Origen of Alexandria

It is Moses who hears from God all that is written down in the law of Leviticus, whereas in Deuteronomy it is the people who are represented as listening to Moses and learning from him what they could not hear from God. This indeed is why it is called Deuteronomy, meaning the second law; a fact that some will think points to this, that when the first law given through Moses came to an end, a second legislation was apparently composed, and this was specially delivered by Moses to his successor Joshua; and Joshua is certainly believed to be a figure of our Savior, by whose second law, that is, by the precepts of the Gospels, all things are brought to perfection. We must also see, however, whether the Scriptures may not perhaps indicate this further truth, that just as the legislation is presented with greater clearness and distinctness in Deuteronomy than in those books that were written at the first, so also we may gather from that coming of the Savior that he fulfilled in humility, when he “took upon him the form of a servant,” an indication of the “more splendid and glorious second coming in the glory of the Father,” at which coming, when in the kingdom of heaven all the saints shall live by the laws of the “eternal gospel,” the figure of Deuteronomy will be fulfilled. And just as by his present coming he has fulfilled that law which was a “shadow of the good things to come,” so also by that glorious coming the shadow of his first coming will be fulfilled and brought to perfection. For the prophet has spoken of it thus: “The breath of our countenance is Christ the Lord, of whom we said that under his shadow we shall live among the nations,” that is, at the time when he shall duly transfer all the saints from the temporal to the eternal gospel, to use a phrase employed by John in the Apocalypse, where he speaks of the “eternal gospel.”

I think that heaven has been closed to those who are impious and who bear “the image of the earthly” but opened to those who are just and who have been adorned with “the image of the heavenly.” For the higher things have been closed to the impious, inasmuch as they are below and are still in the flesh. They cannot understand them or their beauty. They do not wish to perceive them, in that they are stooped over and do not devote themselves to lifting up their heads. But he opened the heavenly places with the key of David to be contemplated by the just, inasmuch as they have citizenship in heaven. The divine Word opens them and explains them by riding a horse. The horse signifies the words that proclaim the meanings. He is white because the nature of the knowledge is remarkable and white and luminous. And he who is called “Faithful” sits on the white horse, seated more firmly and, if I may so speak, royally, on words that cannot be overturned, words that run faster and swifter than any horse and that surpass every opponent in their rush, that is, every supposed word that is a dissembler of the Word and every dissembler of truth that seems to be truth. But he who is on the white horse is called “Faithful,” not so much because he trusts as because he is trustworthy, that is, he is worthy of being trusted, for according to Moses, the Lord is faithful and true. For he is also true in contradistinction to a shadow, and a type, and an image, since the Word in the opened heaven is such. For the Word on earth is not like the Word in heaven, inasmuch as he has become flesh and is expressed by means of a shadow and types and images.… This Word of God, indeed, who is called faithful is also called true, and he judges and fights justly. He has received the ability from God to impart what each creature deserves and to judge with absolute justice and judgment.… Now just as it is said that the task of the Word is to judge with justice, so also his task is said to be to fight according to justice, that by thus fighting the soul’s enemies with reason and justice, he may dwell in it and justify it when the irrational elements and injustice are destroyed. He casts out the hostile elements from that soul which, if I may speak in this way, has been taken captive by Christ for salvation.

Jesus baptizes "in the Holy Spirit and in fire," not the same person "in the Holy Spirit and in fire," but the holy person "in the Holy Spirit," while another person, after he has believed, after he has been deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit and after he has sinned again, Jesus washes in fire. So … it is not the same person who is baptized by Jesus in the Holy Spirit and in fire. Blessed, then, is the one who is baptized in the Holy Spirit and does not need the baptism by fire, but three times unhappy is that person who has need to be baptized in fire, though Jesus takes care of both of them. For "a shoot from the stump of Jesse will come forth, and a branch will grow out of the root," a shoot for those who are punished, a branch for the righteous. So God is a consuming fire and God is light, a consuming fire to sinners, a light to the just and holy ones. And blessed is he "who shares in the first resurrection," he who has kept the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Who is he who is saved in another resurrection? He who needs the baptism from fire, when he comes before that fire and the fire tests him, and when that fire finds wood, hay and stubble to burn.

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.