Origen of Alexandria

And at the end of things, which is called “the consummation of the age,” there will of necessity be a harvest, in order that the angels of God who have been appointed for this work may gather up the bad opinions that have grown upon the soul, and overturning them may give them over to fire which is said to burn, that they may be consumed. And so the angels and servants of the Word will gather from Christ’s entire kingdom all things that cause a stumbling block to souls and their reasonings that create iniquity, which they will scatter and cast into the burning furnace of fire. Then those who become conscious that they have received the seeds of the evil one in themselves, because of their having been asleep, shall wail and, as it were, be angry with themselves. This is the “gnashing of teeth.” Similarly it is said in the Psalms, “They gnashed me with their teeth.” Then above all “shall the righteous shine,” no longer differently as at the first but all “as one sun in the kingdom of their Father.” Then, as if to indicate that there was indeed a hidden meaning, perhaps in all that is concerned with the explanation of the parable, maybe most of all in the saying “Then shall the righteous shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father,” the Savior adds, “He that has ears to hear, let him hear.” The Lord thereby teaches those who are attentive that in the exposition, the parable has been set forth with such perfect clearness that it can be understood by the novice.

Now a man who comes to the field, whether to the Scriptures or to the Christ who is formed both from things manifest and from things hidden, finds the hidden treasure of wisdom whether in Christ or in the Scriptures. For, going round to visit the field and searching the Scriptures and seeking to understand the Christ, he finds the treasure in it. Having found it, he hides it, thinking that it is not without danger to reveal to everybody the secret meanings of the Scriptures or the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Christ. And, having hidden it, he goes away. Now he is focused on the heavy labor of devising how he shall buy the field, or the Scriptures, that he may make them his own possession, receiving from the people of God the oracles of God with which the Jews were first entrusted. But when one taught by Christ has bought the field, the kingdom of God, according to another parable, is like a vineyard that is “taken from” the first and given to other nations bringing forth its fruits. The one who bought the field in faith, as the fruit of his having sold all else that he had, no longer was keeping anything that was formerly his. For they would be a distracting source of evil to him.And you will give the same application, if the field containing the hidden treasure is Christ. Those who give up all things and follow him have, as it were in another way, sold their possessions. Thus by having sold and surrendered them and having received in their place a noble resolution from God their helper, they may purchase, at great cost worthy of the field, the field containing the hidden treasure.

And those who attended to the net that was cast into the sea are Jesus Christ, the master of the net, and “the angels who came and ministered to him.” It is not until the net is filled full that they will draw it up from the sea and carry it to the shore beyond the sea—namely, to things beyond this life—but not until the “fullness of the Gentiles” has been drawn into it. But when that fullness has come, then they draw it up from things here below and carry it to what is figuratively called the shore. There it will be the work of those who have drawn it up to sit by the shore, there to settle themselves in order that they may put each of the good fish in its own proper place, into the right vessel. But they will cast outside those that are of an opposite character and are called bad. By “outside” is meant the furnace of fire, as the Savior interpreted it, saying, “So shall it be at the consummation of the age. The angels shall come forth and separate the wicked from among the righteous and shall cast them into the furnace of fire.” Only it must be observed that we are already taught by the parable of the tares and the other similitudes set forth that the angels are to be entrusted with the power to distinguish and separate the evil from the righteous. For it is said above, “The Son of Man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and those who do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire. There shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth.” But here it is said, “The angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the righteous and shall cast them into the furnace of fire.”

And one is a scribe “as a disciple to the kingdom of heaven” in the simpler sense, when one comes from Judaism and receives the teaching of Jesus Christ as defined by the church. But one is a scribe in a deeper sense when having received elementary knowledge through the letter of the Scriptures one ascends to things spiritual, which are called the kingdom of heaven. And as each thought is attained, grasped abstractly and proved by example and absolute demonstration, thereby one can understand the kingdom of heaven. Thus one who abounds in knowledge free from error is in the kingdom of the multitude of what are here represented as “heavens.” … Hence, so far as Jesus Christ, “who was in the beginning with God, God the Word,” has not his home in a soul, the kingdom of heaven is not in it. But when anyone comes close to admission of the Word, to that one the kingdom of heaven is near. But if the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are the same thing in reality, if not in idea, manifestly to those to whom it is said, “The kingdom of God is within you,” to them also it might be said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you.” This is most true because of the repentance from the letter to the spirit, since “when one turns to the Lord, the veil over the letter is taken away.”

We must therefore inquire whether by the expression “his own country” is meant Nazareth or Bethlehem. It might have been Nazareth, because of the saying “he shall be called a Nazarene.” Or it might have been Bethlehem, since he was born there. Furthermore, I wonder whether the Evangelists could have said “coming to Bethlehem” or “coming to Nazareth.” They have not done so but have named it more simply “his country.” This is because of something being declared in a mystic sense in the passage about his country—namely, the whole of Judea—in which he was dishonored. This is according to the saying “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country.” Jesus Christ was considered “a stumbling block to the Jews,” among whom he is persecuted even until now. But he was proclaimed among the Gentiles and believed in everywhere—for his word has run over the whole world. In his own country Jesus had no honor, but among those who were “strangers from the covenants,” the Gentiles, he is held in honor. But the Evangelists have not recorded what things he taught and spoke in their synagogue. All we know is that they were so great and of such a nature that all were astonished. Probably the things spoken were too elevated to be written down. Only let us note that he taught in their synagogue, not separating from it or disregarding it.

And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" [Matthew 13:55-56] They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," [Luke 1:35] might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [Galatians 1:19] And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." [Jude 1]

We must inquire whether the expression has the same force when applied universally to every prophet. Does it mean that every one of the prophets was dishonored only in his own country? Or does it mean that every one who was dishonored was dishonored in his country? Or does it mean that because of the expression being singular, these things were said about only one? If these words are spoken about only one, then these things that have been said make sense insofar as they refer to what is written about the Savior. But if the point is generalized to indicate all prophets, then it is harder to defend historically. For Elijah did not suffer dishonor in Tishbeth of Gilead, nor Elisha in Abetmeholah, nor Samuel in Ramathaim, nor Jeremiah in Anathoth. But, figuratively interpreted, this saying is absolutely true. For we must think of Judea as their country and that famous Israel as their kindred, and perhaps of the body as the house. All suffered dishonor in Judea from the Israel that is according to the flesh while they were yet in the body. As it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute, who declared beforehand the coming of the righteous One?” And Paul says similar things in the first epistle to the Thessalonians: “For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all people.”

The Jews had different opinions about the resurrection. Some of them were false. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead or in the existence of angels. They believed those things that were written about them were only to be interpreted figuratively but had no reality in point of fact.Other Jewish views of the resurrection were true, such as were taught by the Pharisees about the resurrection of the dead—that they rise.We must now therefore inquire about the opinion regarding the soul, which was mistakenly held by Herod and some from among the people. It ran something like this: John, who a little earlier had been slain by him, had risen from the dead after he had been beheaded. This person who had risen was the same person under a different name, one now called Jesus. Herod imagined that Jesus possessed the same powers that formerly worked in John. If the powers that worked in John had passed over to Jesus, Jesus was thus thought by some to actually be John the Baptist.
The return of Elijah fueled this idea. Here is the line of argument. It was the spirit and power of Elijah that had returned in John. “This is Elijah who is to come.” The spirit in Elijah possessed the power to go into John. So Herod thought that the powers John worked in baptism and teaching had a miraculous effect in Jesus, even though John did not do miracles. It may be said that something of this kind was the underlying thought of those who said that Elijah had appeared in Jesus or that one of the old prophets had risen.

I have previously quoted some of the words of Isaiah that precede the verse quoted in the Gospel and some of the words that follow the verse quoted in the Gospel. In this way we may show the way in which the word promises that it will close “the eyes” of those of the people who were “out of their senses” and “drunken” and who had been given to drink a “spirit of stupefaction.” The word also promises to “close the eyes both of their prophets and their rulers” who claim to “see the hidden things.”I suppose that these very things happened after the Savior had dwelt with these people. For “all the words,” the words of the Scriptures in their entirety and also those of Isaiah, became to them “as the words of a sealed book.” Now the word sealed was said as if the book was sealed with obscurity and not opened with clarity. The book is unclear to those who right from the start are “not able to read it” simply because “they are illiterate.” It is also equally unclear to “those who are literate” because they do not understand the meaning in the things that have been written.
Hence the word rightly adds to these things that the people would “fall into unconsciousness” because of their sins and would be “out of their senses” with madness against the word. The word also adds that the people would “be drunk” against it “with a spirit of stupefaction.” The Lord would give them this “spirit of stupefaction” to drink when he “closed their eyes,” because they were unworthy of seeing. This would happen to the eyes of “both their prophets and their rulers” that claimed to “see the hidden things” of the mysteries in the divine Scriptures. The word says that when all these things had happened and when their eyes had been closed, then the prophetic words would be sealed and concealed from them. This is exactly what the people experienced along with those who did not believe in Jesus as Messiah.

Now anyone who has come to this place in the text can agree that it is “not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man,” even if it is considered to be defiling by Jews. In exactly the same way it is “not what enters into the mouth” that makes the person holy. This is so even if that which is called the bread of the Lord is considered to make the person holy by some of the more impeccable disciples. The two cases are similar. It is not the food but the conscience of the one who eats with doubt about its propriety that defiles the person who has eaten. For “the one who doubts is condemned if one eats, because one is not eating from faith.” It is also like the case in which “nothing is pure to the one who is defiled and unbelieving.” The thing involved is impure not because of itself but because of the person’s defilement and unbelief. In the same way, that which is “made holy through the word of God and prayer” does not on its own account make the one who uses it holy. For if it did, it would also make holy the one who eats of the Lord “in an unworthy manner” and no one would become “weak” or “sickly” or would “sleep” because of this food. For this is what Paul showed in the statement, “Because of this many among you are weak and sickly and a significant number are falling asleep.” Therefore, in the case of the bread of the Lord, the one who uses it derives benefit when one shares in the bread with a mind that is undefiled and a conscience that is pure.