The following excerpts come from:
Origen,
Commentary on the Gospel According to John Books 1-10 (trans. Ronald E.
Heine; The Fathers of the Church 80; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of
America Press, 1989)
Book
1:
(119) God, therefore, is altogether one
and simple. Our Savior, however, because of the many things, since God “set”
him “forth as a propitiation” and firstfruits of all creation, becomes many
things, or perhaps even all these things, as the whole creation which can be
made free needs him. (p. 58)
Book
2:
The Holy Spirit
(73) But if it is true that “all
things were made through him,” we must investigate if the Holy Spirit, too, was
made through him. I think that one who declares that he was made and who
advances the statement, “All things were made through him,” must accept that
the Holy Spirit too was made through the Word, since the Word is older than he. But it follows that one who does not wish the Holy Spirit to have been made
through the Christ, if he judges the things in this Gospel to be true, says he
is “unbegotten.”
(74) But there will be a third person
who besides these two, I mean besides the one who accepts that the Holy Spirit
was made through the Word, and the one who supposes him to be unbegotten. This
third person teaches that the Holy Spirit has no distinctive essence different
from the Father and the Son. But he may perhaps propose rather, if he thinks
the Son is different from the Father, that the Spirit is the same with the Father,
since a commonly acknowledged distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son
is revealed in the statement, “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of man
shall be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit will not have forgiveness
in this world or in the world to come.”
(75) We, however, are persuaded that
there are three hypostases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and we
believe that only the Father is unbegotten. We admit, as more pious and as
true, that the Holy Spirit is the most honored of all things made through the
Word, and that he is [first] in rank of all the things which have been made by the
Father through Christ.
(76) Perhaps this is the reason the Spirit
too is not called son of God, since the only begotten alone is by nature a son
from the beginning. The Holy Spirits seems to have need of the Son ministering
to his hypostasis, not only for it to exist, but also for it to be wise, and
rational, and just, and whatever other things we ought to understand it to be
by participation in the aspects of Christ which we mentioned previously. (pp.
113-14)
Book
2:
(103) We, on the one hand, by using the
phrase “through whom” properly in its customary usage have not left our
interpretation unattested. He, however, by not having supported this private understanding
of the divine Scriptures, appears both to have suspected the truth and to have
opposed it shamelessly. For he says, “The Word himself did not create as
through under the impulse of another, that the phrase ‘through him,’ should be understood
in this way, but another created under his impulse.
(104) But this is not the time to
prove that the Creator did not become the servant of the Word and make the
world, and to show that the Word became the servant of the creator and prepared
the world. For according to the prophet David, “God spoke and they were made;
he commanded and they were created.” For the uncreated God “commanded” the
firstborn of all creation and “they were created.” This includes not only the
cosmos and the things in it, but also all that remains, “whether thrones, or
dominations, or principalities, or powers; for all things have been created through
him and for him, and he is before all things. (p. 121)
Book
6:
Necessity of replacing Bethany with Bethabara
(204) We are not unaware that “these
things were done in Bethania” occurs in nearly all the manuscripts. It seems
likely too that, in addition, this was the earlier reading.
And to be sure, we have read “Bethania”
in Heracleon. But since we have been in the places, so far as the historical
account is concerned, of the footprints of Jesus and his disciples and the
prophets, we have been convinced that we ought not to read “Bethania” but “Bethabara.”
(205) For, as the same evangelist
says, Bethania, the country of Lazarus and Martha and Mary, is about fifteen stades
from Jerusalem. The Jordan river is about 188 stades, roughly speaking beyond
Bethania. There is, however, no place in the vicinity of the Jordan with the same
name as Bethania. They say, however, that Bethabara is pointed out on the bank
of the Jordan. There they say John Baptized.
(206) In addition, the meaning of the
name Bethabara is appropriate for the baptism of the one who prepares for the
Lord a prepared people, for it is translated, “house of preparation.” Bethania,
however, means “house of obedience.” Where else would it be appropriate for the
one sent as an angel before the face of Christ to prepare his way before him to
baptize than in the “house of preparation”?
(207) And what sort of country is more
suitable for Mary who chose the good part which is not taken from her, and or
Martha who is disturbed because she is entertaining Jesus, and their brother
Lazarus who is said to be loved by the Savior, than Behtania, “the house of obedience”?
We must not, therefore, despise precision concerning names if we wish to understand
the Holy Scriptures perfectly.
(208) The following examples in the
Gospels, however, may persuade us that matters related to names are incorrect
in the Greek manuscripts in many places. The business about the swine which
were thrown down from a cliff by demons and drowned in the sea is recorded to
have occurred in the country of the Gerasens.
(209) Gerasa, however, is a city of Arabia
which has neither a sea nor a lake nearby. The evangelists would not have said something
so clearly false and easy to refute since they were men who knew the regions
around Judea thoroughly.
(210) And since we have found the word
“Into the country of the Gadarenes,” in a few manuscripts, we must also say
something about this name. Gadara is a city of Judea around which they are famous
hot springs, but there is no lake [or] sea lying beside the cliffs.
(211) But Gergesa, from which comes
the name of the Gergesenes, is an ancient city in the vicinity of the lake
which is now called Tiberias. There is a cliff lying beside this lake from
which they point out the swine were cast down by the demons. Gergesa means the “lodging
of those who have cast out,” which is perhaps a name prophetically significant
of what the citizens who owned the swine did in regard to the Savior when they
urged him to depart from their borders.
(212) It is possible to see the same
inaccuracy in many passages of the Law and prophets, as we have investigated
them thoroughly after we learned from the Hebrews and compared our manuscripts
with theirs, which are confirmed by the translations of Aquila and Theodotion
and Symmachus which have not yet been corrupted
(213) We will present a few things,
therefore, that those who are eager for learning might become more attentive
about these matters. One of the sons of Levi, the first, is named Geson in most
of the manuscripts instead of Gerson, which is the same name as that of the
first-born of Moses. The name was appropriate since both were born because of a
sojourn in a foreign land.
(214) Again, we say Judas’ second son
to be Aunan, but the Hebrews say he is Onan, “their toil.” In addition to
these, in the departures of the sons of Israel in Numbers we found that “they
departed from Soccoth and camped in Bouthan.” But the Hebrew says “Aiman”
instead of Bouthan.
(215) Why should I spend more time
presenting examples since it is easy for one who wishes to investigate and come
to know what is true in relation to the names? But we must especially suspect
those passages of the Scriptures where there is a catalogue of several names
together, as the names concerning the distribution of land in Josue, and in the
first book of Paralipomenon from the beginning up somewhere near the mention of
Anan. And likewise also in Esdras.
(216) We must not despise the proper
names, since they indicate facts useful for the interpretation of the passages.
This, however, is not the time to abandon what lies before us and investigate
the science of the study of names. (ibid., 224-27)
Book
6:
(245) . . . For just as “no one is
good but one, God” the Father, . . .(p. 235)
Book
6:
Sense of the word “cosmos” in this [John 1:29] verse
(301) The reader must consider that we
have said in our earlier books about the meaning of the term “world” in
Scripture supplemented with numerous examples, for I have not thought it reasonable
to repeat it. We are not ignorant, however, that someone has taken world to
mean the Church alone, it being the adornment of the world, since it is also
said to be the light of the world, for Scripture says, “You are the light of
the world.” And the Church is the adornment of the world, since Christ, who is
the first light of the world, is its adornment.
(302 But we must consider whether
Christ and his disciples are said to be the light of the same world. When Christ
is the light of the world, perhaps he is the light of the Church, and when his
disciples are the light of the world, perhaps they are the light of those who
are summoned, who are other than the Church, as Paul has said concerning these
in the opening of the earlier Epistle to the Corinthians, when he writes, “To
the Church of God with all who called upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” If,
[therefore], someone should suppose that the Church is said to be the light of
the world, as it were, of the rest of the race of men and the unbelievers, if
he will understand this prophetically because of the doctrine about the end,
the assertions perhaps has a place. But if it is taken as already occurring,
let them show how the rest of the race is being enlightened by the Church as it
sojourns in the world, since the light of something enlightens the object of which
it is the light.
(303) But if they cannot show this,
let them give attention to whether we have correctly taken the Church to be the
light, and those who call upon (the name) of the Lord to be the world. The next
saying occurring in the Gospel according to Matthew will commend our interpretations
to one who searches the Scriptures very carefully. For he says, “You are the
salt of the earth.” The rest of men, of whom those who have believed are salt,
are perhaps understood as the earth. The believers, through their faith, are
the reason the world is preserved. For “if the salt should go flat,” and no
longer be that which salts and preserves the earth, at that time the end will
occur, since it is clear that if lawlessness be multiplied, and love grow cold
upon the earth (since even the Savior himself uttered a doubtful word concerning
conditions at his own coming, he said, “But when the Son of man comes, will he
find faith on the earth?”) then the end of the former age will occur.
(304) Let the church, therefore, be
said to be the world when it is enlightened by the Savior. But we ask if one
would correctly conceive of the Church as the world in relation to the
statement, “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” the
sin being taken away being limited to the Church alone?
(305) For how will we explain what the
same disciple says in the epistle about the Savior being the propitiation for
sins? The statement goes as follows: “And if anyone sin, we have an advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the just. And he is the propitiation for our sins, and
no for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” And I think what Paul
says is similar to this, which goes as follows; “Who is the Savior of all men,
especially of the faithful.” (pp. 250-52)
Book
10:
Eating of the Word
(99) But we must say that if the Word
became flesh, and the Lord says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man
and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves; he who eats my flesh
and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day;
and for my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink; he who eats my flesh
and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him,” perhaps this is the flesh of
the lamb which takes away the sins of the world, and perhaps this is the blood
form which one must put some on the two doorposts and on the lintel in the
houses in which we eat the pasch. And perhaps we must eat of the meat of this
lamb in the time of the world, which is night. And we must eat the meat roasted
with fire with unleavened bread.” For the Word of God is not only flesh. He
says, indeed, “I am the bread of life,” and “This is the bread which comes down
from heaven that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which
came down from heaven. If anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever.”
(100) We must not, however, fail to
remark that all food is loosely said to be bread, as it is written in the case
of Moses in Deuteronomy: “He did not eat bread for forty days and he did not
drink water,” instead of saying, he partook of neither dry nor wet nourishment.
(101) Now I have noted this because it
is also said in the Gospel According to John, “And also the bread which I shall
give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
(102) But we eat the flesh of the lamb
and the unleavened bread with bitter herbs either by being grieved with a godly
brief because of repentances for our sins, a grief which produces in us a repentance
unto salvation which brings no regret, or, by seeking and being nurtured from
the visions of the truth which we discover because of our trials.
(103) One must not, therefore, eat the
flesh of the lamb raw, as the slaves of the letter do in the manner of animals
which are irrational and quite savage. In relation to men who are truly rational
through their desire to understand the spiritual aspects of the word, the
former share the company of wild beasts.
(104) We must strive, however, in
transforming the rawness of Scripture into boiled food, not to transform what
has been written into what is flaccid, watery, and limp. This is what they do
who “have itching ears and “turn them away “from the truth,” and transform the
anagogical meanings so far as they are concerned to the carelessness and
wateriness of their manner of life.
(105) But let us, by means of the
boiling spirit and the fiery words given by God, such as Jeremias received from
the one who said to him, “Behold I have placed my words in your mouth at fire,”
roast the meat of the lamb os that those who partake of it say, as Christ speaks
in us, “Our heart was burning in the way as he opened the Scriptures to us.” But we will have to roast the meat of the lamb in order to seek such a goal. We
must compare the confession of what Jeremias had suffered for the words of God
when he said, “And it was as a fire burning, blaming in my ones, and I am weak
from every side am not able to bear it.”
(106) We must begin eating from the head,
that is from the most important and principal teachings about heavenly things,
and we must end at the feet, that is the final elements of the lessons which investigate
the uttermost nature in the things which exist, either that of material things,
or things under the earth, or evil spirits and unclean demons.
(107) For the teaching concerning
them, being different than themselves, can, since it is stored up in the mysteries
of Scripture, be named figuratively “feet” of the lamb. We must also not
abstain from the entrails and the inner and hidden parts. We must, however,
approach all the Scripture as one body, and not break or cut through the most
vigorous and firm bonds in the harmony of its total composition. This is what
they have done who have, so far as it is in their power, broken the unity of
the Spirit in all the Scriptures.
(108) Let this prophecy of the lamb,
however, which has been mentioned, nurture us only for the duration of the night
of darkness in this life. For we must leave nothing of this nourishment, which
shall thus be useful to us only in the present time, until the dawn of the day
of those things which follow this life.
(109) For when the night is passed and
the following day has come, we shall eat unleavened bread, having no bread at
all made from that which is older and leavened form below. This unleavened
bread will be useful to us until the manna, which follows the unleavened bread,
be given. This is the food of angels, and not of men. Let the sheep, therefore,
be sacrificed for each of us in every house of our fathers. And let it be possible
that one man transgresses not by sacrificing the sheep, and another observes
all the law by sacrificing, and by boiling it thoroughly, and not breaking a
bone of it.
(110) And thus, as in a few words, let
Christ our pasch which has been sacrificed, be rendered in harmony with the
interpretation of the apostle, and with the lamb in the gospel. For we must not
suppose that historical things are types of historical things, and corporeal of
corporeal. Quite the contrary: corporeal things are types of spiritual things, and
historical of intellectual. (pp. 276-79)