly one after the other sometime in the period, ad 386-8.
33
33 P. Nautin, 'La Date des commentaires de Jérôme sur les épîtres pauliniennes', RHE 74
(1979), 5-12, esp. 11, puts the composition in 386. G. Grützmacher, Hieronymus, i,
SGTK 6.3 (Leipzig, 1901; repr. Darmstadt, 1969), 60-2, puts it in 386 or 387. Kelly,
Jerome, 145, puts it in 387-8. Jerome remarks about the rapidity of his work at the end of
the prologue to the second book of his commentary on Ephesians and says that he was
sometimes writing as many as a thousand lines a day.
Jerome was still an admirer and defender of Origen, and especially of
end p.7
his exegesis, at the time during which he composed the four Pauline commentaries. He
had translated fourteen homilies of Origen on Jeremiah and fourteen on Ezekiel in ad
381. In the preface to his translation of the homilies on Ezekiel he refers with approval to
Didymus' praise of Origen as the 'second teacher of the Church after the apostles'. 34
34 Cf. Princ., Rufinus Praef. 1.
In ad 383 he translated two of Origen's homilies on the Song of Songs for Pope Damasus.
In the preface to this translation he gives a short description of Origen's commentary on
the Song of Songs. He praises Origen as superior 'to everyone in all his books' and says
that in his commentary on the Song of Songs 'he exceeded even himself'. In 390 or 391
Jerome translated thirty-nine homilies of Origen on Luke at the request of Paula and
Eustochium. In the preface to that work he refers to Origen as 'our Adamantius'
(Adamantii nostri). He says in that preface that when he was in Rome Blesilla had once
requested that he translate the entirety of Origen's commentaries on Matthew, Luke, and
John for her. The only reason he gives for refusing that request is that such a large
undertaking would have demanded too much of his time and energy. He also notes that
he has interrupted his work on his Book of Hebrew Questions in order to make the
translation of the homilies on Luke. In the preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions he
says that he would be willing to bear all the ill-will attached to Origen's name if only he
could have his knowledge of the Scriptures. In his Lives of Illustrious Men written in ad
392 the chapter on Origen (ch. 54) is panegyrical. He praises his great glory, his study of
the Scriptures, and his 'immortal genius'. No note of criticism is sounded in the chapter.
In his Apology (2. 16) Jerome claims to 'possess the whole of Origen's works' and to
'have read a vast number of them'. 35
35 Tr. NPNF, 2nd ser. iii.510.
Jerome's dramatic change of mind concerning Origen occurred in ad 393 under the
influence of Epiphanius. Jerome's first known contact with Epiphanius came after the
council of Constantinople in ad 381. Jerome remained in Constantinople a few months
after the council and in 382 travelled from there to Rome in the company of Paulinus of
Antioch and Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis. On his journey from Rome to Bethlehem in
ad 385 Jerome stopped in Cyprus, where he was received by Epiphanius. 36
36 Jerome, Apol. 3.22.
Epiphanius had been engaged in a long and largely uneventful literary attack on Origen.
37
37 Kelly, Jerome, 197-8.
In ad 393 Epiphanius raised the level of his attacks on Origen from literary attacks to
personal visitations of those holding Origen's views. He was especially concerned that
Palestine harboured so many admirers of Origen. He sent Atarbius,
end p.8
therefore, at the head of a group of monks to the monasteries of Rufinus in Jerusalem and
of Jerome in Bethlehem to demand a renunciation of Origen's doctrines. 38
38 Jerome, Apol. 3.33.
J. N. D. Kelly assumes quite plausibly that Jerome's ready compliance with Atarbius'
demands derived from his desire to please 'his octogenarian friend Epiphanius'. 39
39 Jerome, 198.
Rufinus, however, refused even to admit Atarbius and his monks into his monastery in
Jerusalem. This stirred Jerome's anger against Rufinus because, he asserted, he had been
suspected of holding Origen's doctrines because of his association with Rufinus. 40
40 Jerome, Apol. 3.33.
The dispute over Origen spearheaded by Epiphanius drove a wedge of division into the
friendship of Jerome and Rufinus. Rufinus fanned Jerome's smouldering anger in ad 398
when, after his return to Rome, he published a translation of Origen's De Principiis and
referred to Jerome's admiration for Origen in the preface to the translation. A vitriolic
literary battle erupted between the two in which each wrote an Apology in defence of
himself and as an attack on the other. 41
41 Rufinus, Apologiae in sanctum Hieronymum Libri Duo, PL 21.541-624; tr. NPNF,
2nd ser. iii. 434-82; Jerome, Apologia adversus libros Rufini, 3 bks., PL 23.397-492; tr.
NPNF, 2nd ser. iii. 482-541. On the controversy in general see K. Holl, 'Die Zeitfolge des
ersten origenistischen Streits', in K. Holl, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, ii
(Darmstadt, 1964), 310-50; G. Grützmacher, Hieronymus, iii, SGTK 10.2 (Berlin, 1908;
repr. Darmstadt, 1969), 1-94; Kelly, Jerome, 195-209; 227-58; and E. A. Clark, The
Origenist Controversy (Princeton, 1992).
Origen's De Principiis, and especially the accuracy of Rufinus' translation of this work,
formed the starting point of this debate although it ranged wider in the charges and
countercharges which were made.
Jerome received a letter in late ad 398 from Pammachius and Oceanus who had read
Rufinus' translation of the De Principiis. 42
42 Kelly, Jerome, 236.
The letter expressed their concerns about some of the doctrines expressed in the work,
their suspicions that Rufinus had eliminated even more controversial passages of the
work in his translation, and about his implicit linking of Jerome with Origen's doctrines
in the preface (Ep. 83). Jerome responded by making a literal translation of Origen's De
Principiis and sending this, along with a letter (Ep. 84), to Pammachius and Oceanus
probably in early ad 399. 43
43 See Kelly, Jerome, 236-9.
In the letter he attempts to exonerate himself of all suspicion of holding Origen's
doctrines.
end p.9
3.2. The Debate Between Rufinus and Jerome Over Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians
One of the things Jerome does in his letter to Pammachius and Oceanus in his attempt to
remove all suspicion of Origenism from himself is to refer the reader to his commentaries
on Ecclesiastes and the three books of his commentaries on Ephesians. 44
44 See Append. A, Ep. 84.2. Jerome also referred to these same two commentaries to
prove his innocence of charges of holding Origen's doctrines in his earlier letter to
Vigilantius inad 396 (see Append. A, Ep. 61.2).
In these, he says, one will see how he has 'always opposed' Origen's 'doctrines'. 45
45 See Append. A, Ep. 84.2.
This statement brought Jerome's commentary on Ephesians into the debate, for Rufinus
took up that commentary on Ephesians and cited a number of passages where, he
claimed, Jerome repeated and accepted the doctrines of Origen. It is this which makes the
controversy between Jerome and Rufinus of significance to this study, for Jerome, in his
defence, points to several places where he admits that he has either quoted or followed
Origen in his commentary on Ephesians though he insists that he has never held Origen's
doctrines. 46
46 The relevant passages from Jerome's Apol. are translated in Append. B. See E. A.
Clark, 'The Place of Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians in the Origenist Controversy:
The Apokatastasis and Ascetic Ideals', VC (1987), 154-71, and The Origenist
Controversy, 122-4. Clark's discussion of the commentary on Ephesians in the
controversy, while helpful in a general way, has a different focal point from mine. I am
interested in the controversy for what it may reveal in the attempt to recover as much of
the text of Origen's commentary on Ephesians as possible. Clark's article has no interest
in Origen's actual text (I have noticed no reference to the catena fragments of Origen's
commentary in either of her studies) but wants to discover how Jerome's ascetic ideals
modified his Origenism.
It is significant to note that Jerome's denial concerns Origen's doctrines. He lists these
erroneous doctrines to be those concerning the Son, the Holy Spirit, the fall of human
souls from heaven, the resurrection of the flesh, and the restoration of all souls to one
equal state after many ages (Ep. 84. 7). 47
47 Jerome gives a fuller list of Origen's errors in Apol. 2.12.
If he admits that these doctrines are erroneous, Jerome says, then he should be free to
read the remainder of Origen's work without danger. He adds that once he has made this
allowance for Origen's error there is no need to retract his former praises of Origen as an
exegete and teacher nor to cease to praise him. This points us to the centre of the debate
between Rufinus and Jerome over the latter's commentary on Ephesians. Jerome is not
embarrassed to admit that he has relied on
end p.10
Origen's commentary on Ephesians in the composition of his own, even translating parts
of it. Rufinus, likewise, is not concerned to show that Jerome used Origen's commentary
as the basis for his own. It is not, in other words, a debate about what in our day would be
labelled plagiarism. F. Deniau has correctly pointed out that Rufinus, in his attack on
Jerome, is not concerned to show that Jerome has used a particular text of Origen but
wants to show that he holds doctrines of Origen. He thinks there is nothing in Rufinus'
Apology to assure us that Rufinus had read Origen's commentary on Ephesians. 48
48 He does think, however, that Rufinus must have known of the existence of Origen's
commentary because he had certainly read Jerome's commentary on Ephesians where
Origen's work is mentioned in the introduction (F. Deniau, 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme
sur Éphésiens', 170).
Rufinus never points to a passage in Origen's commentary on Ephesians to prove that
Jerome is following Origen. He cites only passages in Jerome's commentary on
Ephesians. This means that in the attempt to retrieve Origen's commentary on Ephesians
the comments of Rufinus have value only as a catalyst in that they prompt Jerome to
identify what he has taken over from Origen.
At the end of his Apology Rufinus summarizes what he has argued against Jerome from
the latter's commentary on Ephesians. 49
49 Apol. 2.41-2.
He begins with the question of the resurrection and of the distinction between the sexes in
the resurrection. Rufinus does not say that he presented Jerome's view on this subject
from his commentary on Ephesians but this is, in fact, the source of his criticism. Jerome
had targeted Rufinus' Origenist view on these doctrines for attack in his letter to
Pammachius and Oceanus (Ep. 84. 5-6). Rufinus responds that in his commentary on
Ephesians 5: 28 Jerome holds the view which he now attacks in himself (Apol. 1. 23-4).
Rufinus also brings his argument on Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 2: 17 around to
condemn Jerome for holding the same view of the resurrection which he mocked in
certain women in Epistle 84. 6. Jerome responds only in relation to Ephesians 5: 28. He
says that the simple explanation which he gives first in his commentary is his own view
and that what follows is the view of Origen. Then, to distinguish Origen's view from his
own he cites what he says are 'the precise words which are contained in the third book of
Origen's commentary'. This citation corresponds exactly with what Jerome has written in
his own commentary. 50
50 See Append. B, 28-9. Jerome does not respond to the texts which Rufinus criticizes in
the order in which Rufinus has them in his Apology, but takes them up in their order in
the Epistle to the Ephesians. He also does not respond to all of the texts which Rufinus
criticizes (see Clark, 'The Place of Jerome's Commentary', 156). Jerome says that he had
not yet seen Rufinus' Apology when he wrote the first book of his own Apology in which
he defends his interpretations in his commentary on Ephesians but that he depended on
the memory of his brother Paulinian, who had memorized some of the texts in the list of
texts which Rufinus had cited against him (see Append. B, 21, 28).
This testimony of Jerome allows us to identify some, at least, of
end p.11
Origen's comments on Ephesians 5: 28 in the absence of any fragments in the catena
commentary on this verse.
Rufinus then turns, in the summary of his arguments against Jerome at the end of his
Apology, specifically to Jerome's commentary on Ephesians.
I then took up one by one the points in which he had blamed Origen. . . . I showed from
those very Commentaries of his from which he had said that we might expect to learn and
test his belief, that on the circumstances of the soul, the restitution of all things, and the
devil and the apostate angels, he has himself written the same things which he blames in
Origen. Moreover, I convicted him of having said that the souls of men are held in this
body as in a prison. I also proved that he had written in these very Commentaries that the
whole rational creation of angels and of human souls constitutes one body. . . . In like
manner I convicted him of teaching in these same Commentaries that the truth and more
perfect doctrine is not to be published to all. 51
51 Apol. 2.42; tr. NPNF, 2nd ser. iii. 479 (revised).
Rufinus singles out six points in this summary which he has argued against Jerome on the
basis of the latter's commentary on Ephesians. These points provide a convenient guide to
his argument in the Apology.
The first of these concerns the previous state of the soul. Rufinus quotes and discusses
Jerome's comments from the commentary on Ephesians 1: 4. 52
52 Rufinus, Apol. 1. 25-7.
Jerome presented two interpretations. The second interpretation argues that all souls pre-
existed in an invisible state before they entered this visible world. He introduced the
second interpretation with the words, 'But another, who attempts to show that God is just
. . . says'. Rufinus fastens on two aspects of this introductory statement. First, because
Jerome says the second interpretation is concerned to vindicate the justice of God this
shows, Rufinus says, that the first interpretation does not vindicate God's justice.
Therefore, Jerome must hold, Rufinus argues, that the second interpretation presents the
unquestionable catholic doctrine since all orthodox Christians are concerned to vindicate
God's justice. Second, Jerome must, therefore, intend that he himself be understood to be
the 'other' who makes the remarks concerning the preexistence of souls for he would
certainly want to vindicate the justice of God.
end p.12
In his reply to this charge of Rufinus Jerome insists that the first interpretation given to
Ephesians 1: 4 which takes the verse to refer to God's foreknowledge is his own view. 53
53 See Append. B, 22. Jerome takes up Rufinus' criticism of his view of the origin of
souls again in Apol. 3.28-30 but does not discuss it in relation to texts in Ephesians.
He then says that he cited Origen's view but referred to him simply as 'another' to avoid
introducing 'the odium of his name'. After quoting what he says he cited from Origen he
adds that he has omitted nothing which Origen said although he has abbreviated his 'very
extensive argument'. The material taken from Origen on this verse in Jerome's
commentary seems clearly to extend beyond what he cites in his Apology. He must have
broken off his citation after he thought he had quoted enough to show that it was Origen
whom he intended by the term 'another'. The remainder of the paragraph, which carries
on the same interpretation, is introduced with the words, 'Therefore, they say' (itaque . . .
inquiunt). Jerome's defence allows us to identify another passage from Origen's
commentary on Ephesians with confidence in the absence of any fragment in the catena
commentary.
Rufinus presses this same accusation concerning the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls
in additional passages in Jerome's commentary. First, he moves to the immediately
following verses in Ephesians (1: 5b-6) and quotes Jerome, who says that those 'who
think that souls turned away before the creating of the world . . . seize the opportunity in
this passage . . . ' to prove the justice of God. Rufinus recognizes that Jerome ascribes this
view to 'another' but insists that because he never argues against the view, as he does, for
example, when he sets forth the doctrine of heretics such as Marcion, Valentinus, or
Arius, the words must be those of Jerome himself. Rufinus accuses Jerome of using the
manoeuvre which rhetoricians use of speaking in the person of 'another' to set forth their
own opinions when they want to avoid ill-will against themselves (Apol. 1. 28-9). 54
54 Jerome offers a reply to the accusation of speaking in the person of 'another' in Apol.
3.13 but does not discuss it in relation to any specific passage in Ephesians.
Rufinus then cites Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 1: 12 in connection with the same
subject. Because the Greek participle in the verse has a prepositional prefix which means
'before', that is, 'those who have previously hoped', Jerome connects the meaning of this
verse with the interpretation given of Ephesians 1: 4 which spoke of a pre-existence of
souls. Rufinus takes Jerome's statement, 'But . . . the addition of the preposition draws us
to that understanding we discussed above when we were explaining' Ephesians 1: 3-4 to
prove that when Jerome
end p.13
introduced the views of 'another' in explaining that earlier passage he meant himself
(emphases mine). Rufinus argues that this is proved by the fact that Jerome introduces the
alternative interpretation of Ephesians 1: 12 with the assertion that it is the view of
'another'. This 'another', he argues, cannot be Origen because the first interpretation given
is in agreement with the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls for which Jerome
condemns Origen. The interpretation Jerome gives of Ephesians 1: 4 and introduces as
that of 'another' must, then, be Jerome's own interpretation. 55
55 Rufinus, Apol. 1. 30-30a. Two consecutive sections have the number 30 in PL 21. I
have given the number 30a to the second section. It seems to me that the best explanation
of the puzzle of why Jerome presented the two alternative interpretations of Eph. 1: 12 as
he did is that he has taken the whole passage from Origen. The first statement noted in
the text above is Origen's statement referring back to his own interpretation of Eph. 1: 4.
The alternative interpretation is also from Origen, which Origen introduces as being that
of 'another' as he often does in his exegesis (see §3.3 below).
Rufinus also appeals to Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 1: 22, 1: 17 (Apol. 1. 36) and
2: 3 (Apol. 1. 38) to show that he holds Origen's doctrine of the pre-existence of souls.
Jerome's Apology contains no response to these additional passages cited by Rufinus to
prove that Jerome held the doctrine of the preexistence of souls. Perhaps they had slipped
Paulinian's mind. 56
56 See above, n. 50.
Jerome must have considered his reply offered in relation to Ephesians 1: 4 sufficient,
however, for he wrote the third book of his Apology after he had read the two books of
Rufinus' Apology and he provides no further defence of his interpretations in his
commentary on Ephesians in this book. 57
57 The only reference to the commentary on Ephesians in the third book of the Apology
is in 3.11 where Jerome repeats his earlier explanation that he offered the opinions of
others as well as his own in the commentary.
Rufinus is certainly correct in detecting Origen's doctrine in these passages and it is quite
probable that we have Origen's text represented in Jerome's remarks on Ephesians 1: 5b-
6, 1: 12 and 2: 3. We lack, however, Jerome's own admission to confirm this and there
are no parallels in the catena fragments to the remarks of Jerome in question.
The next two points Rufinus introduces in the summary of his arguments at the end of the
Apology concern the subjects of the final restitution of all things and the devil and the
apostate angels (Apol. 2. 42). These are related doctrines in Origen, and Rufinus treats
them together in his attack on Jerome. Rufinus argues that Jerome's commentary on
Ephesians is interlaced with Origen's doctrine of the final restitution of the evil powers
(Apol. 1. 35). He begins by focusing on the alternative interpretation

end p.14
Jerome offers for Ephesians 1: 12 to which we referred above. Rufinus argues that this
shows a belief in the doctrine of a final restoration of all things when even the devil and
the apostate angels will be restored and will receive rewards of a 'second order' in the
kingdom of God (Apol. 1. 31-2). He cites Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 2: 7 (Apol.
1. 34) as further proof of this doctrine in the commentary. He argues that Jerome's
interpretation of Ephesians 1: 20-1 shows that he holds Origen's doctrine that souls may
advance or decline on the scale of goodness in the various ages through which they must
pass (Apol. 1. 35-6). He appeals to Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 1: 22 and 2: 17 to
show that Jerome holds Origen's doctrine that the cross of Christ had saving power for
heavenly as well as earthly beings (Apol. 1. 38). Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 2:
17 also shows, Rufinus argues, that he believes there is no difference between the souls
of men and angels and that humans will be restored to the form of angels which they have
lost (Apol. 1. 39). Rufinus cites Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 4: 3 as further proof
that he holds the doctrine of the final universal restoration of all things (Apol. 1. 41).
Jerome responds to Rufinus' criticism of his interpretations on only two of the passages
cited. Responding to Rufinus' criticism of his interpretation of Ephesians 1: 20-1, Jerome
denies that his suggestion of 'ascents and descents' indicates that he is following Origen.
He distinguishes between the 'ascents and descents' which he has mentioned and what
Origen taught. The latter, he says, taught that 'Seraphim and Cherubim become demons
and human beings'. What he says, however, he insists, is that 'the angels have been
allotted different kinds of offices among themselves'. The latter, Jerome asserts, does not
contradict 'Church teaching'. 'Angels do not', he insists, 'become human beings nor are
human beings, in turn, changed into angels.' 58
58 See Append. B, 23.
It may be that Jerome has modified Origen's interpretation as he insists. There can be
little doubt, however, that his interpretation has been influenced by Origen. The parallel
text in the catena commentary breaks off right where the point of controversy begins. The
parallel text makes clear, however, that Jerome has been following Origen up to that
point, at least, and the parallel catena text on Ephesians 1: 22-3 immediately after the
controversial passage shows that he is following Origen there as well. Did he, then, break
away from Origen for two paragraphs or modify what Origen had written?
end p.15

The other passage to which Jerome responds from among those mentioned by Rufinus in
connection with the doctrine of the final restitution of all things is Ephesians 2: 7. Jerome
says that the first interpretation he gives of this passage is his own view, the second that
of Origen, and the third that of Apollinarius. The passage from Origen, he says, is that
introduced as the words of 'a diligent reader'. 59
59 See Append. B, 24.
This statement allows us to identify confidently another small block of Origen's material
in Jerome's commentary in the absence of a parallel text in the catena commentary.
Rufinus then objects that Jerome holds Origen's doctrine that the soul is imprisoned in the
body. He cites Jerome's interpretations of Ephesians 3: 1 and 6: 20 as proof (Apol. 1. 40).
Jerome mentions only Rufinus' criticism of his interpretation of Ephesians 3: 1 in reply.
He says, again, that he has offered three interpretations. The first is what he thought
correct, the second is what Origen taught, and the third is the opinion of Apollinarius. He
adds, however, that he does not think it 'an absurd interpretation that the soul is said to be
bound in the body until it return to Christ'. 60
60 See Append. B, 25.
The interpretation which Jerome identifies as Origen's consists of a single sentence.
There is no parallel in the catena commentary for this sentence so Rufinus' accusations
against Jerome have forced him to identify still another small part of Origen's
commentary. There are parallels in the catena commentary, however, for the discussions
preceding and following the paragraph containing this sentence and they show quite
clearly that Jerome's whole discussion follows Origen, with the exception, of course, of
the view Jerome had identified as that of Apollinarius and, perhaps, that which he has
identified as his own. 61
61 See §3.3 below for my basis for questioning that when Jerome says he has expressed
his own opinion he is not still following Origen.
Rufinus' next point against Jerome concerns the universal resurrection but he singles this
out as a special point apart from his charge that Jerome holds Origen's doctrine of the
restitution of all things. His particular point is that in the passage in question, namely
Jerome's interpretation of Ephesians 4: 16, Jerome teaches that 'the whole rational
creation of angels and of human souls constitutes one body' (Apol. 1. 42). Rufinus quotes
the whole of Jerome's rather lengthy discussion except for the final sentence where
Jerome says his text is rather obscure because he has been translating from Greek where
the things were stated metaphorically. In his reply Jerome says, 'I abridged in a brief
discussion
end p.16
Origen's very lengthy exposition . . . omitting none of his examples or proofs.' 62
62 See Append. B, 26.
Jerome defends himself against holding the doctrine of Origen, however, by insisting that
when he inserts the remark, 'yet not so that, as another heresy has it . . . ', he shows that he
considers what he has just discussed to be heretical just as the view that he is about to
introduce is also heretical. 63
63 See Append. B, 27.
He concludes his defence by noting that he said at the end of the discussion that he had
translated these things from Greek and inviting Rufinus to look in the Greek text and see
if they are not there. The catena commentary omits all discussion of Ephesians 4: 16.
Jerome's remarks are significant, therefore, for they give us a sure identification of a
rather long interpretation of Origen in his commentary.
Rufinus' final point against Jerome argues that the latter had condemned Origen for
teaching that truth is not to be communicated to all people. 64
64 Rufinus appears to be referring to Jerome's statements in Apol. 1. 18 about the sixth
book of Origen's Stromata where he quotes Eph. 4: 25 and talks about lying.
Jerome himself, however, Rufinus asserts, sets forth this same doctrine in his
interpretation of Ephesians 4: 25 (Apol. 2. 1-2). Jerome has no response to this charge in
his Apology. The catena commentary, while lacking a parallel to the specific doctrine
that Rufinus mentions on Ephesians 4: 25, does show clearly that Jerome has followed
Origen's commentary on Ephesians in his other comments on this verse. It is quite likely,
therefore, that the doctrine highlighted by Rufinus in Jerome's commentary was also in
Origen's.
This survey of the debate between Rufinus and Jerome over the latter's commentary on
Ephesians further confirms the conclusion reached above that Jerome relied on Origen in
the commentary in general (§2). It has also identified five passages in the commentary
which Jerome specifies that he has derived from Origen and for which there are no
parallels in the catena commentary. These passages form part of Jerome's comments on
Ephesians 1: 4, 2: 7, 3: 1, 4: 16, and 5: 28. It is quite probable that the other passages in
which Rufinus claims to find Origen's doctrines and to which Jerome makes no response
are also dependent on Origen's commentary on Ephesians. We cannot be certain in these
cases, however, because Rufinus never cites any text from Origen's commentary itself.
end p.17
3.3. Jerome's Methodology in Using Origen in His Commentary on Ephesians
C. H. Turner observes that in his Apology Jerome sets out the way he has treated Origen's
work. He has avoided 'doctoring Origen for Western readers' as Rufinus did. 'He himself
either rendered the actual words, . . . or, where the exposition was a very lengthy one,
reduced it to reasonable compass, yet without omitting anything either of the arguments
or of the illustrations.' 65
65 'Greek Patristic Commentaries', 495.
Jerome himself provides an example from his commentary on Ephesians 5: 28-9 where
he has translated Origen word for word (ipsa verba, Apol. 1. 28). F. Deniau provides a
list of nine additional passages in Jerome's commentary which the catena fragments show
to have been translated literally from Origen. 66
66 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur Ephésiens', 166, cf. 176-7. The passages translated
literally are on Eph. 1: 13, 2: 19-22, 3: 13, 4: 13-15, 5: 4, 5: 5, 5: 7-14, 6: 1-3, and 6: 11.
It is important to note that there is nothing in Jerome's text introducing these literal
translations from Origen to indicate that anyone other than Jerome himself is speaking.
The same is also true in the many parallels between the catena fragments and Jerome's
comments where he seems not to have translated literally but to have paraphrased
Origen's thought. Where Jerome agrees with Origen he uses Origen's thoughts as his own.
It is only in those few places where he disagrees with Origen's view and wants to distance
himself from it that he indicates he is expressing the view of someone other than himself
by introducing the passage with the phrase, 'another says', or something similar. 67
67 See Append. B, 22, on Eph. 1: 4. Cf. M. A. Schatkin, 'The Influence of Origen upon
St. Jerome's Commentary on Galatians', VC (1970), 50.
Even in such cases, it does not necessarily follow that the view Jerome claims for his own
does not come from Origen for Origen often expresses more than one view on a text in
his commentaries without choosing between them. 68
68 See the remarks of C. Bammel at n. 88 below.
Jerome sometimes also takes up a first-person expression in Origen's text and expresses it
in the first person in his own text as if he were the person speaking. 69
69 A. Harnack, 'Origenistisches Gut', 156 n. 1, 161-2 n. 2; C. P. Bammel, 'Die
Pauluskommentare', 198-9, esp. n. 73; F. Deniau, 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur
Ephésiens', 174 n. 16.
L. Doutreleau calls attention to this same procedure in Jerome's use of the commentary of
Didymus on Zachariah. Didymus says, 'I have read the explanation in a commentary', and
Jerome echoes, 'I have read in a commentary.' 70
70 L. Doutreleau (ed., tr.), Didyme l'aveugle sur Zacharie, i, SC 83 (Paris, 1962), 132.
In his remarks on Ephesians 3: 3 in the
end p.18
catena fragments Origen says, 'But I think ( . . . δ0x001f72 νομ0x001f77ζω) there is a
solecism in the passage.' Commenting on the same verse Jerome says, 'But I think (Puto
autem) the manner of speaking is also defective in this passage' and a few lines later he
refers to solecisms in Paul's style. 71
71 Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 408 (13.11); PL 26. 587.
An even clearer example occurs in Jerome's appropriation of Origen's comment on the
term συμμ0x001f73τοχοι in Ephesians 5: 7. Origen remarks, 'But I do not recall ( Figure
acprof-0199245517-graphic-4 ) the term "fellow companion" used elsewhere outside the
present passage.' Jerome repeats, 'Furthermore, I do not recall (Porro non memini alibi)
that I have read the term "fellow companion" elsewhere except in the present passage.' 72
72 Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 561 (25.15-16); PL 26. 645. These examples
from Ephesians are noted by C. P. Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare', 199 n. 73.
In this repetition Jerome follows Origen even in an error for the term occurs also, as J. A.
F. Gregg and C. P. Bammel note, in Ephesians 3: 6. 73
73 Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 561; Bammel, 'Die Pauluskommentare', 199 n.
73.
A. Harnack has also noted that Jerome often cites what he has found in Origen as if he
knew the original himself. 74
74 'Origenistisches Gut', 151-3.
A. Souter considers that all references in Jerome's Pauline commentaries to Christian
personalities who preceded Origen and to their literature are derived from Origen. 75
75 Earliest Latin Commentaries, 116-20. He also thinks Jerome's references to Greek
non-Christian literature and mythology largely dependent on Origen (ibid. 122-3).
Souter notes, for example, Jerome's proven dependence on Origen from the catena
fragments for his reference to the agraphon concerning 'money-changers' on Ephesians 4:
31 and 5: 10, and for his reference to Valentinus and his doctrine of two baptisms on
Ephesians 4: 5. 76
76 Ibid. 117-18. Agraphon: PL 26. 637, 646; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 557
(22.37), 562 (25.47); Valentinus: PL 26. 610; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 413
(17.3-4).
L. Doutreleau points out that in his commentary on Zachariah Jerome often borrows his
Scripture citations from the commentary of Didymus on Zachariah. He uses the same
Scriptures as Didymus does, in the same order and in the same way, even fusing several
passages as a single text as Didymus does. 77
77 Didyme l'aveugle, i. 130-1.
A comparison of Jerome's commentary on Ephesians with the catena fragments from
Origen's commentary shows that he did the same with Origen. In the relatively short
passage explaining Ephesians 1: 7b-8a Jerome follows Origen's exposition and cites five
of the same passages of Scripture that appear in the brief catena remarks, and cites them
in the same order as Origen (Luke 7: 41-3; 1 Cor. 6: 3; 1
end p.19
Pet. 1: 12; John 17: 21; 1 Cor. 15: 10). 78
78 PL 26. 554; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 238-9 (4.25-43). Jerome's citations
do not usually correspond exactly in number with those in the catena fragments,
sometimes being more and sometimes less than appear there. This is because both he and
the catenist were selecting what they wanted to use from Origen's text. Jerome is not
dependent, of course, on our catena fragments but on the text of Origen's commentary, as
was also the catenist.
In the longer exposition of Ephesians 2: 1-5 eleven passages occur in the same order in
both the catena fragment and Jerome's commentary (2 Cor. 11: 6; Ps. 18: 13; Gal. 1: 4;
Eph. 5: 16; Gen. 47: 9; Eph. 6: 12; Matt. 6: 26; Gal. 5: 17; Phil. 3: 21; Gen. 8: 21; Eccles.
7: 20). 79
79 PL 26. 571-3; Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 402-4 (9.155-224).
These examples could be multiplied throughout Jerome's work where there are parallels
in the catena fragments. He draws his Scripture citations largely from Origen.
É Bonnard observes that in his Commentary on Matthew Jerome sometimes takes up
theological themes from Origen's Commentary on Matthew. This is especially true, he
says, of the theme of God's goodness, which was important to Origen against the
denigrating attacks of the Gnostics on the God of the Old Testament. 80
80 É. Bonnard (ed., tr.), Saint Jérôme commentaire sur S. Matthieu, i, SC 242 (Paris,
1977), 37.
D. Brown observes that when Jerome does this in the Commentary on Matthew he
'ignores Origen's apologetic thrust against the Gnostics' since 'Gnosticism was no longer a
"live" issue in Jerome's day.' 81
81 Vir Trilingus: A Study in the Biblical Exegesis of Saint Jerome (Kampen, 1992), 161.
The theme of God's goodness was a part of the larger theme of the unity of the God of the
Old and New Testaments. This larger theme was important in Origen's continual
polemics against Marcion and the Gnostics and occurs in many of his works 82
82 See, for example, Princ. 2.4.1-5.4; 2.9.5-6; Jo. 1.253; 6.15-31; Comm. in Matt. 10-17,
14. 13 (GCS 40. 313. 26 ff.).
including the catena fragments on Ephesians.83 Jerome treats the same theme in his
Commentary on Ephesians in each of the same four passages in which Origen treats it. 84
84 PL 26. 547, 584, 645-6, and 663.
Three of the occurrences are in passages which Deniau considers Jerome to have
translated literally from Origen. 85
85 See n. 66 above.
In two of these passages Jerome mentions Marcion by name, which the catenist does not
do. This suggests that Origen had mentioned Marcion's name and the catenist omitted it
for there would be no need for Jerome to introduce the name of Marcion where Origen
had not. In his
end p.20
comments on Ephesians 1: 3, which is not a literal translation from Origen, Jerome
introduces the theme of the unity of the Creator and the Father of Jesus Christ. He does
not introduce it at the same place in the text at which Origen does nor does he present it
in the same way but, nevertheless, he treats the theme of God's unity in the same passage
in which Origen treats it. He does not, in this last instance, refer to any heresy in
connection with the theme.
F. Deniau cites Jerome's remarks about the nature of his commentary on Ephesians in his
Apology to show how Jerome conceived his work as a commentator. 86
86 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur Éphésiens', 172-3; see Append. B, 16 and also
Jerome, Apol. 3.11.
There Jerome calls attention to the variety of literary genres and then notes that Rufinus'
attack has focused on his commentary on Ephesians which belongs to the genre of a
commentary. Jerome attempts to vindicate himself by arguing that the purpose of a
commentary is to explain the obscure statements of another by citing the opinions of
various interpreters of the author's words so that the reader may judge which
interpretation he considers to be true. He notes here, as also in his preface to his
commentary on Ephesians, that he has followed Origen, Didymus, and Apollinarius.
Deniau concludes from this that Jerome conceived of his commentary in the manner of a
catena setting forth the views of others and, occasionally, his own views. 87
87 'Le Commentaire de Jérôme sur Éphésiens', 173. Deniau does point out that Origen
contributes the lion's share of the remarks in all the passages that can be compared with
the catena fragments.
This conclusion may be correct but it is misleading when applied to the problem of
ascertaining the relationship of Jerome's commentary to Origen's. It suggests that Jerome
has provided interpretations drawn from several separate sources. An observation of C. P.
Bammel, however, shows how cautious we must be when Jerome claims to be citing
views from two or more interpreters. She notes that Origen regularly presented more than
one view on a text and that a comparison between Jerome's commentary and the catena
fragments shows Jerome repeating the different interpretations from Origen. This manner
of working on Origen's part, she observes, gave Jerome the opportunity to appear to be
citing the views of various commentators whereas he drew all the views, in fact, from
Origen. 88
88 'Die Pauluskommentare', 197-8; cf. 205-6.
Most recently R. Layton has argued persuasively in a doctoral dissertation that, despite
his claim to the contrary concerning multiple sources, 'it is likely that Jerome composed
the entire commentary solely
end p.21
by reference to Origen'. 89
89 'Origen as a Reader of Paul: A Study of the Commentary on Ephesians', Ph.D. diss.
(Univ. of Virginia, 1996), 298-9. See ch. 4 for his argument.
This conclusion must be slightly modified, however, by allowing for those few passages
which Jerome specifically identifies in his Apology as having come from Apollinarius
(see §3.2 above). Most significantly, Layton has shown that Jerome's exegetical approach
to the epistle relies on Origen. Origen, he demonstrates from the catena fragments,
employed the 'Problems and Solutions' approach of the classical commentary tradition in
his commentary on Ephesians. Layton finds this most evident in the use of questions and
answers in Origen's text and in the division of lemmata to conform to a particular
question. Jerome, he argues, has not always preserved this form but, even where he has
not, it is often latent in his text. 90
90 Ibid. 201-302.
3.4. The Special Problem of the Prologues in Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians
We know from Origen's commentaries on the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Romans,
the Song of Songs, and from fragments from his commentaries on the Psalms, Genesis,
Leviticus, Lamentations, Matthew, and the early small commentary on the Song of Songs
that Origen composed prologues to the books of his commentaries in the format common
to commentaries on secular literature. 91
91 See I. Hadot, '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; B. Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, SBA 18.1-2
(Basel, 1987), 57-84; R. E. Heine, '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; idem, '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, 1998; idem, 'The Prologues of
Origen's Pauline Commentaries and the Schemata Isagogica of Ancient Commentary
Literature', SP 36 (Leuven, 2001), 421-39.
Each of the three books of Jerome's commentary on Ephesians begins with a prologue.
Nothing, however, has been preserved in the catena commentary from Origen's prologues
so we have no specific texts to compare to Jerome's texts to see the extent of his
dependence on Origen in the prologues. We do, however, know the kind of topics Origen
usually treated in his commentary prologues and we may use these topics as a kind of
grid to place over Jerome's prologues to see what in them might have been derived from
Origen's commentary on Ephesians.
end p.22
3.4.1. The Background of Origen's Prologue Topics in the Prologues of Non-Christian
Commentaries
Our knowledge of the topics of commentary prologues dates from Karl Praechter's 1909
review of the Berlin Academy's twenty-six volumes of ancient commentaries on Aristotle
called the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. 92
92 K. Praechter, 'Die griechischen Aristoteleskommentare', ByZ (1909), 516-38. This
review has been translated into English by B. Caston in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle
Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and their Influence (Ithaca, NY, 1990), 31-54.
The commentaries in the series range in date from the beginning of the third century, with
the commentaries by Alexander of Aphrodisias, to the twelfth century, with the
commentaries by Michael of Ephesus. In this review Praechter called attention to the
schemata isagogica of the commentaries, which he located in the general area of the
knowledge of how philosophical, and especially exegetical, lessons were conducted. 93
93 'Aristoteleskommentare,' 526.
He noted that from the second century on philosophical instruction was primarily
exegetical in nature, which means a student read the works of the great philosophers of
antiquity with a teacher who explained the text as they proceeded. 94
94 Ibid. 523-6. The commentaries on Aristotle are largely, Praechter points out,
transcripts from these oral lectures of the various teachers and only later became literary
productions. Cf. R. Sorabji, 'The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle', in Aristotle
Transformed, 7.
The reading of Aristotle always began with the Categories. Praechter noted that the
commentaries on the Categories beginning with those of Ammonius in the sixth century
begin with a twofold introductory schema. The first presents a general introduction to
Aristotle's works and philosophy and the second treats the Categories themselves. The
general introduction involves the following ten points.
(1) How did the philosophical schools get their names? (2) What is the division of the
treatises of Aristotle (that we might know where we should place the treatise in
question)? (3) With which treatise should one begin the reading of Aristotle? (4) What is
the goal (τ0x001f73λος) of Aristotle's philosophy? (5) What are those things which bring
us to this goal? (6) What is the literary form ( Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-5 ) of
Aristotle's treatises? (7) Why did the philosopher practise obscurity (τ0x001f74ν
0x001f00σ0x001f71φειαν)? (8) What sort of person must the interpreter of such writings
be? (9) What sort of person should be admitted as a pupil? (10) How many chapters
should one anticipate for each treatise of Aristotle, of what sort are they and why? 95
95 'Aristoteleskommentare', 527-8 (my translation of the Greek cited by Praechter).
Praechter has listed the topics as they appear in Simplicius' commentary on the
Categories. He notes that there are some minor variations in the list as it appears in
Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus, and Elias but thinks the differences
not to be worth mentioning.
end p.23
This general introduction to the philosophy of Aristotle which appears in the prologues of
commentaries on the Categories in the sixth century and later was followed by what
Praechter called a special introduction to the Categories. The format of this special
introduction, however, was not limited to prologues to commentaries on the Categories,
but appears in the prologues to commentaries on other works as well. In other words,
what Praechter calls the special introduction was the introductory format one would
normally use when beginning a commentary on any work of Aristotle. This schema
embraced the following points:
(1) The aim of the writing (τ0x001f78ν σκοπ0x001f79ν), (2) its usefulness (τ0x001f78
χρ0x001f75σιμον), (3) its authenticity (τ0x001f78 γν0x001f75σιον), (4) its place in the
order of reading ( Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-6 ), (5) the reason for the title (
Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-7 ), (6) the division into chapters (τ0x001f74ν
ε0x001f30ς κεφ0x001f71λαια δια0x001f77ρεσιν), (7) the part of philosophy, or of
whatever field of study was concerned, to which the writing belongs and, occasionally,
(8) the manner of the teaching ( Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-8 ). 96
96 Aristoteleskommentare', 529-30. Praechter took this list from the prologue to
Ammonius' commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge.
Praechter notes that this complete list of points does not always appear in the prologues.
Sometimes it is stated that a particular topic does not need to be considered and
sometimes a topic simply does not appear in the discussion. 97
97 Ibid. 530.
Praechter observes that he had not found this fixed schema anywhere prior to Ammonius.
He admitted that individual topics found in these lists could be found in commentaries
prior to Ammonius but thought it highly unlikely that as many as three should appear in
the same work as early as the third century. 98
98 Ibid. 530-1.
In 1964 M. J. Lossau, in a general investigation of ancient exegesis of Demosthenes,
argued that the introductions to the commentaries treated the topics of date and
authenticity, to which group of speeches the speech in question belongs (i.e. forensic or
deliberative), the situation, and the contents or the intention of the speech. 99
99 M. J. Lossau, Untersuchungen zur antiken Demosthenesexegese, Palingenesia 2
(Berlin/Zurich, 1964), 124-5.
Some of the material Lossau worked with is early but it is fragmentary and limited in
scope. 100
100 The papyrus fragment of Didymus (c.80-10 bc) is the earliest representative of the
exegesis of Demosthenes (ibid. 66).
He
end p.24
notes that the formal composition of the earliest commentaries on Demosthenes can be
ascertained only with 'hypothetical methods'. 101
101 Ibid. 124.
Most of the prologue topics he lists do not appear in the first-century bc fragment of
Didymus' commentary on Demosthenes with which he works. 102
102 Lossau attempts to reconstruct commentaries from the 2nd cent. bc on the basis of
later materials (ibid. 67-127).
Two monographs by Jaap Mansfeld have greatly expanded our knowledge of the
schemata isagogica. The first surveys the use of the schemata from Origen in the third
century to Stephanus in the seventh, 103
103 J. Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author, or
a Text, PA 61 (Leiden, 1994).
and then investigates the subject in relation to works on Plato and Plotinus and the
medical commentaries of Galen on Hippocrates. Mansfeld's second monograph treats
commentaries on mathematical authors ranging in date from the third century bc to the
sixth century ad 104
104 J. Mansfeld, Prolegomena Mathematica: From Apollonius of Perga to Late
Neoplatonism, PA 80 (Leiden, 1998).
There are several significant points which emerge from Mansfeld's two monographs
which have relevance for an investigation of the schemata isagogica in relation to
Origen's prologue to his commentary on Ephesians. First, knowledge and use of the
various topics found in the highly schematized prologues of the fifth and sixth centuries
ad are to be found quite early in commentary prologues, some as early as the second
century bc, and were clearly used by Ptolemy and Galen in the second century ad . 105
105 Prolegomena: Questions, 141, 174; Prolegomena Mathematica, 2, 38, 75, 82-5, 92-5.
This further confirms some of my own earlier findings in regard to the usage of the
schemata isagogica by Alexander of Aphrodisias at the end of the second century ad . 106
106 R. E. Heine, 'The Introduction to Origen's Commentary on John', 3-12.
This means, of course, that such topics were not a novelty in the third century ad when
Origen began writing Biblical commentaries. The surprising thing would be that he
should have no knowledge of them rather than that he should know and make use of
them.
Second, this recognized set of topics which was considered before one read the particular
text in question with students was referred to with the technical phrase, 'What comes
before the study of . . . ' ( Figure acprof-0199245517-graphic-9 ). Mansfeld points out
that this technical phrase appears in the conclusion of the prologue to Origen's
Commentary on John and traces the phrase 'from Thrasyllus in the first century via Theon
of
end p.25
previous | next
Smyrna in the second and Origen in the third, to Hierocles and Proclus in the fifth
century C.E.' 107
107 Prolegomena: Questions, 26, 98.
Third, the distinction between what Praechter called the 'general introduction' and the
'special introduction' in the later formalized schemata of the fifth and sixth centuries does
not apply to the earlier period. Topics from both of these categories are treated together in
the prologues to individual works of an author. In this regard the topics concerning the
qualities required of the student 108
108 Ibid. 13, 95.
or of the exegete, 109
109 Ibid. 161.
and the reason for the obscurity of the writing 110
110 Ibid. 16, 149-52, 159-60.
are of particular interest in relation to Origen's prologues. Fourth, the topics may be
discussed without the use of the later technical terminology111 and, as Praechter also
noted in relation to the later prologues, without using the entire list of topics. 112
112 Ibid. 130-1; above, n. 97; cf. R. E. Heine, 'The Introduction to Origen's Commentary
on John', 5-7.
Finally, an account of the life of an author was often considered an indispensable
preliminary to the study of his writings. 113
113 Prolegomena: Questions, 6, 180.
This was known prior to Mansfeld's studies in regard to the poetic commentaries on
Virgil by Donatus and Servius but he has demonstrated that this was the case also in
regard to philosophers and other literary figures. These Lives vary 'in length, complexity
and profundity'. 114
114 Ibid. 6, 38; Prolegomena Mathematica, 41.
In addition to helping one to understand what the author wrote, the Life may also have
paradigmatic implications to show that the author's life was consistent with his teachings.
115
115 Prolegomena: Questions, 183; cf. 190.
3.4.2. The Prologue Topics in Origen's Other Commentaries
There are two extant complete prologues to commentaries by Origen, one on the Song of
Songs in the Latin translation of Rufinus and one on the Gospel of John in Greek. There
is also a prologue to the first book of his commentary on Romans in Rufinus' translation
though this prologue has been modified by Rufinus and probably abbreviated by him
also. 116
116 In his own preface to the translation Rufinus tells us that it is his intention to reduce
the bulk of the commentary on Romans by half. One of the things he has done to reduce
the size of the commentary is to omit the prologues to all the books except the first. It
was the practice in non-Christian commentaries to begin nearly every book of a
commentary with a prologue. Origen appears to have followed that practice, for his
commentary on John has a prologue for every book except the nineteenth, whose
beginning is missing. It appears that Rufinus has drastically abbreviated even the
prologue to book one, for it falls far short of the length of the prologues to book one in
the commentaries on John and the Song of Songs. Not only has Rufinus changed Origen's
prologue by shortening it he has also introduced a section which he tells us did not appear
in Origen's prologue. This is the discussion of Paul's change of name which occupies the
final section of the prologue (see C. P. Hammond Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar
(AGLB 16), 42-4).
In
end p.26
addition, there are a number of fragments preserved in catenae, the Philocalia, and
Eusebius from the prologue to Origen's commentary on the Psalms. Beyond this there
are, to my knowledge, only a few bits and pieces in fragments from prologues to
commentaries on Genesis, Leviticus, Lamentations, the small early commentary on the
Song of Songs, and Matthew.
I. Hadot and B. Neuschäfer have each argued that several of the prologue topics treated in
later non-Christian commentaries can be found already in the prologue to Origen's
commentary on the Song of Songs. 117
117 I. Hadot, 'Les Introductions', 99-122; B. Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 57-84.
Hadot identified the following six topics in this prologue.
(1) The persons of the dialogue, that is, 'Who is speaking?'; (2) the literary genre; (3) the
disposition necessary for taking up a study of the work; (4) the fundamental theme
(skopos or prothesis) . . . ; (5) the part of philosophy to which the work belongs and its
place in the order of reading the works of Solomon; (6) the title. 118
118 'Les Introductions', 111-12; cf. 119 and Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 77-84.
Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions, 11, has suggested that the utility of the Song of
Songs is also discussed (Prol. 1.4-7). I fail to see this, however, in the section to which he
refers. The section seems to me to discuss the qualities necessary in the reader, which is
where Hadot places the section.
Hadot's first topic, 'the persons of the dialogue', is a topic treated by later commentators
in prologues to commentaries on Plato's dialogues.
I have identified traces of six of the later formalized topics in Origen's commentary on
John. 119
119 Heine, 'The Introduction to Origen's Commentary on John', 3-12.
There is a clear discussion of the reason for the title, and there are probable discussions of
order, the division into heads, and the theme of the Gospel. There is also a discussion of
the qualities necessary in the interpreter and probably also a discussion of the qualities
necessary in the student of the Gospel. 120
120 Ibid. 12.
Most of these topics are discussed without using the later technical vocabulary of the
topics but, as I noted in the previous section, this was common among authors of the
end p.27
second and third centuries. I would add to those observations, since my earlier study
considered only the long prologue to the whole work found in the first book of the
commentary, that there are allusions to the topic of obscurity in the fragments of the
prologues to the fourth and fifth books of the commentary preserved in the Philocalia and
in Eusebius' Church History. 121
121 The discussion belonging to the prologue to the fourth book raises the question of the
barbarous expressions in Scripture and responds with the Pauline text, 'But we have this
treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency may be of the power of God and not of us'
(2 Cor. 4: 7). If Scripture had the beauty of expression admired by the Greeks, Origen
says, one might suppose that people were charmed by its beauty rather than grasped by its
truth. In the discussion in the prologue to the fifth book Origen attempts to defend the
large volume of works he is producing on the Bible. He cites Eccles. 12: 12 and refers to
the 'hidden' and 'unclear' meaning in this text which warns against 'making many books'.
He asserts that to understand the meaning of this verse one must go beyond the literal
sense of the text.
I add also the observation of Mansfeld noted above (§3.4.1) that Origen closes the
prologue to the commentary on John with the technical phrase used to refer to the topics
treated before the reading of a work with students.
The prologue to the commentary on Romans as we have it in Rufinus' translation begins
with a discussion of the topic of obscurity. 'The letter written to the Romans', Origen
says, 'is considered more difficult to understand (difficilior . . . ad intellegendum) than the
other letters of the apostle Paul.' He attributes this difficulty to the confused and unclear
expressions which sometimes appear in the letter and to the fact that Paul raises many
questions in the letter, a number of which the heretics find useful for their cause. This
leads him to a prayer which concludes with the words of Proverbs 1: 6, that God may
'make us worthy "to understand proverbs and figures, the words of the wise and their
riddles".'
Origen next notes that 'the learned' observe 'that the apostle appears to be more perfect in
this epistle than in others'. 122
122 Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar (AGLB 16), 37.15-17.
He then sets out Paul's progress in spiritual perfection by comparing statements in 1
Corinthians, Philippians, 2 Corinthians, and Romans. He especially contrasts 1
Corinthians 9: 27, where Paul refers to punishing and subjecting his body so that, after he
has preached to others, he himself should not be cast off, with Romans 8: 37-9, where he
says, 'For I am certain that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities . . . will be
able to separate us from the love of God.' This section, I suggest, is intended as a
miniature spiritual bios of the apostle. Mansfeld has pointed out commentaries in which
the Life of the author is quite brief and where the commentator cites only 'what meets his
particular purpose' from the
end p.28
Life. 123
123 Prolegomena: Questions, 38; Prolegomena Mathematica, 41.
He also observes that 'in some cases the works [of an author] may be used to reconstruct
the relevant aspects of the bios'. 124
124 Prolegomena: Questions, 180.
This is what Origen has done for Paul, for there was no Life of Paul available in the third
century. Origen has reconstructed an aspect of Paul's spirituality from his epistles. His
purpose is to show that by the time Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, which shows a
'more perfect understanding', 125
125 Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar (AGLB 16), 40.79.
he had achieved a more sublime spiritual level.126
Immediately after establishing that Paul 'appears to be more perfect in this epistle than in
others' Origen suggests that the epistle was written from Corinth. 127
127 He bases this on Rom. 16: 1 and 23, 1 Cor. 1: 14 and 2 Tim. 4: 20 (Bammel, Der
Römerbriefkommentar (AGLB 16), 40.80-41.92).
A discussion of the place of origin of a particular writing does not appear to have been a
standard prologue topic. Donatus mentions a discussion of origin in the prologue to his
commentary on Virgil's bucolic poetry 128
128 Vitae Vergilianae, ed. I. Brummer, appendix in Tiberi Claudi Donati Interpretationes
Vergilianae, ed. H. Georgii, ii (Stuttgart, 1969), 11.197-8. 12.220 ff.
but he means the origin of the genre of bucolic poetry and not where the individual
poems were written. 129
129 See Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions, 43, 46-7.
This may have been Origen's addition to the list of topics for treating the Pauline epistles.
Finally, Origen concludes the prologue with a brief summary of the contents of the letter
(continentia epistulae) to the Romans. This falls under the general topic of the subject of
the treatise. One of the things Proclus mentions in his In Platonis Rempublicam which
should be discussed in the
end p.29
preliminary matters is 'the "subject [0x001f51π0x001f79θεσις] of the discussions which
pervades the work as a whole".' 130
130 Procli Diadochi in Platonis Rem Publicam Commentarii, i, ed. G. Kroll (Leipzig,
1899), 5.22-3; cited in Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions, 31.
In a discussion of the Collectio of the fourth-century Pappus of Alexandria Mansfeld
says, 'When the summary of the contents of a particular work is given what came to be
called its σκοπ0x001f79ς or 0x001f51π0x001f79θεσις as well as its parts are of course
involved, though the terms themselves are not used.' 131
131 Prolegomena Mathematica, 20.
W. Rietz, P. Nautin, and B. Neuschäfer have all offered reconstructions of the prologue
to Origen's Caesarean commentary on the Psalms. 132
132 W. Rietz, De Origenis Prologis in Psalterium (Jena, 1914); P. Nautin, Origène (Paris,
1977), 261-79; Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 67-77.
Only Neuschäfer, however, has considered the prologue in relation to the topics of
commentary prologues. Rietz provided a new edition of the prologue fragments contained
in PG 12. Both Nautin and Neuschäfer based their reconstruction on Rietz's edition of
these fragments. None of the fragments in PG 12, however, are found in the tradition of
catena manuscripts on the Psalms known as the Palestinian catena, which M. Richard
considered to be the most reliable catena. 133
133 'Les Premières Chaînes sur le psautier', in Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, BIIRHT 5 (1956), 89.
I have, therefore, suggested an alternative reconstruction of this prologue based on the
fragments in the oldest and best witness to the Palestinian catena on the Psalms, the
ninth-century Oxford manuscript Baroccianus 235. I have also used fragments from the
Philocalia and Eusebius which I think Nautin incorrectly attributed to the early
Alexandrian commentary on the Psalms. My reconstruction finds clear discussions of the
following five topics of commentary prologues: (1) obscurity, (2) the reason for the title,
(3) authenticity, (4) the number of psalms, and (5) the order of the psalms. There is also a
discussion of the meaning of the term diapsalma which I think Origen introduced to the
topics to be treated in prologues to commentaries on the Psalms. Finally, there is the
possible mention of the aim of the treatise and its usefulness. 134
134 Heine, 'Restringing Origen's Broken Harp'.
There are also some traces of the topics of commentary prologues in the fragmentary bits
and pieces remaining from five other commentaries. Of the six small fragments from the
prologue to the commentary on Lamentations, the first discusses the subject of the book,
which would qualify either as the πρ0x001f79θεσις or 0x001f51π0x001f79θεσις, and the
acrostic structure of the book, which might be related to the topic of the manner of the
teaching.
end p.30
The third fragment contains a discussion of the title of the book. 135
135 Fr. 1-71 in Jer., frs. 1 and 3.
There is a single fragment from the prologue to the commentary on Genesis preserved by
Pamphilus. It may be related to a discussion of the obscurity of Scripture and of the
qualities necessary in the exegete. The context in which Pamphilus places it, at least,
suggests these topics. 136
136 PG 12.45-6=PG 17.544B-545A.
There are two possible fragments from the prologue to the commentary on Matthew. One
comes from the catena and is a part of a discussion of the title. 137
137 Comm. in Matt. I, 2, fr. 1.
The same definition of 'gospel' given in the fragment appears also in the discussion of the
title in the prologue to the commentary on John. The other fragment is found in Eusebius
and discusses the order of the four Gospels. 138
138 HE 6.25.3-6.
The fragment from the small Alexandrian commentary on the Song of Songs begins by
discussing the necessity of identifying the person who is speaking in Scripture and the
persons who are being addressed. It proceeds to identify the changes in speaker and
addressees as one of the causes of the obscurity of Scripture. 139
139 Phil. 7.1. See M. Harl, 'Origène et les interprétations patristiques grecques de
l'"obscurité" biblique', VC (1982), 351.
The two fragments related to prologue topics from the commentary on Leviticus,
however, are the most interesting of the fragments. They appear in what must have been
the first lemma of the commentary on Leviticus 1: 1. 140
140 Mansfeld noted that prologue topics might be treated in connection with the first
lemma in a commentary (Prolegomena: Questions, 47).
The first fragment treats the title and subject together. It was not uncommon in the earlier
non-Christian commentaries for two topics to be treated together when there was some
kind of connection between them. Alexander of Aphrodisias, for example, considered the
title of Aristotle's On Sense Perception to reveal its theme. 141
141 Heine, 'The Introduction to Origen's Commentary on John', 6-7.
Proclus, in his In Platonis Rempublicam, says that one of the things to be discussed in the
preliminary matters is " 'the theme of each (dialogue)" which', Mansfeld remarks,
'includes the issue of its title'. 142
142 Cited in Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions, 31.
Leviticus has this title, Origen says, because it contains things related to the priesthood,
sacrifices, and other things of this nature ordained by God. The second fragment refers to
the teachings which have been hidden (0x001f00ποκεκρυμμ0x001f73να . . .
μαθ0x001f75ματα) in the subjects treated in the book and how one who would
understand them must approach them in the spirit of David who said, 'Open my eyes that
I may understand the
end p.31
marvels of your law' (Ps. 118: 18). 143
143 PG 12.397A-B.
This is a reference to the topic of obscurity and also to the qualities necessary in the
interpreter.
The following prologue topics appear in Origen's commentaries. The topic of the persons
either speaking or being addressed appears twice; the qualities necessary in the exegete or
the student appears four times; a discussion of the theme or subject appears five times,
and possibly six; the question of the order of reading or the order of the books appears
four times; the topic of the title is discussed six times; the issue of obscurity is referred to
five or, possibly, six times; and the following topics each appear once: the literary genre,
the part of philosophy to which the work belongs, the division into heads, the
authenticity, the number (of psalms), the usefulness, the manner of teaching, the Life of
the author and the place of origin of the writing.

3.4.3. The Prologues in Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians

There are prologues to each of the three books in Jerome's commentary on Ephesians.
144
144 PL 26.537-44; 586; 633-6 (Vall.).
The prologue to the second book is very short, however, and treats only Jerome's
personal concerns. This prologue can be ignored in our analysis. The prologue to Book I
also begins with a considerable amount of personal material that comes from Jerome
which I pass over here. He makes the transition into the specific prologue topics by a
discussion of the task of a commentator. This discussion could come from Origen,
especially since it differs from Jerome's description of the task of a commentator given in
his Apology. 145
145 1.16 (Append. B, 16) and 3.11.
The commentator's task, he says in the prologue to the first book of the commentary on
Ephesians, is to 'enter into the meaning of the prophets and apostles, to understand why
they wrote, in what way they have declared their thinking [and] what they regard as
characteristic' of the various peoples of the Old and New Testament to whom their words
are addressed. The first duty of a commentator mentioned in this list, 'to understand why
they wrote', refers to the necessity of ascertaining the σκοπ0x001f79ς of an author; the
second, to understand 'in what way they have declared their thinking' may refer to the
0x001f51π0x001f79θεσις or summary of the subjects treated such as I noted above in the
commentary on Romans (§3.4.2). The question concerning what is characteristic of the
persons addressed relates to their identity. The question of identity falls under the topic of
the persons addressed which Origen discusses in the prologues to his commentaries on
the Song of Songs. All three of these points are later taken up in the prologue to the
commentary on Ephesians.
end p.32
After making this general statement about the task of a commentator Jerome applies the
discussion specifically to the epistles of Paul. He says that 'in conformity with the
diversity of places, times, and people to whom' the epistles have been written, 'they must
also have diverse themes (causas), subjects (argumenta), and origins (origines)', for Paul
addresses the 'wounds which have been inflicted on the individual churches' and does not,
'like an inexperienced physician', attempt 'to heal the eyes of everyone with the same eye-
salve'.
He then makes a short reference to the topic of order when he says that Ephesians stands
in the middle of the epistles both in its concepts and in its order (ordine). He explains that
he does not mean that it comes after the first epistles and precedes the shorter final ones,
but that he means that it stands in the middle of the epistles 'in the sense that the heart of
an animal is in its mid-section'. This shows that he is not thinking primarily of the
location of the epistle in the Pauline corpus but of its central significance in Pauline
thought, although he bases the latter on the former. 146
146 See R. A. Layton, 'Origen as a Reader of Paul', 314-19, on the location of Ephesians
in early canonical lists.
In the same sentence in which he locates Ephesians centrally in Pauline thought he also
alludes to the topic of obscurity when he says that this helps us understand 'the magnitude
of the difficulties and the profundity of the questions' contained in the epistle.
The next subject discussed belongs, I suggest, to the topic referred to as the persons of the
dialogue in commentaries on Plato. The addressees and their situation are discussed along
with some brief remarks that could be considered to refer to the characteristics of the
addressees, although that subject is discussed much more fully in the prologue to the third
book. The Ephesians were worshippers of Diana and lived in Asia's chief city where
idolatry and the magical arts flourished. They had long been held by the power of demons
and knew the reality of 'spiritual beings and powers'. There is also a discussion of Paul,
the person speaking in the epistle. The length of his ministry in Ephesus is mentioned and
the nature of his preaching is described.
Jerome then comes to the σκοπ0x001f79ς and subject (i.e. 0x001f51π0x001f79θεσις) of
the epistle, although neither of these terms or their equivalents appear. 'We have . . .
repeated all these things', he says, 'to show why the apostle has heaped up more obscure
ideas and mysteries unknown to the ages in this epistle than in all the others and has
taught about the dominion of sacred and hostile powers, what demons are, what they are
capable of, what they were previously (quid ante fuerint) and how they have been
overthrown and
end p.33
destroyed after the advent of Christ.' The last two subjects mentioned are distinct
footprints of Origen, for whom demons had not previously been demons, and who gave a
special meaning to the destruction of demons. 147
147 See §4.3.4 below for Origen's understanding of the meaning of the destruction of the
evil powers.
The topic of obscurity is also mentioned here. The reason for the obscurity in the letter is
linked to its subject which, in turn depends on the situation and characteristics of the
addressees.
Jerome closes the prologue to the first book by acknowledging his indebtedness to
Origen's three volumes on Ephesians and his minimal use of the small commentaries on
the epistle by Apollinarius and Didymus.
Jerome begins the prologue to Book III of the commentary by stating that he has
'provided a sufficient discussion of the subject' (argumentum) of the epistle in the
prologue to Book I namely that it reveals the 'mysteries hidden from the ages' (Eph. 3: 9).
In this prologue he intends to show how 'the etymology of the name itself corresponds
with the understanding' which he set forth in his discussion of the subject. 148
148 See Layton, 'Origen as a Reader of Paul', 319-22 for a discussion of the possible
sources of Jerome's etymology of Ephesus. He concludes that the most likely source of
Jerome's etymology is Origen.
This I take to be a discussion of the standard prologue topic of the reason for the title. 149
149 The fact that the Greek fragment from Origen's commentary on Ephesians 1: 1 shows
that 0x001f10ν 0x001f18φ0x001f73σ0x001ff3 did not stand in the text Origen used does
not argue against this discussion of the title coming from Origen's prologue to the
commentary (J. A. F. Gregg, 'The Commentary of Origen', 235). The text he used of the
epistle may still have had the title Πρ0x001f78ς 0x001f18φεσ0x001f77ους Throughout
the catena fragments Origen refers to the people addressed as the Ephesians. He even
introduces his comments on Eph. 1: 1b by saying, 'In the case of Ephesians alone we find
the phrase, "to the saints who are".'
Jerome wants to show how the title of the work and the understood subject and
σκοπ0x001f79ς are in harmony with one another. There was precedence for seeing the
theme or subject of a work revealed in its title in the philosophical commentaries on
Aristotle and Plato. 150
150 See text above at nn. 141 and 142.
Origen also joined the two in his commentary on Leviticus, as I noted above (§3.4.2).
Jerome's prologue to the commentary on Ephesians is relatively rich in prologue topics.
There are discussions of order, obscurity, the persons of the epistle, the σκοπ0x001f79ς,
the subject, and the reason for the title. Five technical terms associated with the schemata
isagogica occur in the prologue: causa, argumentum, origo, ordo, and obscurus sensus.
Did Jerome draw his discussion of these prologue topics from Origen's commentary on
Ephesians? Only C. Bammel and R. A. Layton
end p.34
have, to my knowledge, addressed the question of the prologues of Origen's Pauline
commentaries. Layton, in a doctoral dissertation on Origen's commentary on Ephesians,
discusses the topics as they relate to that commentary. 151
151 'Origen as a Reader of Paul', ch. 5.
He concludes that the prologues point to Origen as their source though Jerome may have
contributed 'an isolated detail'.152 Bammel's primary interest was not in the topics of the
prologues as such but in using the prologues to help establish the chronology of Origen's
Pauline commentaries. 153
153 '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.
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, 53-
70.
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), 215-
22.
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', 484-
531.
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 semi-
uncial 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
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
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 ε σ γοντες τ ς φ σεις in the
catena fragments on Ephesians and stated that he identified 'Christ with σοφ α, δ ναμις,
ζω , and ε ρ νη'. 194
194
Hanson failed to mention λ 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 α τ ν of Abraham
where he meant, Origen says, . 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 χαριστ α with μωρολογ α and ε τραπελ α where he must
have meant, Origen argues, ε χαριτ α. Although Origen does not mention Ephesians,
there is no question that he is discussing Ephesians 5: 4 for μωρολογ α and ε τραπελ 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
θεια). 210
210
See Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 143-4. O. Casel, 'E χαριστ α—ε χαριτ 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 und ε χαριτ α,
that in everyday life one used ε χαριστ α (and ε χ ριστος) in a double sense, and that this
common usage suggested especially the Jews since a very similar phenomenon appears in
their language.'
That in the Ephesians commentary asserts that it would not be 'customary' ( σ νηθες) to
use the noun ε χαριτ α and suggests that this may be why Paul used ε χαριστ 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 χαριστ α 'taken in its normal usage' (κατ τ ν συν θειαν) did not seem
to him to go with μωρολογ α and ε τραπελ α and suggests that Paul has substituted this
noun for ε χαριτ 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 δ κει μοι and
. To these should be added ζ τουν and .
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 χαριστ 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 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 α, λ θεια κα δικαιοσ 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).
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 χαριστ α had been used for ε χαριτ α in
Ephesians 5: 4 he then 'investigated' ( ζ τουν) to see if this substitution occurred
anywhere else in Scripture and he 'discovered' ( ), he says, the same term in
Proverbs 11: 16. He then remarks that he found a different phrase substituted ( ντ ) for
γυν ε χ 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,
. 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 χαριστ α in Ephesians 5: 4 when what he intended to say was ε χαριτ 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
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'
(καταβολ ) 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.
Kαταβολ ('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 but ρχ 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
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 pre-
existent 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 pre-
existent 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: 25-
6 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. 6.15-
20). 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 over-
bold 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 Eph. 1: 1 Paul, apostle of Jesus

Christ through the will of God. Christ, through the will of God.

If the preposition 'through' If the preposition 'through' indicates the

indicates what is subordinate (as office of him through which a thing is
we examined more extensively done, that idea seems to me to correspond
when we were explaining the with the following sentence, 'No one
clause, 'All things were made comes to me, unless my Father draws
through him' (John 1: 3), 3 him to me' (John 6: 44). And thus it will
3
Jo. 2.70-1. follow also that what is said in John's
and Gospel, 'All things were made through
wrote down the objections to this him' (John 1: 3), no doubt at all meaning
which occurred to us), we must through the Son, is not detrimental to our
investigate how Paul is an apostle Lord Jesus Christ, as if he is less because
of Christ Jesus, not from the will he submitted to the will of the Father,
of God but 'through the will of even as now it is not detrimental to the
God'. Father because Paul is an apostle of
Someone will say, then, that Jesus Christ through his will. But others
Paul does not understand the understand that passage in such a way
specific features of the that they think Paul is shown to be an
prepositions perfectly at all, which apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of
is the case also with other God, which is Christ. Just as (Christ) is
meanings. But another, who said to be the 'Wisdom' and 'Logos',
knows the difference between and 'Power' of God, and the 'Truth',
'through God' and 'through the and 'Resurrection' and 'Way' (1 Cor. 1:
will of God', will say that it would 24; John 1: 14; 14: 6; 11: 25), so also is he
have been strange had he written, designated 'Will'. Others are of the
'Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus opinion that it makes no difference
through God'. If, however, the whether he has said 'through the will of
will of God is something subordinate,God' or 'from the will of God' because
since what God uses is the apostle uses these prepositions
itself considered to have being, without distinction, and 'through the will
this would not be unreasonable. of God' indicates the same thing, as if he
And you will take note also if the had said, 'from the will of God'.
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 the saints who

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

In the case of Ephesians alone we 545 Some, in a more curious manner

find the phrase, 'to the saints who than is necessary, think, because of what
are'. We ask what the phrase 'who was said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to
are' can mean, if it is not the sons of Israel, He who is has sent me'
redundant when added to 'the (Exod. 3: 14), that those who are saints
saints'. Consider, then, if not as in and faithful in Ephesus are referred to
Exodus he who utters the words by the term 'being'. Just as they are
'he who is' to Moses speaks his called 'saints' by a saint, 'just' by a
own name (Exod. 3: 14), so those just man and 'wise' by a wise man,
who participate in 'the one who is'so they are called 'those who are' by him
become those 'who are', called, as 'who is'. According to the same apostle,
it were, from 'not being' into God chose those things which were not
'being'. For God 'chose the things that he might destroy the things which
which are not', Paul himself says, were (1 Cor. 1: 28). We understand the
'that he might abolish the things same Scripture, furthermore, which has
which are' (1 Cor 1: 28-9). And been advanced as testimony for the
someone will ask how he destruction of those things which were, as
abolishes 'the things which are'. they explained it, on the basis of the
But let us hear him subjoin the words which follow, 'That no flesh may
phrase, 'that no flesh may boast glory before God' (1 Cor. 1: 29). For if,
before God'. For if someone who they say, someone advancing by means of
has participated in 'being' should God to being, from that which was not
forget the participation and into that which is, should refer the gift
attribute the cause of 'being' to not to the giver but should consider its
himself and not offer up the continuation to be due to his own merit
complete thanksgiving to the one and virtue, immediately the being which
who granted to him 'to be' in is, is destroyed and he begins not to be
respect to his 'likeness and image' what he was. Others, however,
from 'not being', then 'that which think it has been written straightforwardly
is' is abolished. not to those 'who are',
but 'who are the saints and faithful
in Ephesus'.

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 Eph. 1: 3 Blessed be the God

and Father of our Lord Jesus and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who has blessed us with Christ, who has blessed us with
every spiritual blessing in the every spiritual blessing in the
heavenly places in Christ. heavenly places in Christ.

On the basis of the blessings in Just as God is good in substance

Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and nature and makes us good by
someone will say that perhaps communion with himself as he
blessings such as these have been said to Israel, 'You shall be holy, as
recorded elsewhere in Scripture. I am holy' (Lev. 20: 7), so, because
The 'spiritual blessing' is he is blessed, he grants that we are
mentioned, however, in opposition blessed. The lawgiver, to be sure,
to those blessings, since 'the gives blessings and the blessing of
God and Father of Jesus Christ' the Lord is on the head of the just
does not 'bless us', like those, with (Prov. 10: 6). Baruch, which in our
a material 'blessing' but with a language signifies blessed, has the
'spiritual' one. The heterodox will, name of his blessing.
indeed, take it in this way, thinkingBut he has blessed us not with
that they will also receive a pretext one blessing but with all. Not that
for dissecting the deity from such we all obtain all, but while we
an interpretation. individually have either single or
But since we have multiple blessings from all, we all
demonstrated that not even in possess them individually.
those cases related to the law are And he has blessed us not with
the blessings, if taken materially, earthly blessings but with spiritual.
given to those who were thought There are, indeed, also earthly
to have lived well even according blessings: for someone to have
to the law, we will prove that those children, to abound in wealth, to
who have interpreted in this way enjoy honour and health. This
either give a false impression of earthly blessing falls even to
the one who has given the irrational beasts. It was, indeed,
blessings or have made promises said of them, 'The Lord blessed
not intended by the obvious them and said, Increase and be
interpretation to those who have multiplied' (Gen. 1: 22). But
lived as he commanded. For it is spiritual blessings are in the
consistent with the statement, heavenly places because earth
'The law is spiritual' (Rom. 7: 14), does not contain a spiritual
that the blessings it contains are blessing. We do not see those blessings
also spiritual. Take the prophets, which are promised to those who keep the
for example. They have not precepts of God in Leviticus (Lev. 26:
obtained blessings materially. For 3-13) fulfilled, for example, in the
men who 'went about in prophets: to lend to foreign nations, to
sheepskins, in goatskins, in want, have barns filled with grain, to be blessed
afflicted, maltreated, wandering in in cities, blessed in fields, and other
deserts, in mountains, in caves and things similar to these. The prophets were
holes of the earth' (Heb. 11: 37-8) men who 547 wandered in sheepskins
have not 'lent to many nations' and in goatskins, in poverty, in distress,
(Deut. 28: 12) nor 'have they been in deserts, in mountains, in caves and
blessed in the city' or 'in the field' holes in rocks, avoiding the attacks of
(Deut. 28: 3). But neither have persecutors (Heb. 11: 38). All the
their 'barns been blessed' (Deut. blessings, therefore, are to be interpreted
28: 5), which they did not possess spiritually, and spiritual things are to be
at all. And consider if, on this expected not in earthly places, but in
basis, we shall not compel those heavenly.
who think otherwise (if they But because he said, 'He has blessed
would preserve the dignity of the us with every spiritual blessing in the
God who has given the blessings)4 heavenly places', as if it were already
to adopt the view that God has done in the past and not promised in the
given blessings spiritually to his future, that is, he has blessed and not he
blessed ones. will bless, I ask how he will have blessed
But not only is every blessing us with a heavenly blessing who are still
'spiritual' with which Paul and located on earth. We are said to be
those similar to him are blessed blessed now with a heavenly blessing,
and not one of them material but therefore, either because 'our manner of
they are also 'in the heavenly life is in heaven' (Phil. 3: 20) and we are
places'. For it was fitting for those not of this world (John 15: 19), but when
whose 'citizenship is in heaven' the image of the earthly man has been
(Phil. 3: 20), who 'store up put aside we bear the image of the
treasure in heaven' and have their heavenly (1 Cor. 15: 49) and we do not
'heart where' their 'treasure is' live in the flesh but in the spirit (Rom. 8:
(Matt. 6: 20-1) also to obtain 9) and we lay up treasures for ourselves
spiritual blessings 'in the heavenly in heaven where we have our heart
places'. But how now is the past (Matt. 6: 20-1) or, perhaps, because
tense in the statement, 'The God every spiritual blessing 'in Christ', even
and Father of our Lord Jesus if it be on earth, is nevertheless reckoned
Christ who has blessed us with to belong to heavenly blessings.
every spiritual blessing' and 'in the 'He has blessed us', he says, 'with
heavenly places', to be considered every spiritual blessing in the heavenly
in a worthy manner? For he does places in Christ', that is, in the Word of
not say, 'Who will bless' us. And God, Wisdom, Truth and the other
consider if the phrase, 'in the virtues.
heavenly places', can be used for But 'Blessed be the God and
the phrase, 'in the places that are Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'
apprehended by the intellect and must be read in one of two ways.
are outside of sense perception'. It may be read, 'God, who is the
For it is in this way also that one maker of all things, is blessed',
'stores up treasure in heaven' and followed by a break. Then the fact
no longer has his 'heart on the that he is 'also Father of our Lord
earth', that is in physical and Jesus Christ' is introduced.
material things, but 'in heaven', Alternatively, it may be read so
always consorting with that nature that both 'God' and 'Father' are
itself which is apprehended by the referred in common to 'our Lord'.
intellect. But so that we might Blessed be the God of that man
perceive it more precisely, both who was assumed, and of him
phrases are used of the blessing, who was God the Word in the
both that it is 'spiritual', and that it beginning with God. It is not that
is 'in the heavenly places', and in the man assumed is one and the
addition to these, that it is 'in Word who assumed another,
Christ', that is to say, in the Word, but that one and the same is proclaimed
in Wisdom, in the Truth and in for a variety of reasons, at
Power. 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.
Kαταβōλ 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 eighty-
ninth 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.

But someone may ask if the It is asked how someone may be holy
prophetic saying, 'No one living and unstained before God when the
will be justified before you' (Ps. prophet testifies and says, 'No one
142: 2) does not contradict the living will be justified in your sight'
statement that some 'are holy (Ps. 142: 2). For either the Ephesians
and blameless before' God. If are holy and unstained before God, and
'no one living will be justified' the statement is false, 'No one living
before God, how will they be will be justified in your sight' or, if no
'holy before him'? For if they willone is justified 550 in the sight of God,
be 'holy and blameless', they will what precedes is false, that they are holy
also be justified. and unstained before God. One must
Someone will appeal to the respond to this in two ways.
ambiguity of the prophetic Paul does not say, He chose us
saying and say that for no one to before the constitution of the
be justified before God means world when we were holy and
something like this: the fact that unstained but, He chose us 'that
no one will be justified on the we should be holy and
basis that he has never sinned in unstained', that is, that we who
his entire lifetime does not previously were not holy and
prevent some from 'being holy unstained should afterwards be
and blameless before him' on the holy and unstained. This can also
basis of correction. Or, consider be said to those who have been
also the meaning, [if] not 'every converted from sinners to better things,
living being',7 indeed, then, some and that sentence will stand firm, 'No
are justified. 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

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

One must join the This must be read in one of two ways, so
'in love' either that love is connected either with what
with 'having precedes or what follows. Read with what
predestined', or precedes, it is as follows: 'That we should
with be holy and unstained before him in
'he chose us in him love', and after that follows, 'predestining
in love before us in the adoption of sons through Jesus
the foundation of Christ in himself'. But read with what
the world, follows it is thus: 'In love predestining us
having predestined in the adoption of sons through Jesus
us' in adoption Christ in himself'.
'[through] Jesus The Latin language, however,
Christ unto does not exhibit the distinction of
himself' so that 'we the Greek language between
might be holy πρōōρισθ ντōς and ρισθ ντōς.
and blameless The former word refers to those who
before him' (Eph. previously did not exist, and before they
1: 4). came to be a plan was made for them,
Now the noun and afterwards they existed. But the
'adoption' latter is used of him whom no plan nor
reveals that those will preceded, but he always was and
predestined by never experienced a beginning of his
him are not sons of existence. Wherefore πρōōρισθ ντες is
God by now correctly used of those who, although
nature. The noun they previously did not exist, later
adoption would existed. But ρισθ ντōς has been
not indeed be written of the Son, that is of our Lord
applied to the Jesus Christ, in another place (Rom. 1:
Saviour but to 4) because he was always with the Father
those who, 'having 551 and the will of the Father never
received the spirit preceded him that he should exist. From
of slavery to this it is deduced that the Father always
fear' (Rom. 8: 15) was and the Son always was and that the
and having nature is the same in those in whom the
'rendered fear its eternity is coequal. 8
due' (Rom. 13: 8
This discussion of πρōōρισθ ντες and ρισθ ντōς is not found in the
7), become worthy catena fragment but so closely parallels Origen's discussion of Rom.
of freedom 1: 4a in Comm. in Rom. 1.5 that the section must depend on Origen.
and of hearing, 'No
longer do I And this too is to be inferred,
call you slaves' that although God predestines or
(John 15: 15), who appoints us beforehand in the
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
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 Eph. 1: 5b According to the
good pleasure of pleasure of his will.
his will.

The Greeks do The word ε δōκ α, which the

not, I think, Latin word placitum has translated
regularly use the is composed from two words with
expression 'good
pleasure' in their the Greeks,
common Δ , from 'well', and from 'that
language. The which is pleasing'. We cannot say
expression has beneplacitum, because everything
been which pleases cannot immediately
coined by the also be well pleasing, but where
translators. They ε δōκ α alone is said, that is, 'that
used the which is well pleasing', there what is
expression in the pleasing is verified as very pleasing. But
case of the Septuagint translators translated this
the prophetic word from the Hebrew RESON, forming
words, as in the new words for new things. They, 9
9
eighty-fourth The passage beginning here and extending to the end of the first
Psalm, 'You paragraph on Eph. 1: 6 has no parallel in the catena fragment. The
have doctrine expressed concerning the origin of souls, however, is Origen's
shown good doctrine. See Princ. 1.8.1, 1.5.3 and his discussion of Rom. 9: 21 in
pleasure on your Comm. in Rom. 7.17. See also Rufinus, Apol. 1. 28-9 and above, Introd.
land, Lord' (Ps. §4.3.1.
84: 2), and in the
one-hundred and therefore, who think that souls turned
fifth, away before the creating of the world,
'Remember us, along with the angels and other names of
Lord, in the the powers in the heavenly Jerusalem,
good seize the opportunity in this passage
pleasure of your because it could not be understood as well
people' (Ps. 105: pleasing to God and in the praise of his
4), and in glory and grace that souls were born in
Habakkuk, 'If he various parts of the world, ignoble or
draw noble, some destitute, barbarians, slaves,
back, my soul and infirm, and others rich, Romans,
has no good free, and healthy, unless each of these lots
pleasure in him' of the souls should rest on the merits of
(Hab. 2: 4). Now preceding causes. And some think they
'good pleasure' understand, but do not, that which Paul
indicates 'good' wrote to the Romans, 'Or does the potter
and 'to seem'. not have power to make one vessel for
Consequently it honour and another for dishonour from
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
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.

For if Christ, as we have often already

The Saviour is designated simply
said, is wisdom, justice, peace, joy,
'Beloved', since men would err
continence (1 Cor. 1: 30), etc., even those
concerning the apprehension of
who cannot follow these names of the
'righteousness', 'truth', and
virtues love them. No one is such an
'wisdom' (1 Cor. 1: 30, 24; John
acknowledged villain that he would say
14: 6) but all would agree 'to love'
that he does not love wisdom and justice.
'wisdom', 'truth', and
Just as all men agree that the substance
'righteousness'. For this reason
of God is divine and no one's perception
the only begotten of God is
easily grasps it but each errs when he
designated 'Beloved', since all
thinks that it is such or such, so also all
men love the things intended in
love Christ in accordance with 553 that
him, but either fall short of the
which signifies the diverse virtues,
goal or attain it, just as all men
although many cannot prove by their
wonder at God but those who fail
deeds that they love him. This is the
to obtain sound concepts of God
Beloved whom I think is indicated
go wrong.
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 Eph. 1: 7a In whom we have

redemption through his blood, redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of trespasses. the forgiveness of sins.

'Redemption' [or] deliverance has That person is redeemed who is a captive

to do with prisoners and those and has fallen into the power of enemies
who have come under the power and has ceased to be free. So also some
of enemies. And we had come say that we are captives in this world and
under the power of enemies, are held by the yoke of slavery under
namely 'the ruler of this world' princes and powers, nor, unless a
and the evil powers under him (2 redeemer come, can we free our hands
Cor. 4: 4; Eph. 2: 2) and for this previously bound by chains and lift our
reason were in need of eyes above. But who, they ask, is so great
redemption and of him who and of such a kind that he can redeem
purchased us, that he might the whole world by his own worth? Jesus
receive us back who were Christ, the Son of God, gave his own
alienated from him. The Saviour, blood, snatched us from slavery and
therefore, 'gave' his own blood as forgave us freely. And indeed, if we trust
the 'ransom' for us, wherefore 'we the stories of the Gentiles that Codrus,
have redemption through his Curtius, and the Decii Mures curbed
blood, the forgiveness of plagues of cities, famines, and wars with
trespasses'. their own deaths, how much more is it to
'The forgiveness of trespasses' be judged possible that the Son of God
follows redemption, since it is not cleansed not one city but the whole world
possible that forgiveness of with his own blood.11 But the blood
trespasses occur for someone and flesh of Christ are understood
before he has been redeemed. in a twofold manner. They are
First, then, we must be redeemed understood either as spiritual and
and no longer be under the power divine, of which he himself said,
of the one who has captured and 'My flesh is truly food, and my
conquered us, so that having been blood is truly drink' (John 6: 56)
freed and released from his hands and, 'Unless you eat my flesh and
(so to speak), we can profitably drink my blood you will not have
receive 'the forgiveness of eternal life' (John 6: 54), or as the
trespasses' and, having been flesh and blood which was
healed from the wounds of sin, wecrucified and which was poured
can actively engage in piety and out by the spear of the soldier
the other virtues. (John 19: 33-4). In accordance

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 Eph. 1: 7b-8a According to the

wealth of his grace which he wealth of his grace which has
caused to abound to us. abounded in us.

He who has understood the

The person who understands the saying,
meaning of, 'You have been saved
'You have been saved by grace and not of
by grace' and 'not from works'
works' (Eph. 2: 8, 9), and that he who is
(Eph. 2: 5, 9) and 'comparing'
forgiven more loves more in relation to
trespasses with trespasses (cf. 1
the debtor who owed fifty denarii and five
Cor. 2: 13), might consider the
hundred in the Gospel (Luke 7: 41-3),
parable which speaks of the 'five
can understand that, according to his
hundred denarii' and the 'fifty'
wealth, the grace of God abounds in us,
(Luke 7: 41-3). Which man ought
especially in the church gathered from the
to confess more gratitude to the
Gentiles. This church was alien to the
householder who forgave the
covenant and promises to Israel, on the
debt? And considering further
basis of whose transgression we Gentiles
how 'the sufferings of this present
have obtained salvation. Or is there not
time are not worthy to be
a magnitude of graces in Paul and in the
compared with the glory about to
other saints of whom it is said, 'Do you
be revealed to us' (Rom. 8: 18), he
not know that we will judge angels?' (1
might comprehend 'the wealth of'
Cor. 6: 3) and, in another place, 'On
God's 'grace' and how he has
whom angels desired to look' (1 Pet. 1:
caused it so to abound to the
12) and again, 'Father, grant that as I
called and elect, especially to the
and you are one, so may they also be one
'aliens from the covenants' of
in us' (John 17: 21). He does not regard
God and the 'strangers from his
this wealth of graces in himself to be in
promises' (cf. Eph. 2: 12) who,
vain who, however much human frailty
because of the trespass of Israel,
prevails, presses forward, strives, and
have been drawn to salvation by
strains, and says with the apostle, 'His
the goodness of the Father.
grace was not in vain in me' (1 Cor. 15:
Furthermore, one might better
10). But in that person who is
understand 'the wealth of his
unmindful of the magnitude of
grace which he caused to abound
the favour, the rich grace of God
to' the blessed by considering the
will degenerate, and the opulent
remarks, 'Do you not know that
bestowal be reduced to poverty.
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 Eph. 1: 8b-9a In all wisdom
according to his good pleasure, and prudence making known
which he purposed in him for to us the mystery of his will.
the economy of the fullness of
the times.

What does the phrase 'in all The Stoics also are of the opinion
wisdom' mean and, after this, the that wisdom and prudence are
phrase 'in understanding'? Jesus different, saying, 'Wisdom is the
also uses the phrase in Wisdom, knowledge of things divine and
beginning with the statement, 'All human, but prudence pertains
wisdom is from the Lord and is only to mortal things.' 12
with him forever' (Wisd. 1: 1). If 12 See SVF ii.35, 36, 1017; Cicero, Off. 1.153.
one, then, has perceived the things In
which are seen and what the accordance with this division we
things are which are not seen in can take wisdom to apply to
them or even outside of them, and invisible and visible things but
has separated by reason the things prudence only to visible things.
which are invisible and the things We ask, therefore, how God shall
which are visible, and should have made the mystery of his will
examine the wisdom in which known 555 to us in all wisdom and
God has made all things (For 'you prudence.
made all things in wisdom', David Indeed it is simply to be
says (Ps. 103: 24)), he might accepted, first that the mystery of
observe that 'all wisdom is from his will is our redemption through
the Lord'. the blood of his Son, 'according to
Someone, however, who has the wealth of his grace which has
abandoned the hope of achieving abounded in us' (Eph. 2: 7). In
the state of being 'in all wisdom respect to this, of course, we
and prudence' while still clothed should possess wisdom and
with this body, and who also takes prudence, believing in the passion
notice of the statement, 'We know of the Lord (which is not
in part and we prophsey in part' (1 foolishness to those who believe
Cor. 13: 9), probably stumbles (1 Cor. 1: 23, 24)). Then, it is to be
over the statement, 'in all wisdom accepted that he has made all
and understanding having made mysteries known to us through his
known to us the mystery of his Scriptures, namely, how he
will', as being minimally adequate designed heaven and earth and
rather than accurate. For he thinks made, arranged, and distinguished
it possible that 'the mystery' of everything which is in them so
God was made known in wisdom that man was formed and the
to Paul and those like him but all world was filled (Gen. 1: 28) up to
things are not made known 'in all the time of the passion of Christ,
wisdom' to one who knows 'in and how those things which are
part' and prophesies 'in part'. visible were made known from
Consider, then, if we should not those which are invisible (Rom. 1:
separate the reading of the matters 20).
in this passage differently in the Finally, it is to be accepted that
following manner. 'To the praise even those things which are on the
of the glory of his grace which he earth are in need of wisdom and
bestowed on us in the Beloved, prudence. For how many of us
in whom we have redemption know what that is which supports
through his blood, the forgiveness birds in the air or fish in billows,
of trespasses, according to the and also what effects the courses
wealth of his grace which he of humans and incites the rage of
caused to abound to us in all beasts?
wisdom and prudence.' When we But the diligent reader immediately
end the division of this passage raises this objection, 'If Paul knows in
here, the statement, 'Having made part, and prophesies in part, and now
known to us the mystery of his sees enigmatically through a mirror' (1
will according to his good Cor. 13: 9, 12), how has the mystery of
pleasure', is taken with a different God been revealed to himself or to the
beginning, so that the phrase, 'in Ephesians in all wisdom and prudence?
all wisdom and prudence', does This necessity, therefore, compels us to
not apply to the phrase, 'having change the order of the reading and make
made known to us the mystery it as follows: 'According to the
of his will', but to the previous pleasure of his will, to the praise of
words. For God 'bestowed grace the glory of his grace in which he has been
on us in the beloved in all' his own gracious to us in the Beloved in whom we
'wisdom and' his 'prudence' but have redemption through his blood, the
also 'in the beloved', since we haveforgiveness of sins, according to the
'redemption through the blood' wealth of his grace which has abounded
of Christ. We have received these in us in all wisdom and prudence.' When
things 'in all the wisdom and we have made the separation at this
prudence' of God. And we have point, where, of course, the phrase 'in all
attained the forgiveness 'of wisdom and prudence' is joined with
trespasses' 'in all' his 'wisdom and what precedes, then we may bring
prudence', since he causes 'the forward, 'making known to us the
wealth of his grace' to abound on mystery of his will according to his
us 'in all wisdom and prudence'. pleasure'.
He has done all of this, 'when he But it can be said, while adhering to
made known to us the mystery of this viewpoint, that the mystery has been
his will according to his good revealed to them now 'in all wisdom and
pleasure'. prudence', though they may see in part
But even if the former reading and prophesy in part. It was not that
should be correct, the following they might come to know the mystery in
meaning, which is not in all wisdom and prudence, but God
opposition to the activity of revealed the mystery to them in all his
'knowing in part' and 'pursuing to wisdom and prudence in accordance with
apprehend' (1 Cor. 13: 9; Phil. 3: that which they could understand.
12) would result. God has 556 Eph. 1: 9b-10a According
ordained us 'in all' his own to his pleasure which he
'wisdom and prudence', having purposed in him in the
made known the mystery of his dispensation of the fullness of
will. For we have need of 'all' the times.
God's 'wisdom' which ordains us He said above, 'According to the
that we may be able to make pleasure of his will'; now,
known 'the mystery of his will' 'According to his pleasure', 'will'
and have the strength to contain having been removed. There he
this while we wear a 'lowly body' placed πρōōρισμ ν, that is,
(Phil. 3: 21). And if the reference 'predestination for the adoption
to mysteries is taken in the sense of sons through Jesus Christ'
of things divine and secret which (Eph. 1: 5), but here he placed
are not suitable for the masses, it πρ θεσιν, that is, 'purpose'. But
clearly also pertains to the 'will' of those who are in the habit of discussing
the 'mystery' of God concerning verbal distinctions assert that there is the
those who will be saved. For the following distinction between
great multitude of God's predestination and purpose. The
goodness has been hidden for predestination of something would figure
those who fear him, just as David much earlier in the mind of him who
says, 'How great is the multitude destines what will be but purpose (is
of your goodness, Lord, which used) when the design is already near
you have hidden for those who and the performance nearly follows the
fear you' (Ps. 30: 20). thought. But the words, 'He
And consider if purposed in him' are to be
'predetermination' and 'purpose' referred to the mystery since,
differ, so that the purpose occurs indeed, he said above, 'That he
after the predetermination. might make known to us the
Consequently the mystery of his will'. This mystery is
predetermination occurred, as it the 'dispensation of the fullness of the
were, in the thoughts of God. In times', that all things might be fulfilled
relation to the same thoughts, at the appointed time. For just as an
however, the purpose of the inheritance is not paid to an heir so long
things which he predetermined, as he is a child, although the goods are
being invested with being, his (Gal. 4: 1-2), so also the mystery
somehow already follow and which was predestined by God for the
come to the actuality of the adoption of his sons could not be
predetermination. This is why he dispensed before it should arrive at its
has first written, 'In love having 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.

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 Eph. 1: 10b To recapitulate all

in Christ, the things in the things in Christ, things in
heavens and the things on the heaven and things in earth, in
earth, in him. him.

Bankers and similar people use the 'To restore' (instaurare) is written
noun 'summation' when they add in the Latin codices for 'to
up accounts, and when they bring recapitulate' (recapitulare). I wonder
payments and expenses or receipts why the translators have not used
together in one sum total. I think the Greek verb itself, since by a
the apostle drew on this source licence of that sort the words
when he used the expression here. dialectics and philosophy have
For while there are many accounts been adopted just as they are used
of the administration of those in in Greek. For orators also in their
heaven and of the financial epilogues, or before the epilogues,
administration of those on earth, are in the habit of making a
all, inasmuch as they are all parts ofsummation at the end of their
the one whole world, coalesce and cases, that is an νακεφαλα ωσιν.
converge into one totality. The This is for the memory of the
'summation' is 'in Christ'. For not judges and those who are hearing
only are the divisions into parts of the matters so that the things
those who are administered and which were previously discussed
the individual accounts of those more extensively might afterwards
who are governed in the Word of be grasped in a brief word, and
God and in his Wisdom but also each person might begin to recall
the summation and (so to speak) what he has heard.
summings-up of all. This, then, is the meaning in the
'Sum' is used frequently along present passage: Every
with the inclusive concept. 'The dispensation which has existed in
sum', then, 'of what is being said' the world, both before and after it,
(Heb. 8: 1), he says, and, 'Sum up comprising invisible as well as
many things in a few words' (Sir. visible creatures, has promised the
32: 8). Now the word 'sum' advent of the Son 557 of God. It
(κεφ λαιōν) is used, in my was promised in the fact that
opinion, because our head Adam, who was cast out of
(κεφαλ ν) contains all things as in paradise (Gen. 3:24), was to be
a sum, even the entirety of the recalled by the Saviour (1 Cor. 15:
faculties of our life. 22, 45); in the fact that in the

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 νακεφαλαι 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
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 ς and
All the things which God brings toπρ θ εσις, that is, predestination
pass, does, and accomplishes, he and purpose, are placed together,
brings to pass 'according to' his according to which God works all
own 'counsel of his will', for there things according to the counsel of his will.
is nothing which can make him do It is not that all things which come
anything contrary to 'the counsel about in the world are
of his will', for he controls all accomplished by the will and
things and rules everything. But to counsel of God, otherwise evil
show the circumspection of the things too could be imputed to
operations of God which occur God, but that everything which he does
according to his will, Paul placed he does by his counsel and will since, of
'counsel' before 'his will'. 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, Eph. 1: 13 In whom also you,

when you had heard the word when you had heard the word
of truth, the gospel of your of truth, the gospel of your
salvation, and had believed in salvation, in whom also
whom, were sealed with the believing, you were sealed with
Holy Spirit of promise. the Holy Spirit of promise.

'In whom' (that is to say, in Christ) 'In whom', no doubt means in Christ.
'also you, when you', along with Among others who have heard, you
others who had heard, 'had heard Ephesians also have heard the word of
the word of truth', which word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, which
truth is 'the gospel of your believing, you have been sealed with the
salvation, and had believed [in Holy Spirit of promise. But the main
whom], were sealed with the Holy clause, following the order of the text,
Spirit of promise'. Now the does not appear to cohere with the clause
second 'in whom' will appear to be which has preceded it, 'In whom also
redundant so far as the phrase is you, when you had heard the word of
concerned. This is also why it truth, the gospel of your salvation',
appears that the post-positive because it has repeated the 'in whom'.
phrase does not follow logically, The removal of this 'in whom' which
since the meaning has been follows in the second position and is
suspended. But this is not true. superfluous can restore the structure of
Some previous writer indeed said the text. But Paul allowed this from his
that because of his great love for excessive love of Christ. He always
Jesus Paul has made mention of mentioned him whom he loved even when
him continuously, even it was superfluous and excessively
superfluously, as it were. This can frequent. This the careful reader can
be seen in relation to the 'in discover in all his epistles without
whom' in the case of the phrase, our help. For this reason also now the
'and had believed in whom'. 'in whom' placed in the second position is
Now it is a mark of the perceived to have thrown the order of the
excellence of the Ephesians to sentence into confusion and to have left
hear, 'In whom also you, when the previous theme hanging.
you had heard the word of truth', And it is, to be sure, no insignificant
since Paul means those who had praise of the Ephesians that they have
shared in secret teachings. For I heard not the preaching but the word of
do not think that those who have truth, if indeed there is a significant
heard the preaching alone and distinction between the preaching and the
have not received the teachings of word of truth. We read also in another
the concrete realities with epistle, 'And my word', he says, 'and my
interpretation and clear preaching, were not in persuasive words
explanation 'hear the word of of wisdom, but in a manifestation of the
truth'. For word and preaching Spirit and power' (1 Cor. 2: 4). Let us
differ, as Paul also teaches in other search 560 very carefully where else it
places when he says, 'And my has been written that someone has heard
word and my preaching were not the word of truth so that Paul's meaning
with persuasive words of wisdom can be clearly disclosed by a comparison
but in demonstration of the Spirit of the passages. We should note also
and power' (1 Cor. 2: 4). For one where the gospel is mentioned, whether it
must note there, too, that he says is mentioned with an addition or
his own word is other than his absolutely. For example, it is mentioned
own preaching. And one must with an addition in the following
investigate also [if] the phrase, passages: 'my gospel' (Rom. 2: 16), 'the
'Some have heard the word of gospel of Jesus Christ' (Mark 1: 1), 'the
truth', occurs in another epistle, so eternal gospel' (Rev. 14: 6), or what is
that our observation concerning now said to the Ephesians, 'the gospel of
Paul's meaning may appear more your salvation'. But it is mentioned
accurate. absolutely, as when it is said of Luke,
But one must observe where 'Whose praise in the gospel is in all the
the 'gospel' is designated and also churches' (2 Cor. 8: 18).
the words applied to it, such as Moreover, the one who has heard the
'according to my gospel' (Rom. 2: word of truth and has believed in it is
16), or the 'beginning of the sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.
gospel of Jesus Christ' (Mark 1: 1), Because there are many who have heard
or the 'eternal gospel' (Rev. 14: 6), and remain unbelieving, they by no
or the 'gospel of the salvation' of means obtain the seal of the Holy Spirit.
the Ephesians, or simply 'gospel', It is also said to the prince of Tyre,
as when Paul says of Luke, 'You are the seal of the likeness of
'Whose praise in the gospel is in allGod' (Ezek. 28: 12). But he is the
the churches' (2 Cor. 8: 18). seal of God so that just as the first
And everyone 'who has heard man was created in the image and
the word of truth' which is 'the likeness of God, so whoever shall
gospel of salvation' of the one have obtained the Holy Spirit in
who hears and believes is sealed the second regeneration may be
'with the Holy Spirit of promise', sealed by him and receive the
as if he would not be sealed if he form of the creator.
should hear but not believe. But We must also investigate where else
someone else will say that even if the phrase, 'the Holy Spirit of promise',
he should believe but should not has been written, or what it means.
advance to such a point that he For I18 think that just as the Holy
hears 'the word of truth', he would Spirit makes one to whom he has been
thus not contain the seal of 'the imparted holy, and the spirit of wisdom
Holy Spirit of promise', which is makes one wise, and the spirit of
truly the clarification and understanding makes one understanding,
explanation of these things which and the spirit of counsel
are appropriately clarified and makes one cautious and
explained by 'the promise' of the deliberative, and the spirit of
Holy Spirit. courage makes one courageous,
And one must also investigate if and the spirit of knowledge makes
the phrase 'Holy Spirit of one knowledgeable, and the spirit
promise'17 is used anywhere and of fear makes one fearful (Isa. 11:
what meaning one must take for 2-3) and trembling with the fear
the phrase 'the Holy Spirit of the of God, so also the Spirit of promise or
promise'. In my opinion, just as the Spirit of God makes him in whom he
the Holy Spirit makes that person dwells the surety and God. In the same
holy on whom he comes, and 'the way, on the contrary, an unclean
spirit of' the 'wisdom' makes one spirit makes one unclean, and a
wise, and the 'spirit of' the dirty occupant prepares a dirty
'understanding' makes one home for himself, a spirit of
understanding (Isa. 11: 2), so also fornication also produces
the one on whom 'the Spirit of the fornicators, of which the prophet
promise' comes is, perhaps, also says, 'they have been led
already in the promise. astray by a spirit of fornication'

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 Eph. 1: 14 Who is the security

of our inheritance, for the of our inheritance, to the
redemption of the possession, redemption of the adoption, to
for the praise of his glory. the praise of his glory.

You will ask if everyone who The Latin word pignus has been
19
partakes of Holy Spirit partakes used to translate the Greek
of 'the Spirit of the promise', or if arrhabon. But pignus does not
only the one who has 'heard the signify precisely that which
word of truth', which is 'the arrhabon does. For an arrhabon is
gospel of salvation', and 'has given for a future purchase, as if it
believed', receives 'the Holy Spirit were some 561 proof and
of the promise'. And let us give obligation. Security, on the other
attention also to these further hand, that is ν χυρōν, is pledged
matters, namely if everyone who for a loan so that when the loan
participates in the Holy Spirit in has been repaid the security owed
whatever manner has the 'pledge to the borrower is returned by the
of the inheritance'. But it is better creditor.
to think that, just as in the case of Again, there where it says, 'to
those who buy up something and the redemption of the adoption',
give a pledge, the pledge is given the Greek text does not have
in proportion to the whole sum of υ ōθεσ αν (adoption), but
money, so 'the pledge of the περιπō ησιν (possession), which
inheritance' is given in proportion we can say as acquisitionem
to the foreknown good things (acquisition), or possessionem
which will belong to each saint. (possession), and yet we have not
Consequently, the one capable of portrayed the force of the word.
understanding from the pledge For there are many words which
the differences of value between are incapable of being translated
pledge and pledge would be from Greek into Latin, or from
capable of making a declaration Hebrew into Greek, or
concerning a greater and lesser conversely, from Latin into Greek
inheritance 'stored up' (Col. 1: 5) or from Greek into Hebrew.
for the joint heirs with Christ Whoever, therefore, has received not
(Rom. 8: 17). only the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit
And just as 'the pledge of the of promise has, at the same time,
inheritance' is not something acquired also the arrhabon of the
external to us (for 'the Holy Spirit inheritance, which inheritance is
of the promise' in each one is the eternal life. And in the same manner,
'pledge' of the promise), so the the arrhabon gives us an idea of what
inheritance is not external to the sort the future purchase may be and what
one who inherits but is in the the possession. For example, from
mind and soul of the one ten gold coins, a villa worth a
inheriting. For nothing external hundred gold coins, and from a
can be compared with the hundred gold coins, a possession
perfection of the mind which worth a thousand gold coins so,
contemplates the beauties of based on the difference in the
Wisdom, the Word of God and arrhabon, the magnitude of the
truth. inheritance which will follow
Nevertheless, this 'Holy Spirit hereafter is recognized. Moreover,
of the promise', which is 'the although someone may be holy
pledge of our inheritance', is givenand perfect and thought worthy of
to the saints for the present that blessedness by all, nevertheless
they might be redeemed and the Spirit has been acquired now
secured for God, being equipped as the arrhabon for the future
'for the praise' of God's 'glory'. inheritance. But if the arrhabon is
Now the phrase, 'for the praise so great, how great will the
of his glory', can also have the possession itself be? Moreover, as the
following meaning in relation to arrhabon which is given to us is not
one who is being repaid. Each one outside us but is within us, so also the
receives 'the Spirit of the promise' inheritance itself, that is the kingdom of
as 'the pledge of the inheritance' God which is within us (Luke 17:21), is
now, but later the inheritance situated inside us. For what inheritance
itself, for the purpose of praising can be greater than to contemplate and
the glory of God. Nevertheless it see with the understanding the beauty of
is not (as one might suppose to be Wisdom, and of the Word, and of
indicated by the text) that God is Truth, and of Light, and to consider
in need of those who praise his the ineffable and magnificent
glory. It is, on the contrary, that nature of God himself, and to
the superlative good things ponder the substance of all things
overcome those who have beheld which have been made in the
the praiseworthiness of the glory likeness of God.
of God and who cannot be silent Moreover, that Holy Spirit of promise
about it but who are engaged in which is the arrhabon of our inheritance
singing its praise continually with is given, therefore, to the saints now, that
enjoyment. 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 562 Eph. 1: 15-18a For this
I too, having heard of your faith reason I also, hearing of your
in the Lord Jesus and 20 faith in the Lord Jesus and in all
the saints, do not cease giving
20
The NT text has τ ν γ πην, i.e. 'your love for all the thanks for you, making
saints': K. Lake and S. New, Six Collations of New mention of you in my prayers,
Testament Manuscripts, HThS 17 (Cambridge, Mass., that the God of our Lord Jesus
1932), 182, note that the von der Goltz codex Athos Christ, the Father of glory,
184 (see Introd. §4.1) omits τ ν γ πην For a similar might give you the spirit of
reference to faith 'in all the saints' in Origen's wisdom and of revelation in the
Commentary on Philemon see R. E. Heine, 'In Search recognition of him, the eyes of
of Origen's Commentary on Philemon', HTR (2000), your heart having been
128. enlightened.
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.

The phrase, 'in recognition of him Although a careful reader can lay
the eyes of your heart having been the blame on a literal translation
enlightened,' will appear to be of the sentence and not on the
expressed incorrectly unless we apostle for the fact that the whole
interpret it as expressed in coherence of the thought appears
inverted order. Wherefore I think to gush forth resulting in a
the grammatical sequence of the solecism, nevertheless, the fault
context is as follows: 'For this cries out in the Greek text also.
reason I too, having heard of your For this reason also, responding
faith in the Lord Jesus, in to
recognition of him the eyes of the Greeks who are rather over-
your heart having been scrupulous,
enlightened, and your faith21 in all we will attempt to
the saints, do not cease giving divide up the order of the text
thanks for you, making mention according to the sense as follows,
of you in my prayers, that the God so that we may say, 'Hearing of
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the your faith in the Lord Jesus and
Father of glory, might give you the in
spirit of wisdom and of revelation, all his saints, and seeing the
that you may know what is the distinctive character of your faith
hope of your calling' and the in the Lord and in all his saints, I
words which follow. do not cease to give thanks and to
If the Father is father of what is make mention of you in my
substantial and real and he is also prayers, that the God of our Lord
said to be father 'of glory', glory Jesus Christ and, indeed, the
clearly is something substantial Father of glory might give you
and invested with being. And the
perhaps, just as our Saviour is spirit of wisdom and of
Logos, Wisdom, Truth, Peace, revelation.'
and Justice, so is he also Glory. But the phrase which follows,
And if it has ever been recorded 'the eyes
that 'the glory of God appeared' of your heart having been
(cf. Exod. 16: 10; Ezek. 8: 4, etc.), enlightened',
one must not suppose that can be rendered by a hyperbaton
anything other than the Son of as
God appeared. follows, 'For this reason I also,
On the one hand, then, the hearing
'spirit of wisdom' makes one wise, of your faith in the Lord Jesus, in
and on the other, the 'spirit of the
revelation' 'removes the veil' (2 recognition of him the eyes of
Cor. 3:16) from the heart so that your heart
one, 'contemplating the glory of having been enlightened, and in
the Lord with unveiled face, may all the
be transformed into his image saints, do not cease giving thanks
from glory to glory' (2 Cor. 3: 18). for
No one, then, who is not wise has you, making mention of you in my
the 'spirit of wisdom' and no one prayers, that the God of our Lord
who still has a 'veil on his heart Jesus
when Moses is read' has already Christ, the Father of glory, might
22
received the 'spirit of revelation'. give
22
For Origen's joining of 2 Cor. 3: 16 and Eph. 1: 17 cf. you the spirit of wisdom and
Comm in Mt. 10-17, 12.10. revelation in
recognition, that you might know
Unless perhaps it is that the 'spirit what is
of wisdom' makes some preeminently the hope of your calling', etc.
wise by the quantity of Furthermore, the phrase 'the God
their contemplative experiences of of
wisdom and does 23 our Lord Jesus Christ, and
23
There is no subject expressed for the verb in the indeed the
second clause. Grammatically, this would most Father of glory' is to be
probably call for the subject of the former verb to be understood as
carried over to the second, which is how I have follows. In the same manner as
translated. The subject matter of the second clause, our Lord
however, suggests that 'the spirit of revelation' might be Jesus Christ is himself Word,
the subject. Wisdom,
not, in like Truth, Peace, Justice, and
manner, promote the revelation of Courage, he
those things from which 'the veil himself is also Glory, according
is removed' by the quantity of the to this
removal of veils on the letters. which is said elsewhere, 'The
One must understand the glory of
phrase, 'in recognition of him the God will appear' (Lev. 9: 23). It
eyes of your heart having been has
enlightened', with these words. also been written in almost the
For if knowledge of God and whole of the old Law that the
recognition of God are not the glory of God was seen above the
same but he who recognizes tabernacle of testimony (Num. 9:
comes to recognize, as it were, 15 ff.). And the Psalmist sings,
what he knew long ago but had 'Arise, my glory, arise' (Ps. 107:
forgotten, then all who are 'in 3).
recognition' of God have known This Glory, enlightening the
him long ago. Wherefore it was world with his splendour,
said, 'All the ends of the earth will fashioned a sanctuary for himself
remember and turn to the Lord' from the womb of the virgin. It
(Ps. 21: 28). And the phrase, 'the follows that God is the Father of
eyes of your heart having been the Glory of this sanctuary. Only
enlightened', indicates the there where Christ is Glory is the
bodiless and spiritual nature of Father mentioned. Where Jesus
our ruling principle and of 'the or
true light' (John 1: 9). 24 where his God are mentioned, he
24
Cf. Origen, Dial. 17; 20. 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, π γνωσιν, some understand it as
follows, that there is this distinction between and 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.
Origen Jerome

Eph. 1: 18-20a Eph. 1: 18b-20a That you

That you might might know what is the hope of
know what is the his calling, and what are the
hope of his riches of the glory of his
calling, and what isinheritance in the saints, and
the wealth what is the exceeding greatness
of the glory of his of his power in us who believe,
inheritance in accordance with the
in the saints28 and operation of the power of his
what is the might which he worked in
surpassing Christ raising him from the
greatness of his dead.
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.

The 'calling' of According to Paul's prayer, he to whom

God includes the spirit of wisdom and revelation has
'hope', which one once been given and the eyes of his heart
must come to opened so that he may see, will know the
know from much things which have been 'laid up' (Col.
diligence of life 1: 5) for those who have been called and
and readiness of what things are to be hoped for by the
mind, and 'his saints of God which are to be given
inheritance' abundantly and liberally to those who
includes the long for his inheritance. The greatness
'wealth' 564 of God's power through which he
of much 'glory' 'in has worked in Christ Jesus whom he has
the holy' places made alive from the dead is necessary for
above. this knowledge in those who, like Paul,
He to whom 'the believe and are called. Moreover the
spirit of inheritance is to be understood in
wisdom and of a twofold manner: either that the
revelation' is given 'firstborn of every creature' (Col.
in accordance with 1: 15) is the inheritance of the soul
Paul's prayer, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of
will know the that man who was assumed from
things 'stored up' body and soul, and we inherit God
Col. 1: 5) for those the Word with the inheritance of
'called' and the soul, or that our inheritance in
will contemplate Christ is the one divinity of Father, Son,
the things hoped and Holy Spirit, so that just as an
for, which inheritance of houses and villas bears the
constitute the name of the very things which the heirs
'wealth possess, so God himself is the inheritance
of the glory' which of the believers and saints. It has also
is in been written in the old instrument, 'But
accordance with you shall not give the sons of Levi an
his inheritance inheritance among their brothers because
which he gives to I am their portion' (Num. 18: 20). And
those called to elsewhere, 'the Lord is their inheritance'
this holy (Deut. 18: 2). And the saint who knows
inheritance. that he has nothing outside of God says
But you will ask if boldly, 'The Lord is my portion' (Ps. 72:
God himself 26) and, 'You are the portion of my
is also 'the inheritance and of my cup' (Ps. 15: 5).
inheritance of the It is, therefore, no small favour that we
saints' even as the should know the hope of the calling and
phrase 'heirs of the riches of the glory of the inheritance of
God' (cf. Rom. 8: God in the saints since, indeed, to know
17) is these things we stand in need of that
understood so that, power which God also used in restoring
just as we his Son to life. He did not raise him
speak of heirs of from the dead once but always,
estates and heirs and has made him free among the
of houses, applyingdead (Ps. 87: 6), unstained by the
the word touch of death. Christ arises from
inheritance to the the dead daily; he is restored to life
pieces of in the penitent daily. It is not that
property, so we he did not have power according
should also to the flesh to lay down his soul
understand 'the and take it up again (cf. John 10:
heirs of God'. 18), since no one would have
And the law which taken it if he had not laid it down
says, 'You shall on his own, but that in accordance
not give the sons with the dispensation of the flesh
of Levi an and of the Son, the man and Son is
allotment among said to have been restored to life
their brothers by God and the Father. 29
because I am their 29 It is likely that the final part of this paragraph is from Origen's
portion, says commentary on Ephesians also. Origen joins Ps. 87: 6 with John 10:
the Lord' (cf. Josh. 18 to explain the unique nature of Jesus' death, as Jerome does here,
18: 7; Deut. 10: in Jo. 19.101-2 and Comm. in Rom. 5.10.
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
Eph. 1: 20b-21 And making
rule and authority and power
him to sit at his right hand in
and dominion and every name
the heavenly places, above
that is named not only in this
every principality and authority
age, but in the one to come,
and power and dominion, and
and he subjected all things
every name which is named not
under his feet, and made him
only in this age, but also in that
head over all things in the
which is to come.
Church, which is his body, the
fullness of him who is filled in
respect to all in all.

One must consider these things to He has described the power of God by
have been said in a physical image, means of a human analogy. It is not that
not that there are any chairs or a throne has been set up and God the
thrones perceptible to the senses Father is seated on it and has the Son
situated in the heavens on which seated with him, but that we are unable
the Father is seated and the Son at to understand one judging and ruling in
the right hand of the Father, for any other way than by means of our
should we think in this way we concepts. That which has been
would not say things worthy of written in the one-hundred 565
the divine nature. For neither does and ninth Psalm also relates to
the earth, 'the footstool of' his this: 'The Lord said to my Lord,
'feet' (Isa. 66: 1), lie, in a physical Sit at my right hand until I make
sense, under God himself who is your enemies the footstool of
seated in heaven. For how can your feet' (Ps. 109: 1). For if the
'heaven' be his 'throne' when it Son is seated at the right hand of
has been measured by his span? the Father in accordance with the
And how can 'earth' be 'the deportment of one who rules, it is
footstool of' his 'feet' and itself necessary in accordance with the
have been encompassed by his same analogy that he be greater
hand? For Isaiah says, 'Who has than30 him who sits on the left.
measured the water in his palm But that we might know that it is
and heaven with his span and the to be understood in a way other
whole earth with his hand?' (Isa. than that signified by the letter,
40: 12). I think, therefore, that the same Psalm teaches in
both near God and far from him subsequent words saying, 'You are
are mental concepts. All, on the a priest for ever according to the
one hand, who are saints and live order of Melchizedek; the Lord is
according to the will of the Father at your right hand' (Ps. 109: 4-5).
of the universe are also near God For how, when the Son is seated at
but the impious, on the other the right hand of the Father, is the
hand, are far from him. It is of the Father, on the other hand, said to
latter that the prophet says, be at his right hand? Or by what
'Behold, those who remove reckoning is earth the footstool of his feet
themselves from you will perish' and heaven his throne (Isa. 66: 1), when
(Ps. 72: 27). Therefore, just as one it is also said in Isaiah that he holds the
has been considered near God and earth in his fist, and heaven is measured
another far from him, so must one by the spreading of his hand (Isa. 40:
consider the saints to be said to be 12)? For he cannot be within that which
at his right hand but the impious is held by him, nor can he hold enclosed
at his left, as it were, as the Saviourin his hand that by which he himself is
also says, 'The sheep will stand at enclosed in the manner of one who is
the right hand but the goats at the seated. Therefore, just as being next to
left' (Matt. 25: 33). But also the God or withdrawing far from him is not
phrase, 'having seated him at his to be thought of in terms of spatial places
right hand' means, 'having made but in accordance with merits, because
him to sit down and having the saints are near him but sinners, of
presented him a kingdom and whom the prophet says, 'Behold those
sovereignty', in accordance with who remove themselves from you will
which Jesus, who has come to be perish' (Ps. 72: 27), are removed from all
'above' all things because of the proximity to him, so also is being on the
dispensation which is benevolent right hand or the left hand of God to be
to all things, has the care of and interpreted, because the saints are at his
sovereignty over the saints, right hand but sinners at his left. The
helping them and sharing himself Saviour confirms the same thing in the
with them. Gospel when he relates that the sheep are
There are many, therefore, who at his right and the goats at his left
have sovereignty over and rule (Matt. 25: 33).
those in need of the care which But also the word 'to sit' itself
comes from him, and many who indicates the authority of royalty by
have authority, and many who which God confers benefit on those over
have dominion. There are, in whom he is considered worthy to sit
addition, many who share in his because, of course, he rules over them
own power, some working in this and has them in his chariot, and
age and some in the age to come. turns the necks, which were
None of these, however, has as previously wandering and
great a sovereignty as the Son, for unrestrained, to his own will.
all those who have sovereignty Next, I ask 566 how that which
need him to have sovereignty over follows can be understood:
themselves. However, those 'Above every principality and
'authorities' which are under the authority and power and
authority of Christ exercise dominion, and every name which
authority better because the is named, not only in this age, but
'power' of God exceeds every also in that which is to come',
other power. But even if some since indeed we have already
have been brought to a useful spoken of the right hand and left
servanthood by those who and of the sitting. Now I ask where
exercise dominion well, it is the apostle found these four names which
necessary that these who exercise have been written, I mean 'principality,
dominion, receiving knowledge of authority, power and dominion', and
exercising dominion from the whence he has made them known. For it
'Lord of those who exercise is not allowed that he who had been
dominion' (cf. Deut. 10: 17; Rev. instructed in the divine text reflect on
17: 14; 19: 16), exercise dominion something mentioned which is not
over those whom they have contained in the sacred books. I think,
dominion over. For which reason therefore, that he has made known these
he who 'raised' Christ 'from the names which were either hidden from the
dead' seated him 'at his right hand traditions of the Hebrews or, perhaps,
in the heavenly places above all which have been recorded as history, as it
rule and authority and power and were. He understands the law to be
dominion and every name named spiritual and has thought of it more
not only in this age but also in that sublimely, and he has understood that
to come'. For it is likely that some which the books of Numbers and Kings
names which are named are not to relate of kings and princes, and also of
be divulged. They are ineffable commanders, tribunes and centurions, as
and are not to be apprehended by an image of other princes and kings,
us in accordance with the because, of course, there are principalities
disposition of the universe, some in the heavens, along with authorities,
'in this age', but some also in that dominions, powers and other
to come. And from what source designations of administrations, which
did the apostle have knowledge of we cannot name nor has Paul himself
these names other than from the been able, I think, to enumerate, seeing
Holy Spirit who revealed them to that he was situated in a heavy little
him? 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

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
This appears contrary to that which is
are still not subject to the Logos of
written elsewhere, 'For we do not yet see
God. For 'we do not yet see all
all things subjected to him' (Heb. 2: 8).
things subjected' (Heb. 2: 8). And
But there is also the statement, 'For he
the statement, 'He must reign until
must reign until he puts all his enemies
he put all his enemies under his
under his feet' (1 Cor. 15: 25). For if all
feet' (1 Cor. 15: 25), reveals that
things have not yet been subjected to him
'all his enemies' are not yet 'under
and he must reign until all things are
his feet'. Someone will say, then,
subjected to him, how has God now
that this too has been said in
subjected all things under his feet?
relation to foreknowledge. But
Especially since Paul himself also
another, having called attention to
testifies in another place, 'But when all
the ordering of God by which he
things shall have been subjected, then
orders each thing into a certain
the Son also himself will be subjected
order, will say that 'he subjected'
as many things as belong to the
order of those being subjected
'under his feet'.

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 That which follows is also in

head over all agreement with this sense, 'And
things in the Church, he made him the head over all
which is his things of the Church, which 568 is
body, [the fullness] his body'. For as the head has very
of him who is many members subjected to itself,
filled in respect to all some of which are defective and
in all' (Eph. feeble, so also our Lord Jesus
1: 22b-23). Christ, since he is head of the
Since we find the Church, has all those as members
Church who are gathered into the Church,
designated 'body' of saints, of course, and sinners. The
Christ, let us saints, however, have been
investigate whether subjected to him by their choice
we must ever while the sinners have been
think of it as an subjected by necessity. And so it
instrument of the happens that enemies too have
head, like the rest of been subjected to his feet.
the body Wherefore, in that he says 'all
without the head or, things', he appears to pose a
just as the question. For that which has been
body of a man whosesaid, 'Sit at my right hand until I
head is a place your enemies under your
part of his body, so feet' (Ps. 109: 1), and elsewhere,
the whole 'For he must reign until he places
Church of Christ is all his enemies under his feet' (1
the body of Cor. 15: 25), does not particularly
Christ which is require an interpreter to point out
animated by his that those things which are hostile
divinity and filled by are subjected to his feet when they
his Spirit, or have been overcome and pass
whether we must over to the authority of the
understand conqueror. But why 'all things',
these matters that is, angels, thrones,
differently. If in dominions, authorities and
truth it should be the other powers which were never
second, it opposed to God should be
will be his more subjected to his feet appears
human part, even obscure.
that part itself which This can be answered accordingly that
obtains the no one is without sin. Even the stars
whole body. The themselves are not pure before God (Job
divine power, 25: 5), and every creature is terrified at
however, which the coming of the creator. Whence also
animates the the Saviour's cross is said to have
Church, as it were, purified not only those things which were
will be the part on earth but also those in the heavens. 32
32
that is divine and Cf. Origen, Jo. 1.257; 13.412-13; below on Eph. 3: 10-11; and
which makes the Rufinus, Apol. 1. 38. The catenist has omitted this but it is clearly a
whole Church alive. doctrine of Origen.
But we wish to know
how the But another refers the 'all things'
Church, which is the not to the whole universe but only
'body' of to those things under discussion
Christ, is the or takes it as follows: the whole
'fullness of him who city cried out does not mean that
is filled in respect to there was no one in the city who
all in all' and did not cry out, but that the
why it is not said, minority are named from the
'Of him who fills majority. Paul the apostle says
all in all' but 'of him himself, 'All seek their own things,
who is filled'. not the things which are of God'
For it would seem to (Phil. 2: 21) and, 'All have
be said more forsaken me' (2 Tim. 4: 16). It was
consistently that not that Timothy and the other
Christ is the one disciples who were with him at the
who fills and not the time the epistles were being
one who is written had left him but,
filled. For he is not therefore, because many had
only the deserted him he said 'all', that is,
'fulfilment of the he complained that he had been
law' (cf. Rom. deserted by the majority.
13: 10; Matt. 5: 17) Something like this is said in the
but he is also Psalm, 'All have turned away and
the fulfilment of all they have also become useless,
fulfilments, 569 there is no one who does
since apart from him
no
perfecting would
occur. But
consider if the one
speaking in this
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 Eph. 2: 1-5a And you, when
were dead in trespasses and you were dead in offences and
your sins, in which you once your sins, in which you once
walked in accordance with the walked, according to the
aeon of this world, according to course of this world, according
the ruler of the power of the to the prince of the power of the
spirit of the air which now air, the spirit which is now at
works in the sons of work in the sons of
disobedience, in which also we disobedience, in which we all
all once lived in the desires of once lived in the desires of our
our flesh, doing the will of the flesh, doing the will of our flesh
flesh and of our thoughts, and and thoughts, and we were by
we were children of wrath by nature sons of wrath as also the
nature, as also the rest. But others. But God, who is rich in
God, who is rich in mercy, mercy, on account of his great
because of his great love with love with which he loved us
which he loved us, made us, even when we were dead in
too, who were dead in sins, has made us alive together
trespasses, alive with Christ. with Christ.

The grammatical sequence is as Before we discuss the meaning of the

follows: 'And you who were dead individual words it seems to me that the
in trespasses and your sins, God, order of the text should be restored as
who is rich in mercy because of his follows: 'And God, who is rich in mercy,
great love with which he loved us, on account of his great love with which he
made alive with Christ.' 'And' he loved us, made you alive together with
made us alive with Christ 'who Christ, when you were dead in offences
were dead in trespasses in which' and your sins. And he made us alive
we 'once walked in accordance together with Christ when we were dead
with the Aeon of this world, in the offences in which we once walked,
according to the ruler of the according to the course of this world,
power of the spirit of the air which according to the prince of the power of the
now works in the sons of air, the spirit which is now at work in
disobedience, in which also we all the sons of disobedience, in which we all
once lived in the desires of our also once lived in the desires of our flesh,
flesh, doing the will of the flesh doing the will of our flesh and minds, and
and of our thoughts, and we were we were by nature sons of wrath.' This
by nature children of wrath. We allows the phrase, 'he has made us
consider the phrase which alive together with Christ', to be
constitutes the difficulty of the understood as if it were said to
passage, 'But God who is rich in these (in common).
mercy', either to have been falsely But we think the causal conjunction
inserted in the copies or not to there where it says, 'but God 571 who is
have been perceived as redundant rich in mercy', was either added by
by Paul who was 'untrained in ignorant scribes and eventually the error
speech' (2 Cor. 11: 6). was inserted, or was used unnecessarily
Now sins are clearly said to be by Paul himself, who was unskilled in
the death of the soul by the speech, though not in knowledge (2 Cor.
phrase, 'and you who were dead in 11: 6). But clearly sin is said to be the
trespasses and your sins'. And death of the soul because he says, 'And
since 'trespass' is a term peculiar you, when you were dead in offences and
to the Scriptures, one must your sins', and furthermore in
investigate if it differs from 'sin' accordance with what is written in
and especially since here they are Ezekiel, 'The soul which sins shall
mentioned in conjunction, 'and itself die' (Ezek. 18: 20). And
you who were dead in trespasses because the word 'offences', which are
and your sins'. And we ask if those called παραπτ ματα in Greek,
deeds which we have already belongs, strictly speaking, to the
completed in an evil manner are Scriptures in accordance with the
designated our 'sins' but their etymology of the same language
beginnings 'trespasses', as if they (of course 'offences' are more
were not yet falls but proceed to correctly translated πλημμ λειαι),
our falling. And perhaps this is we ask what they signify or in what they
why it is said in the eighteenth are separate from sins, that is, what is
Psalm, 'Who will understand the difference between παραπτ ματα
trespasses?' (Ps. 18: 13). One, and μαρτ ας. For the Greeks say
therefore, who understands the that πα ραπτ ματα are the beginnings
roots and beginnings of sins, of sins, as it were, when a silent
which are 'trespasses', would be thought creeps in and we, to some
able, in addition, also to keep degree, embrace it. Nevertheless, it
himself from falling into 'sins'. does not yet impel us to a fall. For this
What is it to walk 'in accordance reason it is written in the eighteenth
with the Aeon of this world', and Psalm, 'Who understands offences?' that
not in accordance with the Aeon is, π α ρ απτ ματα (Ps. 18: 13), for it
of the better world to which the is, of course, difficult to understand the
saints hasten? Someone, on the roots and beginnings of sins. But there is
one hand then, will consider the sin, when something which has been
'Aeon of this world' rather simply completed in action attains its goal.
as the time coextensive with the We also ask what the phrase means,
state of this world from its 'In which you once walked, according to
beginning to its end. But another, the course of this world'. Is there another
based on the grammatical course which does not pertain to this
sequence, will suppose that 'the world but to other worlds, of which
ruler of the power of the spirit of Clement also writes in his letter,
the air which is now at work in the 'The ocean and the worlds which
sons of disobedience' and 'the are beyond it' (Clem. Rom. Cor.
Aeon of this world' are not, 20.8)?35 Or, is this 'world' the one
therefore, the same, since he has which rolls along from the beginning of
arranged all these things the age in which Adam was made up to
individually, as Paul says, 'in whichits end and passes away? Or, perhaps,
you once walked in accordance the prince of this air, who is now at work
with the Aeon of this world, in the sons of disobedience, is indicated
according to the ruler of the by the other name 'world'? It is also
power of the spirit of the air'. And written to the Galatians, 'That he might
furthermore, he will consider the rescue us from the present evil course'
phrase in the epistle to the (Gal. 1: 4). And in this same epistle,
Galatians, 'to deliver us from the 'Redeeming the time, because the days
present evil Aeon' (Gal. 1: 4), to are evil' (Eph. 5: 16). And Jacob's days
show that 'the present Aeon' is an are said to be modest and very bad (Gen.
'evil' living being, being the same 47: 9) either because the time of this life
with 'the ruler of the power of the which confines us in its 'course' is
spirit of the air'. The saying from burdensome and difficult or, because
the epistle to the Galatians, Satan himself is of this world, as we said
however, has a contrary force above, and bears the name 'course'.
since something like this is also Satan is referred to in the words which
said of days, which are admittedly follow immediately. 'According to the
not living, 'Redeeming the time prince 572 of the power of the air', he
because the days are evil' (Eph. 5: says, 'the spirit which is now at work in
16). Jacob also says, 'Few and evil' the sons of disobedience' (Eph. 2: 2).
are 'the days which I have The devil 'who is now at work in the
sojourned' on the earth (Gen. 47: sons of disobedience' is understood, to be
9). And the phrase, 'Through sure, as the prince of the air, and the
whom he made the Aeons' (Heb. spirit of the power which is in that air.
1: 3), will seem to say that the For he cannot be at work in those who
Aeons are a creation, one of believe in the Lord, of whom Paul says
whom can rebelliously have later, 'Our battle is not against flesh and
become 'evil' and be said to be the blood but against principalities and
'Aeon of this world' and the 'ruler powers, against the rulers of this
of the power of the spirit of the air darkness, against the spiritual powers of
which is now at work in the sons wickedness in heavenly places' (Eph. 6:
of disobedience, in which also we 12). It is not that the devil and his
all once lived'. retinue who wander through this world
And we must note that he did and introduce sins to people are able to
not say, 'According to the ruler of dwell in heaven, from which they have
the air', but 'the power of the air'. deservedly fallen. Rather that air which
We must investigate, therefore, is above us is called heaven in accordance
'the power of the air,' that we may with the Saviour's words, 'Consider the
in this way see its 'ruler'. But the birds of heaven' (Matt. 6: 26). It is
phrase can also indicate obvious, to be sure, that the birds do not
something like this, 'According to fly through heaven but through the air.
the ruler of the power of the There follows the words, 'In which we
spirit', which spirit is the spirit of all once lived in the desires of our flesh,
the 'air', 'which is now at work in doing the will of our flesh and thoughts'
the sons of disobedience'. Since, (Eph. 2: 3). The 'in which' is to be
then, a ruler is ruler of something, referred to the 'offences'. For because he
you will wonder if perhaps the one placed the two together above, 'And you,
now under discussion is ruler of all when you were dead in offences and your
'power' concerning the air, which sins', and referred to 'sins' when he said,
power 'is at work' busying itself 'in which you once walked', but nothing
concerning the air in regard to 'the like this was seen to follow in reference to
sons of disobedience' (but also, 'offences' which could explain its
everyone who disobeys the divine meaning, he now says, 'in which offences
doctrines when they are we also all lived'. At the same time, lest
proclaimed is shown to be a 'son he appear, on the basis of pride, to omit
of disobedience' by his himself in his words, 'and your sins in
disobeying). And you will wonder which you once walked', he added, 'in
if, perhaps, 'our wrestling' is 'with' which we also all lived'. But he who
these 'powers' (Eph. 6: 12), when says that he has lived in offences in
we resist the activities which they the past does not also confess that
wish to effect in regard to us too, he does so at present.
wishing to make us 'sons of We once lived, he says, not in one
disobedience'. And it is not desire but in the desires of our flesh, 'for
astonishing that these 'powers' the flesh desires against the spirit, and
are said to be 'in the heavenly the spirit against the flesh' (Gal. 5: 17)
places' (Eph. 6: 12) just as 'the doing not only one will of the flesh but
principalities' and 'powers' and many, and not only the wills of the flesh
'cosmic rulers' are 'in the heavenly but also of our minds, for which the
places' (Eph. 6: 12), since the air Latin manuscripts have 'thoughts'.
around us is designated 'heaven' in Now I think the difference between sin of
accordance with a customary the flesh and of our minds is this. Sin of
usage found in Scripture, for the flesh is unchastity, sensuality, and
'birds of heaven' (Matt. 6: 26) are those acts which are completely occupied
mentioned but it is clear that these with the lusts 573 of its service. An
are mentioned in relation to the offence of our minds, on the other hand,
air. pertains to doctrines which are contrary
And to what does the phrase, to the truth, and to heretical depravity.
'and in which we all once lived' Consequently, we can say that
refer other than to the trespasses? numerous heretics (although this
For he did not append anything to is rare) do the wills of their minds
the trespasses but to the sins and not the wills of the flesh. On
alone. After he said, 'And you who the contrary, many who belong to
were dead in trespasses and your the Church do the wills of the
sins', he adds the phrase, 'in which flesh and not of their minds, and
you once walked'. And now he there are even more who do the
appends the phrase, 'and in which wills of the flesh and of their
also we all once lived', to the minds equally. We have said these
phrase, 'in trespasses', that he not things, however, not because
appear to make false pretensions, heretics do not also do the wills of
as it were, after he had said, 'in the flesh (for there are more vices
which you once walked in of the body with them than with
accordance with the Aeon of this our people), but so that what we
world', but leaving himself meant could be understood more
unmentioned. Now Paul himself easily from an example.
knows a 'desire of the flesh' and 'And we were', he says, 'by nature
another desire of the spirit, when sons of wrath, as also the others' (Eph.
he says, 'The flesh desires against 2: 3). Let the heretics who argue that
the spirit and the spirit against the there are diverse natures respond how
flesh' (Gal. 5: 17). Paul, who certainly without any doubt,
But when we were living in is of a spiritual nature, was by nature a
trespasses, since we were in 'the son of wrath as also the others who were
desires of our flesh', we were still positioned in error. We say,
doing not one but many 'wills', however, that all humanity is first by
and not only 'of the flesh' but also nature sons of wrath, either because of
'of our thoughts'. And we ask the body of lowliness and the body of
what 'the wills of our thoughts' death (Phil. 3: 21; Rom. 7: 24), and
are, which are other than 'the wills because from youth the mind of man is
of the flesh'. And we conjecture, set on evil (Gen. 8: 21), whence also
at least, [that] by doing and taking Solomon says, 'There is no just man on
pleasure in the works of the flesh the earth who will do good and not sin'
one 'does the wills of the flesh', (Eccles. 7: 20) or because, from that time
and by having fallen away from in which we are capable of knowledge of
sound doctrine and correct God and have come to maturity, we all
thought we 'do the wills of our sin either in deed, word, or thought.36
thoughts'. We were, therefore, by nature
And we do not know what sons of wrath as also the others,
those who introduce spiritual and we are all saints who have
natures from the beginning will been redeemed from wrath by the
say on the statement, 'We were blood of Christ. For if Paul, who
children of wrath by nature, as lived blamelessly in accordance
also the rest'. For let them explain with the justice which was in the
how he who was a son of God by law (Phil. 3: 6), says that he was a
nature can be said to be a son 'of son of wrath by nature, why
wrath' by nature. We think, should we fear also to declare that
however, that we have become saints were formerly sons of
'children of wrath by nature' wrath? It can truly be said of all of
because of 'the body of our these, 'but when the
lowliness' (Phil. 3: 21), seeing that commandment came, sin revived',
our 'thought was on evil things but they themselves died (Rom. 7:
from our youth' (Gen. 8: 21). For 9-10). Now a son of wrath is to be
according to Solomon, 'There is interpreted as a son of perdition, a
no just man on the earth who will son of iniquity, and a son of death
do good and not sin' (Eccles. 7: (John 17: 12; 2 Thess. 2: 3; Ps. 88:
20). 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 he raised us up

Eph. 2: 6 And raised us up
and made us sit together with
together and seated us together
Christ Jesus in the heavenly
in the heavenly places.
places.

The one who understands the He had said above that God has
phrase, 'raised us up together and raised Christ from the dead and
seated us together', rather simply 'made him sit at his right hand in
will say it has been said of God's the heavenly places above every
foreknowledge and principality, and authority, and
predetermination, as though what power, and dominion, and every
will be has already occurred. But name which is named, not only in
one who perceives that the this age, but also in that which is
kingdom of Christ is spiritual will to come' (Eph. 1: 20-1). But now
not hesitate to say that just as the he adds, 'Because he has raised us
one who is already holy is not in up also and made us sit in the
the flesh even if he may be said to heavenly places at his right hand'.
be in the flesh by those who are I ask, therefore, how God, who
rather simple, so he is not on the has saved us and raised us up, 575
earth even if he may be seen to be has made us sit together with
on the earth so far as sense Christ?
perception is concerned. For he Now indeed one who is rather simple
who is in the spirit is not on the will answer that he has asserted this
earth, and no one of those who are because that which will be has been said
in the heavenly places are 'in the as if it has already happened in
flesh but' are already 'in the spirit' accordance with the foreknowledge of
(Rom. 8: 9). Dispositions such as God and that it is the custom of the
this, therefore, and the Scriptures occasionally that they are
apprehension of things so great inflected in the past for future time. For
and of such kind are not earthly example, it is said of the cross of
but heavenly. All those who the Lord, 'They have pierced my
already have their 'citizenship in hands and feet' (Ps. 21: 17), and
heaven' (Phil. 3: 20) have been elsewhere of his passion, 'He has
seated together 'with Christ in the been led as a sheep to the sacrifice'
heavenly places' since, indeed, 'the (Isa. 53: 7). Further, it is said of the
kingdom of God is' also 'within' injuries from the whips, 'With his
us (Luke 17: 21) so that we, seatedbruise we have been healed' (Isa.
together with Christ and taking 53: 5) and elsewhere, 'For the
our station together with the iniquities of my people he has
Wisdom and Word of God, may been led off to death' (Isa. 53: 8,
thus have been seated 'in the LXX). Those future things,
heavenly places'. 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
It is possible to detect a good
God. Now, after we have believed in
observation from this against
Christ, just as we have received his
those who suppose that those
promises and covenants, so are we said
who have believed in Christ do
also to belong to the commonwealth of
not have citizenship in the
Israel. In the same manner the whole
commonwealth of Israel but in
legal commonwealth is fulfilled in us
some other new commonwealth
because, of course, the law is spiritual
which has nothing in common
(Rom. 7: 14) and we, rather, are
with that one. For 'you were', he
circumcised and keep the Sabbath
says, 'at that time without Christ,
in spirit, offering up spiritual
aliens from the commonwealth of
victims (1 Pet. 2: 5), since their
Israel', because they are now no
temple and altar have been
longer 'without Christ' but neither
destroyed.43 It is we who offer
are they 'aliens from the
tithes of our fruits to God. It is we
commonwealth of Israel'. For it is
who slay an unstained lamb and,
the prerogative of all those who
with girded loins, eat the Passover
understand that 'the law is
unencumbered (Exod. 12: 6, 11).
spiritual' (Rom. 7: 14) and live
For just as circumcision is said to
according to it to identify
be done in the flesh by hand, so
themselves with 'the
another is understood in
commonwealth of Israel' even
distinction from this circumcision
more than the physical Jews. And
to be, as we said, a circumcision,
it follows consistently to assume
which is not done by hand but by
that the one who is 'without Christ
spirit.
and an alien from the
Now the fact that he says,
commonwealth of Israel' is also a
'Having no hope, and without
'stranger to the covenants of
God in the world', does not mean
promise'.
that the Ephesians did not have
And you will ask, perhaps, why
and worship many gods before
it is said, 'Without God in this
they believed in Christ, but that
world', since those to whom the
the person who is without the true
epistle is written were not 'without
God has no God. And it is
God' insofar as it is in the fore-knowledge
significant that he adds, 'without God in
of God.
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.
end p.132
Origen Jerome

Eph. 2: 13-14a But now in

Eph. 2: 13 But now in Christ
Christ Jesus you who once were
Jesus you who were once far
far off, have been made near in
away have become near in the
the blood of Christ, for he is our
blood of Christ.
peace.

'Far' and 'near' are used from the

God is everywhere, and he is
spatial concepts of far and near,
everywhere entire. Who can be
for the removal of the choice far
separated from him when all
from God and its approach to his
things are in him? And he himself
will. And we 'become near' when
says through the prophet, 'I am a
we have been cleansed 'in the
God at hand, and not afar off' (Jer.
blood of Christ' and 'purchased
23: 23). And the Psalmist testifies,
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 And very diligent attention should
is Logos, Wisdom, Power, and be given to the fact that no one
Life, so is he also Peace. And one draws near to God without the
must collect all the names which blood of the Lord Jesus because
he is given from all Scripture that he is our peace, who says, 'My
we might understand him more peace I give to you; my peace I
accurately. Therefore, just as the leave with you' (John 14: 27). For
one who has him has reason, in the same way that wisdom
when he has 'sought and found' makes wise people, justice makes
(Matt. 7: 7) him as Logos (and he just, sanctification makes saints,
has the equivalent also in the case and life makes living people, so
of 'wisdom and righteousness' (1 also he, as peace, makes us to be
Cor. 1: 30)), so let us seek him alsopeaceful so that we may say, 581
as 'Peace', that we may have him 'With those who hated peace I was
just as he 'is Peace' and the peace peaceable' (Ps. 119: 7). Now if
of all rational creatures. And the Christ is believed to be peace, whoever is
one who does not have peace does without peace consequently does not have
not have Christ. Christ.
Eph 2: 14b, 15, 17 He has Eph. 2: 14b-18 Who has made
made the two one, and has both one and, breaking down
broken down the wall of the middle wall of partition, the
division, the enmity in his enmity in his flesh, making
flesh, having destroyed the law void the law of commandments
of commandments with in doctrines, that he might
doctrines, that he might make make the two in himself into
the two into one new man . . . one new man, making peace,
and he came and proclaimed that he might reconcile both to
peace to you who were far off God in one body by the cross,
and peace to those who were killing the enmity in it, and
near. coming, he preached peace to
These things are said concerning you who were far off, and peace
the divine powers and those men to those who were near, since
who are saved, the divine powers we both have access to the
being also formerly 'near', and Father in one Spirit through
men being 'far off' (and he who him.
says these things will apply to It was that middle wall and
them the statement, 'Having made partition which separated each
peace through the blood of his people from himself. A midwife
cross whether in reference to speaks of this wall also in Genesis
things on the earth or things in the concerning the birth of twins,
heavens' (Col. 1: 20), and all the 'Why has the wall44 been
things thus described in that destroyed because of you?' (Gen.
passage). They are said of the 38: 29). After, therefore, the
better powers because they were Saviour destroyed the wisdom of
in a friendly relationship with the flesh, which is enmity to God
God, and of men in the world (Rom. 8: 7), in his flesh and
because they were in 'enmity' exchanged the precepts of the law
towards him. And this 'enmity' for the doctrines of the gospel so
was 'the wall of division' which that he might make one Christian
prevented human nature from people from Jew and Gentile, he
being united with the blessedness preached peace and harmony to
of the better powers. This 'wall of us who were far off and to the rest
division', then, being 'enmity', was of the Jews who believed from
destroyed by the incarnation of Israel through the apostles. Then
our Saviour, and for this reason it we approached God through him
is said 'to have been destroyed in and recognized that we have one
his flesh'. Father in the spirit, and the Lord's
Pay attention to the words in the Gospel have been
grammatical sequence. Can the fulfilled, 'And there shall be one
interpreter make the rather shepherd and one flock' (John 10:
striking statement that, 'in the 16), and again, 'I have other sheep
heavenly places', some were which are not of this sheepfold'
serving the true law, of which the (John 10: 16), meaning us who
written code of Moses was a have been gathered from the
'shadow and sketch' (Heb. 8: 5)? Gentiles.
That law is 'doctrines' rather than Now the enmity which has been
a 'law of commandments'. He destroyed in the flesh of the
who has been considered worthy Saviour has also been killed by the
to understand these doctrines, cross. For it is written, 'That he
because the 'wall of division' might reconcile both in one body
which walls him off from the to God, by the cross killing the
better powers has been destroyed, enmity in it'. It is not 'in himself'
no longer lives by 'the law of as the Latin manuscripts have it.
commandments', for Christ This arises from the ambiguity of
abolishes 'the law of the Greek pronoun. can
commandments with doctrines' be understood both as 'in himself'
that, when the doctrines made and as 'in it', that is, the cross,
known by the law of because cross, that is σταυρ ς, is
commandments have been masculine gender in the Greek
understood, the latter might be language.
despised as 'the letter "of the law The law also has been overthrown for
of commandments" which kills' (2 doctrines. Afterwards circumcision,
Cor. 3: 6; Eph. 2: 15). Sabbath observance, which
When the Saviour, therefore, remains for the people of God
'had abolished the law of (Heb. 4: 9), Passover, Pentecost,
commandments' through his and not appearing 582 empty
manifestation of the 'doctrines' in before God (Exod. 23: 15) are
them, he brought 'both' together understood at a higher level than
'into one new man'. By both I they are expressed. By withdrawing
mean the divine powers and those from the letter which kills, we begin to
men who believe. And the new follow the spirit which makes alive (2
'man' is understood 'to be Cor. 3: 6).
renewed' daily (2 Cor. 4: 16). He But it seems to me that when he
will also be settled in a new world says, 'Coming, he preached peace
because 'the heaven will be new to you who were far off', that is the
and the earth will be new' (Isa. 65: Gentiles, 'and peace to those who
17). were near', that is the Jews, he has
The phrase, 'into one new man', cited the testimony of Isaiah with
however, will appear to contradict other words, making use of the
this interpretation. 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: 8-
9) 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 Eph. 2: 19-22 Therefore, you

are no longer strangers and are no longer strangers and
aliens, but fellow citizens of the aliens, but citizens with the
saints and members of the saints, and members of the
household of God, having been household of God, having been
built on the foundation of the built on the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Christ apostles and prophets, Christ
Jesus himself being the Jesus himself being the chief
cornerstone, in whom the cornerstone, in whom the
whole building being fitted whole building having been
together will grow into a holy fitted together, grows into a
temple in the Lord, in whom holy temple in the Lord, in
you too will be built together whom you too are built
into a dwelling of God in the together into a dwelling of God
Spirit. in the Spirit.

In contrast to the earlier words, In relation to what he said above,

'strangers to the covenants of 'Strangers to the covenants and
promise', he now says, 'therefore promises', he now responds: 'Therefore
you are no longer strangers and you are no longer strangers and aliens'.
aliens', and in contrast to 'aliens to And in relation to what he said first,
the commonwealth of Israel' he 'Alienated from the commonwealth of
says now, 'but fellow citizens of Israel', he now replies, 'You are citizens
the saints and members of the with the saints, and members of the
household of God'. household of God'. This passage sides
One must apply these words to against those especially who endeavour to
those who introduce the natures. introduce diverse natures. For how have
For how are strangers 'citizens' by strangers been made citizens with the
nature 'of the saints', and how are saints, and how will 584 those once
'strangers' by nature 'members of aliens from the commonwealth of Israel
the household of God'? be members of the household of God, if a
And the words from the phrase, nature cannot be changed for the better or
'having been built on the the worse?
foundation of the apostles and But what follows, 'Having been built
prophets' will appear to agree withon the foundation of the apostles and
the interpretation which applies prophets', is more appropriate to the
the word 'near' to Israel, but far former interpretation than to the second,
away to the nations. in which we said above that, prior to the
And it will be proper to use passion of Christ, Israel was near and
these words against those who the Gentiles were far away. We can also
dissect the deity and think that the use this testimony against Marcion and
prophets belong to one God and other old heretics who proclaimed one
the apostles to another. For if, God of the law and another of the gospel.
those who are no longer 'strangers For if by no means strangers and aliens,
and aliens', but are 'fellow citizens but citizens with the saints and members
of the saints and members of the of the household of God have been built
household of God' are being built upon the foundation of the apostles and
'on the foundation of the apostles prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the
and prophets, Christ Jesus himself chief cornerstone, in whom the whole
being the cornerstone, in whom building having been fitted together grows
the whole building being fitted into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom
together will grow into a holy the Ephesians also are being built
temple in the Lord',47 we must together into a tabernacle of God in the
strive to become well-fitting spirit, then there is one God of one
'living stones' (1 Pet. 2: 5) in 'the building and temple which has been built
whole building', so that 'having on the foundation of the apostles and
been built together' we may prophets.
become 'a dwelling for God' But if the whole temple having been
containing all the teaching about fitted together grows into a holy temple in
him in ourselves. the Lord, we must make every effort to

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 co-
partners', 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 co-
partners 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 Eph. 3: 12 In whom we have

boldness and access in boldness and access in
confidence through the faith in confidence through faith in
him. him.

'If' our conscience 'does not Nothing can offer us boldness

condemn us, we have boldness with God and purity of
with God' (1 John 3: 21). Now it isconscience, of which it is said, 'If
a great thing not simply 'to have our conscience does not condemn us we
boldness' but to have 'boldness in have confidence with God' (1 John 3: 21),
confidence', and to have 'access', except the Word, truth, wisdom,
because of its certainty again, 'in (and) justice, which are all
boldness'. But the beginning of understood to be in Christ (1 Cor.
this 'boldness in confidence' and 1: 30). These things, therefore,
'access' is the 'faith' which is in give us boldness with God even as
Christ. We have often said that the they give us access so that our
one who does all things understanding approaches him,
reasonably has believed in Christ diligently contemplates him,
as Logos and the one who assumes and appropriates
comprehends wisdom has something of his majesty in itself,
believed in Christ as wisdom, and procures a certain colour and
the one who utters the truth splendour of light, as it were, from
clearly has believed in Christ as the rays of the sun and says, 'The
truth, and the one who lives light of your countenance 596 is
righteously has believed in Christ signed upon us, Lord' (Ps. 4: 7). It
as righteousness. 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 Eph. 3: 13 Wherefore I ask that

you do not lose heart in my you do not lose heart in my
afflictions for you, which is afflictions for you, which is
your glory. 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
'He who wrestles on behalf of' that I do not lose heart in my
(Col. 4: 12) the disciples of Christ afflictions for you', etc. This,
has many afflictions. 'Wherefore I therefore, is what the apostle asks
ask', he says, 'that you do not lose for and earnestly seeks from the
heart in my afflictions for you', Lord, that he does not lose heart
since he perceives that it is in his distresses. It appears,
possible that they lose heart when indeed, that he had preached the
he ventures to make these gospel from Jerusalem as far as
remarks. 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
 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,
Furthermore, he has spoken as if he
however, he, being 'untrained in
were ignorant since he has joined the
speech', has rendered the 'which'
singular word 'glory' with the plural
singular instead of plural. But
'tribulations' and said, 'in my afflictions
another will say that the phrase,
for you which is your glory', because what
'which is your glory', will depend
is your glory are afflictions.
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.

It is possible, however, to Alternatively, someone may think

understand the statement, that this statement is to be referred in a
'Wherefore I ask that you do not more profound manner and by
lose heart in my afflictions on your hyperbaton to the 'boldness', 'access',
behalf,' as follows: 'Wherefore I and 'faith' (cf. 3: 12), and mean, 'in
ask on your behalf that you do not whom we have boldness, 597 access, and
lose heart in my afflictions, which faith, which boldness, access, and faith is
(plural) are your glory'. The words your glory'. The earlier
which follow will, indeed, seem interpretation, however, is to be
more in agreement with this preferred.
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 It is possible, however, in
heart. On the other hand, it will accordance with the Latin
appear ridiculous that, when Paul rendering, 'Wherefore I ask that
is being afflicted, the Ephesians you do not lose heart in my
have need of prayer that they do afflictions for you, which is your
not lose heart in his afflictions. But glory', that what is set forth is his
we must compare with this the petition for the Ephesians, namely that
statement, 'You neither despised they do not grow weary in the apostle's
nor rejected your temptation in oppressions and lose heart. The words
my flesh' (Gal. 4: 14). These wordswhich follow, in fact, accord better with
imply that a 'temptation' occurred this interpretation: 'For this reason I
for others 'in the flesh' of Paul. bow my knees to the Father . . . that he
Above all let us consider if many may grant to you according to the wealth
people do not find the teachings of his glory to be strengthened with
about foreknowledge especially power' (Eph. 3: 14, 16). For they had
troubling when they see the most need of strength so that they would not be
holy and righteous people overcome in afflictions.
suffering countless afflictions and
crises while the most lawless
people experience things which
are assumed to be good.

The fact that Paul had suffered Another may say that if the
many things in Ephesus and Asia Ephesians were experiencing difficulties
has been recorded in the Acts of Paul could have prayed for them properly
the Apostles. It is possible to learn not to lose heart and grow weary. But it
the same thing from himself, is ridiculous for Paul who is afflicted to
however, when he says, 'What did ask that the Ephesians do not lose heart
I benefit if I fought with wild in his labour. But let that well-known
beasts at Ephesus only from a example be applied to solve this little
human standpoint, if the dead are problem, 'You neither despised nor cast
not raised?' (1 Cor. 15: 32). And in aside your temptation in my flesh' (Gal.
the second epistle to the 4: 14), since it is shown in this saying
Corinthians he says, 'For I do not that temptation for others has originated
want you to be ignorant, brothers, in Paul's flesh. Let us give careful
concerning our affliction which attention to people of the entire world
occurred in Asia, because we were and what it is that they all have in
burdened beyond the measure of common, I mean those who are assumed
our strength, so that we were in to believe in Christ. Let us investigate
doubt even of life. We had the and see that they are tempted more by
decision of death in ourselves so this question than by all others, Why do
that we might not trust in holy men and servants of God suffer
ourselves but in God who raises numerous misfortunes while the wicked,
the dead, who delivered us from impious and murderers, on the contrary,
such great deaths and delivers us, flourish and thrive and are rich and
for we have hoped that he will also powerful? David, expressing the
deliver us' (2 Cor. 1: 8-10). Notice words of these people, says in his
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: 14-15 Wherefore I bow

Eph. 3: 14 For
my knees to the Father of our
this reason I
Lord Jesus Christ from whom
bow my knees to
all paternity in heaven and on
the Father.
earth is named.

To bow 'the
knees' is
symbolic of
Just as we have shown previously that
that other
bending of the there are spiritual eyes in the likeness of
the physical eyes, so now we must
knee
understand that there are knees of the
which occurs
exterior man and knees of the interior
when we are
subjected to God man. For that which Isaiah says, 'Be
strengthened O drooping hands and
and have
weak knees' (Isa. 35: 3), and the apostle
prostrated
ourselves to him. himself in another passage, 'That at the
For name of Jesus every knee should bow of
the apostle also those in heaven and on earth and under
the earth' (Phil. 2: 10), does not pertain
says on this
to our physical knees but to the
word,
'That at the namesubjection of the mind and the
of Jesus every condescension of the soul and the yielding
knee should bow of the heart, comparing itself to the
earth, as the Psalmist also sings
of beings in
saying, 'My soul has clung to the
heaven and on
pavement' (Ps. 118: 25). 17
earth and under 17
For the subject matter of this sentence cf. Origen, Cant. Prologue 2;
the
trs. Lawson, 27-8. Cf. R. E. Heine, 'Exegesis and Theology in Gregory
earth' (Phil. 2:
10). We say that of Nyssa's Fifth Homily on Ecclesiastes', in S. G. Hall (ed.), Gregory of
Nyssa: Homilies on Ecclesiastes (Berlin, 1993), 213-14.
the
heavenly beings For how
by no means
have
bodies with
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
Eph. 3: 16, 17a That he may his Spirit in the inner person,
grant, in accordance with the that Christ may dwell in your
wealth of his glory, that you hearts through faith so that,
may be strengthened with rooted in love, you may be able
power through his Spirit in the to comprehend with all the
inner person, that Christ may saints what is the breadth and
dwell in your hearts through length and depth and height,
faith. and also to know the love of
Christ which surpasses
knowledge, that you may be
filled with all the fullness of
God.

His divinity appears to be 'Wherefore,' he says, 'I bow my

designated his 'glory' in a usage knees to the Father' in whose
peculiar to Scripture. Now God is likeness 'all paternity in heaven
rich in much divinity which is also and on earth is named' (Eph. 3:
difficult for a begotten nature to 15), praying to him and
comprehend. By sharing this beseeching him 'that he may grant
wealth of divinity and glory with you power' to have fellowship
those with whom he judges it 'with his glory,' that is his majesty, and
necessary to share power and might make you strong and
strength, he strengthens them confirm you by the Holy Spirit
'with power through his Spirit' because there is no strength
and he strengthens them by without the Spirit. But he would
'dwelling in the inner person' make you strong and confirm you 'in the
which contains 'Christ'. What is inner person'. For we are not
most paradoxical of all is that inquiring about people of the
Christ, being a whole and living in body but of the soul; we do not
and of himself, also dwells in wish the exterior but the interior
those who partake of him. person to be made strong so that,
'Through faith' he dwells 'in the after Christ has dwelt 'in the interior
inner person', that is in the ruling person', he may dwell in the ruling
principle, for he goes on to say, 'in 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.'

Eph. 3: 17b-19 Being rooted

This dwelling, moreover, which is
and founded in love, so that
constructed through the commencement of
you may be able to grasp with
faith, has its roots and foundation in
all the saints what is the
'love' so that, since we are God's
breadth and length and depth
husbandry, God's building (cf. 1 Cor. 3:
and height, and to know the
9), all things might grow up and be built
love of Christ which surpasses
up in love.
knowledge.

It seems clear to me that these

words which follow are incorrect But when we have been rooted
in reference to the preceding and founded in love and know
phrase. For it would have been with the total confidence of our
consistent with the words, 'May mind that Christ dwells in our
he grant to you' to have said 'who inner person, then we begin with
are rooted and founded',18 other saints to stretch ourselves out
yielding the following grammatical(cf. Phil. 3: 13) to those things which
sequence: 'That he may grant to follow so that, keen in soul, 'we may
you who are rooted and founded comprehend what is the breadth and
in love to be strengthened in length and depth and height'. And this is
accordance with the wealth of his not all, but we also desire 'to know the
glory through his Spirit, so that love of Christ which surpasses
Christ may dwell in your inner knowledge' so that after all these
person through faith.' By 'your things are filled out in us in their
inner person', I mean in 'your order and plan, then 'we may be
hearts', that is your ruling filled with all the fullness of God'.
principles.

But consider whether one who First we must learn the meaning of
wishes to restore the words in the breadth, length, depth, and height
passage so that there is no concerning physical things so that
solecism will not be constrained, we may be able to pass over to
having restored it, to read the spiritual things by means of them.
sentence in the following manner. For example, let the 'breadth' of
'For this reason I bow my knees to this heaven and earth, that is, of
the Father from whom every the whole world, be from the east
family in heaven and on earth is to the west, the 'length' from the
named, that he may grant, in south to the north, the 'depth' in
accordance with the wealth of his the abyss and the infernal, and the
glory, that you be strengthened height be that which is elevated
with power through his Spirit in beyond the celestial regions.
the inner person, that Christ may Because many, however, assert on
dwell in your hearts through faith the basis of Ecclesiastes that the
so that, being rooted and founded, heaven is round and is rolled like a
you may be able to grasp with all ball (Eccles. 1: 5-6), and no round
the saints what is the breadth and shape has breadth, length, height,
length', etc. To interpret in this and depth but is equal from all its
way one must move the parts, necessity compels us to
expression 'so that' which understand 'height' as the angels
precedes the verbal phrase, 'so and powers above, and 'depth' as
that you may be able', and place it the inhabitants of the infernal
before the participles, 'so that, regions and what are below them.
being rooted and founded in love, 'Length' and 'breadth', on the
you may be able to grasp'. 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).

Christ dwells in 'those rooted All these things can also be

and founded in love' for God, understood in the cross of our Lord Jesus
meaning, of course, love 'from the Christ. 'Ascending, indeed, into the
whole soul and the whole heart height he led captivity captive' and 'he
and the whole strength and the descended into 604 the lower parts of the
whole mind', and love 'for one's earth' (Eph. 4: 8, 9). And after the
neighbour' (Mark 12: 30-1). 'height and depth', the proclamation of
Those rooted in love are rooted in his cross went out into all the earth so
it like plants and are founded in that it also contains 'the height, depth,
love like a building. Paul himself length, and breadth'. It is no wonder that
said, 'You are God's field, God's the cross of Christ should possess all
building' (1 Cor. 3: 9). things since even he who has been
crucified with Christ may have the same
power. He will first know indeed

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
Eph. 4: 3 In love being eager to
bond of peace. One body and
preserve the unity of the Spirit
one Spirit, just as you were also
in the bond of peace.
called in one hope of your
calling.

He who 'has been perfected in the It is rightly said to the Ephesians who
same mind and in the same have already attained the unity of the
judgement' (1 Cor. 1: 10) of the Holy Spirit, 'Diligent to keep the unity
truth and of the Logos and of of the Spirit in the bond of peace'. For
wisdom with his neighbour one who has something is admonished to
'preserves the unity of the Spirit'. be diligent to keep it but one who does
But we dissect it into many parts not have it is ordered to be zealous that
whenever 'we' do not 'all speak he may be able to have it. This passage
the same thing', and for this is especially useful against the
reason 'there are21 schisms heretics who, when the 'bond of
among' us (1 Cor. 1: 10) and we peace' has been dispersed and
are not 'eager to preserve the unity destroyed, think that they hold
of the Spirit'. Even though God 'the unity of the Spirit', whereas
gives 'diversities of gifts', he, 'the unity of the Spirit is preserved
nevertheless, preserves 'the same in the bond of peace'. For whenever
Spirit', and even though we do not all speak the same thing and
'diversities of ministries' are given, one says, 'I am of Paul, I of Apollos,
he, nevertheless, maintains 'the I of Cephas' (1 Cor. 1: 12), we divide the
same Lord', and even though unity of the Spirit and tear it into parts
'diversities of activities' are given, and members.
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
Let no one immediately object, 'How,
the unity of the Spirit.' But he
then, are there diverse graces and various
would say to those who do not yet
gifts when 'the unity of the Spirit' is to be
have 'the unity of the Spirit',
guarded?' 'There are, indeed, various
'Being eager to "come to the
gifts, but in the same Spirit; and diverse
unity" of the Spirit' (Eph. 4: 13)
ministries but the same Lord; and
or, 'to do the things of the unity of
manifold works but it is the same God
the Spirit'. The unity of the Spirit
who works all things in all' (1 Cor. 12:
is preserved when love binds
5).
those together who are united in
the Spirit and brings them
together into the 'one body' of
Christ.

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 ςβ ος, and 'one spirit' refers to knowledge and contemplation which are properly
situated in the heart and are called θεωρ 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
Eph. 4: 5-6 One Lord, one
and Father of all, and above all
faith, one baptism, one God
and through all and in us all.
and Father of all, who is above
But to each of us grace was
all and through all and in all.
given in accordance with the
measure of the gift of Christ.

He has applied the word 'Lord' to As faith is different from baptism,

the Son and 'one God' to the God, and Lord, so baptism, Lord,
Father because of those who and God are different from the
confuse Father and Son. One three individuals which are named
must also use the saying, 'one together. Now I say this because of
baptism' against the Valentinians Sabellius, who thinks God the Father
who administer two baptisms. 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'.

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
Now he is 'God and Father' of in another passage, 'Know that
all in the sense that he is God but the Lord himself is God' (Ps. 99:
not Father of some and he is both 3), and elsewhere, 'The Lord your
God and Father of others. Take God, the Lord is one' (Deut. 6: 4).
ten men for example, five of For if, as the Arians think, God
whom are sons of a particular man the Father alone is God, by the
and five his servants. One can say, same logic Jesus Christ alone will
'This man is Lord and Father of be Lord, and neither will the
the ten.' 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
 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, 'One baptism' is also useful against
it would also be said to be 'in all'. Valentinus, who contends that there are
So also, then, in relation to two baptisms and against all heretics
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'.

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 Eph. 4: 11-12 And he gave

some apostles, and some some indeed as apostles, and
prophets, and some evangelists some as prophets, but others as
and some pastors and teachers, evangelists, and others as
for the perfecting of the saints pastors and teachers for the
for the work of ministry, for the instruction of the saints in the
building up of the body of work of ministry in the building
Christ. up of the body of Christ.

He adds these words immediately The one divinity of the Father and
after the preceding ones. For since the Son is most clearly confirmed
Christ is 'above all and through all by this passage because this which
and in all' but 'grace was given to Christ is here described 615 to
each' of the saints 'according to have given, God the Father is
the measure of the gift of Christ', related to have given in the first
consequently 'some' are 'apostles, epistle to the Corinthians. 'For
some prophets', others God', he says, 'appointed some in
'evangelists', and after these the Church, first apostles, second
'pastors' and finally 'teachers'. 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
Because he does not
feet' of his soul, so to speak, are
understand this Sabellius confuses
not 'beautiful' (Rom. 10: 15)? God
the Father and the Son for he does
must supply them with beauty that
not think the work of the different
they may be so. But a prophet,
gifts is the same. At the same time
whom we must consider to have
it is to be noted that Christ is said
been appointed by 'God' 'in the
here to have given 'apostles,
Church' (1 Cor. 12: 28), also
prophets, evangelists, pastors, and
'reproves' and 'judges unbelievers'
teachers', and the Father is related
(1 Cor. 14: 24), for this is the work
there to have appointed the same.
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).

The Father and the Son,

therefore, appointed or gave first
Apostles, prophets, and the apostles, second prophets—not those
others are needed 'for the who foretell future things such as we read
perfecting of the saints' that they about in the Old Testament, but those
may be perfected for 'the work of who reprove and judge the unbelievers
the ministry' of Christ so that the and ignorant (such indeed he defines
'body of Christ' might be built up prophets of the New Testament to be in
from 'living stones' (1 Pet. 2: 5) another epistle [cf. 1 Cor. 14: 24])—
[and] made effective. third evangelists, whose feet are beautiful
for announcing peace (Isa. 52: 7; Rom.
10: 15).
 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 Eph. 4: 13-15 Until we all

come to the unity of the faith come to the unity of the faith
and the recognition of the Son and of the recognition of the
of God, to a perfect person, to Son of God, to a perfect person,
the measure of the stature of to the measure of the age of the
the fullness of Christ, that we fullness of Christ, that we may
may no longer be infants, no longer be infants tossed to
buffeted and carried about by and fro and carried about with
every wind of doctrine with the every wind of doctrine in the
trickery of men, in cunning intrigue and cunning of men to
with the scheming of error, but the defrauding of error, but
speaking the truth in love we doing the truth in love let us
may all grow up in all things in increase in all things in him
him who is the head namely who is the head, Christ.
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
One must ask who 'we all' are who have 'the recognition of the Son of God'
will 'come to the unity of the in the same unity. Once we possess these
faith'. Is it 'all' mankind in general things securely and cease to be infants
or we who have been appointed in and receive the 'measure' of the inner
Christ? It will appear to be the first person, which 'measure' is the 'measure
suggestion because the 'winds of of the fullness of Christ', we will obtain
doctrine' are many and they the designation 'perfect person'. The goal,
'buffet' 'all', more or less or, at therefore, is that the whole multitude of
least, most, and 'carry' them 'about believers might reach the complete 'age of
in the trickery of men, in cunning the fullness of Christ' and by no means
with the scheming of error'. 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
 '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
But because he says, 'that we may no
we humans have put aside all
longer be infants tossed to and fro' etc.,
childishness, we shall be called
attesting that he too is 'tossed to and fro'
'perfect', having fully received 'the
and is an 'infant', it appears that we
measure of the stature' 'inwardly'
must examine whether he said this in
(Rom. 2: 29). This 'measure of the
humility or, perhaps, because he sees in
stature' is the 'measure of the
fullness of Christ'. All who have part and knows in part (cf. 1 Cor. 13: 9),
he understands how far he is from perfect
attained the measure of the
knowledge and has poured forth words
previously mentioned stature
coming truly from his conscience. If, then,
contain 'the fullness of Christ'.
someone wishes him to have said this in
They will 'no longer' be 'infants'
nor will they stumble about like humility let him use that example,
'When I was a child I spoke as a child, I
infants because they are unstable
and in doubt about doctrines as if thought as a child, I understood as a
child. But when I became an adult I put
they were 'being carried around'
away the things of a child' (1 Cor. 13:
by a 'wave' of plausible arguments
11). Another, however, may respond to
concerning each false doctrine
and yielding themselves to 'every these things and say that the apostle had
wind of teaching'. There are some reached 'the age of the perfect person' in
people who are not disposed [to comparison with the multitudes but in
speak falsely] but teach deceitfully, respect to those things which have been
stored up for the saints he is still called a
and others deceive with all
'child' since the prophet relates that all
'cunning' and skill by using
countless schemes of error against the apostles who believe in Christ are
us. Whenever the saints 'come to' children when he says, 'Behold, I and the
the previously mentioned 'perfect children whom God gave to me' (Isa. 8:
18).
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
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
And since he says, 'That we may revealed this not from humility but on the
no longer be infants', we ask basis of his knowledge will say, 'The
whether he made this remark in a apostle Paul was a man of keen and
relative sense and included penetrating genius and one who would
himself who was not an infant or have foreknown what arguments were to
whether, considering how be introduced against the very first
minimal perfection is in one 'who attempt of those contending with shrewd
knows in part and prophesies in mind.' He saw, therefore, that things are
part' (1 Cor. 13: 9), he meant that often said pro and con and that
he was truly an infant. One who assertions which resemble the truth are
says that he made these remarks in made of contrary things in such a way
a relative sense will use the that they cause the hearer to doubt.
statement, 'When I was as an Consequently, as a human and still
infant, I spoke as an infant, I situated in this fragile little body he was
thought as an infant, but when I 'carried about' indeed 'by every wind of
became an adult, I put away the doctrine' 618 but he was not shattered
things of an infant' (1 Cor. 13: 11). on the rocks nor was his ship filled by the
Another, however, will respond raging seas. He stood, in fact, at the
that Paul had become an adult in helm holding the rudder and
comparison to the multitudes, but broke the foaming billows of the
that he was still an infant in heresies with the security of his
relation to the perfections stored faith. Nevertheless, he did not,
up for the saints for, indeed, the unshaken and secure or calm and
prophetic word designates all placid, watch the winds blowing
children when it says, 'Behold, I over him from this side and that
and the children whom God has and, with attentive ear, seize and
given me' (Isa. 8: 18). 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
 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

Eph. 4: 17-19 This, therefore, I
say and add my testimony in
say and testify in the Lord, so
the Lord, so that you no longer
that you no longer walk as the
walk as the Gentiles walk in the
Gentiles walk in the futility of
vanity of their understanding,
their minds, darkened in their
being darkened in their mind
understanding and alienated
and alienated from the life of
from the life of God because of
God because of the ignorance
their ignorance and hardness of
which is in them, because of
heart. They have become
the blindness of their heart,
calloused and have abandoned
who despairing have delivered
themselves to sensuality to
themselves to shamelessness in
perform every act of impurity in
the working of all uncleannness
coventousness.
in covetousness.

When the 'mind' is engaged in This, therefore, I say to you, he

worldly affairs and applies its says, O Ephesians, and add my
power to them or is engaged in testimony to you that, because you
doctrines which have been have come to the measure of the
devised as true but are not, it is 'in age of the fullness of Christ, 'you
futility'. For every worldly thought should not walk as the Gentiles
is 'futile' and all arguments which walk', who serve idols and misuse
pretend to be true are false. And their 'understanding' and 'mind'
when 'the understanding', which for perverse things who, although
is the rational process of they received a soul and intellect
discernment,29 has become in order that they might know
confused and perceives neither God, have been 'alienated from
the nature of the things which are his life' (which we have not known
said nor is able to follow the apart from Christ) 'and walk in the
subtleties of the things said, then it blindness of their own heart'. And
would properly be said to 'be furthermore would that to have
darkened'. We must, therefore, sinned would suffice and they
avoid both being 'in futility of should express repentance late, if
mind' and being 'darkened in you will, and condemn the vices at
understanding', so that we may which they continually gape! It
not be 'alienated from the life of would be a remedy to recover
God', because of our 'ignorance' their senses after their error. But
and 'hardness of heart'. 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).

And should these things be 'Vanity of understanding' and

distributed quite fully in our 'darkness of mind' are
soul—I mean futility of mind and distinguished in two ways: in
darkness of understanding which relation to the affairs of this age
alienate us from the life of God and in relation to the wisdom of
and grant entrance to ignorance the age, when we are either
and bequeath hardness of heart— engaged in affairs which belong to
then we shall fall into obtuseness this world and quickly pass over
and force our consciousness onto them, or we recognize that they
sinful things. We shall hardly resistare not beneficial. Does it not
'the desires of the flesh' (1 Pet. 2: seem to you that one engages in
11) at all and we shall 'abandon 'vanity of understanding' and
ourselves to sensuality to perform 'darkness of mind' who, day and
every act of impurity' with night, is twisted in the art of
'coveting', but coveting those dialectic, who, investigating
whose marriages we corrupt. natural philosophy, lifts his eyes
beyond heaven and plunges them
 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 Now the phrase 'despairing of
calloused and have abandoned themselves', that is πηλγηκ τες αυτο ς,
themselves to sensuality', let us indicates something
compare those who have a bad quite different in Greek from in
conscience and are tortured when Latin. Those who 'despair' are
they recognize some trivial fault in indeed called πηλπικ τες; but
themselves with those who sin πηλγηκ τες are those who feel no
abundantly with no fear at all. The grief after they have sinned and, lacking
former have not yet 'become all perception of their fall, are borne
calloused'. They still feel pain and, downward and rush to death like beasts
therefore, can be healed if they although they see the sword. Assume
obtain rational help so that they with me two people caught in the same
may live blamelessly for the rest of vice. Let one understand and lament
their lives. But those who sin what he has done. Let the other take
without feeling pain and, for this delight in his wickedness and not only
reason neither offer any resistance feel no grief but even boast and think
nor exercise self-control, 'have that he has attained some prize and
abandoned themselves to victory for his disgraceful acts. Does the
sensuality to perform every act of former not seem to you to suffer grief
impurity in covetousness'. and the latter to suffer no grief at all?
Everyone who is 'in futility of Let us represent it word for word if we
mind' and 'is darkened in can and say that πηλγηκ τες are
understanding' is subject to the those who are 'insensible to grief' or
danger of falling into all of these who are 'calloused', for a certain
things. On this account we must philosopher also proclaimed
give attention to our 'mind and ναλγησ αν, that is 'callousness'.
understanding', so that, when the
'true light' (John 1: 9), which is the
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
If it is true that those who are in vanity of understanding with their
alienated from the life of God are minds darkened because they give
alienated 'because of ignorance' themselves to ignorance and blindness'.
and 'hardness of heart' because For no one is called ignorant and
their mind exists in futility and 'blind' except one who has the
their understanding in darkness, possibility of knowing and seeing. We
then those who are alienated from do not say that a stone is 'blind' and
life are alienated not on the basis that a brute animal is ignorant, for we
of nature but on the basis of do not look for such things in them nor
causes which arise from ourselves does it belong to the nature of the one
and which are under our control. 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,

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,
. Now πλεονεξ 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 Eph. 4: 20-21a But you have
have heard him and were not so learned Christ, if
taught in him, just as truth is in moreover you have heard him
Jesus, to put away in relation to and have been taught in him.
your former manner of life the
old self which is corrupted by
deceitful lusts.

If all those who appear to hear

Christ hear him, the apostle would
never say to the Ephesians, and
To 'learn Christ' is the same as
certainly never to those to whom
learning virtue and to 'hear him'
he was revealing the mysteries of
does not differ from
Christ, 'If moreover you have
understanding the teaching of the
heard him'. Now to 'learn Christ' is
concepts of the Son of God which
the same thing as to know virtue, and
have been recorded. If, then,
to 'hear' him does not differ from saying
anyone has learned Christ and
to 'hear' wisdom, justice, courage,
heard him, then he has learned
temperance, and the other titles by which
that he is wisdom and he has
Christ is designated. 623 If someone,
heard him as the Logos of God. If
therefore, 'has heard Christ and learned'
he has accepted what he has
him he will not walk in the vanity of his
learned and heard, he will not
understanding nor go darkened in his
'walk in the futility of his mind'
mind nor will he be alienated from the
nor will he be 'darkened in
life of God. He will also possess
understanding' nor 'alienated
knowledge because his ignorance
from the life of God'. Therefore,
has been dispelled and, because
let us 'learn Christ' and 'hear him'.
the light has been dispatched
One must not reject, to be sure,
against the darkness, all blindness
also being taught by the divine
will be removed from the eyes of
power which whispers the perfect
his heart. When he possesses this
and true teaching concerning
he will not deliver himself to
Christ to our mind once it has
unchastity nor will he work all
been purified.
uncleanness in covetousness
going beyond the allowed limits of
marriage.

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
'Just as truth is in Jesus.' 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.
 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 Eph. 4: 21b As the truth is in
Jesus.' For the archetypal essence Jesus.
of the truth is in Jesus alone who
says, 'I am the truth' (John 14: 6).

The name 'Jesus' sometimes

shows him to be the man which
was assumed from the virgin by
And see if we can restore the
God the Word in accordance with
incoherent statement, 'to put the statement, 'You shall call his
away, in relation to your former
name Jesus, for he will save the
manner of life, the old self', as
people from their sins' (Matt. 1:
follows: 'But you did not so learn
21), and elsewhere, 'Jesus,
Christ, if indeed you have heard
therefore, being tired from the
him and have been taught in him journey' etc. (John 4: 6). But
to put away, in relation to your
sometimes it indicates God the
former manner of life, the old self Word, for to us 'there is one Lord
which is corrupted by deceitful
Jesus Christ through whom are all
lusts, just as truth is in Jesus.' This things' (1 Cor. 8: 6). Therefore,
yields the sense that as 'truth is in whenever Jesus says, 'I am the way
Jesus', so will it be in you who and the truth' (John 14: 6), he
have learned Christ, heard him, speaks in accordance with the fact
been taught in him and have put that he is the Son of God. But
away, in relation to your former when Paul writes, 'As the truth is
manner of life, the old self in Jesus', he speaks of the temple
which is corrupted by deceitful of the body in which God dwelt as
lusts. 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
 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
Eph. 4: 23 But be renewed in and put on the new self who has
the spirit of your mind. been created according to God
in justice and the holiness of
truth.

If one must 'be renewed', We are not 'renewed' 'in understanding'

according to this text, neither without 'the Spirit', nor 'in the Spirit'
simply in spirit nor in mind but 'in without 'understanding', but 'we are
the spirit of your mind', we must renewed at the same time 'in the Spirit
ask specifically what our 'mind' is 626 of our understanding', so that as we
and what its 'spirit' is. Pay sing with the Spirit, we sing also with
attention also to the statement, 'I 'understanding', as we pray 'in the
will sing with my spirit and I will Spirit' we pray also 'with understanding'
sing also with my mind; I will pray (cf. 1 Cor. 14: 15), so 'we are renewed in
with my spirit and I will pray with the Spirit of our understanding'.
my mind' (1 Cor. 14: 15). You will Consequently, when our 'understanding'
wonder, then, if just as there are is pure and has been cleansed from every
many spirits and each one stain of sordid materiality then the Spirit
identifies itself with someone, so of another is also joined to it and they are
there is a spirit which identifies united in such a way by a certain glue of
itself with our mind. Once our unity between themselves that it is by no
mind is purified and has shed all means simply said to be 'the Spirit', but
its mist, this spirit identifies itself 'the Spirit of understanding'.
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
Eph. 4: 24a And put on the new
the same thing which is said in
self which has been created
other words in another passage,
according to God.
'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

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: 25 Wherefore put away

Eph. 4: 25a Wherefore having lying and each of you speak the
put aside lying speak the truth truth with his neighbour
each with his neighbour. because we are members of one
another.

The simple will think that this is The apostle has not enjoined in a simple
nothing more than a moral or moral manner, as some think, 'when
statement. But because we are lying has been left behind, the truth is to
persuaded that 'lying' is opposite be spoken with our neighbours'.
to the truth and truth is properly Otherwise, if we 'speak the truth'
spoken only to the neighbour, we only 'with our neighbours'
seek to put aside that lying which whoever is not a neighbour ought
is a false opinion. It is not just any to hear falsehood. But indeed it is
task whatever to put aside lying in also enjoined in the Law, You
this manner in addition to putting shall not commit adultery with the
aside that former lying also. We wife of your neighbour (cf. Exod.
must, indeed, be 'approved 20: 17). If 'neighbour' is taken to
money-changers'30 and 'prove all mean only one who is near or a
things' sufficiently that we may friend, adultery with strangers is
'hold fast' only 'the good' and permitted by law. But he calls
'abstain from every form of evil' (1every person who has been
Thess. 5: 21-2). The saving truth begotten from the same parent
is the opposite to lying in relation with us our 'neighbour'. That
to false opinions. 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 Eph. 4: 26a Be angry and do
not sin. 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
It is clear that this has been taken that which is said elsewhere, 'But
from the fourth Psalm (4: 5). now put away all anger,
indignation, malice, blasphemy,
and filthy speech from your
mouth' (Col. 3: 8).33

The expression 'be angry' has

two meanings. One is anger which
is not deliberate. Some call this
propensity.32 Even the perfect will But in addition, understood in a
experience this when some chance singular manner, 'anger' is harmful
occurrence stirs them to anger so long as it is imagined as a bridle
without any deliberation on their that has been released. The term
part. The other refers to that anger 'anger', however, is taken in a twofold
which occurs when the conscious manner by the philosophers as well as by
assent admits in advance that one us. It applies either to when, provoked by
assumed to have been wronged a wrong, natural incitement impels us or,
has the right to seek vengeance.34 once the fury is past and the rage has died
It is the latter, which is under our down and our mind has regained the
control, that the apostle capability of discernment, it none the less
commands that we 'put aside'. It is desires revenge on the assumed offender. I
the former of the two meanings, think, therefore, that the present saying
therefore, which is indicated in thepertains to the first meaning of anger and
words, 'Be angry and do not sin', that it has been granted to us as humans
which is the same as saying, 'Even that we may be moved at the sight of
if at some time you admit anger,
nevertheless abandon it without
taking action.'

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 to be the sun If we understand this 'sun' simply as

which our senses perceive, we willthat which is seen with the eyes of flesh,
sin if we become angry and retain we sin whenever we are angry and our
our anger after sunset, which I anger continues when the sun sets. We
think to be strange. Perhaps, then, do not sin, however, when, for
just as the true 'sun' will set on the example, we are angry from the
evil prophets according to the first hour till the eleventh and we
words, 'The sun will set on your do that which indignation, rage,
prophets at midday' (Mic. 3: 6; and anger prompt. Nothing appears
Amos 8: 9), so also it sets on all more absurd to me than this
who sin and does not rise for them interpretation, as if someone cannot
so long as they continue sinning. rage out of control from the rising
Paul commands us, therefore, not of the sun to its setting in evil so
to do such things in anger which great that he could not atone for it
would cause the sun to set on us with the tears of his entire life. Or
and night to exist in our souls. at least let anger have no more

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 Eph. 4: 27 Nor give place to

the devil. the devil.

'Devil' is a Greek word which is

This is like what is said in expressed in Latin by 'accuser'. He
Ecclesiastes, 'If the spirit of one is called 'Satan' in the Hebrew
who exercises authority ascends language, that is 'adversary' or
against you do not leave your 'opponent', and 'Belial' by the
place, for pacification will put an apostle, which means 'without
end to great sins' (Eccles. 10: 4).35 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.
Wish not, therefore, he says, to
According to Zechariah, the
give 'place to the devil', because as
father of John, 'Satan dwells on
a roaring lion (1 Pet. 5: 8) he seeks
the inclinations of the soul',36 and
an entrance through which he can
such assents to inferior things as
burst in. Just as the Father and the
we have mentioned and
Son stand before the door and
inclinations to these assents
knock that they may enter and
summon the devil to enter our
dine with one who receives them
souls. It has been written, indeed,
(Rev. 3: 20), so the adversary also
in the case of Judas the betrayer,
is always prepared to burst into us
that first 'the devil had already put
and, when we give him place, he
into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the
enters. But before he comes he is
son of Simon, to betray him' and
accustomed to hurl javelins in
then, 'after the morsel Satan
advance and to make thought the
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.

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 good to one

Eph. 4: 32 But be kind to one
another, compassionate,
another, merciful, giving to
showing favour to ourselves
yourselves as also God has
just as also God has shown
given to you in Christ.
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,
We said that sweet is opposite to
χρηστ τητα, that is 'pleasantness'
bitter.10 Paul, however, seems now
rather 638 than 'kindness'. He
to say metaphorically, on the basis
admonishes us, when all bitterness and
of foods, that the contrary to
wrath, anger, clamour, blasphemy, and
bitterness is goodness, so that we
violent emotion have been condemned
can understand the command, 'Be
along with a stern brow, to be gentle and
good to one another', as if he had
pleasant, spontaneously attracting people
said, 'Some are affable, sweet, and
to our friendship so that no one fears to
gentle in disposition'.
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
Nor after we aid others do we
'compassionate' to all people and
ourselves cease to have what we have
show favour through them not
given, for there follows the words, 'giving
only to our neighbours but also to
to yourselves'. What one does that is good
ourselves in the greatest things.
for another is restored in greater quantity
['Showing favour'] to ourselves
to the person who gave the aid than what
differs from 'showing favour to
was given to the other. He who is
one another' because all our well-
compassionate to the poor will
doing in showing kindness to
himself be filled (Prov. 14: 21),
others, because of its goal and
and he who gives to him has lent
because we are 'of the same body'
to God (Prov. 19: 17).
(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.

But someone else, who thinks

the phrase 'showing favour to
Or perhaps we should take it to mean
ourselves' is no different from
that because we are pleasant and
'showing favour to one another',
'merciful' and have left behind the
will think it is equivalent to
disturbances which were bothering us
'showing favour to one another',
and passed over to gentleness and
especially because of the clause,
moderation it is granted to us ourselves
'Just as God has shown favour to
and 'given', once we have changed from
us in Christ'. And this person will
evil people to good, that we also give these
refer these words to the
very things to ourselves which God the
forgiveness of sins and say that we
Father has given us in Christ. For if
must 'forgive those who sin
we have laid aside vices and follow
against us, as also' God 'has
virtues (now all the virtues,
forgiven us our sins' (cf. Matt. 6:
namely wisdom, truth, justice,
12 ff.). But how has God shown
gentleness, and the rest, are
favour to us 'in Christ' in relation
understood in relation to Christ),
to our sins? Or is it that the
when we shall have possessed
Father, being in Christ, 'has
these virtues we may also procure
forgiven us our trespasses'? But
these very virtues for ourselves by
'he has shown favour to us in
our zeal with the result that we
Christ' also in respect to good
possess the virtues which 'God
things, since indeed wisdom is in
has given to us in Christ'.
Christ, and he has shown favour
to us in wisdom, truth, and justice.

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 Eph. 5: 3-4 But let not
fornication and any fornication and uncleanness or
uncleanness or covetousness covetousness be named
be mentioned among you, as is among you as befits saints, and
fitting for saints, and obscenity obscenity and foolish speech or
and foolish or vulgar speech, vulgarity which is to no
which is not proper, but rather purpose, but rather the giving
thanksgiving. of thanks.

If it were not for a certain Cynic

Sexual intercourse with a philosopher who has taught that no
prostitute is designated stimulation of the flesh and release of
'fornication' in the custom of semen resulting from rubbing and
Scripture. But every sin of physicaltouching of whatever kind is to be
stimulation related to this subject, avoided at the proper time and several
not only concerning adulteries and sages of the world who have agreed with
corruptions of boys but also this filthy and shameful heresy, the holy
concerning all the others human apostle would never, when writing to the
disregard for sexual restraints has Ephesians, have connected to
contrived in aberrations of every 'fornication' also 'all uncleanness' and
kind, has been given the general have joined 'covetousness' to
name 'uncleanness'. And one 'uncleanness', not meaning the
must include 'covetousness', covetousness in which we desire to
either in general, or in the sense of accumulate money but that of which we
adultery, as we have shown it spoke above, 'That one not transgress
sometimes means in other places and, being covetous, defraud his brother
when we used the exhortation that in this matter' (1 Thess. 4: 6). Because,
'each man not transgress and of course, man is insatiable and
covet his brother' (1 Thess. 4: 4, unsatisfied, he runs to and fro for the
6).11 sake of every sort of filthiness and
lewdness.

'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
And one must be on guard
to mention fornication. But if
against all 'uncleanness' since anyone thinks 'covetousness' is
this 'is fitting for saints'. 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.

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
There is an 'obscenity' in say that they have clearly
relation to each form of disregard comprehended the sands of the
for sexual restraints. In a similar seashores, the drops of the ocean,
manner indeed, 'obscenity' is also the space of the heavens, and the
'uncleanness', for each action point of the earth. There is also
related to the subject of sexual 'foolish speech' in the Church
activity exhibits both what is whenever someone, deceived by
unclean and what is obscene. One the word of Isaiah (whom he has
must make these remarks in the not understood (cf. Isa. 6: 1-3)),
case of actions contrary to nature, imagines the sky to be a curved
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,

And let us also see what 'foolish
however, between 'foolish speech'
speech' is which also must 'not be
and 641 'vulgarity'. 'Foolish
mentioned among the saints'.
speech' contains nothing sensible
Someone who has taken the word
and worthy of the human heart.
literally will say that 'foolish
'Vulgarity', on the other hand,
speech' is that practised by clowns
descends from a knowing mind.
and jesters. But see if one must
There is a certain kind of vulgarity,
not say that all, whoever they be,
which we can designate with the
who have been alienated from
term 'jocularity', which
wisdom and understanding, utter
deliberately attempts to provoke
foolish speech and are foolish in
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
He seems thus far to have
agree with the literal
introduced nothing beyond the
understanding of 'foolish speech'.
plan, logic, and sequence of the
The ordinary usage of common
order. But someone may raise a
people applies this not only to
question concerning what follows and
those who make them laugh by
stands at the end, 'But rather the giving
'foolish speech' but by any means
whatsoever.

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 χαριτ α)', perhaps
in place of this he used the word
found elsewhere and said, 'but
rather thankfulness
(ε χαριστ α)'.12 And perhaps it is
the custom of the Hebrews to use
the word 'thankfulness'
(ε χαριστ α) and 'thankful'
(ε χ ριστος) in place of
'graciousness' (ε χαριτ ας and
'gracious' (ε χαρ του). But we
have considered it to be such as
also is said in Proverbs, 'A
thankful (ε χ 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 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 Eph. 4: 31 Let all bitterness

and wrath and anger and and wrath and anger and
clamour and blasphemy be clamour and blasphemy be
removed from you, along with removed from you with all evil.
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).
Some have thought that anger is
the generic passion and have But wrath is anger in its initial stage
ordered it under the genus of when it begins to boil with indignation in
desire and defined anger as the soul. Anger, however, of which
follows, 'Anger is a desire for bitterness and wrath are species, is that
vengeance on one thought to which, once wrath has been extinguished,
have desires revenge and wants to injure the
wronged you undeservedly.'2 person whom it supposes to have done the
And harm. Although these, indeed, are often
after describing many forms of referred to God in accordance with the
anger, they classify 'bitterness' saying, 'Lord, do not rebuke me in your
as wrath nor chastise me in your anger' (Ps.
one form and say that it is 37: 2), they are not to be reckoned to be
anger 4
4 disturbances of soul as they are in us
SVF iii.96.3f. because in him all things are regulated
and orderly. The punishments by which
that is difficult to accept or has sinners are corrected are designated with
immediately burst forth 5 our terminology. But if we are angry we
5
SVF iii.96.18, 40. are disturbed and, ravaged by wrath, we
(and they cease to be ourselves. For this reason all
say that the 'difficult to accept' bitterness, wrath, and anger are to be
has removed from us completely.
been taken in the sense that it is Furthermore, 'without cause' has been
not readily accepted by people added in vain to that statement of the
in Gospel, 'Whoever shall be angry with his
general). 'Wrath', however, is brother without cause will be liable to
anger in its initial stage. 6 judgement' (Matt. 5: 22), because it has
6
SVF iii.96.15f., 38. 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
 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
After 'bitterness, wrath, and anger',
statement, 'Do not rebuke me in
'clamour and blasphemy' are also
your wrath, Lord, nor chastise
properly forbidden in us because once one
me
has been overcome with wrath he
in your anger' (Ps. 37: 2). We
necessarily breaks forth in clamour and,
will
raging confusedly, flutters hither
not define God 's rebuking
and thither like a leaf and says, 'O
wrath
the unfairness of things!' 'How
and the wrath which must 'be
unjust are God 's judgements!' and
removed from' us in a similar
other things which those who
manner nor say that the
have lost their rational
chastising
discernment through the rage of
anger of the Lord is like our
indignation usually say.
own
anger. These remarks are made
figuratively of God but those
made of us refer, admittedly, to
passions and sins.

'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 mention of 'bitterness' is the government of this world and says,
found also in Jeremiah, for he 'That ought not to be so, but this ought
says, 'And your bitterness to be so.' Or perhaps someone who
ascended to me' (Isa. 37: 29). 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
 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
Furthermore, let us remove
language also knows people to
'bitterness, wrath, anger, clamour, and
be
blasphemy from us' so that 'they may be
sweet and bitter. Wrath
removed with all evil'. 'Evil', moreover is
becomes
to be understood either as the opposite to
anger which is arising against
virtue, which we designate with the other
someone in the soul, but anger
term 'vice', or as 'wickedness' and
may not be the genus of these
'vileness', which is experienced in
and
subterfuge and cunning.
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

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 good to one

Eph. 4: 32 But be kind to one
another, compassionate,
another, merciful, giving to
showing favour to ourselves
yourselves as also God has
just as also God has shown
given to you in Christ.
favour to us in Christ.

We said that sweet is opposite to We said above that the opposite to

bitter. 10 bitterness is sweetness, which the apostle
10
See above on Eph. 4: 31. has now designated with the other word,
Paul, however, seems now χρηστ τητα, that is 'pleasantness'
to say metaphorically, on the basis rather 638 than 'kindness'. He
of foods, that the contrary to admonishes us, when all bitterness and
bitterness is goodness, so that we wrath, anger, clamour, blasphemy, and
can understand the command, 'Be violent emotion have been condemned
good to one another', as if he had along with a stern brow, to be gentle and
said, 'Some are affable, sweet, 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. Nor after we aid others do we
['Showing favour'] to ourselves ourselves cease to have what we have
differs from 'showing favour to given, for there follows the words, 'giving
one another' because all our well- to yourselves'. What one does that is good
doing in showing kindness to for another is restored in greater quantity
others, because of its goal and to the person who gave the aid than what
because we are 'of the same body' was given to the other. He who is
(Eph. 3: 6), has reference to us compassionate to the poor will
rather than to those whom we himself be filled (Prov. 14: 21),
think we have benefited. And we and he who gives to him has lent
show favour to ourselves in to God (Prov. 19: 17).
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.

But someone else, who thinks Or perhaps we should take it to mean

the phrase 'showing favour to that because we are pleasant and
ourselves' is no different from 'merciful' and have left behind the
'showing favour to one another', disturbances which were bothering us
will think it is equivalent to and passed over to gentleness and
'showing favour to one another', moderation it is granted to us ourselves
especially because of the clause, and 'given', once we have changed from
'Just as God has shown favour to evil people to good, that we also give these
us in Christ'. And this person will very things to ourselves which God the
refer these words to the Father has given us in Christ. For if
forgiveness of sins and say that wewe have laid aside vices and follow
must 'forgive those who sin virtues (now all the virtues,
against us, as also' God 'has namely wisdom, truth, justice,
forgiven us our sins' (cf. Matt. 6: gentleness, and the rest, are
12 ff.). But how has God shown understood in relation to Christ),
favour to us 'in Christ' in relation when we shall have possessed
to our sins? Or is it that the these virtues we may also procure
Father, being in Christ, 'has these very virtues for ourselves by
forgiven us our trespasses'? But our zeal with the result that we
'he has shown favour to us in possess the virtues which 'God
Christ' also in respect to good has given to us in Christ'.
things, since indeed wisdom is in
Christ, and he has shown favour
to us in wisdom, truth, and justice.

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 Eph. 5: 3-4 But let not
fornication and any fornication and uncleanness or
uncleanness or covetousness covetousness be named
be mentioned among you, as is among you as befits saints, and
fitting for saints, and obscenity obscenity and foolish speech or
and foolish or vulgar speech, vulgarity which is to no
which is not proper, but rather purpose, but rather the giving
thanksgiving. of thanks.

Sexual intercourse with a If it were not for a certain Cynic

prostitute is designated philosopher who has taught that no
'fornication' in the custom of stimulation of the flesh and release of
Scripture. But every sin of physicalsemen resulting from rubbing and
stimulation related to this subject, touching of whatever kind is to be
not only concerning adulteries and avoided at the proper time and several
corruptions of boys but also sages of the world who have agreed with
concerning all the others human this filthy and shameful heresy, the holy
disregard for sexual restraints has apostle would never, when writing to the
contrived in aberrations of every Ephesians, have connected to
kind, has been given the general 'fornication' also 'all uncleanness' and
name 'uncleanness'. And one have joined 'covetousness' to
must include 'covetousness', 'uncleanness', not meaning the
either in general, or in the sense of covetousness in which we desire to
adultery, as we have shown it accumulate money but that of which we
sometimes means in other places spoke above, 'That one not transgress
when we used the exhortation that and, being covetous, defraud his brother
'each man not transgress and in this matter' (1 Thess. 4: 6). Because,
covet his brother' (1 Thess. 4: 4, of course, man is insatiable and
6). 11 unsatisfied, he runs to and fro for the
11
See above on Eph. 4: 17-19. sake of every sort of filthiness and
lewdness.

'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
And one must be on guard anyone thinks 'covetousness' is
against all 'uncleanness' since not to be taken in that sense in
this 'is fitting for saints'. 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.

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
There is an 'obscenity' in amusement for those whom they want to
relation to each form of disregard please, but also to those who are
for sexual restraints. In a similar
thought to be the sages of the
manner indeed, 'obscenity' is also world and who argue about
'uncleanness', for each action matters of natural philosophy and
related to the subject of sexual say that they have clearly
activity exhibits both what is comprehended the sands of the
unclean and what is obscene. One
seashores, the drops of the ocean,
must make these remarks in the the space of the heavens, and the
case of actions contrary to nature, point of the earth. There is also
not in the case of marriage.
'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 this difference,

however, between 'foolish speech'
and 641 'vulgarity'. 'Foolish
speech' contains nothing sensible
and worthy of the human heart.
And let us also see what 'foolish 'Vulgarity', on the other hand,
speech' is which also must 'not be descends from a knowing mind.
mentioned among the saints'. There is a certain kind of vulgarity,
Someone who has taken the word which we can designate with the
literally will say that 'foolish term 'jocularity', which
speech' is that practised by clowns deliberately attempts to provoke
and jesters. But see if one must laughter in the hearers with words
not say that all, whoever they be, which are witty and clownish or
who have been alienated from obscene and facetious. But this
wisdom and understanding, utter too is to be cast forth completely
foolish speech and are foolish in by holy men for whom weeping
the doctrines they teach. 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
He seems thus far to have
agree with the literal
introduced nothing beyond the
understanding of 'foolish speech'.
plan, logic, and sequence of the
The ordinary usage of common
order. But someone may raise a
people applies this not only to
question concerning what follows and
those who make them laugh by
stands at the end, 'But rather the giving
'foolish speech' but by any means
whatsoever.
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 χαριτ α)', perhaps
in place of this he used the word
found elsewhere and said, 'but
rather thankfulness
(ε χαριστ α)'.12 And perhaps it is
the custom of the Hebrews to use
the word 'thankfulness'
(ε χαριστ α) and 'thankful'
(ε χ ριστος) in place of
'graciousness' (ε χαριτ ας and
'gracious' (ε χαρ του). But we
have considered it to be such as
also is said in Proverbs, 'A
thankful (ε χ 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 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 χαριστ 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 ε χ ριστος γε ρει νδρ 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 χ ριτος, that is 'a gracious woman' and not ε χ ριστος, which pertains to
the giving of thanks.
end p.212
Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 5 For know this, that Eph. 5: 5 For know this, that
no fornicator or unclear person no fornicator or impure or
or covetous person, who is an covetous person, that is one
idolater, has an inheritance in who serves idols, has an
the kingdom of Christ and of inheritance in the kingdom of
God. Christ and of God.

We must note that, although he It is to be noted that although six vices

has forbidden six sins, fornication, were prohibited above, namely
uncleanness, covetousness, 'fornication, uncleanness, covetousness,
obscenity, foolish speech, and obscenity, foolish speech, and vulgarity',
vulgar speech, he does not add in he has now put forth only three,
relation to the six that one 'fornication, uncleanness, and
entangled in any of them 'does not covetousness'. One who is liable to these
have an inheritance in the three vices cannot have 'an inheritance in
kingdom of Christ and of God', the kingdom of Christ and of God'. For
but in relation to three, that is, if the babbler and jester were thus
fornication, all uncleanness, and unsuitable for the kingdom of God, as
covetousness. For if the person the three whom he has specifically
guilty of foolish and vulgar speech severed, it would appear to be a cruel
also 'had no inheritance in the judgement not to excuse the weakness of
kingdom of Christ and of God', human fragility when our words might
this might appear rather cruel to condemn us even on account of a joke.
someone as a judgement which For one who does not slip in
makes no allowance at all for our speech is perfect (James 3: 2). It is
weak nature. At all events, these not, however, that by making
things are not 'proper' but these comments we would give
committing them does not result occasion for foolish speech and
in one falling from 'the inheritance vulgarity since they are not
of Christ and of God'. 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.

It remains also to say something

Someone may respond, Grant that
about obscenity. You might think,
'foolish speech and vulgarity' may not
then, that it would be reasonable
carry the same guilt that 'fornication,
to say, 'No fornicator or unclean
uncleanness, and covetousness' carry, but
person or covetous person' or
ought he not also to name obscenity with
obscene person 'has an
the above three? One must say to this
inheritance in the kingdom of
that 'obscenity' here refers to a secret
Christ and of God'. But perhaps
thought when our feeling is inflamed to
there is obscenity in a person who
lust and our soul, ignited by the
has been defiled passively in secret
stimulations of the flesh, is set on fire but
alone and, although he has been
is, nevertheless, restrained by the fear of
inflamed, he has restrained the
God and the sound judgement of our
urge for fornication or
mind. Furthermore, he mentioned the
uncleanness. After he has
three above equally without 'obscenity',
separately named those sins
643 saying, 'But let not fornication and
mentioned above which prevent
all uncleanness and covetousness be
having 'an inheritance in the
named among you.' Then 'obscenity' is
kingdom of Christ and of God',
numbered with 'foolish speech and
he says, 'let them not be
vulgarity'. Just as 'foolish speech and
mentioned among you'. Then, in
vulgarity' are not utterly lost and
their own place and distinguished
excluded from the kingdom forever, so is
from the former sins, he
it also with 'obscenity' understood in this
subjoined obscenity and foolish
way.
and vulgar speech.

And since we considered But because in our discussions above

covetousness to have been applied we took the following words in a different
to adultery in the sins above, let us way, 'Nor let him transgress and, being
ask whether the phrase, 'or a covetous, defraud his brother in this
covetous person which is an matter' (1 Thess. 4: 6) and said that
idolator', overthrows that 'covetousness' was used for adultery, we
interpretation or, if it is still ask whether the present statement, 'Or a
possible. In many passages of the covetous person, that is one who serves
prophets we have found idolatry idols', agrees with that interpretation or
designated fornication in the with the common one. We have
phrase, 'They committed found idolatry to be called
fornication after' their idols (1 fornication in many passages in
Chron. 5: 25; Ezek. 20: 30; etc.). the prophets. 'They were
One can also apply fornication to committing fornication', it says,
idolatry from the saying, 'They 'after their idols' (1 Chron. 5: 25;
went astray in the spirit of Ezek. 20: 30), and 'They were led
fornication' (Hos. 4: 12). And if a astray by the spirit of fornication'
'covetous person' should be (Hos. 4: 12). Fornication can,
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

Eph. 5: 6 Let no you with empty words for it is
one deceive for this reason that the wrath of
you with empty God comes on the sons of
words, for it is disbelief. 13
for this reason 13
Jerome's comments suggest that he understood πε θεια in this sense
that the wrath of rather than in the more usual sense of 'disobedience'. For the meaning
God is coming on s.v. πε θεια in W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
the sons of Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th edn., trs. W. F.
disobedience. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich (Cambridge/Chicago, 1957).

Words which deceive and

overthrow are empty and vacuous.
He seems to But 644 words which build up the
declare 'words' to hearers are full, complete, and
be dense. Because, therefore, those
'empty' which who speak are many, the
want, by their punishments for their sins are not
persuasiveness, to future, nor are their torments to
overturn the be employed from without, but
word concerning the sin itself which takes
the punishments possession of one 14
which are coming 14 I have taken the final quod possidet in the sentence with peccatum
on those who because peccatum is the only neuter singular antecedent in the
have lived an evil sentence, except for corde which seems to me to make less sense as the
life. He says antecedent.
that such words and the
belong to deceit consciousness of the offence are
and are empty, for punishment so long as the
therefore, 'the' worm does not die in the heart
so-called 'wrath and the fire is kindled in the soul
of God is' (Isa. 66: 24; Mark 9: 43) like a fever
assuredly 'coming which does not torture the sick
on the sons person from without but punishes
of disobedience'. by taking possession of the bodies
themselves without an application
of tortures from without.

And he calls the Therefore, he has called these opinions

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
Eph. 5: 7 Therefore, be not
become fellow
fellow companions with them.
participants
with them.

You will observe the expression One becomes a

'companion' and 'fellow participant or
companion'. Perhaps 'companion' 'fellow participant'
is preferable speech and 'fellow with the 'sons
companion' less preferable as in of disbelief' if one
the statement, 'For this reason is found 'in
God, your God, has anointed you fornication and
with the oil of gladness beyond uncleanness and
your companions' (Ps. 44: 8) and, covetousness for
'For we have become companions which reason the
of Christ, if indeed we hold the wrath of God
beginning of the substance firm comes on the sons
till the end' (Heb. 3: 14). I do not of disbelief'. And
recall the term 'fellow companion' one is a
used elsewhere outside the participant with
present passage but it is obvious them because one
here that 'fellow companion' is participates and
less preferable. 15 has communion
15
Gregg notes that Origen has overlooked the appearance of the word with evil works
in Eph. 3: 6. Note, however, that Origen's comments on this passage but one is called a
are not preserved in the catena fragments, so that we cannot be sure 'fellow participant'
what his text read there. 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 Eph. 5: 8a For once you were
darkness, but now are light in darkness but now you are light
the Lord. 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
If it is possible for the 'once
people, therefore, who make up
darkness' to change and become
those stories whether all the
'light', then they are not perishing
impious are darkness or whether
natures.
some of them, although they were
called darkness because of evil,
have turned to better things and
are now called 'light in the Lord'.

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
And in the same way that the light in light' (Ps. 35: 10), but the unjust,
just are the 'light of the world' since they are darkness, are people who
(Matt. 5: 14), so the impious sit in darkness and see nothing (Matt. 4:
would be said to be darkness. And 16; Isa. 9: 1). We understand the
the just, on the one hand, being difference and distance between them
light, 'will see light in light' (Ps. 35:from their fruits, for everyone who does
10) but the unjust, being darkness, evil hates the light and does not come to
are 'people sitting in darkness' the light. He is dark and is a son of the
(Matt. 4: 16; Luke 1: 79; cf. Isa. 9: night and of darkness. But one who does
1) seeing nothing. 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 'from their fruits we will

know' (Matt. 7: 16, 20) those who
are light or darkness, 'for everyone You may inquire in addition to these
who does evil hates the light and', matters whether it may be because of a
by not coming 'to the light', is distinction between those who are light
darkness and a son of darkness but not light in the Lord that it is said of
and night. 'But everyone who the just, 'but now you are light in the
does the truth' comes 'to the light' Lord'. It is also properly written to the
and is light and a son of light and
day (John 3: 20-1).

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, μων μως (by the same name) with
these things by which they are possessed they receive the designation either of darkness
or of light.
Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 8b Walk as children of Eph. 5: 8b Walk as children of

light. light.

If 'God is light and there is no If 'God is light and there is no darkness

darkness at all in him' (1 John 1:in him' (1 John 1: 5), children of God are
5), the children of God are 'children of light'. And also, if Christ
'children of light'. is the true light, his children also

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

Eph. 5: 9 For the fruit of the
light is in all goodness and
light is in all goodness and justice and truth.
justice and truth.

These words are useful against Let us bring this testimony forward
those who separate the just from against Marcion (who separates the
the good and think the Creator is just God from the good and thinks the
just but that there is a good God Creator is just 646 but that another,
above him, since 'the fruit of the I know not who, is alone the good God,
light' is in 'goodness and justice whose son is that Christ who comes)
and truth'. Where goodness is, since 'the fruit of light' is not only 'in
therefore, there is justice, and goodness' but also 'in justice and truth'.
where truth is there is justice. If Where there is goodness, therefore,
goodness and truth are with the there is also justice, and where justice,
good Father, then justice is also there, it follows, is also truth. There is
with him and not with another. 'goodness and truth', therefore, with
Consider these words also from the good Father of Christ, as they
the standpoint that Christ is themselves also acknowledge.
'justice' (1 Cor. 1: 30). But where there is 'goodness and truth',

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 Eph. 5: 10 Proving what is

pleasing to the Lord. pleasing to God.

All things are to be done with

deliberation so that, cautious and
careful
like the most experienced money-
changers
who test an engraved coin not
only with the eye but also by its
weight
It is necessary to do all things with and ring, we may do those things
deliberation so that, when we have alone
carefully examined each thing to which we know are pleasing to God.
be done as 'approved money-changers',16 But
we may accept 'the because the coherence of the
things that are approved' and language in
'pleasing to God' on the basis of this passage appears to be disordered
our scrutiny and throw off the and
things that are unapproved and to gush forth with its total thought, the
displeasing to him. 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
 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 Eph. 5: 11a And do not share
unfruitful in the unfruitful works of
works of darkness. darkness.

He applies the name of fruit to the

Spirit
In other passages, too, he has but work to the flesh also in the
applied the term 'fruit' to the epistle to
Spirit and the term 'work' to the the Galatians, 'But the works of the
flesh when he said, 'But the works flesh are manifest, which are
of the flesh are manifest, which fornication'
are fornication', etc., 'but the fruit etc., 'but the fruit of the Spirit is love,
of the Spirit is love, joy, peace' etc. joy,
(Gal. 5: 19, 22). Now, however, he peace' etc. (Gal. 5: 22). Furthermore,
says that 'the works of darkness', in
with which one who does these the present situation he has
things 'has fellowship', are designated
'unfruitful'. them 'the unfruitful works of darkness'
in which those who do them share in
communion.

Eph. 5: 11b But rather reprove Eph. 5: 11b But rather reprove
them. them.

We must consider 'reproving' also It is extremely bold that reproving

to be among the commandments. sinners can also belong to the
For this reason the person who commandments. But only he can do
will do this would not be one who this
would hear the words, 'Hypocrite, who does not deserve to hear,
first cast the beam out of your "Yποκριτ (Hypocrite), first cast the
own eye and then you will see beam out of your own eye and then
clearly to cast the mote out of your you
brother 's eye' (Matt. 7: 5). For this will be able to cast the mote out of
reason the prophets, too, being your
by no means liable to reproaches, brother 's eye' (Matt. 7: 5). It was
reproved sinners. 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 it is shameful

Eph. 5: 12 For the things done
even to mention the things
by them in secret are shameful
which are done in secret by
even to mention.
them.

The discussion does not seem to

To whom does 'them' refer? He
me to cohere (so that what is now said, 'for the
has by no means clearly
things which are done in secret by them',
mentioned 'them' previously
depends on the words above and it can be
unless, perhaps, one should refer
known to whom in particular it is to be
the word back to 'the sons of
referred), unless perhaps a very profound
disobedience', so that it means
hyperbaton is rendered and it is joined to
that 'the things done in secret by'
'the sons of disbelief' so that it can mean,
the sons of disobedience 'are
'For the things which are done in secret
shameful even to mention', which
by the sons of disbelief are shameful even
were 'fornication' and
to mention, which are fornication, all
'uncleanness'.
uncleanness and covetousness.

end p.221
Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 13-14 But all things Eph. 5: 13-14a But all things
reproved are made manifest by which have been reproved are
the light, for everything made made manifest by the light, for
manigest is light. Whereas he everything which is made
says, 'Awake, o sleeper, and manifest is light.
arise from the dead, and Christ
will shine on you.'

'All things' refers, without doubt,

to 'those things which are done in
secret by the sons of disbelief', for
Because the works of darkness these things 'which have been
'which are reproved' 'are made reproved are made manifest by the
manifest by the light' when the light'. Now the light has reproved
things which are reproved change those things which 'previously
into 'light', he says to those who were darkness and afterwards
are asleep and dead because they have been made light in the Lord',
have done 'the unfruitful works of so that because they are
darkness', 'Awake, O sleeper, and reproached they may be changed
arise from the dead, and Christ to the better and, having been
will shine on you.' changed, they may be made
manifest openly and disclosed as
light because 'everything which is
made manifest is light'.

But someone will ask who is

speaking in the words, 'Wherefore
he says, Awake, O sleeper, and
arise from the dead.' One will say, Eph. 5: 14b Wherefore he says,
then, that the apostle has recorded Awake you who sleep and arise
here words which he read in one from the dead and Christ will
of the prophets. But another will illuminate you, or Christ will
say that the apostle himself is rise like the sun on you.
dramatizing words spoken by the
Spirit for an exhortation to
repentance.

And you will ask further, how

the same person is addressed, first Because the works of darkness which
as if he is alive and sleeping, have been reproved are made manifest by
'Awake, O sleeper', and then, as if the light in the light, when the things
he is dead, 'Arise from the dead.' which have been reproved have been
Perhaps, then, since there is both changed it is said to those sleeping and
a 'spirit of man which is in him' dead because they have done the works of
(1 Cor. 2: 11), which we have darkness, 'Awake you who sleep and
observed refers to the better part arise from the dead.'
of man, but there is also the soul,
a second part of man, which is
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
And Christ, the 'true light'
prophets and in those which are
(John 1: 9), 'will shine' on the one
called π κρυφα (apocrypha)
awakening from sleep and arising
(since it is clear that he has done
from the dead.
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

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 ς, that is, 'Christ will rise like the sun on you', but πιψα 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.
Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 15-17 Consider

carefully, then, how you walk,
not as unwise but as wise,
Eph. 5: 15 See, therefore, how
redeeming the time because
carefully you walk, not as
the days are evil. For this
unwise but as wise.
reason do not be foolish, but
understand what the will of the
Lord is.

'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' It is properly said to the Ephesians
from his great diligence 'how he that they should walk carefully,
walks', and he who considers seeing that they have their senses
carefully how he walks is by all exercised to discern good and evil
means 'wise'. And since some and, proving all things, they were
have very good intentions and retaining that which they had
wish to consider carefully how determined to be good (Heb. 5:
they walk but are not wise, he has 14; 1 Thess. 5: 21).
added, 'Not as unwise but as wise'.
Now 'considering carefully' and
morals are a work of wisdom.

'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 δι 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.

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 Eph. 5: 16 Redeeming the time
evil of men. No one, however, because the days are evil.
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.

But 'when we redeem the time' He who is wise and, therefore,

which is 'in evil days', it is as if wewalks carefully, redeems the time.
transform the evil days into good But he redeems the time because
and make them the good days, as 'the days are evil'. Whenever we
it were, of the 'age to come' (Gal. consume time in a good work we buy it
1: 4; Heb. 6: 5) for us and not the and make our own what has been sold by
'evil' days 'of the present age'. the malice of humanity. But no one
seeking the necessary things of this life
and thinking about riches and cares,

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
Eph. 5: 17 For this reason do
not be foolish, but
not be foolish, but understand
understand
what the will of God is.
what the will of the
Lord is.

Why should you 'not Because the time is evil and, as we

be foolish', said above, is to be redeemed,
other than 'to wisdom must first be sought so
consider carefully that it may enable us to
how you walk, not as understand 'what the will of God
unwise but is'. We cannot walk carefully
as wise'? For if you unless the will of God has been
will be foolish, understood previously. In every
you will walk neither work, therefore, one must first consider
carefully nor what God wills and, when a decision
as wise. 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
Eph. 5: 18 And do not be drunk
with wine, in which
with wine, in which is
is
wantonness, but be filled with
debauchery, but be
the Spirit.
filled with
the spirit.

On the one hand, Just as we cannot serve two lords,

these words can God and mammon, so we cannot
be understood be filled with the Spirit and with
literally, since there wine at the same time. One who is
is 'debauchery' in the filled with the Spirit possesses
use of 'wine' wisdom, meekness, 651 shame,
which causes and purity, but one who is filled
'drunkenness'. But with wine possesses foolishess,
on the other hand, rage, shamelessness, and lust. I
'wine in which consider 'wantonness' to express
there is debauchery' this in one word. If certain
can also be persons had understood this, they
understood of what is would never have accused me of
said in the rashness and heresy because I said
great song, 'Their in 'The Preservation of Virginity'
wine is the that wine is to be avoided by the
wrath of dragons and young, and oil is not to be thrown
the on the flames nor the natural heat
incurable wrath of of the flesh to be increased by the
asps' (Deut. 32: stimulations of pleasure (Jer. Ep.
33). All who have 22.8.1-2).
lost their wits
and are drunken
drink this
disposition which
contains much
'debauchery'.

On the contrary, 'one

who has
been filled with the
Spirit' and
who receives all
things containing
the divine is
But 'wine in which there is
understood in
contradistinction to wantonness' can also be taken in the
sense of that which is said in the song of
that 'wine
Moses, 'Their wine is the rage of dragons
which causes
and the incurable rage of asps' (Deut.
drunkenness in
which there is
debauchery'. We
have frequently
observed the
noun 'spirit' written
without
qualification because
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 Eph. 5: 19 Speaking to

yourselves in psalms and yourselves in psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs, hymns and spiritual songs,
singing and making melody singing and making melody to
in your heart to the Lord. 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,
One who has abstained from the
like a psaltery, is engaged in
drunkenness of wine in which
'spiritual psalms'. One, however,
there is wantonness, and in place
who inquires into the nature of the
of this has been filled with the
order of the cosmos and the other
Spirit, can take all things spiritually
created things is engaged in
as 'psalms, hymns, and songs'.
'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'.
 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 Eph. 5: 20 Giving thanks

thanks to God and the Father always to God and the Father
for all things in the name of our for all things in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus Christ.

He says in the first epistle to the He has written something similar to this
Thessalonians, 'Rejoice always; in the first epistle to the Thessalonians:
pray without ceasing; in 'Rejoice always, pray without ceasing,
everything give thanks' (1 Thess. give thanks in all things' (1 Thess. 5:
5: 16-18). One who has thought 16-18). That person alone can keep this
about the anticipated providential precept who knows that the five sparrows
care will take note of this which are sold for two pence and not one
command also in relation to the of them has fallen into the snare without
words, 'Five sparrows are sold for the Father's will are guided by the
two farthings, not one' of which providence of God (Luke 12: 6).
'falls into a trap without the Father
in heaven' (Luke 12: 6; Matt. 10:
29).

This is what it means to give Furthermore, the words 'giving

thanks 'in everything' and to give thanks', 'always', and 'for all things' are
thanks 'for all things'. One must, to be considered in two ways. First, we
therefore, also give thanks for should return thanks to God at all times
adverse circumstances, since they and for all things which befall us.
too belong to those things for Second, our joyful mind should burst
which one must give thanks. And forth in laudation of God, not only for
just as one who is in the world things which we think are good but also
must give thanks by participating for those which constrain us and come
in the world and contemplating its contrary to our will. We should say of
beauty and beholding the the latter, 'Naked I came forth
multitude and variety of things from my mothers's womb and
which have occurred on account naked I shall return . . . as it has
of reason, so also must one give pleased the Lord so has it
thanks for those things which are happened, let the name of the
incomplete. Lord be blessed' (Job. 1: 21).

This giving of thanks is

observed among the wise both in
But one who gives thanks 'to
general and in particular. In
God and the Father' must give
general, we should give thanks to
thanks in the 'mediator of God
God because the sun rises on us,
and man' (1 Tim. 2: 5), so that to
the day runs its course, the night is
give thanks to 'God and the
changed to rest, the darkness is
Father' we do it 'in the name of
moderated by the brightness of
our Lord Jesus Christ'.
the moon, the seasons are altered and
return by the rising and

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 Being subject, he

Eph. 5: 21 Subjected to one
says, to one another in the fear
another in the fear of Christ.
of Christ.

This completely destroys all desire Let the bishops hear these words,
to rule and be first. The following let the presbyters hear them, let
command has been given to all, every order of teachers hear them,
'For although I am free from all I that they be subjected to those
enslaved myself to all that I might who are subjected to themselves
gain all' (1 Cor. 9: 19). The and imitate the apostle who says,
command which says, 'Be slaves 'For although I was free from all I made
to one another' (Gal. 5: 13), also myself a servant to all that I might gain
prescribes this. Wherefore, the all' (1 Cor. 9: 19), and in another
apostles 'were slaves' to the passage, 'Serve one another through love'
churches 'because of love' (Gal. 5: (Gal. 5: 13). This is why he himself also
13), ministering and being served all the churches of the Gentiles
servants for the salvation of with the same love. Our Saviour also
humanity. Even the Saviour took the form of a servant that he might
assumed 'the form of a slave' serve his disciples and wash their feet
(Phil. 2: 7) for no other reason (Phil. 2: 7; John 13: 5). This is the
than to be a slave to the disciples. difference between the rulers of
Consequently, he once 'put water the Gentiles and of Christians.
in a basin' to wash 'the feet of the The former dominate their
disciples' (John 13: 5). Furthermore,subjects but we serve, and we are
one who has understood greater in this service if we shall be least
the statement, 'He who wishes to of all (Matt. 20: 25-7).
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
But the words, 'in the fear of
ignorant of what is fitting,
Christ', are also to be understood
command those who wish to
so that the subjection itself does
serve them to do things for them
not occur for the sake of human
which are inappropriate. But even
654 glory but because of the fear
then he who acts for his advantage
of Christ, since we fear to offend
and serves is also subject to the
him.
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 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 λ 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
Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 22-3 Let the wives be

Eph. 5: 22-3a Let wives be
subject to their own husbands
subject to their husbands as to
as to the Lord, because the
the Lord since the husband is
husband is head of the wife as
head of the wife as also Christ is
also Christ is head of the
head of the Church.
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 The verb 'let them be subject'
regulates the matters of marriage which has been added in the Latin
in accordance with reason, copies is not contained in the
imitates Christ, the bridegroom of Greek codices since the phrase is
the Church. The wife, if she lives referred back to the words above,
with her husband in wedlock as 'Subjected to one another in the
she ought, as the Church, is fear of Christ', and the verb is
zealous (if I may speak this way) understood so that it expresses
for the companionship with (in common) the idea,
Christ. For as the 'husband' will be 'and wives subjected to their
'head of the wife', likewise then husbands . . . as to the Lord'. But
also is 'Christ of the Church'. If, this is better understood in Greek
however, husband and wife were than in Latin. As, therefore, the
not united with one another in this Church is subject to Christ so let
manner, it would not be said in thethe wife be subject to her
case of these that this one here 'is husband. A husband and wife are
head of the wife as also Christ of bound to the same order in
the Church'. Let each husband, respect to pre-eminence and
therefore, aspire to relate to his subjection which Christ and the
wife as Christ relates to the Church have.
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
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
νδρα ποστροφ 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 ναγωγ 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.
Origen Jerome

Eph. 5: 24 But as the Church is Eph. 5: 24 But as the Church is

subject to Christ, so also subject to Christ so also let
should the wives be to their wives be to their husbands in
husbands in everything. all things.
If 'the wives' must 'be subject to The Church of Christ 'is glorious,
their husbands as the Church is not having spot or wrinkle or any
subject to Christ', it will be such thing' (Eph. 5: 27). One,
necessary that the wives be therefore, who is a sinner and
subject to their husbands living in stained with any filth cannot be
a holy, passionless, and sinless declared to belong to the Church
manner, just as 'the Church is of Christ nor be said to be subject
subject to Christ', living in a holy,to Christ. It is possible, however,
passionless, and sinless manner. 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.
'Spots', for example, are moles And because it was said of marriage, he
which appear on the body. There has also beautifully drawn 'spot and
are black spots, leprous spots, and wrinkle' from the example of women for
warts. A wife would be more the beauty of the Church. For just as
beautiful if these were removed. warts are usually despised on the bodies
And let things analogous to these of women, or wrinkles diminished or
be considered to appear also on freckles altered, and women exert all
the soul. Only the Logos can their effort to remove blemishes and to
remove these, 'that he might appear lovely to their husbands, so also
present' his own bride 'to himself', souls are to be cleansed of all the filth of
he says, 'not having spot or sins so that the wrinkles of the old man
wrinkle or any such thing, but thatare stretched out by youth and renewed
she might be holy and blameless'. into a new man from day to day.

'Wrinkles' are a sign of old age.

If someone thus has traces 'of the
Eph. 5: 28a So also men ought
old man' remaining, who is not
to love their wives as their own
always 'being renewed' (Col. 3:
bodies.
9-10), this person would be said
to be wrinkled in his soul.

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 Eph. 5: 31 For this reason a

man shall leave his father and man shall leave father and
mother and the two shall mother and the two shall be in
become one flesh. one flesh.

We must observe, just as we haveWe show here what we have often

also done in other passages, that observed, namely that the apostles and
often those who write the New evangelists do not use the same words in
Testament do not quote the Old the copies of the Old Testament which
Testament word for word. This are contained in our own volumes since
stands written as follows in this particular testimony is written as
Genesis, 'For this reason a man follows in Genesis, 'For this reason a
shall leave his father and his man shall leave his father and his mother
mother and shall be joined to his and shall cleave to his wife and the two
wife, and the two shall become shall be in one flesh' (Gen. 2: 24). But
one flesh' (Gen. 2: 24). Here, now the apostle has put ντ το του
however, Paul has written 'on this(that is: for this reason) for the νεκεν
account' instead of 'for this το του which appears there. This
reason'. He has also failed to latter cannot be expressed in
mention 'his' after both 'father' different words in Latin. Then he
and 'mother'. Moreover, he has has removed the pronouns with 'his
omitted the words, 'he shall be father and his mother' and has put only
joined to his wife'. '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 λ 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.
Origen Jerome

Eph. 6: 1-3 Children, obey Eph. 6: 1-3 Children, obey

your parents in the Lord, for your parents in the Lord, for
this is just. Honour your father this is just. 'Honour your father
and mother, which is the first and your mother', which is the
commandment with a promise, first commandment with a
that it may be well with you, promise, 'that it may be well
and you will live long on the with you and you may have a
land. 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
The saying is ambiguous. It is parents in the Lord. This is to be done in
necessary either that 'children each case, so that we obey both those
obey their parents in the Lord', or parents who have begotten us in the
that 'in the Lord children obey Lord, such as Paul and the apostles, and
their parents'. One need not reject we do those things which they have
either of the interpretations, for commanded, and that we also submit, in
one must obey 'the parents in the the Lord, to our parents from whom we
Lord', of the sort that Paul was to have been born in the flesh by fulfilling
the Corinthians [and one must those things which are not contrary to the
obey the parents according to the will of the Lord. At the same time we
flesh], but 'in the Lord', when they will also constrain those heretics who do
command things not in not want the Old Testament to be from
opposition to the will of the Lord. the good God whose son Christ is,
To obey is 'just' in each case. 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 context of this testimony in

Exodus is as follows, 'Honour your
father and your mother that it may be
At the same time you will also well with you and you may have a long
notice in relation to the heterodox life on the land which the Lord your God
who separate the just God from will give to you' (Exod. 20: 12). Paul has
the good one, that he commands omitted the final words. This is the fifth
the disciples of the good God, as commandment in the decalogue;
they say, with an ordinance of the therefore, we must investigate why he has
other God, as they would say. For now said, 'Which is the first
the other, indeed, is just, but Paul commandment'. The first commandment
says it is 'just' that children obey is, 'You shall not have foreign gods before
their parents in the Lord, or in the me' (Exod. 20: 3). This is why some thus
Lord obey their parents. 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
 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.

The saying has been taken from One who will attempt to maintain the
Exodus, where it is as follows: exposition given above says that in the
'Honour your father and your fact that Paul has separated the words,
mother that it may be well with 'which is the first commandment with a
you, and that you may live long on promise', the command, 'Honour your
the land which the Lord your God father and your mother', has been given
is giving to you' (Exod. 20: 12). separately and afterwards the promise
Here, however, the apostle has has been described with its own subject,
omitted 'your' after 'mother' when 'That you may have a long life on the
he quotes the text and, in place of land which the Lord your God will give
'and that you may live long', he to you'. In the second commandment,
has written, 'and you will live long'however, that is, 'You shall not make for
and, after the phrase 'on the land', yourself an idol or any likeness', it is not
he has omitted the words, 'which so much that a promise has been given
the Lord your God is giving to separately but, under one construction
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.

Next, one must discuss the fact that it

Since this is the fifth
has not been promised in a Jewish and
commandment of the Decalogue,
carnal sense that children will have a
we must investigate how one must
long life on the land which the Lord their
understand the phrase, 'which is
God gives them for honouring their
the first commandment', since the
father and mother. There have been
first commandment mentioned is,
many believers who were obedient to their
'You shall not have other gods
parents but, nevertheless, died young,
besides me' (Exod. 20: 3). Some,
and there have been many who were
therefore, have read it as follows:
impious toward their parents who have
'Which is the first commandment
reached an extreme old age. Let the Jews
with a promise', since the
and those like them reply to this
commandments before this one
question: If it is length of this life that is
do not contain a promise. For they
meant in the promises, and to remain in
think the first promise occurs in
the body a long time is good fortune, why
this commandment, namely, 'that
did the Psalmist wish the following for
it may be well with you, and that
himself in the Psalms, 'Woe to me,
you may live long on the land
because my residence has been prolonged!
which the Lord your God is giving
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 σ 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,
'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
Eph. 6: 9 And masters, do the threatenings, knowing that
same to them. their Lord and yours is in
heaven and there is no respect
of persons with him.

To which of the things previously

mentioned does 'the same' refer? I
think that it refers to 'in singlenessWhat are these things which he has
of heart' and to 'doing the will of commanded above that he should say
God' both 'from the soul' and that the same things are to be done to the
'with enthusiasm' in relation to the
household slaves.

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 Eph. 6: 10 Finally, be

the Lord and in the might of his strengthened in the Lord and in
strength. the power of his virtue.

To 'be strong in the Lord' is to be I know that in Greek 'strength',

strong in reason and wisdom and that is σχ ν, has been written for
the contemplation of the truth and 'virtue' because they call 'virtue'
in all the aspects of Christ, ρετ . But the common usage of
35
whose greatest is 'the might of our Scriptures designates both
his strength', which is even σχ ς and ρετ indifferently as
mightier than virtue and its forms, 'virtue', especially since 'strength'
which are all powers, just as evils of body is considered a virtue of
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
Because, therefore, he says, 'Be
certain resemblance to physical
strengthened in the Lord and in
strength. This virtue is not seen
the power of his virtue', the whole
and another is, being named
is to be imagined in Christ so that
beauty from physical beauty. It is
those who have believed are
of this beauty that it is said, 'Gird
strengthened in all the virtues
your sword on your thigh, O
which are understood of him.
mighty one, in your comeliness
And, after the particular
and your beauty' (Ps. 44: 4) and,
commandments which are to be
to the bride in the Song of Songs,
observed by husbands and wives,
'You are wholly beautiful, my
fathers and children, masters and
neighbour, and there is no blemish
servants, he now wisely
in you' (4: 7) and again, in the
forty-fourth Psalm, 'And the king
shall desire your beauty' (44: 12).

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 Eph. 6: 11 Put on the whole

armour of God that you may be armour of God that you may be
able to stand against the wiles able to stand against the
of the devil. cunning devices of the devil.

From what follows and from the From what we read below and from
things recorded of the Saviour, it those things which are said in all the
is possible to say that Christ is the Scriptures about our Lord the Saviour,
'whole armour of God' so that it
'putting on the whole armour of is most clearly confirmed that 'the
God' is the same as 'putting on the whole
Lord Jesus Christ' (Rom. 13: 14). armour of God' with which we are now
For [if]'the truth' is a 'girdle' and ordered to be clothed is understood of
'justice' is a 'breastplate', and the the
Saviour is 'the truth' and 'justice' Saviour, so that there is no difference
(John 14: 6; 1 Cor. 1: 30), it is clear between saying, 'Put on the whole
that the Saviour is the girdle and armour of God' and, 'Put on the Lord
the breastplate. And parallel to Jesus Christ'. If the 'girdle' is 'truth'
these, he would be 'the and
preparation of the gospel of the 'breastplate' is 'justice' (Eph. 6: 14),
peace','the shield of faith','the and our Saviour is called 'truth' and
helmet of salvation', and 'the 'justice' (John 14: 6; 1 Cor. 1: 30),
sword of the Spirit' which is 'the there
word of God','the word which is can be no doubt that he himself is both
living, effective and sharper than the 'girdle' and the 'breastplate'. He
any two-edged sword' (Heb. 4: will
12). What other kind of 'whole also, accordingly, be 'the preparation
armour of God' can one conceive of
to be meant, which one who will the gospel of peace, and the shield of
resist 'the wiles of the devil' must faith, and the helmet of salvation, and
put on, than the virtue which is the sword of the spirit which is the
Christ? When one has put Christ word
on in all his aspects, he will be of God' (Eph. 6: 15-17), 'a living and
sufficient 'to stand against' all 'the effectual word and sharper than any
wiles' of evil which is brought two-
about by 'its father' the 'devil' edged sword' (Heb. 4: 12).
(John 8: 44).

To the extent that someone has Moreover, what other 'armour of God'
'girded himself with the truth' he can we imagine with which one who
will not be dragged off to assent to has
persuasive and sophistical words to contend against the cunning devices
of falsehood and, to the extent of
that 'he has put on justice', he will the devil is to be clothed than the virtue
not be wounded by the 'arrows' of which Christ is? 670 The person who
injustice, since none of them reach shall have been clothed with everything
him and make him who has which is understood of Christ will be
clothed himself with justice able to resist all the plots of the devil.
unjust. And one who has 'put on' Insofar as he has been girded with truth
the beautiful shoes of the 'preparation of the he will not easily be led off to false
gospel of teachings. Insofar as he has put on the
peace' and has also 'prepared' his 'breastplate of justice' he will not be
'works for the exodus' (Prov. 24: able
27) and, therefore, has become a to be pierced by the darts of iniquity.
man of peace, will neither do Likewise, when he shall have been shod
anything warlike and factious, nor with those beautiful shoes, the
will he be condemned with the 'preparation of the gospel of peace', it
unprepared. And hostile unbelief is
will have no place in the salvation as if he who has prepared his works for
of the human race where 'the the end (cf. Prov. 24: 27 LXX) and,
shield of faith' is. And the one therefore, has become a man of peace,
wearing 'the helmet of salvation' will
will be kept indomitably safe in not do anything belligerent or turbulent
respect to the head of the soul nor will he be condemned with those
where the divine and intellectual who
faculties are found. But also the are unprepared.
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

Eph. 6: 12 Because our
wrestling is not 671 against
wrestling is not against blood
blood and flesh, but against
and flesh, but against rulers,
principalities, against powers,
against authorities, against the
against the rulers of this
cosmic powers of darkness,
darkness, against the spiritual
against the spiritual forces of
forces of wickedness in the
wickedness in the heavens.
heavens.

I do not think Paul could have said,

Your 'wrestling is not against blood and
flesh', when writing to the Corinthians to
I think 'against blood and flesh' whom he said, 'Let no temptation seize
refers [again] to those you except a human one. Moreover God
'temptations' he calls 'human' (1 is faithful, who does not permit you to be
Cor. 10: 13), when 'the flesh has tempted beyond that which you are able'
lusted against the spirit' and (1 Cor. 10: 13). I think, in fact, that the
summons us to do 'its works' struggles which there are called human
(Gal. 5: 17, 19). But no longer is it temptations are 'against flesh and blood',
a 'human temptation' nor when the flesh lusts against the spirit
'wrestling against blood and flesh' (Gal. 5: 17) and provokes us to do its
when 'Satan' either 'disguises works: 'fornication, uncleanness,
himself as an angel of light' (2 Cor. wantonness, idolatry, enmities,
11: 14) and contends to persuade contentions, emulations, wraths,
us to devote ourselves to him as quarrels, dissensions, heresies, plots,
an angel of light, or disguises drunkenness, revellings, and the
himself in something which remaining things like these' (Gal. 5:
resembles these things which 19-21). Furthermore, it is not a human
occur 'in all power and signs and temptation nor a 'battle against flesh and
false wonders and in all deceit of blood' when Satan himself, having been
wrongdoing' (2 Thess. 2: 9-10). 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
 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
And if the enemy should which assist loves and amorous songs.
persuade someone to recognize The prophet refers to these when he says,
him as the Lord so that he says,
'They were seduced by a spirit of 672
'Thus says the Lord' in himself
fornication' (Hos. 4: 12). Certain
and supposes himself to have
barbarian names are also said to
become a prophet of the God of
belong to the demons. Those,
the universe, the enemy would not whom the common people truly
have done these things as 'blood call enchanters, are often
and flesh' or a 'human temptation' acknowledged, and enchantments,
since he has 'wrestled' with one curses, various colours, and
who has guarded himself against diverse kinds of metals or foods
these things. Wherefore, we must to which demons have been
by no means 'give [place] to the
summoned, are said to assist them
devil' (Eph. 4: 27). 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
 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 We have, therefore, now made
to think in the first instance that known these examples of those
the sins thought to come to us who, as depraved beings, assist the
from 'the mind of the flesh' (Rom. magical arts and are asserted to do
8: 6, 7) come to us from flesh and these things, so that we may blunt
blood but come from certain the opinion of those who think
powers which effect these sins. that all vices are of flesh and blood
For there are certain demons and that the demons have no
which effect amours and love power to incite us to sin. We think
charms, as the prophet reveals that Jacob, too, experienced such
when he says, 'They were deceived wrestling in which he contended, of
by the spirit of fornication' (Hos. course, 'not against flesh and blood' when
4: 12). One can say the same thing he remained alone and a man wrestled
also about other demons which with him, helping and strengthening him
cause wrath and anger. The against another who contended with
superstitious are said to be able to excessive sweat.37 And notice at the
restrain anger against a person by same time if they are not
appealing to these demons. And ridiculous who think that Jacob
someone will reasonably argue, wrestled the whole night like a
on the basis of the so-called wrestler. Why is it important, if he
charms for producing hatred, that wrestled as they say, whether he
when we hate we do not do it had the upper hand or was
without the demons who effect overcome? One should believe,
hating. Since, then, he says, the however, that in accordance with
apostle wants to teach us that our a wrestling that was rational and
sinning does not arise from the appropriate to the patriarch, his
nature of the body, for this reason wrestling was like that of those
he says, 'Our wrestling is not
against blood and flesh, but
against rulers, against authorites'
etc.

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 σχ σεως 41
41
So spelled by Pieri, but more usually σκ σεως.
(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'.
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 Eph. 6: 13 Therefore, take up the whole armour of God
able to resist, he says, in the evil that you can resist in the evil day, and having done all
day. things, to stand.

He has shown that 'the evil day' is the

present time of which he said above,
One who seeks 'Redeeming the time because the
'to resist in the days are 677 evil'. He said this
evil day' ought to have 'the because of the distress and toils of
whole this life, since we do not attain the
armour of God' which the prize without sweat and struggle
apostle or, perhaps, because of the
set forth. Having this, 'the consummation and judgement,
opponent will be put to shame, when the devil, the enemy and
having nothing evil to say of us' avenger, will want to keep us in his
(Tit. 2: 8). The opponent is the portion from which he who
devil who is the 'accuser of our understands about need and
brothers' (Rev. 12: 10). He poverty will be set free (Ps. 40: 2),
deceives them as his own, since for in the evil day the Lord has set
sinners have also come to him free. This is the day of which
belong it is also written in another
'to his portion' (Wisd. 2: 24). 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
 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, Eph. 6: 14a Stand, therefore,

having girded your loin with having your loins girded with
truth. truth.

It is also written in Luke

No one doubts that the Scriptures
's Gospel,
speak of all the members of the
'Let your loins be girded' (Luke
soul by using the names of the
12: 35). We now perceive what the
members of the flesh and the
'girdle' is. He who has restricted
body. This is true, I think, of the
his sexual activity and no longer
present mention of 'loins' which
serves it but strives for
we are commanded to gird with
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 Eph. 6: 14b And having put on
the breastplate of justice. the breastplate of justice.

In the same way that one who 'has Just as it is difficult for one to be
put on a breastplate' is not easily wounded, especially in the vital areas,
affected when he is hit by enemies,who has put on a strong breastplate
especially in relation to his vital thick with hooks and iron loops
parts, so one who has dressed connected with each other, so one who has
himself in 'justice' would not be been enclosed in the manifold attire of
wounded 'like a stag struck in the justice will not receive an arrow in the
liver with an arrow' (Prov. 7: 23). liver like a stag (Prov. 7: 23), nor will he
He is attacked neither in his fall in desire and in regard to passions,
passion nor his desire and, but he will be pure in heart (Matt. 5: 8)
furthermore, he remains 'pure in having God as the maker of his
heart' (Matt. 5: 8) by having put on breastplate, who fashions the whole
'the breastplate of justice' which armour for each saint and does not
has been forged for him by God, permit him to be pierced by the
the craftsman of all things who spear which flies by day nor, as
has prepared and gives the 'whole well, to be set on fire by flaming
armour' to each of the saints. arrows (Ps. 90: 6).

end p.263

Eph. 6: 15 And having shod Eph. 6: 15 And feet shod with

your feet with the preparation the preparation of the gospel of
of the gospel of peace. peace.

Observe that he designated a Observe carefully that he has designated

power of the soul 'feet' with which a certain power of the soul 'feet' with
we go, as it were, walking on the which we walk on him who says, 'I am
one who said, 'I am the way' (John the way' (John 14: 6), and which we must
14: 6), and which one must shoe shoe 'with the preparation of the gospel of
with the 'preparation of the gospel peace'. The antecedent to the figure of
of peace'. I think the 'shoes' these shoes is those shoes in Exodus
recorded in Exodus, which those which those who ate the Passover and
eating the Passover and being were prepared to make the journey were
prepared for the journey had to commanded to wear. The following
have, are symbols of these shoes. command is given, 'You shall eat this
For he says, 'Eat it, with your loins with your loins girded, with your shoes on
girded, your shoes on your feet your feet and your rods in your hands,
and your staves in your hands, and and you shall eat it quickly, for it is the
eat it with haste; it is the Passover Passover of the Lord' (Exod. 12: 11).
of the Lord' (Exod. 12: 11). Both Eating in haste and with shod feet is a
eating 'with haste' and eating with sign of preparation so that, strengthened
one's shoes on are a part of the by the Passover food, they can pass
'preparation' so that, strengthened through the wide and terrible desert.
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
Let the traveller, then, wear
ground' (Exod. 3: 5). If someone is
shoes but let the one who has
neither Joshua the son of Nave
arrived at holy ground take them
nor an apostle, let him put shoes
off, for he says, 'Loose your shoes
on his feet in 'preparation of the
from your feet, for the place on
gospel of peace'. But if someone is an
which you stand is holy ground'
apostle and can be numbered among the
(Exod. 3: 5; Acts 7: 33).
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

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 In all things having

Eph. 6: 16 Above all taking the
taken up the shield of faith,
shield of faith with which you
with which you will be able to
will be able to extinguish all the
quench all the fiery arrows of
flaming arrows of the evil one.
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
It is as if he had said,
faith will say, 'I have trusted in the
'In every
Lord. How will you say to my
work carry the shield of faith that,
soul, "Flee to the mountains like a
covered and protected, you may
sparrow"? Behold sinners have
be able to intercept the coming
stretched their bow; they have
arrows and to avoid them from
prepared arrows in their quiver to
this side and that by the art of
shoot the upright in heart in the
war.' This is the faith concerning
dark' (Ps. 10: 1-2). For my
which Abraham too, after many
'confidence', he says, is 'in the
works and virtues, could scarcely
Lord'. 'How' will you counsel me
deserve so that Scripture should
not to stand against the 'bows' of
say of him, 'But Abraham believed
sinners which have been
God and it was reputed to him for
'stretched' against me and their
justice' (Gen. 15: 6).
'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.

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 Eph. 6: 17b-19a And the sword
of the Spirit, which is the word of the Spirit which is the word
of God, through all prayer and of God, through all prayer and
entreaty, praying at all times in entreaty praying at all times in
the Spirit, and to this end being the Spirit and being watchful in
watchful in all perseverance the same with all persistence
and entreaty for all the saints, and 681 intercession for all the
and for me. saints and for me.
The 'sound word' flows from the The word of God flows from the Holy
divine Spirit, but the opposite Spirit but the opposite speaks of the
speaks of the earth, for 'he who is earth and takes its beginning from there,
of the earth, is of the earth and 'For he who is of the earth speaks of the
speaks of the earth. He who earth, but he who comes from heaven is
comes from heaven is above all above all and testifies to that which he
things and bears testimony to that has seen and heard' (John 3: 31-2).
which he has seen and heard' Furthermore, the word of God is the
(John 3: 31-2). And the word of sword of the Spirit of which Paul now
the Spirit is a sword, wherefore says, 'the sword of the Spirit which is the
Paul says here that 'the sword of word of God'. 'The word of God, indeed,
the Spirit' is 'the word of God'. is living and effectual and sharper than
'For the word of God which is any two-edged sword penetrating even to
living and effective and sharper the joints of the soul, the bones and the
than any two-edged sword and marrow' (cf. Heb. 4: 12).
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
Observe also the humility of the in the Spirit and I will pray with the
apostle who asks for 'entreaties mind' (1 Cor. 14: 15). And what one
for' himself from the Ephesians. 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.
 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
Eph. 6: 19b That a word may
opening of my mouth to make
be given to me in the opening
known the mystery of the
of my mouth in boldness to
gospel in confidence, for which
make known the mystery of
I am an ambassador in a chain,
the gospel.
so that in the same I may be
bold to speak as I ought.

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
When the mouth is opened and saying' (Matt. 5: 2), and 'I opened
a word has been given, then 'the my mouth and drew in my breath'
mystery of the gospel' is 'made (Ps. 118: 131), and 'I will open my
known'. It is no longer in figures mouth in parables' (Ps. 77: 2), and
and parables as the Saviour also other statements similar to these
says, 'The hour is coming when are to be understood as if he had
I shall no longer speak to you in said, The treasure-houses are
figures, but I shall report to you inopened and the hidden secrets of
boldness about the Father' (John the age are thrown open so that
16: 25). 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
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 Eph. 6: 21-2 But that you also
also know the things may know the things
concerning me, what I am concerning me, what I am
doing, Tychicus, my beloved doing, Tychicus, my beloved
brother and faithful servant in brother and faithful minister in
the Lord will make all things the Lord, will make known to
known to you, whom I sent to you all things. I have sent him
you for this very reason, that I to you for this very purpose that
might know the things you may know the things
concerning you, and he might concerning us and that your
comfort your hearts. heart may be comforted.

Because the whole life of the Take this in two ways. Either, he
apostle, including his every deed has sent Tychicus to Ephesus that
and activity, occurred in the Word he might report to them that the
of God, for 'Christ lived in him' bonds of the apostle Paul had
(Gal. 2: 20), he sends Tychicus, been made known in the whole
who reports the rule of his life andimperial bodyguard and that his
the order of his deeds to the chain had contributed to belief in
Ephesians. It was appropriate for the gospel. This would have been
the apostle to 'send' Tychicus for at the same time that he also wrote
'this very reason' that the to the Colossians and said,
Ephesians might have an example 'Tychicus, my beloved brother
of a good way of life. And they and minister and fellow servant in
would also be 'comforted' when the Lord, will make known to you
they learned of the deeds which all things concerning me. I have
were most excellent and fitting forsent him to you for this very
an apostle that Paul had purpose, that you may know the
accomplished. 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 Eph. 6: 23 Peace to the

brothers and love with faith brothers and love with faith
from God the Father and the from God the Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus Christ.

If any other gift is given 'from If there are any other gifts which are
God the Father and' our 'Lord given 'from God the Father and the
Jesus Christ', 'peace', too, is given. Lord Jesus Christ' 'peace' ranks among
Peace is one of the most the most important of them. It surpasses
honoured gifts; it 'surpasses all all understanding and keeps the hearts
understanding' and 'will guard the and minds of the saints (Phil. 4: 7). It is
hearts and the thoughts' of the a serenity and tranquillity of the soul at
saints (Phil. 4: 7), since it is a rest causing every storm and whirlwind of
stillness and tranquillity of soul, the passions to flee.
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
Eph. 6:24 Grace with all those with all those
who love our Lord Jesus Christ who love the Lord
in incorruption. Jesus Christ
in incorruption.

Some have explained the phrase Some have

'loving' him 'in incorruption', to interpreted this to
mean being pure from the works mean 684
of corruption. The works of that one who is a
corruption are those related to stranger to works
sexual intercourse, whence also of
ordinary language designates corruption, taking
those pure from sexual works of
intercourse 'incorrupt', and those corruption to
who have partaken of sex mean sexual
'corrupted'. Some, straining to the intercourse, loves
uttermost the statement, 'If our Lord
anyone corrupts the temple of Jesus Christ. They
God, God will corrupt him' (1 argue that custom
Cor. 3: 17), have understood it in and common
this sense, although they cannot speech will also
maintain a meaning like this for refer to
the statement, 'But each one has virgins and those
his own gift from God, one in this who have not
way and another in that' (1 Cor. 7: known
7). 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
 in that' (1 Cor. 7:
7).

Let us see,
therefore, if it is
not better,
But see if every sin can be a perhaps, to
corruption of the soul, and understand every
'incorruption' be total abstinence sin as a
from sin, so that those who 'love corruption of the
our Lord Jesus Christ in soul and for those
incorruption' are those who who
abstain from all sin, 'with all' of are free from sin
whom is 'the grace' of God. 43 to be called
43
In the catena fragments on 1 Cor. 3: 16-20 and 6: 19-20 Origen 'incorrupt'.
defines incorruption as virginity and quotes Eph. 6: 24 (Jenkins, These, then, are
'Origen on I Corinthians', 246, 372). He seems to understand those who love
incorruption and Eph. 6: 24 in the same way in Hom. 1-13 in Exod. 'the Lord
13.6 where he joins 'the grace of incorruption and virginity' and, Jesus Christ in
likewise, in Hom. 1-16 in Gen. 5.4. He appears to have a broader incorruption'
understanding of incorruption in mind, however, when he alludes to since they
Eph. 6: 24 in Cels. 3.60. are not held by
the bonds of sin
and the
grace of God is
with them.

At the same time I

think that it is
assumed here that
those have the
grace of
Christ who love
Since there are some, however, him in
who 'love the Lord' but who do incorruption in
not 'love' him 'in incorruption', distinction from
Paul says, 'Grace with all those those who love
who love our Lord Jesus Christ in the Lord
incorruption.' Jesus Christ but
not in
incorruption.
For how many
love the Lord and
are ready to
endure exiles,
 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, 18-
21 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-, Epheser- und 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), 489-
514.
—— '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), 113-
16.
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 I-
III, 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.