Origen of Alexandria — Commentary on Scripture

And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

I think we learn from this that we say some things on our own, by ourselves, where there is no power that inspires us to speak. But there are other things that we say when some power prompts us (as it were), dictating what we say, even if we do not fall completely into a trance and lose full possession of our own faculties, but seem to understand what we say. Now, it is possible for us, while we understand what we say on our own, not to understand the meaning of the words that are spoken. This is what happened in the case of Caiaphas the high priest. He did not speak on his own, by himself, nor did he understand the meaning of what he said, since it was a prophecy that was spoken.

John 11:53 · 2 passages

Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

(tom. xxviii. c. 17.) Inflamed by the speech of Caiaphas, they determined on killing our Lord: Then from that day forth they took counsel together to put Him to death. Was this then the work of the Holy Spirit, as well as the former, or was it another spirit which did both first speak by the mouth of a wicked man, and then excite others like him to kill Christ? Answer: It is not necessary that both should be the work of the same spirit. As some turn the Scriptures themselves, which were given for our good, to the support of bad doctrines; so this true prophecy respecting our Saviour was understood in a wrong sense, as if it were a call to put Him to death.

Spurred on by Caiaphas's words, they took counsel together to kill the Lord. From what sort of spirit then did Caiaphas prophesy that Jesus was to die for the nation, and was the Holy Spirit at work in such a man, and thus became the cause of the plot against Jesus? Or was it not then the Holy Spirit but another spirit which was able both to speak in the impious man and to move those like him against Jesus?… Just as those who deliberately put the worst construction on things misrepresent the holy meaning of the Scriptures … so did the Pharisees and the chief priests. For they did not understand correctly the prophecy about our Savior that Caiaphas spoke. It is a prophecy that is true in that it is better for us that one man die for the people and the whole nation not perish. But they thought the meaning and intention of his counsel was something else, and so they took counsel together from that day to kill Jesus. Now, I say these things to answer the argument that it was the Holy Spirit who prophesied through Caiaphas. I personally do not in the least maintain that this was the case…

Spurred on by Caiaphas's words, they took counsel together to kill the Lord. From what sort of spirit then did Caiaphas prophesy that Jesus was to die for the nation, and was the Holy Spirit at work in such a man, and thus became the cause of the plot against Jesus? Or was it not then the Holy Spirit but another spirit which was able both to speak in the impious man and to move those like him against Jesus?… Just as those who deliberately put the worst construction on things misrepresent the holy meaning of the Scriptures … so did the Pharisees and the chief priests. For they did not understand correctly the prophecy about our Savior that Caiaphas spoke. It is a prophecy that is true in that it is better for us that one man die for the people and the whole nation not perish. But they thought the meaning and intention of his counsel was something else, and so they took counsel together from that day to kill Jesus. Now, I say these things to answer the argument that it was the Holy Spirit who prophesied through Caiaphas. I personally do not in the least maintain that this was the case but leave it to the readers to decide what one must recognize as correct concerning Caiaphas and whether he was moved by the Spirit.

John 11:54 · 2 passages

Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

I think that these words and those like them have been recorded because the Word wishes to turn us back from rushing too hastily and irrationally to struggle unto death on behalf of the truth and to suffer martyrdom. For, on the one hand, it is right not to shun the confession or to hesitate to die for the truth if one has been caught in the struggle about confessing Jesus. But, on the other hand, it is no less right also not to provide an opportunity for such a great trial but to avoid it by every means, not only because the outcome of such an act is unclear to us but also so that we may not be responsible for causing those who would not, in actual fact, have become guilty of pouring out our blood, to have become more sinful and impious [by doing so], if we act in our own interest and take no thought for those who plot against us unto death. These people will experience greater and more serious punishment because of us if we are self-centered and do not consider the things of others and deliver ourselves to be killed when this necessity has not overtaken us.

Mystically, these words mean that long ago Jesus walked boldly among the Jews when the Word of God dwelled among them through prophets.… But now Jesus no longer walks boldly among the Jews but has departed from there.… He then entered the country near the desert of which it is said, “Many are the children of the desolate, more than of her who has a husband.” … Now Ephrem means “fruitfulness.” He was the brother of Manasseh, who stands for the elder people who were forgotten. For after the forgotten people were left behind, an abundant harvest from the Gentiles occurred.…“Jesus,” therefore, “no longer walks openly among the Jews but has departed from there into the country” of the whole world, “near the desert” of the church, “into the city that is called Ephrem,” that is, “fruitful,” “and there he has remained with his disciples.” And up to this moment, Jesus is with his disciples near the desert in the city called Ephrem, for he is present in “fruitfulness.” And at the birth, indeed, of this Ephrem, our Lord, magistrate of the grain, who begot him, who humbled himself and became obe…

Mystically, these words mean that long ago Jesus walked boldly among the Jews when the Word of God dwelled among them through prophets.… But now Jesus no longer walks boldly among the Jews but has departed from there.… He then entered the country near the desert of which it is said, “Many are the children of the desolate, more than of her who has a husband.” … Now Ephrem means “fruitfulness.” He was the brother of Manasseh, who stands for the elder people who were forgotten. For after the forgotten people were left behind, an abundant harvest from the Gentiles occurred.…“Jesus,” therefore, “no longer walks openly among the Jews but has departed from there into the country” of the whole world, “near the desert” of the church, “into the city that is called Ephrem,” that is, “fruitful,” “and there he has remained with his disciples.” And up to this moment, Jesus is with his disciples near the desert in the city called Ephrem, for he is present in “fruitfulness.” And at the birth, indeed, of this Ephrem, our Lord, magistrate of the grain, who begot him, who humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death of the cross, might say, “God increased me in the land of my humility.”

John 11:55

And the Jews' passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.

But the true purification was not before the Pasch but during the Pasch, when Jesus died as the Lamb of God for those who were purifying themselves and took away the sin of the world.

John 11:57

Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him.

Observe how it has been testified that he has withdrawn, that we too might know to do such at the proper time. And notice indeed that neither the chief priests nor the Pharisees knew where he was, and because they did not know, they gave commands that if anyone should know where he was, he should reveal it to them and they would seize him. But you will say in addition that anyone who plots against Jesus does not know where he is. This is why they give commands that are other than those of God, “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

John 12:3 · 2 passages

Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

Everything by which anyone is anointed is called oil. Ointment is one form of oil. So one form of ointment is costly; another is not. And so, every righteous action is called a good work. But one kind of good work is what we do for our fellow human beings or according to their [expectations]. Another kind of good work is something we do because of God and according to [his expectations]. Of the latter, one form is profitable to humanity; another serves only to the glory of God. For example, a person does something well under the influence of natural justice, not because of God, as sometimes even heathen or a lot of other people do. This kind of work is common oil, not of great fragrance, and yet it is duly accepted by God.…Peter says [in the Clementines] that good works done by unbelievers profit them in this world but not also in the other to the attainment of eternal life. This is only right, since they are not done because of God but because of human nature itself. But those who do them because of God, that is, believers, profit not only in this world but more especially in the on…

Everything by which anyone is anointed is called oil. Ointment is one form of oil. So one form of ointment is costly; another is not. And so, every righteous action is called a good work. But one kind of good work is what we do for our fellow human beings or according to their [expectations]. Another kind of good work is something we do because of God and according to [his expectations]. Of the latter, one form is profitable to humanity; another serves only to the glory of God. For example, a person does something well under the influence of natural justice, not because of God, as sometimes even heathen or a lot of other people do. This kind of work is common oil, not of great fragrance, and yet it is duly accepted by God.…Peter says [in the Clementines] that good works done by unbelievers profit them in this world but not also in the other to the attainment of eternal life. This is only right, since they are not done because of God but because of human nature itself. But those who do them because of God, that is, believers, profit not only in this world but more especially in the one to come. What believers do because of God is a kind of ointment that has a pleasing fragrance. But part of this very work that believers do because of God … is done for the welfare of humanity, such as the giving of alms, visitations of the sick, entertainments of strangers, humility, kindness.… Those who do these things to Christians anoint the Lord’s feet with ointment because they are the Lord’s feet with which he always walks—something that penitents are especially accustomed to do in the remission of their sins. This is a work called a fragrant ointment, but it is not the best. Rather, those who pursue charity, continue in fasting and prayer, have patience in adversities like Job, in temptations, those who are not afraid to confess the truth of God—all of which are things that are of no benefit to other people but only promote the glory of God—this is the ointment that anoints the head of the Lord Christ and from there runs down through his whole body, that is, the whole church. And this is very costly ointment whose fragrance fills the whole house, that is, the church of Christ.

There seems then much likeness and some connection about the woman in the four Evangelists. Yet I would say to those who think that all wrote of the same woman, “Do you think that the very same woman who poured precious ointment on Jesus’ head, as Matthew and Mark have related, also anointed his feet with ointment (or “myrrh,” “myrrha”) as Luke and John have related?But it is not possible that the Evangelists should have contradicted one another in relating about the same woman, since they were perfected in the same understanding and the same spirit and the same mind, and they had been seeking to minister to the welfare of the church. But if anyone thinks it is the same woman in Luke and John, let him tell us if Mary was the woman who is said in Luke to have been a sinner in a city who, learning that Jesus had sat down to meet in a Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment and stood behind his feet weeping, washing his feet with her tears. It is incredible that Mary, whom Jesus loved, the sister of Martha, who had chosen the better portion, should be said to have been a…

There seems then much likeness and some connection about the woman in the four Evangelists. Yet I would say to those who think that all wrote of the same woman, “Do you think that the very same woman who poured precious ointment on Jesus’ head, as Matthew and Mark have related, also anointed his feet with ointment (or “myrrh,” “myrrha”) as Luke and John have related?But it is not possible that the Evangelists should have contradicted one another in relating about the same woman, since they were perfected in the same understanding and the same spirit and the same mind, and they had been seeking to minister to the welfare of the church. But if anyone thinks it is the same woman in Luke and John, let him tell us if Mary was the woman who is said in Luke to have been a sinner in a city who, learning that Jesus had sat down to meet in a Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment and stood behind his feet weeping, washing his feet with her tears.
It is incredible that Mary, whom Jesus loved, the sister of Martha, who had chosen the better portion, should be said to have been a sinner in the city. And the woman who, according to Matthew and Mark, poured precious ointment on Jesus’ head is not actually written to have been a sinner. But she who according to Luke is described as a sinner did not dare to reach to Christ’s head but washed his feet with her tears—as if scarcely worthy of his very feet—from sorrow that brought about sincere repentance with salvation.
The woman in Luke wails and weeps much so that she may wash Jesus’ feet. But she, who according to John is Mary, is introduced neither as a sinner nor as weeping. Perhaps then one will say that four different women are recorded by the Evangelists. But I rather agree that there were three. There was the one of whom Matthew and Mark wrote in complete agreement. There was also the woman of whom Luke wrote, while John wrote of yet another, differing from the other woman not only in what is written about the ointment but also because Jesus loved Mary and Martha—although she also is related to have been at Bethany like the woman in Matthew and Mark.

John 12:8

For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

So powerful is the praise of a good work of this kind that it exhorts all of us to fill the Lord’s head with fragrant and rich works so that it may be said also of us that we have done a good work on his head. Because as long as we are in this life we will always have the poor with us, and those who have advanced in word and have become rich in the wisdom of God need to care for them, but [this] cannot be equal to having always with them, by night and day, the Son of God, the Word and Wisdom of God, and whatever also the Lord our Savior is.

John 12:36

While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.

Let us see what idea we are to form from the language of Paul regarding Christ where he says that he is the “brightness of the glory of God and the representation of his being.” According to John, “God is light.” The only-begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light, proceeding inseparably from God himself, just as brightness proceeds from light and illuminates the whole creation.… Through this brightness, human beings understand and experience what light itself is. And this splendor presents itself gently and softly to the frail and weak eyes of mortals and gradually trains and accustoms them, as it were, to bear the brightness of the light. It removes from them every hindrance and obstruction to their vision, according to the Lord’s own command to cast out the beam from your own eye. In this way, it renders them capable of enduring the splendor of the light and becomes, in this respect, also a kind of mediator between human beings and the light.

John 12:46

I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

When the Savior of the world came, he made the true light shine. But they did not want to gaze on it, nor were they willing to walk by the radiance of his teaching. Consequently, darkness overtook them and demanded a penalty for the wickedness that had preoccupied them. And this [darkness] might be said to have reasonably blinded and hardened them. And, just as it follows that the one who has chosen to walk in the light also knows where he is going, so it follows that the one who has not chosen to walk in the light walks in darkness and travels wretchedly along the road of the blind.…

For just as the visible sun shoots out its bright beams in order to enlighten those who have ailing eyes, so also does the spiritual Sun, the Light that has no setting or evening, come to the world and through his divine and ineffable miracles cast the brilliant gleam of his deity far and wide.

John 13:1

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.

Surely this statement does not refer to the idea of a change of place with respect to the Father and the Son toward the one who loves Jesus’ word, nor can it be understood in a spatial sense. Rather, the Word of God, by condescending to us and by being humbled, as it were, in regard to his own worth, when he is present with human beings, is said to change places from this world to the Father. The result is that we also see him in his perfection, returning from the emptying with which he emptied himself alongside us, to his own fullness.

John 13:2 · 2 passages

And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;

I would also venture to say, as consistent with the statement, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me,” that he did not wash Judas’s feet, [because] the devil had already put into his heart to betray the teacher and Lord, since the devil found him not clothed in the full armor of God and not having the shield of faith with which one can quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. [The devil] is an archer [who] prepares fiery darts for those who do not keep their heart with all watchfulness. … In the case of Judas, therefore, it has been written, “The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” Consistently with this you might say of each of those wounded in the heart by the devil, the devil having already put it in the heart of so-and-so that he should commit fornication, and of so-and-so that he should commit fraud, and of so-and-so that, mad for fame, he should submit to the idolatry of those who seem to have rank, and so in the case of the other sins that the devil puts into that heart that is not armed with the shield of fait…

I would also venture to say, as consistent with the statement, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with me,” that he did not wash Judas’s feet, [because] the devil had already put into his heart to betray the teacher and Lord, since the devil found him not clothed in the full armor of God and not having the shield of faith with which one can quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. [The devil] is an archer [who] prepares fiery darts for those who do not keep their heart with all watchfulness. … In the case of Judas, therefore, it has been written, “The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” Consistently with this you might say of each of those wounded in the heart by the devil, the devil having already put it in the heart of so-and-so that he should commit fornication, and of so-and-so that he should commit fraud, and of so-and-so that, mad for fame, he should submit to the idolatry of those who seem to have rank, and so in the case of the other sins that the devil puts into that heart that is not armed with the shield of faith, by which shield of faith one can quench not one, or two, but all the fiery darts of the wicked one.

It seems to me that the Evangelist has not preserved the literal sequence concerning the washing in these words that he might raise our understanding to the spiritual sense of the things in the passage, since those who need to wash their feet wash them before supper and before they recline to eat. The Evangelist, however, passed over that proper time for washing in his account, and now, after he has reclined to eat, Jesus arises from supper, that the teacher and Lord might begin to wash the disciples’ feet after they have eaten.

John 13:3 · 2 passages

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

The things, therefore, that were not formerly in Jesus’ hands are given into his hands by the Father. And it is not some things and not others that are given into his hands, but all things. David, too, seeing in the Spirit, says in relation to this, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’ ” For Jesus’ enemies were also a part of the “all things” that Jesus knew, so far as it was in the power of foreknowledge, to be given to him by the Father.… The Father has given all things into his hands, that is, into his power. For his hands hold all things. Or, the Father [has given all things] “to him,” for his work. “My Father works still, and I work also.”

(t. xxxiv. 3) The Father hath given all things into His hands; i. e. into His power; for His hands hold all thingsb: or to Him, for His work; My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (John 5:17)

John 13:4-5 · 2 passages

He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.

(t. xxxii. 2.) Mystically, dinner is the first meal, taken early in the spiritual day, and adapted to those who have just entered upon this day. Supper is the last meal, and is set before those who are farther advanced. According to another sense, dinner is the understanding of the Old Testament, the supper the understanding the mysteries hid in the New. Yet even they who sup with Jesus, who partake of the final meal, need a certain washing, not indeed of the top parts of their body, i. e. the soul, but its lower parts and extremities, which cleave necessarily to earth. (c. 4.). It is, And began to wash; for He did not finish His washing till afterwards. The feet of the Apostles were defiled now: All of ye shall be offended because of Me this night. (Matt. 26:31) But afterwards He cleansed them, so that they needed no more cleansing.

In bringing to mind the spiritual meaning of the passage, the Evangelist here seems to me not to have observed the literal sequence of the washing. Normally, it is before supper and before sitting down to supper that those who need to wash their feet wash them. But passing over that time in his account, he says that Jesus, having already sat down for supper, arose from supper so that the Teacher and Lord may begin to wash the feet of the disciples after they had supper. For before the supper, they had been washed and were altogether clean. But after that washing they needed a second water for just their feet, that is, the lowest parts of the body.

John 13:5

After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.

Why do you suppose it was not written, “He washed the disciples’ feet” instead of “And he began to wash the disciples’ feet”? For is it the custom of the Scriptures to prefix “he began” without a reason, as in the usage of the majority? Or did Jesus then “begin to wash the disciples’ feet” and not stop when he had washed their feet at that time? For later he washed them and completed the washing, since they were defiled, according to the saying, “You will all be made to stumble because of me this night,” and what was said to Peter, “The rooster will not crow until you deny me three times.” For when these sins occurred, the defiled feet of the disciples were again in need of washing, which he had begun to wash when he rose from supper, [but] he completed the washing when he cleansed them that they might no longer be defiled.