Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. (Cont.)
Book XIV. (Cont.)
13. No Forgiveness to the Unforgiving.
Only, I have said these things with the view of referring his return when he comes with his kingdom to the consummation, when he commanded the servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him that he might know what they had gained by trading, and from a desire to demonstrate from this, and from the parable of the Talents, that the passage “he who wished to make a reckoning with his own servants” (Mat_18:23) is to be referred to the consummation when now he is king, receiving the kingdom, on account of which, according to another parable, (Luk_19:12) he went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. Therefore, when he returned after receiving the kingdom, he wished to make a reckoning with his own servants. And “when he had begun to reckon, there was brought unto him one who owed many talents,” (Mat_18:24) and he was brought as to a king by those who had been appointed his ministers - I think, the angels, And perhaps he was one of those under the kingdom who had been entrusted with a great administration and had not dispensed it well, but had wasted what had been entrusted to him, so that he came to owe the many talents which he had lost. This very man, perhaps not having the means to pay, is ordered by the king to be sold along with his wife, by intercourse with whom he became the father of certain children. But it is no easy task to see what is intellectually meant by father and mother and children. What this means in point of truth God may know, and whether He Himself has given insight to us or not, he who can may judge. Only this is our conception of the passage; that, as “the Jerusalem which is above” is “the mother” (Gal_4:26) of Paul and of those like unto him, so there may be a mother of others after the analogy of Jerusalem, the mother, for example, of Syene in Egypt, or Sidon, or as many cities as are named in the Scriptures. Then, as Jerusalem is “a bride adorned for her husband,” (Rev_21:2) Christ, so there may be those mothers of certain powers who have been allotted to them as wives or brides. And as there are certain children of Jerusalem, as mother, and of Christ, as father, so there would be certain children of Syene, or Memphis, or Tyre, or Sidon, and the rulers set over them. Perhaps then, too, this one, the debtor of many talents who was brought to the king, has, as we have said, a wife and children, whom at first the king ordered to be sold, and also all that he had to be sold; but afterwards, being moved with compassion, he released him and forgave him all the debt; not, as if he were ignorant of the future, but, in order that we might understand what happened, it was written that he did so. Each one then of those who have, as we have said, a wife and children will render an account whenever the king comes to make a reckoning, having received the kingdom and having returned; and each of them as a ruler of any Syene or Memphis, or Tyre or Sidon, or any like unto them, has also debtors. This one, then, having been released, and having been forgiven all the debt, “went out from the king and found one of his fellow-servants,” (Mat_18:28 etc.); and, on this account, I suppose that he took him by the throat, when he had gone out from the king, for unless he had gone out he would not have taken his own fellow-servant by the throat. Then observe the accuracy of the Scripture, how that the one fell down and “worshipped,” but the other fell down and did not worship but “besought;” (Mat_18:26, Mat_18:29) and the king being moved with compassion released him and forgave him all the debt, but the servant did not wish even to pity his own fellow-servant; and the king before his release ordered him to be sold and what was his, while he who had been forgiven 504 cast him into prison. And observe that his fellow-servants did not bring any accusation or “said,” but “told,” (Mat_18:31) and that he did not use the epithet “wicked” at the beginning in regard to the money lost, but reserved it afterwards for his action towards the fellow-servant. But mark also the moderation of the king; he does not say, You worshipped me, but You besought me; and no longer did he order him and his to be sold, but, what was worse, he delivered him to the tormentors, because of his wickedness. (Mat_18:34) But who may these be but those who have been appointed in the matter of punishments? But at the same time observe, because of the use made of this parable by adherents of heresies, that if they accuse the Creator63 of being passionate, because of words that declare the wrath of God, they ought also to accuse this king, because that “being wroth,” he delivered the debtor to the tormentors. But it must further be said to those whose view it is that no one is delivered by Jesus to the tormentors, - pray, explain to us, good sirs, who is the king who delivered the wicked servant to the tormentors? And let them also attend to this, “So therefore also shall My heavenly Father do unto you;” (Mat_18:35) and to the same persons also might rather be said the things in the parable of the Ten Pounds that the Son of the good God said, “Howbeit these mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them,” (Luk_19:27 etc.) The conclusion of the parable, however, is adapted also to the simpler; for all of us who have obtained the forgiveness of our own sins, and have not forgiven our brethren, are taught at once that we shall suffer the lot of him who was forgiven but did not forgive his fellow-servant.
14. How Jesus Finished His Words.
“And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words.” (Mat_19:1) He who gives a detailed and complete account of each of the questions before him so that nothing is left out, finishes his own words. But he will give a declaration on this point with more confidence who devotes himself with great diligence to the entire reading of the Old and New Testament; for if the expression, “he finished these words,” may be applied to no other, neither to Moses, nor to any of the prophets, but only to Jesus, then one would date to say that Jesus alone finished His words, He who came to put an end to things, and to fulfil what was defective in the law, by saying, “It was said to them of old time,” (Mat_5:33 etc.), and, again, “That the things spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled.” (Mar_14:49; Mat_26:56) But if it is written somewhere also in them, then you may compare and contrast the discourses finished by them with those finished by the Saviour, that you may find the difference between them. And yet at this point, also, investigation might be made whether in the case of the things spoken by way of oracle the expression, “he finished,” is applied either to the things spoken by Moses, or any of the prophets, or of both together; for careful observation would suggest very weighty thoughts to those who know how “to compare spiritual things with spiritual,” and on this account “speak not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth.” (1Co_2:13) But perhaps some other one, attending with over-curious spirit to the word “finished,” which is assigned to things of a more mystical order, just as we say that some one delivered to those who were under his control mysteries and rites of “perfecting”64 not in a praiseworthy fashion, and another delivered the mysteries of God to those who are worthy, and rites of “perfecting” proportionate to such mysteries, might say that having initiated them, he made a rite of “perfecting,” by which “perfecting” the words were shown to be powerful, so that the gospel of Jesus was preached in the whole world, and by virtue of the divine “perfecting” gained the mastery of every soul which the Father draws to the Son, according to what is said by the Saviour, “No one comes to Me except the Father which has sent Me draw him.” (Joh_6:44) Wherefore also “the word” of those who by the grace of God are ambassadors of the gospel, “and their preaching, is not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit of power,”65 to those for whom the words of the doctrine of Jesus were finished. You will therefore observe how often it is said, “He finished.” and of what things it is said, and you will take as an illustration that which is said in regard to the beatitudes, and the whole of 505 the discourse to which is subjoined, “And it came to pass when Jesus had finished these words, all the multitudes were astonished at His teaching.” (Mat_7:28) But now the saying, “Jesus finished these words,” is referred also immediately to the very mystical parable according to which the kingdom of heaven is likened unto a king, but also beyond this parable to the sections which were written before it.
15. How Men Followed Jesus.
Only, when Jesus had finished these words, having spoken them in Galilee about Capernaum, then “He departed thence, and came into the borders of Judaea,” (Mat_19:1) which were different from Galilee. But He came to the borders of Judaea, and not to the middle of it, but, as it were, to the outermost parts, where great multitudes followed Him, (Mat_19:2) whom He healed at “the borders of Judaea beyond Jordan,” - where baptism had been given. (Joh_1:28) But you will observe the difference between the crowds who simply followed, and Peter and the others who gave up everything and followed, and Matthew, who arose and followed him; (Mat_9:9) he did not simply follow, but “having arisen;” for “having arisen” is an important addition. There are always those, then, who follow like the great multitudes, who have no arisen that they may follow, nor have given up all that was theirs formerly, but few are they who have arisen and followed, who also, in the regeneration, shall sit on twelve thrones. (Mat_19:28) Only, if one wishes to be healed, let him follow Jesus.
16. Concerning the Pharisees and Scribes Tempting Jesus by Asking Whether Was Lawful for a Man to Put Away His Wife for Every Cause.
After this it is written that “there came unto Him the Pharisees tempting Him and saying, Is it lawful for a man to wife for every cause?” (Mat_19:3) Mark, also, has written to the like effect. (Mar_10:2) Accordingly, of those who came to Jesus and inquired of Him, there were some who put questions to tempt Him; and if our Saviour so transcendent was tempted, which of His disciples who is ordained to teach need be vexed, when he is tempted by some who inquire, not from the love of learning, but from the wish to tempt? And you might find many passages, if you brought them together, in which the Pharisees tempted our Jesus, and others, different from them, as a certain lawyer, (Mat_22:35) and perhaps also a scribe, (Mar_12:28) that by bringing together what is said about those who tempted Him, you might find by investigation what is useful for this kind of inquiries. Only, the Saviour, in response to those who tempted Him, laid down dogmas; for they said, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his own wife for every cause?” and He answered and said, “Have ye not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Mat_19:4 etc.) And I think that the Pharisees put forward this word for this reason, that they might attack Him whatever He might say; as, for example, if He had said, “It is lawful,” they would have accused Him of dissolving marriages for trifles; but, if He had said, “It is not lawful,” they would have accused Him of permitting a man to dwell with a woman, even with sins; so, likewise, in the case of the tribute-money, (Mat_22:17) if He had told them to give, they would have accused Him of making the people subject to the Romans, and not to the law of God, but if He had told them not to give, they would have accused Him of creating war and sedition, and of stirring up those who were not able to stand against so powerful an army. But they did not perceive in what way He answered blamelessly and wisely, in the first place, rejecting the opinion that a wife was to be put away for every cause, and, in the second place, giving answer to the question about the bill of divorcement; for He saw that not every cause is a reasonable ground for the dissolution of marriage, and that the husband must dwell with the wife as the weaker vessel, giving honour, (1Pe_3:7) and bearing her burdens in sills; (Gal_6:2) and by what is written in Genesis, He puts to shame the Pharisees who boasted in the Scriptures of Moses, by saying, “Have ye not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,” etc., and, subjoining to these words, because of the saying, “And the twain shall become one flesh,” teaching in harmony with one flesh, namely, “So that they are no more twain, but one flesh.” (Mat_19:4-6) And, as tending to convince them that they should not put away their wife for every cause, is it said, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mat_19:6) It is to be observed, however, in the exposition of the words quoted from Genesis in the Gospel, that they 506 were not spoken consecutively as they are written in the Gospel; and I think that it is not even said about the same persons, namely, of those who were formed after the image of God, and of those who were formed from the dust of the ground and from one of the ribs of Adam. For where it is said, “Male and female made He them,” (Gen_1:27) the reference is to those formed “after the image,” but where He also said, “For this cause shall a man leave his own father and mother,” (Gen_2:24 etc.), the reference is not to those formed after the image; for some time after the Lord God formed the man, taking dust from the ground, and from his side the helpmate. And mark, at the same time, that in the case of those who are formed “after the image,” the words were not “husband and wife” but “male and female.” But we have also observed this in the Hebrew, for man is indicated by the word “is,” but male by the word “zachar,” and again woman by the word “essa,” but female by the word “agkeba.” For at no time is it “woman” or “man”“after the image,” but the superior class, the male, and the second, the female. But also if a man leave his mother and his father, he cleaves not to the female, but to his own wife, and “they become,” since man and woman are one in flesh, “one flesh.” Then, describing what ought to be in the case of those who are joined together by God, so that they may be joined together in a manner worthy of God, the Saviour adds, “So that they are no more twain;” (Mat_19:6) and, wherever there is indeed concord, and unison, and harmony, between husband and wife, when he is as ruler and she is obedient to the word, “He shall rule over thee,” (Gen_3:16) then of such persons we may truly say, “They are no more twain.” Then since it was necessary that for “him who was joined to the Lord,” it should be reserved “that he should become one spirit with Him,” (1Co_6:17) in the case of those who are joined together by God, after the words, “So that they are no more twain,” it is said, “but one flesh.” And it is God who has joined together the two in one so that they are no more twain, from the time that66 the woman is married to the man. And, since God has joined them together, on this account in the case of those who are joined together by God, there is a “gift”; and Paul knowing this, that marriage according to the Word of God was a “gift,” like as holy celibacy was a gift, says, “But I would that all men were like myself; howbeit, each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.” (1Co_7:7) And those who are joined together by God both mind and keep the precept, “Husbands love your wives, as Christ also the church.” (Eph_5:25) The Saviour then commanded, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” (Mat_19:6) but man wishes to put asunder what God hath joined together, when, “falling away from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron, forbidding,” not only to commit fornication, but “to marry,” (1Ti_4:1-3) he dissolves even those who had been before joined together by the providence of God. Let these things then be said, keeping in view what is expressly said concerning the male and the female, and the man and the woman, as the Saviour taught in the answer to the Pharisees.
17. Union of Christ and the Church.
But since the Apostle understands the words, “And they twain shall be one flesh,” (Mat_19:5) of Christ and the church, (Eph_5:31, Eph_5:32) we must say that Christ keeping the saying, “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder,” (Mat_19:6) did not put away His former wife, so to speak - that is, the former synagogue - for any other cause than that that wife committed fornication, being made an adulteress by the evil one, and along with him plotted against her husband and slew Him, saying, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, crucify Him, crucify Him.” (Joh_19:6, Joh_19:15; Luk_23:18) It was she therefore who herself revolted, rather than her husband who put her away and dismissed her; wherefore, reproaching her for falling away from him, it says in Isaiah, “Of what kind is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, with which I sent her away?” (Isa_50:1) And 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 both oneness after the image. 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,” (Phi_2:6) left also His mother, as He was the very son of the Jerusalem which is above, and was joined to His wife who had fallen down here, and these two here became one 507 flesh. For because of her, He Himself also became flesh, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” (Joh_1:14) and they are no more two, but now they are one flesh, since it is said to the wife, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members each in his part;” (1Co_12:27) for the body of Christ is not something apart different from the church, which is His body, and from the members each in his part. And God has joined together these who are not two, but have become one flesh, commanding that men should not separate the church from the Lord. And he who takes heed for himself so as not to be separated, is confident as one who will not possibly be separated and says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom_8:35) Here, therefore, the saying, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” (Mat_19:6) was written with relation to the Pharisees, but to those who are superior to the Pharisees, it could be said, “What then God hath joined together, let nothing put asunder,” neither principality nor power; for God, who has joined together is stronger than all those which any one could conceive and name.
18. The Bill of Divorcement.
After this we will discuss the saying of the Pharisees which they said to Jesus, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement and put her away?” (Mat_19:7) And with good reason we will bring forward for this purpose the passage from Deuteronomy concerning the bill of divorcement, which is as follows: “But if a man taketh a wife and cohabit with her, and it shall be, if she do not find favour in his sight because he hath found in her a thing unseemly,” etc., down to the words, “and ye shall not pollute the land which the Lord your God giveth you for an inheritance.” (Deu_24:1-4) Now I inquire whether in these things according to this law, we are to seek nothing in it beyond the letter seeing that God has not given it, or whether to the Pharisees who quoted the saying, “Moses commanded to give a bill of divorcement and put her away,” it was of necessity said, “Moses, for your hardness of heart, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it hath not been so.” (Mat_19:8) But if any one ascends to the Gospel of Christ Jesus which teaches that the law is spiritual, he will seek also the spiritual understanding of this law. And he who wishes to interpret these things figuratively will say that, just as it was said by Paul confident in the grace which he had, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth, but if the husband be dead she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord; but she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment, and I think that I also have the Spirit of God” (1Co_7:39, 1Co_7:40) for here to the words, “after my judgment,” lest it should be despised as being without the Spirit of God, he well added, “and I think that I also have the Spirit of God,” so also it would be possible for Moses, by reason of the power given to him to make laws, to the effect that he suffered for the hardness of heart of the people certain things, among which was the putting away of wives, to be persuaded in regard to the laws which he promulgated according to his own judgment, that in these also the legislation took place with the Spirit of God. And he will say that, unless one law is spiritual and another is not such, this is a law, and this is spiritual, and its spiritual significance ought to be investigated.
19. The Divorce of Israel.
Now, keeping in mind what we said above in regard to the passage from Isaiah about the bill of divorcement, we will say that the mother of the people separated herself from Christ, her husband, without having received the bill of divorcement, but afterwards when there was found in her an unseemly thing, and she did not find favour in his sight, the bill of divorcement was written out for her; for when the new covenant called those of the Gentiles to the house of Him who had cast away his former wife, it virtually gave the bill of divorcement to her who formerly separated from her husband - the law, and the Word. Therefore he, also, having separated from her, married, so to speak, another, having given into the hands of the former the bill of divorcement; wherefore they can no longer do the things enjoined on them by the law, because of the bill of divorcement. And a sign that she has received the bill of divorcement is this, that Jerusalem was destroyed along with what they called the sanctuary of the things in it which were believed to be holy, and with the altar of burnt offerings, and all the worship associated with it. And a further sign of the bill of divorcement is this, that they cannot keep their feasts, even though according to the 508 letter of the law designedly commanded them, in the place which the Lord God appointed to them for keeping feasts; but there is this also, that the whole synagogue has become unable to stone those who have committed this or that sin; and thousands of things commanded are a sign of the bill of divorcement; and the fact that “there is no more a prophet,” and that they say, “We no longer see signs;” (Psa_74:9) for the Lord says, “He hath taken away from Judaea and from Jerusalem,” according to the word of Isaiah, “Him that is mighty, and her that is mighty, a powerful giant,” etc., down to the words, “a prudent hearer.” (Isa_3:1-3) Now, He who is the Christ may have taken the synagogue to wife and cohabited with her, but it may be that afterwards she found not favour in His sight; and the reason of her not having found favour in His sight was, that there was found in her an unseemly thing; for what was more unseemly than the Circumstance that, when it was proposed to them to release one at the feast, they asked for the release of Barabbas the robber, and the condemnation of Jesus? (Mat_27:21) And what was more unseemly than the fact, that they all said in His case, “Crucify Him, crucify Him,” and “Away with such a fellow from the earth”? (Joh_19:15) And can this be freed from the charge of unseemliness, “His blood be upon us, and upon our children”? (Mat_27:25) Wherefore, when He was avenged, Jerusalem was compassed with armies, and its desolation was near, (Luk_21:20) and their house was taken away from it, and “the daughter of Zion was left as a booth in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and as a besieged city.” (Isa_1:8) And, about the same time, I think, the husband wrote out a bill of divorcement to his former wife, and gave it into her hands, and sent her away from his own house, and the bond of her who came from the Gentiles has been cancelled about which the Apostle Says, “Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances, which was contrary to us, and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;” (Col_2:14) for Paul also and others became proselytes of Israel for her who came from the Gentiles.67 The first wife, accordingly, not having found favour before her husband, because in her had been found an unseemly thing, went out from the dwelling of her husband, and, going away, has become joined to another man, to whom she has subjected herself, whether we should call the husband Barabbas the robber, who is figuratively the devil, or some evil power. And in the case of some of that synagogue there has happened the former thing which was written in the law, but in the case of others, that which was second. For the last husband (Deu_24:3) hated his wife and will write out for her some day at the consummation of things a bill of divorcement, when God so orders it, and will give it into her hands and will send her away from his dwelling; for as the good God will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between his seed and her seed, (Gen_3:15) so will He order it that the last husband shall hate her.
20. Christ and the Gentiles.
Now there are those in whose case it has happened that the man dwells with them without having hated them, because they abide in the house of the last husband, who took to himself their synagogue as wife. But also in their case the latter husband dies, (Deu_24:3) perhaps whenever the last enemy of Christ, death, is destroyed. But whichever of these things may happen, whether the former or the latter to the wife, the former husband, it says, who sent her away, will not he able to turn back and take her to be a wife to himself after she has been defiled, since “it is abomination,” it says, “before the Lord thy God.” (Deu_24:4) But these things will not seem to be consistent with this, “If the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, all Israel shall be saved.” (Rom_11:25, Rom_11:26) But consider if it can be said to this, that, if she shall be saved by her former husband returning and taking her to himself as wife, she will in any case be saved after she has been polluted. A priest, then, will not take to himself as a wife one who has been a harlot and an outcast, (Lev_21:14) but no other, as being inferior to the priest, is hindered from doing so. But if you seek for the harlot in regard to the calling of the Gentiles, you may use the passage, “Take to yourself a wife of fornication, and children of fornication,” (Hos_1:2 etc.); for, as “the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless,” (Mat_12:5) so he who, casting oat his former wife, takes in due season “a wife of fornication,” having done it according to the command of Him who says, when it is necessary, and so long as it was necessary, “He shall not take a harlot to wife,” and, when it was reasonable, He says, “Take to509 yourself a wife of fornication.” For as the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath, (Mat_12:8) and not the slave of the sabbath as the people are, so He who gives the law has power to give it “until a time of reformation,” (Heb_9:10) and to change the law, and, when the time of the reformation is at hand, also to give after the former way and after the former heart another way and another heart, “in an acceptable time, and in a day of salvation.” (2Co_6:2) And let these things be said according to our interpretation of the law in regard to the bill of divorcement.
21. Union of Angels and the Souls of Men.
But some one may inquire whether the human soul can be figuratively called a wife, and the angel who is set over her and is her ruler, with whom as her sovereign she holds conversation, can be called her husband; so that according to this each lawfully dwells along with the soul which is worthy of the guardianship of a divine angel; but sometimes after long sojourning and intercourse a cause may arise in the soul why she does not find favour in the eyes of the angel who is her lord and ruler, because that in it there is found an unseemly thing; and bonds may be written out, as such are written, and a bill of divorcement be written and put into the hands of her who is cast out, so that she may no longer be familiar with her former guardian, when she is cast out from his dwelling. And even she who has gone away from her former dwelling may be joined to another husband, and be unfortunate with him, not only, as in the case of the former, not finding favour in his sight because an unseemly thing was found in her, but even being hated by him. (Deu_24:1-3) Yea, and even there might be written out from the second husband a bill of divorcement and it might be put into her hands from the last husband who sends her away from his dwelling. But whether there can be such a change of the life of angels with men, as to amount, so far as concerns their relation to us, to their death, one may put the question rash though it be; but be that as it may, she also who has once fallen away from the former husband will not return again to him, for the former husband who sent her away will not be able to turn back and take her as wife to himself, after she was defiled. (Deu_24:4) And if one should dare, using a Scripture which is in circulation in the church, but not acknowledged by all to be divine, to soften down a precept of this kind, the passage might be taken from The Shepherd, concerning some who as soon as they believe are put in subjection to Michael,68 but falling away from him from love of pleasure, are put in subjection to the angel of luxury,69 then to the angel of punishment,70 and after this to the angel of repentance; for you observe that the wife or soul who has once been given to luxury no longer returns to the first ruler, but also besides suffering punishment, is put in subjection to one inferior to Michael; for the angel of penitence is inferior to him. We must therefore take heed lest there be found in us any unseemly thing, and we should not find favour in the eyes of our husband Christ, or of the angel who has been set over us. For if we do not take heed, perhaps we also shall receive the bill of divorcement, and either be bereft of our guardian, or go to another man. But I consider that it is not of good omen to receive, as it were, the marriage of an angel with our own soul.71
22. The Marriage of Church Dignitaries.
But, while dealing with the passage, I would say that we will be able perhaps now to understand and clearly set forth a question which is hard to grasp and see into, with regard to the legislation of the Apostle concerning ecclesiastical matters; for Paul wishes no one of those of the church, who has attained to any eminence beyond the many, as is attained in the administration of the sacraments, to make trial of a second marriage. For laying down the law in regard to bishops in the first Epistle to Timothy, he says, “If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop, therefore, must be without reproach, the husbands of one wife, temperate, sober-minded,” (1Ti_3:1, 1Ti_3:2 etc.); and, in regard to deacons, “Let the deacons,” he says, “be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,” (1Ti_3:12 etc.) Yea, and also when appointing widows, he says, “Let there be no one as a widow under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man;” (1Ti_5:9) and after this he says the things superadded, as being second or third in importance to this. And, in the Epistle to Titus, “For this cause,” he says, “I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders 510 in every city as I gave thee charge. If any one is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children, that believe” (Tit_1:5, Tit_1:6) - of course - and so on. Now, when we saw that some who have been married twice may be much better than those who have been married once, we were perplexed why Paul does not at all permit those who have been twice married to be appointed to ecclesiastical dignities; for also it seemed to me that such a thing was worthy of examination, as it was possible that a man, who had been unfortunate in two marriages, and had lost his second wife while he was yet young, might have lived for the rest of his years up to old age in the greatest self-control and chastity. Who, then, would not naturally be perplexed why at all, when a ruler of the church is being sought for, we do not appoint such a man, though he has been twice married, because of the expressions about marriage, but lay hold of the man who has been once married as our ruler, even if he chance to have lived to old age with his wife, and sometimes may not have been disciplined in chastity and temperance? But, from what is said in the law about the bill of divorcement, I reflect whether, seeing that the bishop and the presbyter and the deacon are a symbol of things that truly exist in accordance with these names, he wished to appoint those who were figuratively once married, in order that he who is able to give attention to the matter, may find out from the spiritual law the one who was unworthy of ecclesiastical rule, whose soul did not find favour in the eyes of her husband because there had been found in her an unseemly thing, and she had become worthy of the bill of divorcement; for such a soul, having dwelt along with a second husband, and having been hated by such an one, can no longer, after the second bill of divorcement, return to her former husband. (Deu_24:4) It is likely, therefore, also, that other arguments will be found by those who are wiser than we, and have more ability to see into such things, whether in the law about the bill of divorcement, or in the apostolic writings which prohibit those who have been twice married from ruling over the church or being preferred to preside over it. But, until something shall be found that is better and able by the excessive brilliancy of the light of knowledge to cast into the shade what we have uttered, we have said the things which have occurred to us in regard to the passages.
23. Some Laws Given by Concession to Human Weakness.
But, even if we have seemed to touch on things too deep for our capacity in the passages, nevertheless, because of the literal expression these things must further be said, that some of the laws were written not as excellent, but as by way of accommodation to the weakness of those to whom the law was given; for something of this kind is indicated in the words, “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives;” (Mat_19:8) but that which is pre-eminent and superior to the law, which was written for their hardness of heart, is indicated in this, “But from the beginning it hath not been so.” But in the new covenant also there are some legal injunctions of the same order as, “Moses for your hardness of heart suffered you to put away your wives;” for example, because of our hardness of heart, it has been written on account of our weakness, “But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife and let each woman have her own husband;” (1Co_7:2) and this, “Let the husband render unto the wife her due, and likewise also the wife unto the husband.” (1Co_8:3) To these sayings it is accordingly subjoined, “But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment.” (1Co_7:6) But this also, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth, but if her husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord,” (1Co_7:39) was said by Paul in view of our hardness of heart and weakness, to those who do not wish to desire earnestly the greater gifts (1Co_12:31) and become more blessed. But now contrary to what was written, some even of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry, even when her husband was living, doing contrary to what was written, where it is said, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth,” and “So then if while her husband liveth, she shall be joined to another man she shall be called an adulteress,” (Rom_7:3) not indeed altogether without reason, for it is probable this concession was permitted in comparison with worse things, contrary to what was from the beginning ordained by law, and written.
24. Jewish Criticism of the Law of Christ.
But perhaps some Jewish man of those who dare to oppose the teaching of our Saviour will say, that when Jesus said, 511 “Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress,” (Mat_5:32) He also gave permission to put away a wife like as well as Moses did, who was said by Him to have given laws for the hardness of heart of the people, and will hold that the saying, “Because he found in her an unseemly thing,” (Deu_24:1) is to be reckoned as the same as fornication on account of which with good cause a wife could be cast away from her husband. But to him it must be said that, if she who committed adultery was according to the law to be stoned, clearly it is not in this sense that the unseemly thing is to be understood. For it is not necessary for adultery or any such great indecency to write a bill of divorcement and give it into the hands of the wife; but indeed perhaps Moses called every sin an unseemly thing, on the discovery of which by the husband in the wife, as not finding favour in the eyes of her husband, the bill of divorcement is written, and the wife is sent away from the house of her husband; “but from the beginning it hath not been so.” (Mat_19:8) After this our Saviour says, not at all permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the wife, “Whosoever shall but away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.” (Mat_5:32) But it might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting away a wife, unless she be caught in fornication, for any other reason, as for example for poisoning, or for the destruction during the absence of her husband from home of an infant born to them, or for any form of murder whatsoever. And further, if she were found despoiling and pillaging the house of her husband, though she was not guilty of fornication, one might ask if he would with reason cast away such an one, seeing that the Saviour forbids any one to put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication. In either case there appears to be something monstrous, whether it be really monstrous, I do not know; for to endure sins of such heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or fornication, will appear to be irrational; but again on the other hand to act contrary to the design of the teaching of the Saviour, every one would acknowledge to be impious. I wonder therefore why He did not say, Let no one put away his own wife saving for the cause of fornication, but says, “Whosoever shall put away his own wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.” (Mat_5:32) For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, “when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;” (Rom_7:3) and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress. But as to whether her being caught in the act of poisoning or committing murder, furnishes any defence of his dismissal of her, you can inquire yourselves; for the husband can also in other ways than by putting her away cause his own wife to commit adultery; as, for example, allowing her to do what she wishes beyond what is fitting, and stooping to friendship with what men she wishes, for often from the simplicity of husbands such false steps happen to wives; but whether there is a ground of defence or not for such husbands in the case of such false steps, you will inquire carefully, and deliver your opinion also in regard to the difficult questions raised by us on the passage. And even he who withholds himself from his wife makes her oftentimes to be an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires, even though he does so under the appearance of greater gravity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more culpable who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires than he who, for other reason than fornication, has sent her away, - for poisoning or murder or any of the most grievous sins. But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Saviour.
25. Chastity and Prayer.
Now after these things, having considered how many possible accidents may arise in marriages, which it was necessary for the man to endure and in this way suffer very great hardships, or if he did not endure, to transgress the word of Christ, the disciples say to him, taking refuge in celibacy as easier, and more expedient than marriage, though the latter appears to be expedient, “If the case of the man is so with his512 wife, it is not expedient to marry.” (Mat_19:10) And to this the Saviour said, teaching us that absolute chastity is a gift given by God, and not merely the fruit of training, but given by God with prayer, “All men cannot receive the saying, but they to whom it is given.” (Mat_19:11) Then seeing that some make a sophistical attack on the saying. “To whom it is given,” as if those who wished to remain pure in celibacy, but were mastered by their desires, had an excuse, we must say that, if we believe the Scriptures, why at all do we lay hold of the saying, “But they to whom it is given,” but no longer attend to this, “Ask and it shall be given you,” (Mat_7:7) and to that which is added to it, “For every one that asketh receiveth”? (Mat_7:8) For if they “to whom it is given” can receive this saying about absolute purity, let him who wills ask, obeying and believing Him who said, “Ask and it shall be given you,” (Mat_7:7) and not doubting about the saying, “Every one that asketh receiveth.” (Mat_7:8) But when there you will inquire who it is that asketh, for no one of those who do not receive has asked, even though he seems to have done so, since it is not lawful to say that the saying, “Every one that asketh receiveth.” is a lie. Who then is he that asketh, but he who has obeyed Jesus when He says, “If ye stand praying, believe that ye receive, and ye shall receive”? (Mar_11:24, Mar_11:25) But he that asketh must do everything in his power that he may pray “with the spirit” and pray also “with the understanding,” (1Co_14:15) and pray “without ceasing,” (1Th_5:17) keeping in mind also the saying, “And He spake a parable unto them to the end that they ought always to pray, and not to faint, saying, There was in a city a judge,” (Luk_18:1, Luk_18:2 etc.) And it is useful to know what it is to ask, and what it is to receive, and what is meant by “Every one that asketh, receiveth,” (Mat_7:8) and by “I say unto you though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity, he will arise and give him as many as he needeth.” (Luk_11:8) It is therefore added, “And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you,” and so on. Further, let the saying, “All men cannot receive the saying but they to whom it is given,” (Mat_19:11) be a stimulus to us to ask worthily of receiving; and this, “What son is there of you who shall ask his father for a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent,” (Luk_9:11 etc.) God therefore will give the good gift, perfect purity in celibacy and chastity, to those who ask Him with the whole soul, and with faith, and in prayers without ceasing.
FOOTNOTES
63 That is, the God of the Old Testament - according to Marcion.
64 τελετὰς. Origen’s play on the words ἐτέλεσεν and τελετή cannot be fully reproduced in English. The word τελετή, in reference to the mysteries, meant the rite, or participation in the rite, by which one became perfect; and in later Christian usage it was applied to the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. See Suicer.
65 1Co_2:4. πνεύματος δυνάμεως. The omission of the καὶ is strange; for in the Contra Celsum i. 2 Origen characterises the argument from prophecy as “the demonstration of the Spirit” and the argument from miracles as “the demonstration of power.”
66 Or, by God the woman is married to the man.
67 The text is corrupt.
68 cf. Her. Sim. viii. 3.
69 cf. Her. Sim. vi. 2.
70 cf. Her. Sim. vi. 3.
71 The text is probably corrupt. Perhaps it meant the marriage of a second angel with our soul.
