The following excerpts are taken from:
Origen, Homilies on Isaiah (trans. Elizabeth Ann Dively Lauro; The Fathers of the Church 142; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 2021). The homilies are dated c. 245-248.
Homily 1.1
What is that which I have sad
about “the heavenly powers”? Thrones, dominions, principalities, [spiritual]
authorities are the heavenly powers. (p. 41)
Homily 1.2
“And the Seraphim were standing
around him, six wings belonging to the one and six wings belonging to the
other.” I see two Seraphim, each one of them in himself having six wings. Next
[is] the arrangement of the wings. “And indeed with two wings they were
covering the face”—not their own, but the face of God—“moreover, with two wings
they were covering the feet”—not their own, but the feet of God—“moreover, with
two wings they were flying.” What is written here just before seems to be a
self-contradiction: If they were standing, they could not be flying. But it is
written: “They were standing around him, six wings belonging to the one and six
wings belonging to the other; and, indeed, with two they were covering the
fact, and with two they were covering the feet, and with two they were flying;
and they were crying out to one another.” But yet these Seraphim, who surround
God, who say by pure knowledge, “Holy, holy, holy!” observe in this way the
mystery of the Trinity, [44] because they themselves also are holy. Indeed, in
all these things that exist, nothing is more holy. And they speak not softly to
one another: “Holy, holy holy!” but, by crying out, they announce the salvific
confession to everyone. Who are these two Seraphim? My Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
You should not suppose the nature of the Trinity to be divided, if duty-bound
observances of the names are to be kept. (pp. 42-43)
[44] This statement may be an
interpolation by Jerome to clarify post-Nicene Trinitarian orthodoxy for his
Latin audience. “Trinity” is not capitalized in the Latin edition, but this
translation capitalizes Trinity throughout to signify Origen’s reference to
Divinity.
Homily 1.4
“And the house were filled with
smoke.” The whole house was filled immediately after the abatement of the fire.
Now, smoke is the vapor of fire. “And I said: ‘O, wretched am I, since now I
have been stung, because, since I am a man, I also have unclean lips.’” I
cannot understand why Isaiah humbled himself; even so, Scripture says and gives
witness that his lips are cleansed by one of the Seraphim who was sent to take
away his sins. Now, one of the Seraphim is my Lord Jesus Christ, who was sent
by the Father to take away our sins, and he says, “Behold, I have taken away
your iniquities and completely cleansed you from your sins.” And you should not
consider [it] an affront against nature, if the Son is sent by the Father. In
short, as you become acquainted with the oneness of the Divine nature in the
Trinity, [82] in the present reading, Christ alone now forgives sins, and yet
it is certain that sins are forgiven by the Trinity. For he who has believed in
one, believes in all [three]. [83] (p. 46)
[82] Again, this description of
the Trinity may be an interpolation by Jerome.
[83] Again, these statements may
be an interpolation by Jerome to clarify post-Nicene Trinitarian orthodoxy for
his Latin audience. Fürst, in “Jerome Keeping Silent,” 143 n. 15, supports the
view that these statements are interpolations by Jerome.
Homily 1.5
And now Jesus Christ is sent. He
does not lie. “I am with you,” he says, “all the days always to the completion
of the age.” He does not lie. “Where two or three are gathered together in my
name, I also am in their midst.” Therefore, because Jesus Christ is present and
assists and is ready and girded, as the highest priest, to offer to the Father
our appeals, rising up, let us offer sacrifices through him to the Father. For
“he himself is the atonement (propitiation) for our sins,” to whom are
glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen!” (pp. 49-50)
Homily 2.2
“He shall eat butter and honey.”
How is Christ prophesied as one who is going to eat butter and honey? And if
this were explained by the Lord granting [it], again these things that follow
would present to us other questions. And if only we all were doing this which
has been written: “Examine thoroughly in the Scriptures.” In the Scriptures
many things are named from bodily foods to indicate spiritual foods. [For
example,] “Just as newborns, desire the pure milk of reason.” Therefore,
without doubt, there is a milk of reason and it is necessary for us to search
for milk of that kind.
Again, in Proverbs, about honey it
has been written: “When you find honey, eat what satisfies [and no more], lest
perhaps being full, you vomit.” And was the Holy Spirit troubled about that
very honey which is known, lest perhaps we eat too much? But undoubtedly the
Holy Spirit intentionally speaks of spiritual honey: “When you find honey, eat
what satisfies [and no more].” Yet why did the discerning Holy Spirit warn us
that if we were to find honey—if indeed honey can be found—we should eat [only]
what is sufficient?
“’Go,’ he says, ‘to the bee, and
learn how productive she is.’” And the prophets are found to be bees, since
indeed they fashion artfully the wax cells of the hives and make honey and, if,
being bold, it is useful for me to say, their honeycombs are the Scriptures,
which they have left behind.” And so, come willingly to the Scriptures and you
will find honey. But also, “Eat the honey,” and in Proverbs again it is said,
“for the honeycomb is good, that your throats may be sweetened.” Do you think
the Holy Spirit says this, “Eat the honey,” in the usual sense, “for it is
good”? I do not dare to say that the Holy Spirit instructs me about bodily
honey [when saying], “Eat the honey.” Behold, I do not have [honey], or yet
indeed I am of such a nature that I cannot eat honey. For what reason does he
say to me, “Eat the honey,” and do not eat meat, but, “Son, eat the honey, for
it is good”? If you consider the bees to be the prophets and their work to be
the honey or the honeycombs, then you will see how, in accordance with the
dignity of the Holy Spirit, you may understand “Son, eat the honey, for it is
good.” If someone meditates on the divine words (eloquia divina) and is nourished
by the words of the Scriptures (sermonibus scripturarum), he will
fulfill the command, ordering, “Son, eat the honey,” and, doing what is
ordered, he obtains [the essence of] the word that follows, “For it is good,”
because this honey that is found in the Scriptures is good.”
Now, that which is said, “Go to
the bee,” is of that kind. There is, so I may say, a certain bee above bees.
And even as mong bees a certain one is king, who has been named king, so the
prince of the bees is my Lord Jesus Christ, to whom the Holy Spirit sends me,
so that I may eat honey, for it is good, and his honeycombs, so that my throat
may be sweetened. And perhaps the more simple letters are the honeycombs; but
indeed he [Christ] is the honey who in these [honeycombs] is understood.
On the other hand, the very one,
Emmanuel, who was born of the virgin, eats butter and honey and searches for
butter to eat from every single one of us. How he seeks butter and honey from
each of us, the Word (sermo) will teach. Our sweet works, our most
pleasant and suitable words, are the honey that Emmanuel eats, which he
himself, who was born of a virgin, eats. [50] But indeed, if our words are full
of bitterness, anger, enmity, melancholy, obscenity, corruptions, contention,
this has allowed bile into my mouth, and the Savior does not eat from these
words. Yet the Savior will eat from the words that are among men, if their
words are honey. Let us confirm this from the Scriptures: “Behold, I have stood
before the door, and I knock; if anyone opens the door to me, I will enter in
to him, and I will dine with him, and he with me.” Therefore, he himself
promises that he is going to eat with us from our [words, thoughts, and
actions]. Yet it is certain that we also eat with him, if we eat him. [53] To
be sure, by eating from our good words, works, and understanding, [54] he again
nourishes us with his own spiritual and divine and better goods. For that
reason, because it is a blessed thing to receive the Savior, by having opened
the doors of the principal part of our heart, let us prepare for him honey and
his whole dinner, so that he may lead us himself to the great dinner of the
Father in the kingdom of heaven, [56] [the dinner] which is in Christ Jesus,
“to whom are glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” (pp. 54-7)
[50] Note that Origen suggests
here that as we eat of Christ, as the honey is the Scripture’s words, so Christ
eats of us, that is, our good words, thoughts, and actions.
[53] Note that there is no
preposition here in the Latin in the second part of the sentence: “ . . . we
also eat with him, if we eat him [Christ]” (. . .nos cum illo cenamus, si
cenemus illum). For analysis of places in Origen’s work where he stresses
that humans eat with Christ, humans feed on Christ, and Christ feeds on humans,
here and at the heavenly feast in eternity, see Dively Lauro, “The
Eschatological Significance of Scripture’s Sacramental Character According to
Origen,” SP 56:83-102 (LeuvenP Peeters, 2013) . . .
[54] “from our good words, works,
and understanding”: de nostris bonis sermonibus, operibus et intellectu.
Note that throughout this homily (in Latin translation), sermo refers to
our words and to the Word of God, or Scripture. Assuming Jerome is
reflecting a single word in Origen’s Greek for both instances, perhaps Origen
is building on the idea that we are in the image of God, such that there is a
fundamental relationship between our words and the Word.
[56] Origen likely has in mind
Jesus’s parable about the wedding feast at Mt 22.1-14 and Lk 14.7-24, and is
reading it through a pneumatic lens to discuss the heavenly feast that awaits
us.
Homily 4.1
It is impossible to find the
beginning of God. You never comprehend the beginning of the movement of God[1].
I do not say “you” [in particular] but [rather] not anyone nor any other beings
that subsist. Only the Savior and the Holy Spirit, who have always been with
God, [2] see his face; perhaps the angels, too, who perpetually see the face of
the Father who is in heaven, also see the beginnings of [God’s] works. Ans so
also the Seraphim hide the feet before human beings, for the last things, as
they are, cannot be explained in detail. (p. 67)
[1] “movement of God”: motus
Dei, which can also be translated “operation of God.”
[2] Significantly, here, Origen
states that the Son and the Holy Spirit have always been with the Father
without beginning. While one could argue that this phrase is an interpolation
of Jerome in his effort to ensure an orthodox, post-Nicene Trinitarian reading
for his Latin audience, my prior work demonstrates that this communion of the
three persons without beginning is consistent with Origen’s views of their
relationships with each other and with creation. . . .See Dively Lauro, “The
Meaning and Significance of Scripture’s Sacramental Nature within Origen’s
Thought,” SP 94:153-85.
Homily 7.2
He [the Savior through Isaiah]
says: If someone were to speak to the children who believe in me, he would say,
“Seek the ventriloquists and those who cry out from the earth, who speak empty
words, who cry from the stomach,”—as for example, Seek daemons (for he has named
all daemons τροπικως [tropologically] from one kind of
daemon, ventriloquists) [49]—“if they were to say to you, ‘Seek
ventriloquists,’” that is, Seek from daemons either the gift of prophecy of
truth or holy contemplation, reply to them these things that I am saying. What
are the things that is he teaching them? He tells them in the following
passages. And there are certain ones who send you, yet more so catechumens, as
much as it is in them, to ventriloquists. For those who want you to go to
idols, about which it is written, “All the gods of the nations [are] daemons,”
they want you to go not only to ventriloquists, but to every kind of daemons.
But yet may our God, who does what he wills in heaven and on earth, tear us
away from the daemons; may he make [us] family members to himself through our
Savior Jesus Christ. Therefore, take care lest the soul of anyone who among you
should ever be deceived and still hesitate and doubt when he has heard this or
that man [say]: A daemons has cured that feebleness in relation to that idol;
he has divined this and that. All those idols belong to daemons and to men who
do not understand the truth. (pp. 110-11)
[49 ]Daemonium designates a
lower divinity or spirit, or an evil spirit or demon.
Homily 8.2
Now, let us consider what else
that big talker who promises. “And by the wisdom of [my] understanding, I will
remove the boundaries of nations.” I do not know the wisdom that he promises,
about which a prophet [Jeremiah] also speaks; “There is a certain foreign
wisdom in them.” There is a certain wisdom foreign to truth, which God
destroys. That one possessing this [wisdom] judges himself to be wise and says:
“By the wisdom of [my] understanding, I will remove the boundaries of nations,
and I will feed upon their strength.” For his operation has reached to all the
nations, but the Savior sending his own words to all the nations, has rescued
those who were being held captive by Satan (Zabulo) among all the
nations. “And I will feed upon their strength.” Having plundered our strength,
he threatens to go and hand us over to those waging war against us. And it is a
reality to see him doing this to certain persons. For when someone is conquered
by Satan (Zabulo) and is handed over to the most evil daemon spirits, to
hostile powers, what else has happened, except that he who had said: “And I
will feed upon their strength,” taking our strength, has fed upon us?
“And I will shake the cities that
are inhabited.” Satan (Zabulus) also threatens this: he perceives that
the cities, the churches of God built upon Christ the Lord, are inhabited, [and
so] he cires out that he himself is going to shake these. And often, indeed, he
has shaken the inhabited cities to their foundations with persecutions; often
he has shaken them to their foundation with stumbling blocks. But let us try to
become such ones as having their foundation upon the rock, so that he who says,
“I will shake the cities that are inhabited,” may not have the power to shake us
by his violent attacks or hostile spirits, but let us steadfast ones persevere
against all that has happened, as those having [their] edifice on the rock,
Jesus Christ, “to whom are glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen!” (pp.
120-21)
Homily 9.1
“And I heard the voice of the Lord
saying: ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people?’ And I said: ‘Here
I am, send me.’ And he says: ‘Go and say to this people: You will hear with the
eat and not understand,’” and the rest. Let us pray to God about this word of
the prophet Isaiah which at present has been read, that he [God] may bestow
grace upon us and, in turn, we may be able to explain things worthy of the
prophetic spirit. “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying: ‘Whom shall I
send?’” After his lips were cleansed, the prophet, prepared, received the
ministry of God and said: “Here I am, send me.” But so that he would be more
prepared for this, he remembered the words of Moses. For even he [Moses], using
the same word, “Send me,” was made the ruler and judge of the people and was called
the servant of God. Yet I heard a certain Hebrew explaining this passage [13]
and saying that the prophet, indeed willing and prepared, received the prophecy
for the people, not knowing what things needed to be said to them [the people];
then, hearing the harsh things that were necessary to announce to the people,
that is, “You will hear with the eat and not understand,” and the rest, in the
following [passages] he becomes more reluctant. When the voice of God is
speaking to him [Isaiah], [saying], “Cry out” he [Isaiah] replies to him [God]
and says, “What shall I cry out?” Yet I think these things are prophesied about
the Savior, that it was going to come about those hearing would not hear and
those seeing would not see. (pp. 122-23)
[13] Origen elsewhere in his works
refer to a Hebrew or Hebrew teacher whom he does not identify but does credit
with certain views of text that Origen claims to have adopted from him. Two
other examples are at De princ 1.3-4 and 4.3-14. For brief
considerations of this unnamed Hebrew teacher in Origen, see Ronald E. Heine, Origen:
Scholarship in the Service of the Church (Oxford University Press, 2010).
56-57, and John A. McGuckin, ed., The Westminster Handbook to Origen (Louisville,
JY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 11.
