Theodore of Mopsuestia — Commentary on Scripture

Hebrews 12:1

He did not simply say that there is one time of repayment for all—for this was not his intention—but he said this to show that also those who had done such things and suffered such things through faith might still await the payment of the things promised. Not bearing it with ill grace, they are brought with us of the later generation. Thus he showed their even greater endurance, if indeed they still await after death those who ought to contend likewise with them so that with them we may obtain the enjoyment of all the good. And therefore he speaks of “witnesses,” not of the things suffered but of the things testified for our faith.

FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 12.1

Hebrews 12:12-13

Where are those who say that the apostle in this epistle precludes repentance by saying, “It is impossible to renew again thereafter to repentance those once enlightened”? How then do they understand these words: “Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees”? What sort of healing of the lame does this apostle, who allegedly does not believe in a repentance for those who have sinned, wish to take place? It is clear he writes these things to believers in that he says to them: “Recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings.”

FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 12.12-13

Hebrews 12:16-17

Through these words he does not wish to preclude the chance of repentance, but to teach that it is not possible for those who do not receive correction at the present time to receive it later.… For he has not been eager to say contradictory things, especially in so close proximity. And anyone could figure this out from the example that he uses. For first he made mention of Esau, who partly was disheartened when he did not obtain the blessing, but partly abided the decision even after this event owing to the malice of his character. Then when he repented of his assent to sin, he did not obtain the blessing. For he was not asking for repentance, but for the blessing that had been given to his brother in accordance with the worthiness of his character. It was impossible that the blessing would again be taken away and given to him again. Also, however, it is possible to discover that his tears were not altogether unprofitable. His father seems to have grieved thereafter for his careless son and seems to have given him some blessings. So he does not wish to preclude repentance through the…

Through these words he does not wish to preclude the chance of repentance, but to teach that it is not possible for those who do not receive correction at the present time to receive it later.… For he has not been eager to say contradictory things, especially in so close proximity. And anyone could figure this out from the example that he uses. For first he made mention of Esau, who partly was disheartened when he did not obtain the blessing, but partly abided the decision even after this event owing to the malice of his character. Then when he repented of his assent to sin, he did not obtain the blessing. For he was not asking for repentance, but for the blessing that had been given to his brother in accordance with the worthiness of his character. It was impossible that the blessing would again be taken away and given to him again. Also, however, it is possible to discover that his tears were not altogether unprofitable. His father seems to have grieved thereafter for his careless son and seems to have given him some blessings. So he does not wish to preclude repentance through these words.

FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 12.17

Hebrews 12:25-27

Based on the voice of the prophet he proves both the change from the things that now exist and the establishment of the things that follow. For the promise “to shake” makes clear that they will change altogether in the future. By the addition of the word “once and for all” he shows clearly that thereafter they will be unchangeable.

FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 12.26

Hebrews 12:25-27

Quite rightly on the basis of the prophetic verse does he establish the instability of the present order and the steadfastness of the things which shall be later. For the “shaking” shows that he is proclaiming the alteration of the present order exactly as it will be. And by adding the word once he shows that what will be afterwards cannot be changed.

COMMENTARY ON HEBREWS 12.26

Hebrews 12:28-29

The apostle did not think it possible to describe God’s judgment sufficiently in any other way than through an analogy from our experience, and for this reason he did not hesitate to call God “fire.”

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1

Hebrews 13:7

“The leaders” are those who have proclaimed the word of godliness among them and were killed by the Jews on the spot. And there were many, not only Stephen and James who was killed by the sword, but also James, brother of our Lord, and very many others handed over in silence.

FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.7

Hebrews 13:15-16

He calls it “doing good” in order to praise what takes place and “fellowship” because they are concerned about their fellow believers … and so with zeal they seek to meet their needs.

FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.16

Hosea 1:1-3

By the law the prophet was allowed to take a woman into the marriage relationship, and on marrying her he probably brought her to chaste ways. In fact, while everyone could not but be surprised that a man who was very conscious of propriety should pass over women who enjoyed a good reputation and choose to take a prostitute into the marriage relationship, the novelty of the event provided the prophet with the occasion of telling them their duty. In addition [Hosea’s marriage demonstrated] the greater marvel of God’s condescending to choose such ungrateful people for special attention by the powerful example—namely, the remarkable prophet’s doing his duty by entering into association with a prostitute.

COMMENTARY ON HOSEA 1:2

Hosea 4:4

My people are like a priest who is compromised. He has fallen from his previous dignity and does not appear worthy for any reason, just as a priest who falls into controversy would be set aside and dishonored by everyone. “And he will be weak by day.” To the greatest extent he will become weak because of the upcoming evils.

COMMENTARY ON HOSEA 4

Hosea 4:5

Of the ones who first made use of false predictions to deceive you, most will also themselves become weak because of the calamity that holds them back. As if they were wrapped up in some kind of night darkness, they see the pursuit of deceit, which was useless for them.

COMMENTARY ON HOSEA 4

Hosea 9:1

It is not fitting for you to rejoice and exult like the rest of the peoples. For they did not receive any teaching which might lead them to piety, but you, after much instruction and knowledge of God, rebelled against the knowledge which had been given to you because of the depravity of your opinion, and turned to the worship of the idols.

COMMENTARY ON HOSEA 9

Hosea 14:9

You could really demonstrate that a wise and understanding person is the one with knowledge of what has been said and with zeal for the things by which it is possible for people who avoid evil and zealously practice good to be established in freedom from lower things and in enjoyment of higher things. This is because everything done by God is marked by great correctness, with which he also applies punishment to the fallen and knows how to achieve their salvation when they repent. You could also demonstrate that the righteous are those of their number who also know how to profit from each category and who develop greater self-control from the punishments, on the one hand, while taking the enjoyment of the good things stemming from repentance as a stimulus to virtue, on the other. You could also demonstrate that the impious are those who deserve troubles in every way and of every kind, gaining nothing from them, stuck fast in a downward direction, and as a result not able to understand anything of their duty.

COMMENTARY ON HOSEA 14:10

Joel 1:4

In a figurative manner he wants to convey to them the impending troubles; as always, the earlier ones are surpassed by those coming later. Tiglath-pileser, king of the Assyrians, came like a cutting locust, he is saying, and laid waste no small proportion of your possessions. After him Shalmaneser [came] like some kind of locust further ravaging your goods. After them Sennacherib [came] like a young locust wreaking general destruction on the twelve tribes of Israel. Like some kind of blight in addition to these came the attack of the Babylonian, who took the people of Judah as well and inflicted the evil of captivity on all in common.

COMMENTARY ON JOEL 1:4–5

Joel 2:28-32

Blessed Peter used this text in speaking to Jews on the occasion of the descent of the Holy Spirit. And rightly so, since the law contained a shadow of all things to come, whereas the people were granted care owing to the expectation of what would appear at the coming of Christ the Lord. What happened in their time was all insignificant and like a shadow, so that the account was given with use of hyperbole rather than containing facts. The reality of the account was found to be realized in the time of Christ the Lord, when everything was important and awesome, novel and really baffling, surpassing what had happened under the law to the greatest extent imaginable.

COMMENTARY ON JOEL 2:28–32

John 1:1

Since he thought it necessary to speak about the divinity of the Only Begotten and to teach both who he is and the nature of his existence, the blessed John emulates this use of language, saying, “In the beginning was the Word.” You see, since Moses described the beginning of the things that were made—showing clearly in the account of creation that their maker preexisted—John judged it to be superfluous for himself also to recount the beginning of what was made and declares that the Son was the beginning of the things that exist; that is, he was in the beginning because he always was. So then, when making inquiry into issues of existence, one concerned with creation should not say that created things existed in the beginning, for they did not exist before they were made, because if they existed, they were not made. Rather, going beyond these—on the ground that at some time they did not exist—since we find something transcending them, we should say that it was this that was in the beginning.Therefore, if indeed the Word did not exist—as the crazed Arians say—but received his existence…

Since he thought it necessary to speak about the divinity of the Only Begotten and to teach both who he is and the nature of his existence, the blessed John emulates this use of language, saying, “In the beginning was the Word.” You see, since Moses described the beginning of the things that were made—showing clearly in the account of creation that their maker preexisted—John judged it to be superfluous for himself also to recount the beginning of what was made and declares that the Son was the beginning of the things that exist; that is, he was in the beginning because he always was. So then, when making inquiry into issues of existence, one concerned with creation should not say that created things existed in the beginning, for they did not exist before they were made, because if they existed, they were not made. Rather, going beyond these—on the ground that at some time they did not exist—since we find something transcending them, we should say that it was this that was in the beginning.Therefore, if indeed the Word did not exist—as the crazed Arians say—but received his existence at a later time, then he was not the one who was in the beginning, and [the title would belong to] the one who was when he was not. I shall not pass over the first and refer to the second as “the beginning.” This is, then, the meaning of the Word found in the Gospel of John, since he is the first terminus of the things that exist. If he is the first terminus, however, it was never when he was not, because he always was. Therefore, nothing will ever preexist him—inasmuch as the Father may be regarded as preceding any cause, for he himself exists in himself, so also the Son exists. For this reason he certainly did not mean for the phrase “he was in the beginning” to be taken in the same sense as the phrase “in the beginning God created.” Indeed, there the addition of the word created defined the beginning in regard to the created things, so as to signify only their beginning, whereas here he said simply and absolutely, “He was in the beginning.” And so it is apparent that the Word discussed here is the Word that is the first and principal beginning, to which nothing of what exists can be regarded as prior. And he added the word was to the phrase “in the beginning” to show that he was indicating without any qualification the “beginning” of the things that exist, which indeed is the “first being” and the “ever-being” and the “never not being.”

COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, FRAGMENT 2.1, 1-2

John 1:1

In a word, they have shown in their use of terms and exposition of their doctrines that they call “beginning” that which is before everything. Indeed, you will not find that the divine Scriptures say anything different. Even among common people the name “beginning” is used in a similar sense. Let me now give a suitable example: the blessed Moses, intending to instruct the Jewish nation both about God and created things—how God alone was the one who existed, while they were made—and wishing to explain to us the order of the creation of those things, said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did not say “they were in the beginning,” because he believed that expression was not suitable for things that did not exist by themselves and were created. This is because he knew that the Creator, God, existed before them. Nor was he content only to say “in the beginning.” Rather, he said, “In the beginning God created,” thinking that it would be better to mention their creator first and then add what had been created in the beginning. He first mentioned God their creator…

In a word, they have shown in their use of terms and exposition of their doctrines that they call “beginning” that which is before everything. Indeed, you will not find that the divine Scriptures say anything different. Even among common people the name “beginning” is used in a similar sense. Let me now give a suitable example: the blessed Moses, intending to instruct the Jewish nation both about God and created things—how God alone was the one who existed, while they were made—and wishing to explain to us the order of the creation of those things, said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” He did not say “they were in the beginning,” because he believed that expression was not suitable for things that did not exist by themselves and were created. This is because he knew that the Creator, God, existed before them. Nor was he content only to say “in the beginning.” Rather, he said, “In the beginning God created,” thinking that it would be better to mention their creator first and then add what had been created in the beginning. He first mentioned God their creator in order to raise the mind of his audience toward him, and then he related the things that were made.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1

John 1:2

John wanted to persuade by using the name “Word,” as if by an analogy, that it was possible for something to be from something else without having to be separated from it by length of time.… Also, because he said “he was in the beginning,” he showed not that he was without a beginning but rather that he was coexistent from eternity with his beginning.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1

John 1:3

Intending to make the divinity of the Only Begotten clearer, [the Evangelist] wanted to show the difference [of the Son] not only by indicating his dignity but also by demonstrating that he has no participation with the created order. He says, “[The Word] was with God in the beginning,” and “All things were made through him.” By saying this, he has opposed himself to “all things made.” He was, he says, in the beginning with God, all creatures were made through him. And clearly he made a comparison with “in the beginning was,” and its opposite, “all things were made through him.” Therefore he was not made, because in the beginning he was; they were made because they did not exist before. He himself is the explanation of the precedents. He shows what he means through the words “In the beginning was,” clearly asserting his eternity.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.2-3

John 1:12

For those, he says, who received him, their reception was not useless. He gave them something great and excellent; certainly, insofar as it is possible, he made them equal in honor by giving them the gift of sonship. They take advantage of that grace not by being reborn in the body according to the natural order of generation. Rather, they are given birth by divine power through a certain similarity and relationship with him.

COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.12