Origen of Alexandria

The first question which occurs to us concerns the name Paul itself. Why is he, who in Acts was called Saul, now called Paul? In Holy Scripture we find that among the ancients, many names were altered, e.g., Abram was renamed Abraham, Sarai became Sarah, and Jacob became Israel. In the Gospels too, Simon was changed to Peter, and the sons of Zebedee became known as sons of thunder. But these things occurred by divine command, and we read nothing of the sort in the case of Paul. Because of this, some people have imagined that the apostle took the name of Paul, the proconsul of Cyprus, whom he converted to the Christian faith, in the same way that rulers are in the habit of adding the names of conquered peoples to their titles, e.g., Parthicus would indicate someone who conquered the Parthians, Gothicus a victor over the Goths, and so on. In the same way the apostle would have called himself Paul to indicate that he had conquered the proconsul Paul.We cannot exclude this reason completely, but given that no such custom can be found in Holy Scripture, we ought rather to seek a solution from the examples which we do have. And indeed we find in the Scriptures that some people have two or even three different names, e.g., Solomon is also called Jedidiah, Zedekiah is also called Mattaniah, Uzziah is also called Azariah, and there are many others in the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings who have double names. But even the Gospels do not abandon this custom, e.g., Matthew was called Levi … and Thaddeus sometimes appears as Lebbaeus. Obviously the Gospel writers did not get the names of the apostles wrong, but given that it was the custom of the Hebrews to have two or three names, they gave different names to one and the same man. It seems to us that it is in accordance with this custom that Paul appears to have a second name, and that as long as he was ministering to his own people he was called Saul, which was probably the name his parents gave him, but that when he was writing laws and commandments for the Greeks and other Gentiles, he was called Paul. Scripture makes it clear when it says: “Saul, who is also called Paul,” that the name Paul was not then being given to him for the first time but was already habitual.
But why does Paul call himself a slave, when elsewhere he says: “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of sonship, by which we cry Abba! Father!” … We may understand this as an expression of humility … and that would not be wrong. Nor is the reality of Paul’s freedom compromised by this in any way. As he himself says: “Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all.” … For he serves Christ not in the spirit of slavery but in the spirit of adoption, for Christ’s service is more noble than any freedom.
“Called” is the name given to everyone who believes in Christ and is therefore a general term, although it is applied to each one according to what God has foreseen and chosen in him. He may be called to be an apostle or a prophet or a teacher; as free from a wife or as bound in marriage, and this is determined by the diversity of grace given to everyone, as it is written: “Many are called but few are chosen.”
In Paul’s case, he was not called to be an apostle in the general sense, but he was also chosen according to the foreknowledge of God to be “set apart for the gospel of God,” as he says elsewhere: “God set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace.” Heretics wrongly claim that he was set apart from his mother’s womb on account of the goodness of his nature, just as from the opposite side of the fence we read in the Psalms of those “sinners who were separated from the womb” because of their evil nature.
But we say that Paul was chosen neither by accident nor because of some natural difference, but he himself attributed the causes of his election to him who knows everything before it happens.… For God foresaw that Paul would labor more abundantly than anyone else in the gospel … and for that reason Jesus set him apart in his mother’s womb for the gospel. Had he been chosen by fate, as the heretics maintain, or by some inherently better nature, he would not have been afraid of being condemned if he failed to preach the gospel.
God’s foreknowledge, by which those who will labor and succeed are known, comes first, and his predestination follows afterwards, so that foreknowledge cannot be regarded as the cause of predestination. With men, merits are weighed according to past actions, but with God they are weighed according to future behavior, and anyone who thinks that God cannot see our future just as easily as he can see our past is an unbeliever.

Let no one think that we are reading more into this text than the meaning itself permits. For although in Latin translations one normally finds the word predestined here, the true reading is designated and not predestined. For designated applies to someone who already exists, whereas predestined is only applicable to someone who does not yet exist, like those of whom the apostle said: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined.” … Those who do not yet exist may be foreknown and predestined, but he who is and who always exists is not predestined but designated. These things are said by us concerning those who speak blasphemously about the only begotten Son of God and ignoring the difference between designated and predestined think that Christ is to be numbered among those who were predestined before they existed. But he was never predestined to be the Son, because he always was and is the Son, just as the Father has always been the Father.… The apostle makes an essential distinction when he says that “from the seed of David according to the flesh” Christ was made, but as “the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness” he is designated.And when he says “Son of God” it is not without reason that he adds “in power,” indicating by this that in substance he is the Son according to the Spirit of holiness. For Christ is called “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” … But we want to know what to make of the soul of Jesus, if what is born of the seed of David is according to the flesh and what is designated in power is according to the Spirit of holiness the Son of God and in the substance of God. The soul, however, is not mentioned either with the flesh, with the Spirit of holiness or with the substance of God’s power, although the Savior himself speaks of it elsewhere: “My soul is very sorrowful, even unto death” and: “Now is my soul troubled.” Here he means the soul which he laid aside of his own free will, which went down to hell and of which it is said: “Thou dost not leave my soul in hell.” It is certain that this soul was not born of the seed of David, for he says that what was born of the seed of David was according to the flesh.
The soul cannot be included with the things which are according to the flesh, nor in that which is designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness. I think that the apostle is here following his usual custom, knowing that the soul is always midway between the spirit and the flesh. Either it joins itself to the flesh and is made one with the flesh or it associates itself with the spirit and is made one with the spirit. From this it may be concluded that when the soul is united with the flesh, men become carnal, and that when it is united with the spirit, men become spiritual. For this reason, Paul does not mention the soul independently but only as flesh or spirit. For he knows that the soul must necessarily attach itself to one or other of these, as it does in those to whom he says: “But you are in the flesh and not in the spirit,” and: “Whoever joins himself to a harlot is one body with her,” calling the harlot here “flesh” or “body,” but “whoever joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with him.”80
Some people come to us raising the most serious problems as to how Christ can be descended from the seed of David when it is clear that he was not born from Joseph, in whom the line of David descends from one generation to the other. Unpleasant as it is to have to argue according to the literal sense of the text, some of our people answer by saying that Mary was already engaged to Joseph and that before they came together, she was found with child by the Holy Spirit. According to the law, she was therefore already united to Joseph’s tribe and family. … Whether you think this line of argument is valid is up to you, dear reader, to decide!
In our opinion, these things must be understood according to the spiritual or allegorical sense, according to which there is no reason why Joseph should not be called the father of Christ, even though he was not his father. For in the generations recorded by Matthew it is stated that Jehoshaphat begat Joram and Joram begat Uzziah, but in 2 Kings it is said that Jehoshaphat begat Ahaziah and Ahaziah begat Joash and Joash begat Amaziah, and Amaziah begat Azariah, who was also called Uzziah. … Matthew therefore left three generations out! The explanation for this is surely not to be sought on the historical level but in conjunction with the spiritual understanding.… It is therefore enough for us to say, in answer to our opponents, that just as Jesus is called the son of Joseph even though he did not descend from him, and Uzziah is called the son of Joram even though Joram was not his father, so can we also reckon that Christ was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. What we accept as reason and proof in the case of Joram and Joseph must, we think, be allowed to stand in the case of David as well.
How it is that he who is said to have been made from the seed of David according to the flesh should be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead is not hard to understand for anyone who has read that it is written: “For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.” Now the end of Christ’s sufferings is the resurrection, and after the resurrection “he will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.” And again: “Even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.” Thus everything which is in Christ is now the Son of God.
How this all relates to him who is designated Son of God in power is hard for us to understand unless we accept that, because of the indissoluble union of the Word and the flesh, everything which pertains to the flesh may be attributed to the Word also, and everything which pertains to the Word may be attributed to the flesh also. For we often find Jesus referred to in either nature as both Christ and Lord.

The blessing of peace and grace, which the apostle Paul gives to all God’s beloved to whom he is writing, is, I think, analogous to the blessing of Noah on Shem and Japheth, which was fulfilled in the Spirit toward all those who were blessed in the same way. It is comparable to the blessing with which Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek and Jacob by his father Isaac, and the twelve patriarchs who were blessed by their father Israel; or the blessing of Moses, with which he blessed the twelve tribes of Israel. I do not think that the blessing of the apostle’s, by which he blessed the churches of Christ, is inferior to any of these.… The apostle writes in the Spirit of God and blesses in the Spirit. Therefore it is through the same Spirit that those who are blessed by the apostle receive their blessings, as long as those on whom the blessing comes are found to be worthy of it. Otherwise it will happen as it is written: “And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you.” What is written about peace will also be the case with grace, because Paul aligns grace with peace.

Sometimes the apostle writes in the way he does to the Romans, giving thanks for everyone, but sometimes he just gives thanks without adding “for all of you.” If you notice this you will realize that in the places where he gives thanks for everyone, he does not draw attention to any grave faults or sins in them. But where he criticizes people or reproves them, he does not add to his thanksgiving that he gives thanks for them all—see, e.g., 1 Corinthians or Colossians. In Galatians he does not even give thanks at all, because he is surprised that they have so quickly abandoned the gospel that called them and chosen another one instead.2Paul thus begins his letter with thanksgiving. To give thanks to God is to offer him a sacrifice of praise, and therefore he adds “through Jesus Christ,” as through a high priest. Anyone who wants to offer a sacrifice to God ought to know that he should offer it through the hands of a priest. But note also this important addition: “(to) my God.” This can only be the voice of the saints, whose God he is, as he is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No one can say that the Lord God is his if his god is his stomach, or if his god is greed, or if his god is the glory of this life and the pomp of this world or the power of things which are perishing. For whatever anyone worships more than other things, that is his god.
But let us see what it is that the apostle gives thanks for. “Because,” he says, “your faith is proclaimed in all the world.” “In all the world,” simply understood, means that in many parts of the world, that is of this earth, the faith and religion of those at Rome is preached. But if, as in some passages, the universe is meant here, consisting of heaven and earth and everything in them, it may be understood to mean that the powers, of whom it is said that “they rejoice over one sinner who repents,” rejoice much more over the conversion and the faith of the Romans when the angels who ascend and descend to the Son of Man proclaim it to them. For these powers are amazed at the conversion of the Gentiles and that the sound of the apostles of Christ Jesus has gone out into all the world. Finally, they rejoice even at the sufferings of those in this world, as the apostle says: “We have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men.”
The verse may also be understood as meaning that this faith which the Romans have is the same faith as, and none other than, that which is proclaimed and believed in all the world and which is preached not only on earth but in heaven as well. For by his blood Jesus reconciled not only those things which are on earth but also those things which are in heaven, and in his name not only earthly powers but also heavenly and infernal ones bow the knee. This is what is meant by preaching the faith in the whole world, through which the entire earth may be subjected to God.
It may be noticed that there is no “second” which corresponds to “first,” but we have already explained that Paul’s phrases are not always complete. On the other hand, it may be that “first” is picked up by “I want you to know brethren” [in verse 13].

This sentence contains a rhetorical aside (hyperbaton), and the construction is defective.… It ought to be joined to the next verse by the words “to whom,” so that the phrase reads: “the rest of the Gentiles, Greeks and barbarians, to whom I am under obligation.” … The whole thing would then read as follows: “Just as I have fruit among the other Gentiles, Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish, to whom I am under obligation, so also, as much as in me lies, am I eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome, for I am not ashamed to preach the gospel among any people, for the power of God is in it for salvation to all who believe, for the Jew first and for the Greek, for in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, which was previously covered by a veil in the law. Now it is revealed in those who come from the faith of the Old Testament to the faith of the new gospel.”So much for the order of the words; now we must examine the apostle’s meaning. When Paul says: “I have often intended to come to you,” he demonstrates the love which he had for the Romans. But when he adds: “but thus far have been prevented,” though indeed it may be thought that he was prevented by God, it is shown by this that it is God’s business where each of the apostles ought or ought not to go. It is by a particular dispensation that he appoints some to preach the Word of God and others not, as Paul himself says elsewhere: “When we tried to go into Bithynia, the Spirit of Christ prevented us.” … But if this phrase refers to the passage where he says that: “Satan hindered us,” he shows clearly that he is constantly struggling in prayer, so that by overcoming the hindrances of Satan he may be given a successful journey in the will of God, to see those who are at Rome.
For he desires and does not cease to pray that he may obtain some fruit from them as he has from the other Gentiles. Thus like one who is acquisitive for many riches, Paul wants to amass some return from his many spiritual investments. He gathers fruit from the Greeks, fruit from the barbarians, fruit from the wise, fruit even from the foolish. For while to some he speaks wisdom as to those who are perfect, to others he says, as if speaking to foolish people, that he wants to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ and him crucified. Some he teaches from the law and the prophets; others he persuades with signs and wonders.

Paul says that what can be known about God is plain to them, thereby revealing that there is something about God which can be known, and something about him which is unknown. Therefore he says that the wrath of God is revealed on those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. If something is revealed it must be brought to our notice from something we have not yet noticed. It appears here that the wrath of God is revealed not to those who are ignorant of the truth but to those who already know the truth, however imperfectly.The apostle also shows that those things which have come to the wise of this world concerning the knowledge of the truth, have come to them by divine revelation. But when they chase after vain glory, or are praised for ancient errors, or are silenced by fear of rulers, they become judges of their own damnation. The truth, which they had learned by divine revelation, is either hidden from them by their loss of freedom or else is denied by their wicked behavior.
So also the wrath of God may sometimes appear in the form of that power which is given to the ministers of justice and which applies punishments to sinners, which is what I think is meant in the passage where it is recorded that the wrath of God moved David to order Joab to number the people.
The invisible things of God may be contemplated by the things which have been made. What is unknown about God is the essence of his very nature, which is in my opinion concealed, not only from humanity but even from the angelic creatures. For only God knows whether there has ever been anyone so perfect in his grasp of things that he has been able to attain to a pure knowledge of God’s very essence. Nonetheless, we may hope that such may in due time be revealed, for this appears in the words of the Savior: “No one knows the Son, except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” And he would not have added this last phrase if he had not known that there were some to whom God wanted to become revealed.