Origen of Alexandria — Commentary on Scripture

And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:

Isaiah is said to have prophesied concerning these women when he wrote, "Women are coming to the spectacle, for this is not a wise people." He calls women who had been distant and were looking upon Jesus from afar. He calls them to the Word, that they might abandon a foolish, forsaken people and come to the new covenant. I consider these women blessed who were elevated to beatitude by their vision of the Word and by the bodily death of Jesus; for everything in Christ, if seen truly, beatifies the beholder.

Matthew 27:56

Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

In Mark the third is called Salome.

Matthew 27:59-60 · 3 passages

And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

This is no casual mention of the circumstances that the body was wrapped in clean linen, and laid in a new tomb, and a great stone rolled to the mouth, but that every thing touching the body of Jesus is clean, and new, and very great.

"He wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and put it in a new tomb" where no one was buried, thus preserving the body of Jesus for its glorious resurrection. But I think that this shroud was much cleaner from the time it was used to cover Christ's body than it ever had been before. For the body of Jesus retained its own integrity, even in death, so that it cleansed everything it touched and renewed even the new tomb which had been cut from rock.

We say, therefore (lest this passage be understood crudely), that he who said "we were buried with Christ through baptism" and we have risen with him is himself buried after Christ and with Christ in the new, spiritual tomb cut from rock. Furthermore, all who are buried with Christ in baptism, so that they may also rise with him from the new tomb, belong to the "firstborn from the dead who holds primacy in all things." Joseph did not roll many stones over the entrance to the tomb but only one "great" stone. [This stone] was greater than the power of those who lay in wait but not greater than the power of the angels who descended from heaven and removed the stone and sat on it. For all things which surround the body of Jesus are thereby clean and new and not simply "great" but surpassingly great.

Matthew 27:61

And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

The mother of the sons of Zebedee is not mentioned as having sat over against the sepulchre. And perhaps she was able to endure as far as the cross only, but these as stronger in love were not absent even from the things that were afterwards done.

Matthew 27:63 · 2 passages

Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

What do you say, chief priest? Do you really think that Christ said to his men "after three days I will rise again" and then secretly commanded them to steal his body during the night and to tell everyone that he had risen from the dead after three days? Yet it is manifestly incredible that after giving such great moral instruction to all peoples and after demonstrating such great power throughout all of Judea, he would then turn and deceive his disciples. Even they would find fault with their commander and therefore refuse to do his bidding, most especially in view of the danger which would have threatened them from the people if they had confessed the man just crucified to be both their teacher and the Messiah. But if it is hardly believable for him to have said such a thing to his disciples, see if it is not more logical to believe that just as he performed great miracles and predicted that his gospel would be preached "to the ends of the earth," that his disciples "would stand before rulers and kings" and that "Jerusalem would be destroyed by an army," so also did he predict his…

What do you say, chief priest? Do you really think that Christ said to his men "after three days I will rise again" and then secretly commanded them to steal his body during the night and to tell everyone that he had risen from the dead after three days? Yet it is manifestly incredible that after giving such great moral instruction to all peoples and after demonstrating such great power throughout all of Judea, he would then turn and deceive his disciples. Even they would find fault with their commander and therefore refuse to do his bidding, most especially in view of the danger which would have threatened them from the people if they had confessed the man just crucified to be both their teacher and the Messiah. But if it is hardly believable for him to have said such a thing to his disciples, see if it is not more logical to believe that just as he performed great miracles and predicted that his gospel would be preached "to the ends of the earth," that his disciples "would stand before rulers and kings" and that "Jerusalem would be destroyed by an army," so also did he predict his resurrection when he said "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up." Indeed, it was for that reason that the chief priests and Pharisees said to Pilate, "That imposter said, while he was still alive, 'after three days I will rise again.' "

It is reasonable to ask the chief priests who approached Pilate the following line of questions. Tell us, for what purpose do you think Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up"? Was he speaking about the death and resurrection "of his body" or about the destruction and reconstruction of the temple? If you thought that he was speaking of his resurrection, why did you testify against him because he had said, "I am able to destroy this temple and in three days to rebuild it"? If, however, you thought that he was speaking of the temple, as you have testified, then how do you know that he meant "after three days" he would be raised from the dead? See then how Christ exposes their impiety with their own words. Through their words, the chief priests condemn their own testimony, for understanding truly that Christ was speaking of his resurrection, they deliberately twisted his meaning to make it seem like he was speaking of the destruction and reconstruction of that inanimate temple.

Micah 1:3 · 2 passages

For, behold, the LORD cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth.

“I have descended,” the text says, “to see.” When responses are delivered to Abraham, God is not said to descend but to stand before him, as we explained above. “Three men,” the text says, “stood before him.” But now because sinners are involved, God is said to descend.Beware lest you think of ascending and descending spatially. For these metaphors are frequently found in the sacred literature, as in the prophet Micah. “Behold,” Scripture says, “the Lord departed from his holy place and came down and will tread upon the high places of the earth.” Therefore God is said to descend when he deigns to have concern for human frailty. This should be discerned especially of our Lord and Savior, who “thought it not robbery to be equal with God but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” Therefore he descended. For “no other has ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” For the Lord descended not only to care for us but also to bear what things are ours. “For he took the form of a servant,” and although he himself is invisible in nature…

“I have descended,” the text says, “to see.” When responses are delivered to Abraham, God is not said to descend but to stand before him, as we explained above. “Three men,” the text says, “stood before him.” But now because sinners are involved, God is said to descend.Beware lest you think of ascending and descending spatially. For these metaphors are frequently found in the sacred literature, as in the prophet Micah. “Behold,” Scripture says, “the Lord departed from his holy place and came down and will tread upon the high places of the earth.” Therefore God is said to descend when he deigns to have concern for human frailty. This should be discerned especially of our Lord and Savior, who “thought it not robbery to be equal with God but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” Therefore he descended. For “no other has ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.” For the Lord descended not only to care for us but also to bear what things are ours. “For he took the form of a servant,” and although he himself is invisible in nature, inasmuch as he is equal to the Father, nevertheless he took a visible appearance “and was found in appearance as a man.”

Now let us also consider Jesus’ statement, “I have proceeded and come from God.” It seems useful to me to juxtapose to these words the following words from Micah: “Hear my words, you people, and let the earth and all who are in it pay attention; and the Lord shall be among you for a witness, the Lord from his holy house. Therefore behold, the Lord proceeds from his place and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth, and the mountains will be shaken under him, and the valleys will be dissolved like wax, before fire and like water tumbling down in a waterfall.” Now consider whether the statement, “I have proceeded from God,” is equivalent to the statement, “The Lord proceeds from his place,” since, when the Son is in the Father, being in the form of God before he empties himself, God is his place, as it were.… Unless you understand that the Son is in the Father in a different way than he was before he proceeded from God, it will seem contradictory that he has both proceeded from God, and, after he has proceeded from God, is still in God.

Micah 7:1

Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grapegleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the firstripe fruit.

Who is speaking when the prophet says, “Woe is me, soul, for I have become one as gathering straw in harvest?” For did the prophet literally “gather” or even want to “gather”? Does the prophet have a farm? Anyway, the only one who rightly gathers from what has been planted for harvest is not the prophet but the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Since there are many faults among the pagan nations but also among those who are supposed to be from the church, the prophet laments and mourns for our sins when he says, “Woe is me, for I have become as one who gathers straw.” Let each of us scrutinize himself. Is he an ear of corn? Will the Son of God discover something in him to pick or harvest? Do we find that some of us are those swept by the wind? Even as we have still a little in ourselves, two or three kernels, our sins are many against us. Seeing that the churches, or those so-called, are filled with sinners, he says, “Woe is me, for I have come as one who gathers straw in the harvest and as one gathering grape gleanings in the vintage.” [The Lord] comes seeking fruit on the vine, for eac…

Who is speaking when the prophet says, “Woe is me, soul, for I have become one as gathering straw in harvest?” For did the prophet literally “gather” or even want to “gather”? Does the prophet have a farm? Anyway, the only one who rightly gathers from what has been planted for harvest is not the prophet but the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Since there are many faults among the pagan nations but also among those who are supposed to be from the church, the prophet laments and mourns for our sins when he says, “Woe is me, for I have become as one who gathers straw.” Let each of us scrutinize himself. Is he an ear of corn? Will the Son of God discover something in him to pick or harvest? Do we find that some of us are those swept by the wind? Even as we have still a little in ourselves, two or three kernels, our sins are many against us. Seeing that the churches, or those so-called, are filled with sinners, he says, “Woe is me, for I have come as one who gathers straw in the harvest and as one gathering grape gleanings in the vintage.” [The Lord] comes seeking fruit on the vine, for each of us is planted also as a vine “in a fertile place” or as a vine “transplanted out of Egypt,” yet planted to bear fruit. He comes, he seeks in what way to pick, he discovers some “grape gleanings” and a few “clusters,” neither flourishing nor plentiful. Who among us has “clusters” of virtue?

Micah 7:19

He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

We should give a tunic to one who has none at all. Who is the person who does not have a tunic? It is one who utterly lacks God. Therefore we should divest ourselves and give to one who is naked. One has God; another does not have God at all. We give to the one who does not have God. The prophet in Scripture says, “We should cast our sins into the depths of the sea.” John continues, “He who has food should do likewise.” Whoever has food should give some to one who has none. He should generously give him not only clothing but also what he can eat.

Nahum 1:9

What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.

According to the law, for example, the adulterer and the adulteress were punished with an immediate death. Because of the fact that he bore the penalty for his sin and paid punishments which fitted the evil committed, what will be after this that threatens their souls with revenge, if they transgressed no more, if there is not another sin which condemns them, but they committed only this single fault when they were punished and bore for this the punishment of the law? “The Lord will not punish twice for the same thing,” for they took their sin and their penalty for the crime was taken away. And for this reason, this kind of precept is not found unmerciful, as the heretics assert, accusing the law of God and denying that there is human feeling contained in it. But it is full of mercy by virtue of the fact that through this more people would be cleansed from sins than would be condemned.

Nehemiah 1:8-9

Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations:

But I say, Has the Lord used iniquity to snatch the nations from the power of his enemies and recall them to faith in him and to his dominion? By no means. For "Israel" was once "the Lord's portion," but they made Israel turn from their God in sin, and because of their sins God said to them, "Behold, you have been separated by your sins and because of your sins you have been scattered under the whole heaven." But again he says to them, "If your dispersion should be from one end of heaven to the other, from there I will gather you, says the Lord." Because, therefore, "the princes of this world" had first invaded "the Lord's portion," "the good shepherd" had, necessarily, the ninety and nine having been left on the heights, to descend to the lands and seek the one sheep that was lost, and when it was found and carried back on his shoulders, to recall it to the sheepfold of perfection on high.

Numbers 2:33

But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses.

We gather from the book of Numbers that there may be something greater than Israel too. For there the whole of Israel is numbered and reckoned in twelve tribes, as under a fixed number. But the tribe of Levi, being of greater eminence than the others, is accounted extra to this number and never thought of as being one of Israel’s number [of twelve].

Numbers 3:5

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Further, the priests are described as being more eminent than the Levites; for this same Scripture tells us that “the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Bring the tribe of Levi and make them stand in the sight of Aaron the priest, to minister to him.’ ” Do you see how here too he both speaks of the priests as superior to the Levites and once more makes the Levites appear as more eminent than the children of Israel?

Numbers 11:16

And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee.

But the Lord also says to Moses, “Choose for yourself presbyters whom you yourself know to be presbyters.” Let us examine very carefully the word of the Lord. What does that addition appear to mean, which says, “Whom you yourself know to be presbyters”? Was it not obvious to the eyes of all that he was a presbyter, that is, old, who was bearing old age in his body? Why then is that special inspection commanded to Moses alone, such a great prophet, that those be chosen, not whom others knew, not whom the ignorant multitude recognized, but whom the prophet full of God should choose? For in respect to them it is not a judgment about their body or their age but about their mind.

Numbers 12:2

And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.

So then in the book of Numbers we find Moses taking an Ethiopian wife—that is to say, one who is dark or black. Because of her Mary and Aaron speak ill of him and say with indignation, “Has the Lord spoken to Moses only? Has he not also spoken to us?” Now on careful consideration the narrative here seems to lack coherence. What has their saying “Has the Lord spoken to Moses only? Has he not also spoken to us?” to do with their indignation about the Ethiopian woman? If that was the trouble, they ought to have said, “Moses, you should not have taken an Ethiopian wife and one of the seed of Ham. You should have married one of your own race and of the house of Levi.” They say not a word about this. They say instead, “Has the Lord spoken to Moses only? Has he not also spoken to us?” Rather, it seems to me that in so saying they understood the thing Moses had done more in terms of the mystery. They saw Moses—that is, the spiritual law—entering now into wedlock and union with the church that is gathered together from among the Gentiles. This is the reason, apparently, why Mary [Miriam], who…

So then in the book of Numbers we find Moses taking an Ethiopian wife—that is to say, one who is dark or black. Because of her Mary and Aaron speak ill of him and say with indignation, “Has the Lord spoken to Moses only? Has he not also spoken to us?” Now on careful consideration the narrative here seems to lack coherence. What has their saying “Has the Lord spoken to Moses only? Has he not also spoken to us?” to do with their indignation about the Ethiopian woman? If that was the trouble, they ought to have said, “Moses, you should not have taken an Ethiopian wife and one of the seed of Ham. You should have married one of your own race and of the house of Levi.” They say not a word about this. They say instead, “Has the Lord spoken to Moses only? Has he not also spoken to us?” Rather, it seems to me that in so saying they understood the thing Moses had done more in terms of the mystery. They saw Moses—that is, the spiritual law—entering now into wedlock and union with the church that is gathered together from among the Gentiles. This is the reason, apparently, why Mary [Miriam], who typified the forsaken synagogue, and Aaron, who stood for the priesthood according to the flesh, seeing their kingdom taken away from them and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, say, “Has the Lord spoken to Moses only? Has he not also spoken to us?”

Numbers 12:3

(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

Moreover, Moses himself, in spite of all the great and splendid achievements of faith and patience that are recorded of him, was never so highly praised by God as on this occasion when he took the Ethiopian wife. It is said of him, in reference to this: “Moses was a man exceeding meek above all men that are upon earth.”

Numbers 14:28

Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you:

We must also consider the words “as I live, says the Lord.” Perhaps living in the proper sense, especially on the basis of what has been said about living, occurs with God alone. And see if the apostle … considered the superiority of the life of God to be beyond comparison and understood the words “as I live says the Lord” in a manner worthy of God. Can [he] for this reason have said of God, “Who alone has immortality,” because none of the living beings with God has the life which is absolutely unchangeable and immutable? And why are we uncertain about the remaining beings, when not even the Christ had the Father’s immortality? For he tasted death for all.