INTRODUCTION

Book 16 of Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew covers the following pericopes from Matthew:

§§1-3 – Matt 20.17-19, on Jesus’ third passion prediction

§§4-7 – Matt 20.20-24, on the request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee

§8 – Matt 20.25-28, on honor and the exercising of authority in the kingdom

§§9-13 – Matt 20.29-34, on the healing of the two blind men

§§14-17 – Matt 21.1-5, on the lead up to the Triumphal Entry & the Prophecy of Zechariah

§§18-19 – Matt 21.6-11, on the Triumphal Entry

§§20-23 – Matt 21.12-13, on the Purification of the Temple

§§24-25 – Matt 21.14-16, on Jesus’ healing in the Temple & dispute with Jewish leaders

§§26-29 – Matt 21.17-22, on the Withered Fig Tree

Originally comprised of 25 books (St. Jerome, Ep. 33.4), only Books 10-17 of the Commentary have survived in the original Greek. Until just recently, with the publication of Ronald Heine’s translation of what remains of Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, to my knowledge no English translation of the Greek text of Books 15-17 was ever produced. The Ante-Nicene Fathers series contains a translation of Books 10-14 (Greek), and no reason is offered for why the translation was not continued. One can find occasional selections of the commentary translated in, e.g., Balthasar’s Origen: Spirit & Fire, the Ancient Christian Commentary on Matthew, and in other secondary scholarly discussions.

For this revised translation of Book 16, as with that of Books 15 and 17, we did not have occasion to consult Ronald Heine’s (assuredly superior) translation.^[1] It is hoped that the side-by-side presentation of text and translation will be of benefit, in any case. The revisions include a good number of corrections and general attempts to improve the rendering of the translation, as from a growing competency in Patristic Greek.

In relationship to Origen’s body of work, the Commentary on Matthew, dating from AD 244 or after,^[2] is one of his latest works, along with Contra Celsum. These two works, says Heine, “provide Origen’s most mature thinking about the Christian faith”^[3]—they are, as it were, the crowning achievement of Origen’s career.^[4]

Some of the “highlights” from this specimen of Origen’s work might include:

• A reflection on how Christians should respond to the threat of persecution (§1)

• A reflection on martyrdom (§6)

• A division of the spiritual/ascetic life into the practical & the contemplative disciplines (§7)^[5]

• A running concern with the character of Judas vis-à-vis Origen’s anti-Gnostic concern for “free will” (§2, 8)

• A withering critique of the abuses of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, with a clear articulation of the threefold offices of bishop, presbyter, and deacon (§8, 21, 22, 24)

• An articulation of the “ransom theory” of the atonement, in connection with the “hypostatic union” of Christ (§8)

• A critique of Ebionite Christology (§12)

• The Hexapla—including the transliterated Hebrew column, and a mention of a fifth column for Zechariah—in use in Origen’s exegesis (§16, 19)

• “Onomastica Sacra” as hermeneutical strategy (§17, 26-27)

In terms of biblical exegesis, this book provides several wonderful opportunities to see Origen “at work” as an interpreter of Scripture. To intiate a brief discussion, we would note the “symphonic” quality of Origen’s interpretive approach. Origen is keenly aware of, and makes careful inquiry into, the Synoptic “problem” (including John’s Gospel), both as a textual matter and as an instantiation of the theological “problem” of the “one and the many.” Because all of Scripture is in fact “one body”—a kind of textual incarnation of the Logos in the logoi of Scripture^[6]—the “symphony” extends to the whole of Scripture, such that the biblical interpreter must be attuned to and constantly evoke the inner-biblical echoes that enable the spiritual reader to ascend from the multiplicity and “clear obscurity” of the letter of Scripture up to the higher spiritual realities and ultimately to the person of the Logos in whom they find unity. His exegesis of both the “Healing of the Blind Man” and the Triumphal Entry stories provide clear illustration of his hermeneutical philosophy and procedure. In particular with Matthew’s Gospel, which Origen believes presents Jesus more “according to the flesh,” Origen is endeavoring to show that Matthew’s story, like the rest of Scripture, is at the same time pointing to and is properly about spiritual things. Recourse to the spiritual realities can and must be made to understand the “precision” of Matthew’s Gospel, for he too was actually recording a spiritual narrative under the cloak of literal/sensible (and true) history.

In the story of the Blind Man, this premise forms the basis for handling the Synoptic disagreements on the details of this episode. Was Jesus coming to or leaving Jericho? Was there one blind man or two? Why does Mark alone record his name? Are these the same event or different similar events? While conceding, at least in principle, the “inerrancy” of the Evangelists’ memories and stories (μὴ ἐσφάλησαν ἐν τῷ ἀπομνημονεύειν οἱ γράψαντες αὐτά), Origen clearly prefers the mystical resolution to the discrepancy (Comm. Matt. 16.12):

Now, someone might say that, in terms of the mystical word, Luke’s version is first, Mark’s is second, and Matthew’s is third. For it is necessary first to draw near to Jericho, then to come into it, and <after these things> to go out from it. Luke recorded, then, that “it happened when he drew near to Jericho,” and Mark that “he also came to Jericho, and when he was coming out of there” (Mk 10.46), but Matthew recorded neither that he drew near to Jericho nor that he came to Jericho, but only that when they were going out from Jericho, a large crowd followed him (Matt 20.29).

What is irreconcilable on the literal level becomes an avenue for attaining to the deeper spiritual reality intended by the Holy Spirit who “cooperated” with the Evangelists in the composition of the Gospels.

Likewise, in the Triumphal Entry, many difficulties in the story that arise if read “according to the letter” become avenues for a higher spiritual reading. The classic problem of Jesus riding on two animals is “resolved” in that Matthew, while recording a literal event, is actually more primarily recording the spiritual ascent of Christ to the Father either after the resurrection or at the eschatological consummation, or both, wherein he rides upon the Church comprised of both Jews and Gentiles.

The use of “allegory”—and its varied synonyms—is hardly a hermeneutical tool reserved solely for the Old Testament, then. In fact, it is the tool to probe, discover, and unveil the unity of the Two Testaments in Christ and the Church, and by extension, to explain the continuity and discontinuity between these two epochs of salvation-history, particularly in light of the Jewish rejection of Christ. In Comm. Matt. 16.3, we see that the advent of Christ, at one and the same time, reveals the fully “symbolic” quality of the Old Covenant revelation, inasmuch Christ (and the Church) are shown to be the spiritual reality indicated therein, and by consequence abrogrates the “letter/symbol” of the Old Covenant piety inasmuch as it has been fulfilled. God puts the definitive exclamation point on this transfer of the “true religion” from Judaism to Christianity in the destruction of the symbolic (literal!) Jerusalem as prophesied by Christ (Comm. Matt. 16.20).

A consistent theme that appears throughout Origen’s commentary on Matthew is humility, both of Jesus and of that which is requisite of those who follow him and, especially, those who lead his Church. This might seem paradoxical in view of Origen’s confident articulation of the transfer of “true religion” from the Jews to the Christian Church. Yet Origen is cognizant of how the two themes— humility and (for lack of a better word) supersessionism—can and must inform each other (cf. §27). Indeed, Origen turns the tables on the Church itself with deep prophetic critique of institutional abuses in the Church and of laxity/worldliness among the laity. The “cleansing of the Temple” is an allegory of Christ’s work in the Church too. So also with the withering of the fig tree: what applied to the nation of Israel applies as well to the Church and every Christian soul.