Origen of Alexandria

From this place we learn by the Saviour's example not to be allured by those things which have many voices for them, and thence seem famous, but to incline rather to those things which are spoken according to some method of reason. But we may also understand this place morally, that we ought to give some things to the body as a tribute to Cæsar, that is to say, necessaries. And such things as are congenial to our souls' nature, that is, such things as lead to virtue, those we ought to offer to God. They then who without any moderation inculcate the law of God, and command us to have no care for the things required by the body, are the Pharisees, who forbad to give tribute to Cæsar, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created. (1 Tim. 4:3.) They, on the other hand, who allow too much indulgence to the body are the Herodians. But our Saviour would neither that virtue should be enfeebled by immoderate devotedness to the flesh; nor that our fleshly nature should be oppressed by our unremitting efforts after virtue. Or the prince of this world, that is, the Devil, is called Cæsar; and we cannot render to God the things that are God's, unless we have first rendered to this prince all that is his, that is, have cast off all wickedness. This moreover let us learn from this place, that to those who tempt us we should neither be totally silent, nor yet answer openly, but with caution, to cut off all occasion from those who seek occasion in us, and teach without blame the things which may save those who are willing to be saved.

Two (1 Cor. 1:24.) things there are which He says they know not, the Scriptures and the power of God, by which is brought to pass the resurrection, and the new life in it. Or by the power of God, which the Lord here convicts the Sadducees that they knew not, He intends Himself, who was the power of God; and Him they knew not, as not knowing the Scriptures which spoke of Him; and thence also they believed not the resurrection, which He should effect. But it is asked when the Saviour says, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures, if He means that this text, They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, is in some Scripture, though it is not read in the Old Testament? We say that these very words are indeed not found, but that the truth is in a mystery implied in the moral sense of Scripture; the Law, which is a shadow of good things to come, whenever it speaks of husbands and wives, speaks chiefly of spiritual wedlock. But neither this do I find any where spoken in Scripture that the Saints shall be after their departure as the Angels of God, unless one will understand this also to be inferred morally; as where it is said, And thou shalt go to thy fathers, (Gen. 15:15.) and He was gathered to his people. (Gen. 25:8.) Or one may say; He blamed them that they read not the other Scriptures which are besides the Law, and therefore they erred. Another says, That they knew not the Scriptures of the Mosaic Law, for this reason, that they did not sift their divine sense.

Now let us consider one argument of entrapment: “Teacher,” he says, “what is the greater commandment in the law?” He says “teacher” trying to entrap him, since he offers his thoughts not as a disciple of Christ. This however, will be clearer from an example we now offer. Consider: The father of a son is indeed the father, and no one else is able to call him father except the son; and the mother of a daughter is indeed her mother, and no one else can call her mother except her own daughter. And so the teacher of a disciple is indeed his teacher, and the disciple of a teacher is truly his disciple. As a result, no one is able to say “teacher” properly except a disciple. And see how, on account of this, that not all who call him teacher do so appropriately but only those who have a desire to learn from him. He said to his disciples, “You call me teacher and lord, and rightly so, for so I am.” Therefore disciples of Christ properly indeed address him as teacher, and by this word from the Lord himself his servants rightly call him Lord. Thus the apostle spoke well when he said, “Yet for us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and for whom we exist.” And consider what he says, “It is enough for the disciple to be” not simply like a teacher but “like his teacher.” Therefore if anyone does not learn something from this word or surrender himself with his whole heart, in order to become his delightful dwelling place but still calls him “teacher,” he is brother to the Pharisees attempting to entrap Christ while calling him “teacher.” And so all who say “Our Father who art in heaven” ought not to have “the spirit of slavery in fear but a spirit of the adoption of sons.” However, whoever does not have “the spirit of adoption of sons” and yet says “Our Father who art in heaven” is lying, since he is not a son of God, while calling God his father.

Or otherwise; With all thy heart, that is, in all recollection, act, thought; with all thy soul, to be ready, that is, to lay it down for God's religion; with all thy mind, bringing forth nothing but what is of God. And consider whether you cannot thus take the heart of the understanding, by which we contemplate things intellectual, and the mind of that by which we utter thoughts, walking as it were with the mind through each expression, and uttering it. If the Lord had given no answer to the Pharisee who thus tempted Him, we should have judged that there was no commandment greater than the rest. But when the Lord adds, This is the first and great commandment, we learn how we ought to think of the commandments, that there is a great one, and that there are less down to the least. And the Lord says not only that it is a great, but that it is the first commandment, not in order of Scripture, but in supremacy of value. They only take upon them the greatness and supremacy of this precept, who not only love the Lord their God, but add these three conditions. Nor did He only teach the first and great commandment, but added that there was a second like unto the first, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. But if Whoso loveth iniquity hath hated his own soul, (Ps. 11:5.) it is manifest that he does not love his neighbour as himself, when he does not love himself.

Or, because he that has fulfilled the things that are written concerning the love of God and our neighbour, is worthy to receive from God the great reward, that he should be enabled to understand the Law and the Prophets.

It is very worthy for us to consider that our Savior willingly proposed to the Pharisees his question about the Christ, hoping that they might respond in a fitting manner. They were not able to respond adequately. Nonetheless it was the will of the Savior to enter into dialogue with his audacious proponents, the Pharisees, with their many propositions, and similarly with the Sadducees, who placed before him the question of the seven brothers and their one wife. The Pharisees and Sadducees asked their many questions to tempt Jesus, not to learn from him. They appeared to be well-prepared doctors of the law but were not. This is why the Lord chose to put his own questions to those who were professing to have knowledge of the law: that these matters might be argued openly before the people. The Lord did not give clear responses to his questioners even though he himself responded to all their questions. It was entirely appropriate that the Lord himself, in accordance with the custom of dining with the doctors, show and hand over true divine teaching. They nevertheless did not recognize him as the prophet who was the pinnacle of all prophets.