| << | Contents | >> |
Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
After this it is written that “there came unto Him the Pharisees tempting Him and saying, Is it lawful for a man to wife for every cause?”[6156] Mark, also, has written to the like effect.[6157] Accordingly, of those who came to Jesus and inquired of Him, there were some who put questions to tempt Him; and if our Saviour so transcendent was tempted, which of His disciples who is ordained to teach need be vexed, when he is tempted by some who inquire, not from the love of learning, but from the wish to tempt? And you might find many passages, if you brought them together, in which the Pharisees tempted our Jesus, and others, different from them, as a certain lawyer,[6158] and perhaps also a scribe,[6159] that by bringing together what is said about those who tempted Him, you might find by investigation what is useful for this kind of inquiries. Only, the Saviour, in response to those who tempted Him, laid down dogmas; for they said, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his own wife for every cause?” and He answered and said, “Have ye not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?”[6160] etc. And I think that the Pharisees put forward this word for this reason, that they might attack Him whatever He might say; as, for example, if He had said, “It is lawful,” they would have accused Him of dissolving marriages for trifles; but, if He had said, “It is not lawful,” they would have accused Him of permitting a man to dwell with a woman, even with sins; so, likewise, in the case of the tribute-money,[6161] if He had told them to give, they would have accused Him of making the people subject to the Romans, and not to the law of God, but if He had told them not to give, they would have accused Him of creating war and sedition, and of stirring up those who were not able to stand against so powerful an army. But they did not perceive in what way He answered blamelessly and wisely, in the first place, rejecting the opinion that a wife was to be put away for every cause, and, in the second place, giving answer to the question about the bill of divorcement; for He saw that not every cause is a reasonable ground for the dissolution of marriage, and that the husband must dwell with the wife as the weaker vessel, giving honour,[6162] and bearing her burdens in sins;[6163] and by what is written in Genesis, He puts to shame the Pharisees who boasted in the Scriptures of Moses, by saying, “Have ye not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,” etc., and, subjoining to these words, because of the saying, “And the twain shall become one flesh,” teaching in harmony with one flesh, namely, “So that they are no more twain, but one flesh.”[6164] And, as tending to convince them that they should not put away their wife for every cause, is it said, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”[6165] It is to be observed, however, in the exposition of the words quoted from Genesis in the Gospel, that they were not spoken consecutively as they are written in the Gospel; and I think that it is not even said about the same persons, namely, of those who were formed after the image of God, and of those who were formed from the dust of the ground and from one of the ribs of Adam. For where it is said, “Male and female made He them,”[6166] the reference is to those formed “after the image,” but where He also said, “For this cause shall a man leave his own father and mother,”[6167] etc., the reference is not to those formed after the image; for some time after the Lord God formed the man, taking dust from the ground, and from his side the helpmate. And mark, at the same time, that in the case of those who are formed “after the image,” the words were not “husband and wife” but “male and female.” But we have also observed this in the Hebrew, for man is indicated by the word “is,” but male by the word “zachar,” and again woman by the word “essa,” but female by the word “agkeba.” For at no time is it “woman” or “man” “after the image,” but the superior class, the male, and the second, the female. But also if a man leave his mother and his father, he cleaves not to the female, but to his own wife, and “they become,” since man and woman are one in flesh, “one flesh.” Then, describing what ought to be in the case of those who are joined together by God, so that they may be joined together in a manner worthy of God, the Saviour adds, “So that they are no more twain;”[6168] and, wherever there is indeed concord, and unison, and harmony, between husband and wife, when he is as ruler and she is obedient to the word, “He shall rule over thee,”[6169] then of such persons we may truly say, “They are no more twain.” Then since it was necessary that for “him who was joined to the Lord,” it should be reserved “that he should become one spirit with Him,”[6170] in the case of those who are joined together by God, after the words, “So that they are no more twain,” it is said, “but one flesh.” And it is God who has joined together the two in one so that they are no more twain, from the time that[6171] the woman is married to the man. And, since God has joined them together, on this account in the case of those who are joined together by God, there is a “gift”; and Paul knowing this, that marriage according to the Word of God was a “gift,” like as holy celibacy was a gift, says, “But I would that all men were like myself; howbeit, each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.”[6172] And those who are joined together by God both mind and keep the precept, “Husbands love your wives, as Christ also the church.”[6173] The Saviour then commanded, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,”[6174] but man wishes to put asunder what God hath joined together, when, “falling away from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron, forbidding,” not only to commit fornication, but “to marry,”[6175] he dissolves even those who had been before joined together by the providence of God. Let these things then be said, keeping in view what is expressly said concerning the male and the female, and the man and the woman, as the Saviour taught in the answer to the Pharisees.
But since the Apostle understands the words, “And they twain shall be one flesh,”[6176] of Christ and the church,[6177] we must say that Christ keeping the saying, “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder,”[6178] did not put away His former wife, so to speak—that is, the former synagogue—for any other cause than that that wife committed fornication, being made an adulteress by the evil one, and along with him plotted against her husband and slew Him, saying, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, crucify Him, crucify Him.”[6179] It was she therefore who herself revolted, rather than her husband who put her away and dismissed her; wherefore, reproaching her for falling away from him, it says in Isaiah, “Of what kind is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, with which I sent her away?”[6180] And He who at the beginning created Him “who is in the form of God” after the image, made Him male, and the church female, granting to both oneness after the image. And, for the sake of the church, the Lord—the husband—left the Father whom He saw when He was “in the form of God,”[6181] left also His mother, as He was the very son of the Jerusalem which is above, and was joined to His wife who had fallen down here, and these two here became one flesh. For because of her, He Himself also became flesh, when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,”[6182] and they are no more two, but now they are one flesh, since it is said to the wife, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members each in his part;”[6183] for the body of Christ is not something apart different from the church, which is His body, and from the members each in his part. And God has joined together these who are not two, but have become one flesh, commanding that men should not separate the church from the Lord. And he who takes heed for himself so as not to be separated, is confident as one who will not possibly be separated and says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”[6184] Here, therefore, the saying, “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,”[6185] was written with relation to the Pharisees, but to those who are superior to the Pharisees, it could be said, “What then God hath joined together, let nothing put asunder,” neither principality nor power; for God, who has joined together is stronger than all those which any one could conceive and name.
After this we will discuss the saying of the Pharisees which they said to Jesus, “Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorcement and put her away?”[6186] And with good reason we will bring forward for this purpose the passage from Deuteronomy concerning the bill of divorcement, which is as follows: “But if a man taketh a wife and cohabit with her, and it shall be, if she do not find favour in his sight because he hath found in her a thing unseemly,” etc., down to the words, “and ye shall not pollute the land which the Lord your God giveth you for an inheritance.”[6187] Now I inquire whether in these things according to this law, we are to seek nothing in it beyond the letter seeing that God has not given it, or whether to the Pharisees who quoted the saying, “Moses commanded to give a bill of divorcement and put her away,” it was of necessity said, “Moses, for your hardness of heart, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it hath not been so.”[6188] But if any one ascends to the Gospel of Christ Jesus which teaches that the law is spiritual, he will seek also the spiritual understanding of this law. And he who wishes to interpret these things figuratively will say that, just as it was said by Paul confident in the grace which he had, “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth, but if the husband be dead she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord; but she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment, and I think that I also have the Spirit of God”[6189] (for here to the words, “after my judgment,” lest it should be despised as being without the Spirit of God, he well added, “and I think that I also have the Spirit of God),” so also it would be possible for Moses, by reason of the power given to him to make laws, to the effect that he suffered for the hardness of heart of the people certain things, among which was the putting away of wives, to be persuaded in regard to the laws which he promulgated according to his own judgment, that in these also the legislation took place with the Spirit of God. And he will say that, unless one law is spiritual and another is not such, this is a law, and this is spiritual, and its spiritual significance ought to be investigated.
Now, keeping in mind what we said above in regard to the passage from Isaiah about the bill of divorcement, we will say that the mother of the people separated herself from Christ, her husband, without having received the bill of divorcement, but afterwards when there was found in her an unseemly thing, and she did not find favour in his sight, the bill of divorcement was written out for her; for when the new covenant called those of the Gentiles to the house of Him who had cast away his former wife, it virtually gave the bill of divorcement to her who formerly separated from her husband—the law, and the Word. Therefore he, also, having separated from her, married, so to speak, another, having given into the hands of the former the bill of divorcement; wherefore they can no longer do the things enjoined on them by the law, because of the bill of divorcement. And a sign that she has received the bill of divorcement is this, that Jerusalem was destroyed along with what they called the sanctuary of the things in it which were believed to be holy, and with the altar of burnt offerings, and all the worship associated with it. And a further sign of the bill of divorcement is this, that they cannot keep their feasts, even though according to the letter of the law designedly commanded them, in the place which the Lord God appointed to them for keeping feasts; but there is this also, that the whole synagogue has become unable to stone those who have committed this or that sin; and thousands of things commanded are a sign of the bill of divorcement; and the fact that “there is no more a prophet,” and that they say, “We no longer see signs;”[6190] for the Lord says, “He hath taken away from Judæa and from Jerusalem,” according to the word of Isaiah, “Him that is mighty, and her that is mighty, a powerful giant,” etc., down to the words, “a prudent hearer.”[6191] Now, He who is the Christ may have taken the synagogue to wife and cohabited with her, but it may be that afterwards she found not favour in His sight; and the reason of her not having found favour in His sight was, that there was found in her an unseemly thing; for what was more unseemly than the circumstance that, when it was proposed to them to release one at the feast, they asked for the release of Barabbas the robber, and the condemnation of Jesus?[6192] And what was more unseemly than the fact, that they all said in His case, “Crucify Him, crucify Him,” and “Away with such a fellow from the earth”?[6193] And can this be freed from the charge of unseemliness, “His blood be upon us, and upon our children”?[6194] Wherefore, when He was avenged, Jerusalem was compassed with armies, and its desolation was near,[6195] and their house was taken away from it, and “the daughter of Zion was left as a booth in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and as a besieged city.”[6196] And, about the same time, I think, the husband wrote out a bill of divorcement to his former wife, and gave it into her hands, and sent her away from his own house, and the bond of her who came from the Gentiles has been cancelled about which the Apostle says, “Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances, which was contrary to us, and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;”[6197] for Paul also and others became proselytes of Israel for her who came from the Gentiles.[6198] The first wife, accordingly, not having found favour before her husband, because in her had been found an unseemly thing, went out from the dwelling of her husband, and, going away, has become joined to another man, to whom she has subjected herself, whether we should call the husband Barabbas the robber, who is figuratively the devil, or some evil power. And in the case of some of that synagogue there has happened the former thing which was written in the law, but in the case of others, that which was second. For the last husband[6199] hated his wife and will write out for her some day at the consummation of things a bill of divorcement, when God so orders it, and will give it into her hands and will send her away from his dwelling; for as the good God will put enmity between the serpent and the woman, and between his seed and her seed,[6200] so will He order it that the last husband shall hate her.
Now there are those in whose case it has happened that the man dwells with them without having hated them, because they abide in the house of the last husband, who took to himself their synagogue as wife. But also in their case the latter husband dies,[6201] perhaps whenever the last enemy of Christ, death, is destroyed. But whichever of these things may happen, whether the former or the latter to the wife, the former husband, it says, who sent her away, will not he able to turn back and take her to be a wife to himself after she has been defiled, since “it is abomination,” it says, “before the Lord thy God.”[6202] But these things will not seem to be consistent with this, “If the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, all Israel shall be saved.”[6203] But consider if it can be said to this, that, if she shall be saved by her former husband returning and taking her to himself as wife, she will in any case be saved after she has been polluted. A priest, then, will not take to himself as a wife one who has been a harlot and an outcast,[6204] but no other, as being inferior to the priest, is hindered from doing so. But if you seek for the harlot in regard to the calling of the Gentiles, you may use the passage, “Take to yourself a wife of fornication, and children of fornication,”[6205] etc.; for, as “the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless,”[6206] so he who, casting out his former wife, takes in due season “a wife of fornication,” having done it according to the command of Him who says, when it is necessary, and so long as it was necessary, “He shall not take a harlot to wife,” and, when it was reasonable, He says, “Take toyourself a wife of fornication.” For as the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath,[6207] and not the slave of the sabbath as the people are, so He who gives the law has power to give it “until a time of reformation,”[6208] and to change the law, and, when the time of the reformation is at hand, also to give after the former way and after the former heart another way and another heart, “in an acceptable time, and in a day of salvation.”[6209] And let these things be said according to our interpretation of the law in regard to the bill of divorcement.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0001 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page