Homilies on Genesis

Contents Abstract Preface Origen. Life and Works Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures by Origen. Theory and practice of Origen's Homilies on Genesis. External characteristics. Theology About this publication Homilia I. Homilia II. Homilia III. Homilia IV. About what is written: God appeared to Abraham Homilius V. About Lot and his daughters About wickedness. Literal interpretation Allegorical interpretation Moral interpretation Homilius VI. About Abimelech, king of the Philistines, how he wanted to take Sarah as his wife Homilius VII. About the birth of Isaac and how he was weaned Homilius VIII. About how Abraham sacrificed his son Isaac Homilius IX. About the second promise to Abraham Homilia X. About Rebekah, how she went out to draw water and the youth of Abraham Homilia XI met her. That Abraham took Keturah as his wife, and that Isaac settled at the well of the vision of Homilius XII. About how Rebecca Homilia XIII conceived and gave birth. About the wells dug by Isaac and filled up by the Philistines Homilia XIV. About how the Lord appeared to Isaac at the well of the oath, and about the alliance concluded with Abimelech Homilia XV. About what is written: and they went up from Egypt, and came to the land of Canaan to Jacob their father, and told him, saying: Your son Joseph is alive, and he rules over all the land of Egypt (Gen. 45, 25-26) Homilia XVI. About what is written: And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians [each] sold their land to Pharaoh, for hunger overcame them. And the land became Pharaoh’s, and he enslaved the people from one end of Egypt to the other (Gen. 47, 20-21) This edition presents a translation of the complete corpus of Origen's homilies into the book of Genesis, published for the first time in Russian. The translation, equipped with an introduction and commentary, is based on the critical edition of these homilies, carried out in the series “Sources Chretiennes”. The edition covers both Rufinus's Latin translation of the homilies and the surviving Greek fragments. In the book, these fragments are placed in a parallel column. Origen, who left behind an extensive legacy, was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The condemnation concerned largely the theological ideas of Origen, while his exegetical works in those aspects that were not in doubt were accepted by the Fathers of the Church. The study of Origen's exegesis is important for understanding the tradition and history of the Ancient Church. Dedicated to my beloved parents It would not be an exaggeration to call Origen the most prolific and most outstanding Christian teacher of the first three centuries of the Christian era - an era rich in persecution against Christians, but at the same time preparing the triumphant victory of Christianity over paganism and the advent of the era of the Christian empire, which lasted at least until 1917. These three centuries were in many ways fundamental to subsequent Christianity, which is why today they attract the attention of many scholars involved in theology, Christian philosophy or church history. At the same time, this period is the property of late antiquity, which flourished for the last time in various forms of Hellenistic culture, ranging from the fine arts (Fayum portrait) to philosophy (Neoplatonism). The contact between emerging Christianity and fading antiquity turned out to be inevitable due to many reasons - at least such as occurring in one spatial and cultural dimension. In addition to those as simple as doves (Matthew 10:16), the Church included more and more educated people, wise as serpents (ibid.), who went through the same Hellenistic school inherited from antiquity. The largest center of Greek education, Alexandria of Egypt, gave the world as many philosophers, as many theologians and, moreover, people who combined human and divine wisdom. It was in them that this contact took place, which was of invaluable importance in the development and systematization of Christian theology to the level at which it passed into the next era. Well educated both in philology (“grammar”, “rhetoric”) and in philosophy - who else but them could study the Divine Scriptures and formulate dogmas. There was another, no less significant role - the teaching role: having learned the truth, called to make them free (John 8:32), these didaskals were obliged to teach it to the people of God for the sake of the growth of the Body of Christ and its creation in love (Eph. 4:16). This was the case in the first half of the 2nd century. apologists who emerged from paganism, fearlessly turning to the Roman authorities with apologies for Christianity, without denying the positive achievements of Hellenic wisdom, “revelation of God in the human mind” 1 and ethics, but also without equating them with the revelation in Christ who came. Such were the teachers of the Alexandrian Catechetical School: Panten, Clement and, finally, Origen, who raised it to a qualitatively new level and educated many martyrs and bishops in it. But as inevitable as the contact was, the mutual repulsion of Christianity and paganism became just as inevitable. A.F. Losev, in the chapter dedicated to Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC - c. 40 AD), speaks of the incompatibility of the personal First Principle of the Bible with pagan religious and philosophical ideas 2 . The subject-object identity, seen by Philo in the biblical Yahweh, formed the basis of Neoplatonism, which never understood Christianity. Hellenism also nourished many heresies of the early Christian era, such as the Gnostic ones, which were later rejected by the Church. Hellenistic philosophical constructions are also to blame for many of Origen's doctrinal errors, for example about the pre-existence of souls. These errors caused fierce Origenist debates during the lifetime of their author, and then the condemnation of Origen at two Local Councils in 400 and 543. and at the V Ecumenical Council of 553. And although, according to Fr. John Meyendorff, the condemnation affected Origen the theologian more than Origen the exegete, the general judgment of the learned protopresbyter about Origen does not speak in his favor at all: “Many modern historians (de Lubac, Daniélou, Bertrand), in their desire to restore Origen to the ranks of the great Christian teachers, praise the importance of the theology of history in Origen's exegesis and the central role they assigned to Christ. With all this, Περὶ ἀρχῶν (the main source of his erroneous formulations), however, like most exegetical passages, remain an illustration of the fact that Origen’s concept of man, his doctrine of the incarnation and his eschatology must be perceived within the framework of spiritualist and, in essence, Platonic monism” 3. Origen gives a no less “comforting” characterization in his encyclopedic article and Vl. Soloviev: “Despite the actual coincidence in certain points between the ideas of Origen and the positive dogmas of Christianity and with his sincere confidence in their complete agreement, this agreement and mutual penetration of religious faith and philosophical thinking exists in Origen only partially.” Origen, in the categorical opinion of Vl. Solovyova, “At least half remains a Hellenic, who found in the Hellenized religion of the Jews some solid support for his views, but is internally unable to understand the special, specific essence of the new revelation, even with the most decisive desire to accept it. For the thinking Hellene, the opposition of existence, material and spiritual, sensory and intelligible, remained without real reconciliation... In the flourishing era of Hellenism, there was some aesthetic reconciliation, in the form of beauty, but the sense of beauty weakened significantly in the Alexandrian era, and the dualism of spirit and matter received full force, further exacerbated by influences from the pagan East. Christianity, in its essence, is the fundamental and unconditional abolition of this dualism, since the “Good News” it brings relates to the salvation of the whole person, including his bodily and sensory existence, and through him the whole world... This idea of ​​spiritual sensuality, deified matter or God-matter, which defines Christian wisdom itself, was madness for the Hellenes (1 Cor. 1:23), as can be seen in Origen” 4. At the same time, scientists also note the positive role of Origen in the formation of theology in the proper sense. The German scientist H. Kraft notes: “Through Origen, speculative theology took its place in Christian thought. He is not the first to choose Platonic concepts to express the Christian message: the Gnostics did this from the outside, and the apologists and Clement did this from within the emerging Church - and this prepared his work. But the theologians who followed Origen directed their thought along Origen’s channel and continued what Origen had already worked out for the most part or briefly outlined. Because of his supreme authority, the generations following him adopted or tacitly corrected his erroneous opinions. Thus, when, 300 years after his death, he was condemned, Christian thought to a certain extent was permeated by his spirit, so that his condemnation, in fact, damaged the preservation only of his writings, but not his thoughts. It is impossible to understand the magnitude and inconsistency of the personality of the outstanding Alexandrian without at least outlining his life path in a dotted manner and without outlining the works he undertook. Much information about the life and work of the “Tireless” or “Inflexible” (Ἀδαμάντιος - the nickname assigned to Origen) has been preserved in ancient sources: in the VI book of the Church History of Eusebius of Caesarea, in the Apology of Presbyter Pamphilus, in the writings of Blessed. Jerome of Stridon On remarkable men (§ 54–62) and the 44th Epistle, in the Library of St. Photius of Constantinople (§ 118), in the Homily of St. Gregory the Wonderworker upon graduating from the school of Origen, in the writings of Origen himself. During the period of his life (185–253/4) there were three persecutions: Septimius Severus (201–211), Maximinus the Thracian (235–238) and Decius (249–251). During the first persecution, his father, St. martyr Leonid. During the last persecution, the 66-year-old presbyter Origen was imprisoned in a prison cell and, exhausted by torture and interrogation, died shortly after his release, essentially the death of a confessor. Origen (Greek: Ὠριγένης, Latin: Origenеs, the Greek form of an Egyptian name meaning “descended from Or”) was most likely born in 185 in Alexandria into a wealthy Greek or Hellenized Egyptian family. He was the eldest of seven children of Christian parents. His father taught him the usual range of subjects (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία) and laid the foundations of the Christian faith. Here it is worth noting the combination of ancient and Christian upbringing, in the atmosphere of which the formation of young Origen took place. At the same time, the teaching activity of Clement of Alexandria (mid-II century - c. 217), head of the famous Alexandrian catechetical school, occurred. It is not clear whether Origen listened to Clement himself, who withdrew from Alexandria to Palestine at the beginning of the persecution of Septimius Severus, when Origen was 16–17 years old (201–202). In any case, just as Origen a few years later turned out to be Clement’s successor in the catechetical school, so he is rightfully considered a follower of Clement in the exegetical tradition and, more broadly, in the style of theology. When ok. 201 Origen's father was sentenced to martyrdom; his mother cunningly kept her son at home, hiding his clothes. All their property was confiscated, and the widow and seven children were left without any means of support. Origen ends up with a rich Christian woman who decides to give him the opportunity to complete his education. At the same time, his benefactor gave shelter to a certain Paul, a native of Antioch, who was known as a heretic (possibly a Gnostic). At her home, meetings and prayers of his listeners took place, in which Origen also became an involuntary accomplice. For several years (from 203 to 205) he found himself inside a small sect 6. However, according to Origen himself, he never took part in their liturgy and learned from communicating with them a real disgust for heresies. In 206, Origen began private teaching practice, feeding himself with grammar lessons. At the same time, he decides to receive a philosophical education, considered the highest at that time, from a certain “philosophy teacher” (perhaps it was Ammonius Saccas 7) and finds there Herakles, his future assistant at the catechetical school, and later the Bishop of Alexandria. To this latter and other educated young people, Origen, due to the absence of clergy in the city, who hid with Bishop Demetrius from persecution, explains the teachings of Christ; many of them were imprisoned, and some suffered martyrdom. Origen kept their names: Mchch. Plutarch (brother of Herakles), Serenus, Heraclid, who had not yet been baptized, Heron, the second Serenus and the maiden Iraida, who was a catechumen. Inspiring his students to martyrdom, Origen himself was almost captured by the crowd. The neighbors also already realized that Christian meetings were hidden behind Origen’s grammar lessons, and they began to provoke his arrest. Origen had to stop studying for a while. Origen’s youthful mistake dates back to this period: in order to avoid temptations according to the flesh, he castrated himself, literally carrying out the words of Matt. 19, 12. In 211, after the death of Septimius Severus, Origen again opened his grammar school and with renewed vigor began to explain the Holy Scriptures for the catechumens. The bishop returning to the city had no choice but to approve his catechetical studies and officially entrust him with it. Then a certain “new conversion” occurs with Origen: he stops studying grammar, sells pagan books and devotes himself exclusively to the study of Holy Scripture. Origen leads a very ascetic lifestyle, consuming four obols a day for his personal support and at the same time caring for the families of victims of persecution. Faith in the inspiration of Scripture as the Revelation of God gave rise to a reverent attitude even towards the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It comes from Philo 8, during whose time the Hebrew text was no longer accessible to a large number of Jewish Jews, not to mention proselytes. Christians sanctified the translation of the LXX, the Septuagint, especially since the New Testament - the new Revelation - was written in Greek, and specifically in the Greek of the Septuagint. At the same time, a person with a good Hellenistic education could not help but notice the flaws that crept into the text of the Seventy during translation or rewriting. This prompted Origen, with the philological approach he developed, to critically approach the text of the Septuagint and begin work on comparing all existing translations of the Old Testament in order to resolve all confusion in the lists of the LXX translation used in the Church. In this work, it was also necessary to turn to the Hebrew original, for which Origen resorted to the help of a certain “Jew,” the son of a rabbi, who moved to Egypt after his conversion to Christianity. In addition to answers to his critical-textual questions, Origen receives from the “Jew” more serious exegetical lessons, which, one must think, deeply influenced Origen’s principles of interpretation of Holy Scripture. One can only speculate whether this “Jew” was a follower of the allegorical exegesis developed for Scripture by Philo, or whether Origen received his acquaintance with the rabbinic tradition from him. In any case, Origen’s first exegetical experience dates back to this period - his Commentary on the Song of Songs, interpreted as an allegory of marriage between the groom-Christ and the bride-Church. Classes with the “Jew” served as the beginning of work on collecting translations of the Old Testament and compiling the Hexapla (six translations) - a huge many-year work of Origen, which consisted of comparing (book by book and phrase by phrase) the Hebrew original 9, recorded in Greek transcription, conveying the vowels, and the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Seventy interpreters and Theodotion, and - for individual books - several more translations found by him in his travels (the latter - not for all books). Origen's hexaples, which served as a source of knowledge on biblical studies for several generations, were also the first critical edition of the Greek text of the Old Testament: Origen edited the text of the Seventy and indicated textual discrepancies with the signs of Alexandrian grammarians. Between 211 and 217 Origen manages to visit Rome, which attracted him both as an authoritative church and as an intellectual center (later he will visit Athens twice). According to some reports, in Rome he heard the sermons of Hippolytus of Rome, the first Christian writer who interpreted entire books of Holy Scripture in a typological manner 10. According to Nothen's hypothesis 11, it was another preacher, named Josephus, who resisted the monarchianism of Sabellius, who enjoyed the support of Popes Zephyrinus and then Callistus, and influenced the triadological views of Origen, who clearly distinguished two “realities” (δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγματα) 12 Father and Son up to the admission of the expression “in some sense, two Gods” 13. At the same time, Origen gained great popularity among the educated Alexandrian public with his catechetical activities: the circle of his listeners was constantly growing. Among the others, one very wealthy man appears, named Ambrose, whom Origen converted to Orthodoxy from the Gnostic heresy and convinced him and his wife to take a vow of abstinence. Ambrose encourages Origen to write essays and becomes his patron of the arts, almost until the death of his teacher, paying him for shorthand writers, copyists and all consumables. Thus, most of Origen's writings were written down by dictation or by ear, and although he confirms that he edited his writings, their abundance did not lend itself to good literary finishing. OK. 222, at the request of Ambrose, the first Commentaries on the Psalms appeared, brought by Origen to Ps. 25. Then, in imitation of Clement, he composes the Stromata - the first outline of his theological views, which entailed the displeasure of the Alexandrian bishop and his clergy with new ideas, especially regarding bodily resurrection - a stumbling block for an educated audience: Origen considered the idea of ​​​​the resurrection of the flesh in the image of the present earthly body to be too primitive. Responding to the subsequent criticism, Origen writes a special essay on the resurrection in the form of questions and answers. Having taken up writing, he transformed the catechetical school of Alexandria into a two-level educational institution similar to philosophical schools. He entrusts introductory philosophical training to his student Iraklos, and reserves for himself the highest level of training - “true wisdom.” In an autobiographical letter referred to by Eusebius 14, Origen explained the need for this transformation by the large influx of students and the impossibility of combining teaching with writing. However, additional reasons for such a step can most likely be assumed to be Origen's desire to work with a more enlightened and prepared audience capable of perceiving his ideas. One of these ideas was rooted in the answer to the main question of Gnosticism about the origin of evil. Being a consistent defender of the uniqueness of the Divine principle, on the one hand, and the free will of created spirits, on the other, Origen affirmed the primary goodness and equality of all creations of the Good God and the inequality of spirits that followed the free choice of evil and their varying degrees of falling away from God. What was familiar to Jewish and Christian thought about the world of angels and demons, Origen extended to all rational spirits, including the souls of people. Thus, he borrowed Plato's idea of ​​the pre-existence of human souls and their subsequent infusion into bodies in accordance with the degree of freely chosen evil. Accordingly, the possibility of restoration to their original state must be provided for all spirits, including demons. This is the subject of the essay On Natures and the Dialogue with Candide, recorded by cursive writers, a Gnostic who affirmed the initially evil nature of the devil and the impossibility of his salvation. Even if Origen did not argue that the devil must be saved, but only admitted such a possibility, he was impressed by the development of the idea of ​​I Cor. 15, 28 about the final reunion of everything in God. This was in conflict with Christ’s teaching about the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41), and gave his ill-wishers a significant reason to accuse him of heresy. Continuing his exegetical activity, Origen interprets the Lamentation of Jeremiah as an allegory of the fall of human souls from their original dignity and hope of restoration, and in 228–229. begins Commentaries on Genesis, a book of Holy Scripture that was most difficult for the educated Hellenes to understand, but extremely important for the Christian worldview as a whole. When starting to interpret the first book of Holy Scripture, Origen emphasized the research nature of his work, abandoning the absoluteness of his judgments on certain issues 15. According to the fragment preserved by the Cappadocian Fathers in Origen's Philocalia (a selection of his favorite passages from various works of the great Alexandrian on the topics of interpretation of Holy Scripture (chap. 1-20) and free will (chap. 21-27)), Origen developed in these Commentaries a literal interpretation, appealing to grammatical science 16 . Here, judging by other surviving fragments, he began to actively use the allegorical method in relation to Old Testament history, which will then be repeated in the Homilies on Genesis that we publish. Readers' acquaintance with the first volumes of the Commentaries on Genesis gave rise to accusations against their author of denying the historicity of the Scriptures. Origen considered it necessary to suspend work on Genesis and present his system of views in more detail in his treatise On the Beginnings (229–230). If the first three books of the treatise are devoted to general provisions, among which the topic of the admissibility of free exploration of questions that do not have an unambiguous expression in Scripture (Origen lists all the questions incriminated to him: about the moment of the emergence of the soul, about the fate of demons, about the future century), then the fourth book is completely devoted to the principles of interpretation of Holy Scripture. Origen considers some of the judgments he sets out to be very close to the truth, others as nothing more than hypotheses. The rumor about Origen's learning grew rapidly and spread beyond Egypt. First, the ruler of the province of Arabia sent letters to the prefect of Egypt and the bishop of Alexandria with a request to release Origen to him for a while. This journey took place after 225. Then, in 229–230, after the presbyteral consecration of Herakles, Origen, following in the footsteps of Clement, visited Palestine, where he met a very warm welcome from the bishops - Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea: he, still a layman, was allowed to preach in their presence. Winter 231–232 Origen receives an invitation from Julia Mammea, the mother of Emperor Alexander Severus, to Antioch, where he debated the Christian faith and where he was given great honors. All this - both the originality of Origen's thought and his wide fame - formed the basis for the present persecution of the theologian in his hometown and pushed him to the idea of ​​leaving it forever. In Alexandria, he manages to dictate several more volumes of Commentaries on Genesis and, at the request of Ambrose, begins Commentaries on the Gospel of John, directed against the interpretations of this book by the Gnostic Herakleon. But in the spring of 232, Origen, taking with him copies of his works, went through Palestine to Athens, where he hoped to find a new audience suitable for his level of philosophical training. While passing through Caesarea Palestine, he receives ordination as a presbyter from Bishop Theoctistus and continues his journey, receiving hospitality from local churches and an invitation to preach, in particular, in Caesarea Cappadocia with Bishop Firmilian. Demetrius of Alexandria could not leave this without consequences and turned to Pope Pontian for support, condemning the actions of Theoctistus and portraying Origen as a heretical outcast (the Dialogue with Candide was mainly quoted saying that the devil must be saved). Pontian supported the position of Demetrius, without, however, going so far as to break communication with Theoctistus and Alexander and without mentioning Origen. Alexander of Jerusalem requested an explanation from Origen by letter to Athens, where he was at that time. In response, Origen writes a large autobiographical Letter, later found by Eusebius in the diocesan archives of Jerusalem, from which we know well his life up to this point. Regarding the Dialogue with Candide, Origen justified himself by the fact that his copy speaks only of the possibility, and not of the necessity, of saving the devil. Alexander and Theoctistus turned to Pope Pontian with a letter of justification; Having learned about this, Origen decided to move to Caesarea in Palestine, where he was ordained. This happened in 233–234. simultaneously with the death of Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria. At the insistence of Ambrose, Origen, having settled in Caesarea, continued the Commentaries on the Gospel of John and the Commentaries on Genesis begun in Alexandria. He brings the latter to the story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:11–15), after which he changes the genre to the Scholium, briefly commenting only on certain important or complex passages. In this way he interprets the entire Pentateuch. Both the commentaries and the scholia were not spoken before an audience, but were dictated by Origen to cursive writers and were intended for an educated reader. At the same time, a treatise on prayer appeared, speaking about prayer in general, and in the second part containing the first interpretation of the Lord's Prayer in the history of Christian writing. The subsequent persecution of Emperor Maximinus the Thracian (235–238) affected mainly large cities such as Rome, Alexandria, and Caesarea Cappadocia. Bishop Firmilian of Caesarea found refuge in Palestine, where he talked with Presbyter Origen about various theological issues: according to his own testimony, with great benefit for himself. In view of the threat of arrest in Alexandria of his patron Ambrose and his confessor, the presbyter Protoctetus, Origen sends them his Exhortation to Martyrdom. After the death of Maximinus the Thracian (238), peace came for the Church and the flourishing of Origen's activity. The legal adviser to the new governor of Caesarea, a Christian, sends his relative Theodore to study philosophy with Origen, which lasted seven years. At the insistence of Ambrose, Origen continues his exegetical works and brings the Commentaries on John to Volume XXXI. On the initiative of Bishops Theoktistus and Alexander, he takes part in councils that considered the cases of bishops and clergy accused of heresy, speaking out after the bishops with the aim of refuting heresy and establishing the right teaching. In particular, he takes part in the council in Arabia, which condemned the bishops Beryl of Bostra and Heraclides, the Dispute with which Origen is an excerpt from the council's acts. In the period from 239 to 242. Presbyter Origen is appointed full-time preacher of the Caesarea Church. In accordance with the cycle of Old Testament and New Testament readings, which lasted three years 17, he delivered Homilies (“sermons”, “conversations”) on almost all the books of the Old and New Testaments - the third genre of his exegetical works, recorded by cursive writers from the ear and addressed to ordinary believers. The three-year cycle was not completed by Origen due to the fault of ill-wishers from the Caesarea clergy, who accused him of being carried away by allegorism to the detriment of the historicity of Scripture, of using other Jewish translations of the Old Testament, of spreading the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, etc. Apparently, Bishop Theoctistus prematurely relieved him of his position as a preacher: this can explain why Pamphilus and Eusebius did not found in the Caesarea Library those homilies with which Origen was supposed to complete his cycle. He pronounces several homilies in Jerusalem at the invitation of Bishop Alexander. He then turns to the Commentaries on the Apostolic Epistles (243) and the Commentaries on the Prophets (244). In 245, following the end of his studies and the departure of Theodore, who pronounced his parting Word of thanks (the author is usually identified with St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, the Wonderworker), Origen makes a second attempt to settle in Athens. Here he ends the Commentaries on Ezekiel and composes the second, lengthy Commentaries on the Song of Songs. Unable to gain a foothold in Athens, Origen moves on, perhaps towards Rome. In Nicopolis of Epirus he finds the fifth translation of the Old Testament. But by the summer of 245 or the spring of 246, he returned to Caesarea again. On the way to Palestine in Ephesus, he had a meeting with a certain Alexandrian: the question of saving the devil was again discussed. Returning to Egypt, this man reported the conversation in writing to Bishop Herakles, distorting the words of Origen. Herakles decided to condemn Origen for heresy in a letter to Pope Fabian, the main subject of which was the incident with Bishop Ammonius of Thmuite. Origen considered it necessary to take measures to protect himself, for which, despite his 60 years of age, he went to his patron Ambrose, who was at that time in Nicomedia. Before setting off on a long journey, he manages to find the sixth translation of the Old Testament, which completed the Hexaples, finish the Commentaries on the Song of Songs and take up the new Commentaries on the Psalms - a huge work, unfortunately lost, which embraced Ps. 1–72 and 118. Origen also covered the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes in his commentaries, but omitted the Book of Job. Having reached Nicomedia, he, at the insistence of Ambrose, tries to finish the Commentaries on John: he brings volume ΧΧXII to the washing of his feet (John 13: 3–15), but then confines himself to the Scholia to selected passages from the remaining chapters. With the moral support of Ambrose, he composes an Epistle to Pope Fabian, defending his work, but at the same time admitting that he was wrong in disobeying the demand of Bishop Demetrius, who condemned him, not to make sensitive issues of his teaching public. While praising Ambrose in his Epistle, his support for his works and his zeal for their dissemination, Origen points out that in this way some of his sketches were published that were not intended for a general audience. To support his Epistle with some authority, Origen corresponds with the Bishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, Firmilian, who readily composes his letter of guarantee. Simultaneously with the letter to the Pope, Origen composed a Letter to Emperor Philip and Empress Severa, who were favorably disposed towards the Church and were even known as Christians. Ambrose had access to them, and one word from them was enough to restore respect for Origen throughout the empire. It is unknown whether the letters reached their recipients and whether there was any reaction to them on their part. In Nicomedia, Origen responds with an Epistle to Julius Africanus to his doubts about the authenticity of the story of Susanna (Dan. 13), in which he refutes Africanus’s arguments, in particular, with his knowledge of the gaps in the Hebrew text of the Bible, acquired through work on the Hexaples, as well as references to his communication with Jewish experts on the Holy Scriptures and the Old Testament Tradition (the Jews with whom he communicated even named the names of those judges who fell victim to their passion for Susanna). Returning from Nicomedia, Origen composes Commentaries on the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. At the same time, at the insistence of Ambrose, he writes a large polemical treatise Against Celsus, refuting the anti-Christian arguments of the pagan in his “True Word”. One of Origen's last works probably also includes Notes on the Psalter, which Origen himself called a “manual” (ἐγχειρίδιον) 18. At the end of 249 Decius comes to power. A new persecution broke out, in which all those who refused to publicly sacrifice to idols were sent to prison. Among others, Origen was arrested. For his steadfastness and support of the spirit of other prisoners for his faith, he was sent to a deep punishment cell, and his legs were stretched to the fourth hole. He was repeatedly summoned for questioning. But, according to the testimony of Eusebius, his body, exhausted by incessant asceticism, steadfastly endured the torment 19. When the prisons were opened after the death of Decius in 251, Origen was still alive. After this, traces of him are lost: most likely, he did not live long after his release. In conclusion, he received a letter of support from Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, 20 which must have been a consolation for him, partly compensating for the negative attitude towards him from the two previous primates of the Alexandrian Church. Such letters were usually sent to confessors. This is how Origen would have remained in the memory of the Church if the obvious discrepancies between his teaching and Holy Tradition had not subsequently entailed numerous confusions in the Church, which became possible to end only by giving the condemnation of individual points of Origen’s teaching, his personality and his main followers the status of a decision of the Ecumenical Council (553). The Origenist crisis of the 6th century, as well as the destruction of the Caesarea library ca. 600 caused the loss of most of Origen's works, the number of which, according to the testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea, reflected in the 33rd Epistle of Blessed. Jerome, numbered approx. 2000 works (each homily and “volume” of commentaries are counted separately). In addition to a small part of the works of Origen, which survived in the Greek original, a fairly large number of Latin translations of the 5th century, made by Blessed. Jerome and the presbyter Rufinus of Aquileia (the latter often did not so much translate as retell Origen, replacing seductive formulations with traditional ones). Below is a list of the works of Origen that have come down to us, indicating the degree of preservation. Biblical-critical Hexaples are preserved in fragments of varying degrees of coherence. There are also later Syriac and Arabic versions of the Hexapl. Exegetical works were performed in three genres. Two of them are written: scholia (Greek: σχόλια, lat: scholia), that is, notes on isolated incomprehensible places of Holy Scripture (preserved in fragments), and commentaries (Greek: ἐξηγητικά, lat: commentarii), that is, detailed, systematized and complete notes on entire books of Holy Scripture (out of more than 100 volumes, 30 and fragments have survived); one is oral: homilies (Greek: ὁμιλίαι, Latin: homiliae), that is, conversations on more or less lengthy biblical passages with an almost obligatory ethical focus, pronounced in church meetings in connection with the reading of Holy Scripture during worship (out of 574, 21 have been preserved in Greek and 186 in the Latin translation of Rufinus or Jerome). Thus, with varying completeness we have reached: – comments (fragments from Pamphilus, Eusebius, in Philocalia 21, in catenae, in papyri); – homilies (16 have been preserved in the Latin translation by Rufinus; in the Russian translation – in this edition). – excerpts from commentaries or scholia (fragments in the Philocalia and in the catenae); – homilies (13 survived in the Latin translation of Rufinus). – excerpts from commentaries or scholia (fragments); – homilies (16 survived in the Latin translation of Rufinus). – homilies (28 survived in the Latin translation of Rufinus). On Deuteronomy - homilies (fragments). On Joshua - homilies (26 survived in the Latin translation of Rufinus; Greek fragments in catenas of dubious authorship). On the Judges - homilies (9 preserved in the Latin translation of Rufinus). There are homilies for the first book of Kings (one is preserved in the Latin translation of Rufinus, one in Greek, fragments in papyri and catenae). On Job - homilies (fragments). - comments on Ps. 1–25 (excerpts on Ps. 1, 6, 15 and 18); – comments (fragments from the Preface, in catenas, in Philocalia); – scholia for the entire Psalter (fragments in catenas); – homilies (5 have been preserved on Ps. 36, 2, on Ps. 37 and 2 on Ps. 38 in the Latin translation by Rufinus, as well as a fragment from the homilies on Ps. 82 - by Eusebius); – homilies (59 in Latin translation, attributed to Blessed Jerome). On Proverbs (fragments from commentaries, scholia or homilies in the Apology of Martyr Pamphilus, in catenae). On Ecclesiastes (fragments from scholia or homilies). – homilies (two in Jerome’s Latin translation) 22; – commentaries in 10 volumes (preserved in the Latin translation of Rufinus, as well as Greek fragments in the Philocalia and Catenae); – youthful commentaries in two volumes (fragment in Philocalia). – commentaries in 30 volumes (fragments in the Apology of Martyr Pamphilus); – homilies (out of 32, only 9 have survived in the Latin translation of St. Jerome; the authorship of the latter is disputed) 23. – homilies (out of 45, 20 are preserved in Greek and 14 in the Latin translation of St. Jerome; two of the latter are missing in Greek; as well as fragments in Philocalia and catenae). On Jeremiah's lament (fragments in catenas). – comments (fragments in Philocalia); – scholia (? – fragments in catenae); – homilies (16 have been preserved in the Latin translation of St. Jerome). Commentary on Hosea (fragment in Philocalia). Commentary on Joel (fragment). Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew (out of 25 volumes, 10–17 are preserved in Greek and from the 5th chapter of the 12th volume almost to the end - in the old Latin version, as well as fragments in Eusebius, Pamphilus, in Philocalia and catenae) 24. – homilies (39 preserved in the Latin translation of St. Jerome and Greek fragments); – comments (? – fragments). Commentaries on the Gospel of John (of the 32 volumes, volumes 1, 2, 6, 10, 13, 19, 20, 28, 32 and fragments from the 2nd and 5th volumes in Philocalia have been preserved) 25. On the Acts of the Apostolic Homilies (fragment in Philocalia). Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans (out of 15 volumes, 10 have survived in the Latin translation of Rufinus and fragments in the catenae, in Philocalia, in papyri, in St. Basil the Great, in the martyr Pamphilus, in the manuscript of the Athonite Lavra B 84). Commentaries on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (fragments in catenas). Commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians (fragments from Martyr Pamphilus). Commentaries on the Epistle to the Ephesians (fragments in the Latin translation of St. Jerome in the Apology against Rufinus, Greek fragments in catenas). Commentaries on the Epistle to the Colossians (fragments from Martyr Pamphilus). Commentaries (fragments) on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. Commentary on the Epistle to Titus (fragment from Martyr Pamphilus). Commentary on the Epistle to Philemon (fragment from Martyr Pamphilus). – homilies (fragments from Eusebius); – comments (fragments from Martyr Pamphilus). On the Apocalypse the scholium (individual fragments in the catenas may belong to Origen). – Exhortation to martyrdom (preserved in its entirety) 26; – Against Celsus in eight books (preserved in its entirety) 27 ; – About prayer (preserved in its entirety) 28; – About the resurrection in two books (Greek and Latin fragments from the martyr Pamphilus, from the martyr Methodius and from Blessed Jerome); – On natures (fragment from John the Deacon); – Dispute (Greek: Διάλεκτος) with Heraclides (preserved in its entirety); – About the beginnings in four books (Greek Περὶ ἀρχῶν, lat. De principiis). The Greek original has been lost, with the exception of fragments included in the documents of the V Ecumenical Council, and a large part of the 4th book as part of the Cappadocian Philocalia. There are also Greek fragments in martyr. Pafila. The Latin translation of Rufinus has been completely preserved. Blzh. Jerome, outraged by the softening of heretical passages in this translation, translated it again: this translation has been preserved only in fragments as part of the Letters of the Blessed. Jerome to different persons 29; – Stromata (Greek and Latin fragments from books 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 in the manuscript of the Athos Lavra B 64, in the catenae and in St. Jerome). Of the many Epistles, two Entire Epistles have been preserved: To Gregory the Wonderworker 30 and To Julius Africanus; the remaining Epistles are only in fragments (in Greek and in Latin translation). Papyri from Tura (Egypt), found in 1941, contain poorly preserved fragments of two homilies or treatises on Easter and other works of Origen. Science also knows fragments from various works of Origen translated into Armenian. Origen's interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Theory and practice The main characteristic of the principles of explanation of Holy Scripture - the primary occupation of the tireless Adamantium throughout his entire conscious life - is usually considered to be allegorism. The famous Greek patrolologist St. Papadopoulos writes: “No Christian writer has developed the allegorical method with such force and no one has felt such a need for it as Origen. This method had already been applied by Clement of Alexandria, who in turn borrowed it from the Platonist philosophers. Many typological elements, however, were taken by Origen from church writers of the 2nd century, and at the same time he found something from Greek philosophers who typologically interpreted the Homeric epic. He showed fidelity to the Holy Scriptures, reaching the point of religiosity. The sacred text was for him the embodied Logos, the appearance of the Lord in the world. The inspiration of Holy Scripture is absolute down to the last detail (On Jeremiah LII, 2), since its real author is the Holy Spirit. At the same time, apocalyptic writing left him a legacy of thirst for hidden truths and dogmas that appear in Holy Scripture “through narration” (ἐν ἱστορίας τρόπῳ) and “in the form of a story” (ἐν σχήματι μύθου) (Against Celsus 5, 29; 4, 39). Platonic and Stoic philosophy fed him ideas and theories. Gnosticism, albeit latently, focused its attention on the knowledge (gnosis) of a certain kind of truth and on the exploration of metaphysical and cosmological themes. But the Church with her Tradition and Scripture represented a barrier to all these tendencies, and they could penetrate only through allegorical exegesis. That is, whenever Origen was not satisfied with the literal understanding of Holy Scripture, he took the letter as a symbol, as a prototype of some truth, some idea, this or that event. Thus, animals, plants, stones, circumstances, names (with their etymology), numbers, even the construction of speech, acted as prototypes and symbols that allegorically expressed truths worthy of God (Against Celsus 5, 18; On John 1, 8). The Gospel text had to change from the sensual to the spiritual. In this work lies “the whole agon” of the theologian, because in this way he reaches the truth from symbol and type (John 1:8)” 31. In fact, the Alexandrian Didaskal was the first among Christian authors not only to develop a theory of interpretation of sacred texts, but also to apply this theory to all the Holy Scriptures interpreted by him. Quite in the spirit of Alexandrian Christian Gnosticism, he correlates the search for allegorical meaning and the substantiation of all dogmas of faith with the perfection of man, identifying, like the Stoics, epistemology with soteriology (“souls can achieve perfection only with full and reasonable knowledge of God” 32). At the same time, in the theory of Origen, which he elevates almost to the level of one of the dogmas of Christianity, the allegorical method is intended to reveal only two of the three meanings of Scripture, which he likens to a three-component human being with body, soul and spirit. The basis for this attitude towards Scripture lies, first of all, in the affirmation of the unity of the Old and New Testaments, equally inspired by God: “By proving... the deity of Jesus and citing prophetic words about Him, we thereby prove that the Scriptures that prophesied about Him are inspired by God, that the books that proclaim His coming and teaching are divine - books written with full power and authority and therefore have conquered the best people from (different) nations” 33. Then, enumerating the difficulties that may arise in explaining both the Old and New Testaments, Origen sets forth the theory of the three senses of Scripture: “The method we propose for reading the Scriptures and finding their meaning is based on the sayings themselves (of the Scriptures) and consists of the following. In Solomon in Proverbs we find the following instruction regarding the divine dogmas written down (in the sacred books): But you write to yourself three times, for advice and reason, for answers with words of truth offered to you (Proverbs 22:21). Consequently, the thoughts of the sacred books should be written down in one’s soul in three ways: a simple believer should be edified, as it were, by the flesh of Scripture (as we call the most accessible meaning); somewhat perfect (must be edified) as if by his soul; and even more perfect and similar to those of whom the apostle speaks: But we speak wisdom to those who are perfect, but wisdom not of this world, not of the princes of this world who pass away, but we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in mystery, which God first ordained for our glory (I Cor. 2:6-7) - such a person must be edified by the spiritual law, which contains in itself the shadow of future blessings. For just as a person consists of body, soul and spirit, in the same way the Scripture given by God for the salvation of people (consists of body, soul and spirit) ... But since there are some Scriptures that do not have a bodily meaning at all... then in some places of Scripture one should look only for the soul and spirit. And perhaps that is why the waterpots placed for the purification of the Jews, as we read in the Gospel of John (John 2:6), contain two or three measures each” 34. Origen goes on to argue for the usefulness of all three levels of interpretation by relating them to the different possibilities of perception by different people: “That the first (bodily) meaning in itself can be useful is evidenced by many people who have believed truly, but simply. An example of an interpretation that is raised, as it were, to the soul (of Scripture) is the following passage from the Apostle Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians: It is written, he says, “Thou shalt not stop the mouth of a threshing ox.” Then, explaining this law, he adds: Is food for the will of God? Or does he say all sorts of things for our sake? For the sake of us, it was written, as for hope you should eat, shout and thresh with the hope of receiving communion (1 Cor. 9, 9. 10). Very many (other) well-known sayings have the same character, adapted to the crowd and edifying people who cannot listen to the higher (teachings). Spiritual interpretation (available) to one who can show: the image and shadow of what heavenly things the Jews served in the flesh, and the shadow of what future blessings the law is. And in general, according to the apostolic command, in everything we must seek wisdom, hidden in mystery, which God before ordained before the age for our glory, which no one has understood from the princes of this age (1 Cor. 2:6-7) ... In the Epistle to the Galatians, the apostle seems to condemn those who consider it necessary to read the law, but do not understand it, and declares that those who do not understand the law are those who think that there are no allegories in what is written (ἀλληγορίας). Speak to us,” he says, “even if you want to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” It is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave, and the other by a free woman. But some were born of a slave according to the flesh, and others were born of a free woman according to a promise. The essence is allegorical (ἀλληγορούμενα): this is the two Testaments (Gal. 4:21-24) and so on” 35. Thus, Origen finds justification for any allegorical (both moral and representative, “typological”) interpretation in Holy Scripture itself, and he rightly calls the Apostle Paul his teacher in allegory. At the same time, we have every reason to assert 36 that in addition to the New Testament authors, Origen actively used other sources both for his theory of the three senses and for his exegetical practice. The main of these “external” sources for Origen was the main representative of Judeo-Hellenism, Philo of Alexandria, the first who consistently introduced allegorism into the exegesis of Holy Scripture 37 . He also has a theory of three meanings of Scripture: literal, ethical and physical (=metaphysical). In turn, Philo borrowed the allegory from philosophical, and more specifically, Stoic, everyday life. Allegorical interpretation is an indispensable condition for a Stoic attitude to the text, and an essentially aesthetic attitude: Homer could not depict the gods in an indecent form, except as an allegory. This principle is succinctly expressed in an anonymous treatise of the 1st century. "On the Sublime": “Although such a description (meaning the battle of the gods) evokes the idea of ​​something supernatural, yet it, if you do not take it as an allegory, is completely godless and indecent” 38. Holy Scripture, being inspired by God, cannot contain anything obscene or useless. This forces us to allegorically interpret both the humiliated everyday and neutrally informative details of the narrative. The Aristotelian relationship between macrocosm and microcosm adds an internal, moral application to any external event or state. At the same time, as A.F. Losev notes, the term “allegory” was not very clear in all ancient literature, peppered with allegories 39. Indeed, Filonov’s concept of allegory often includes both symbol and metaphor. Philo largely determined the development of Christian exegesis, which was reflected in the inclusion of entire passages from his interpretations in Christian exegetical anthologies - catenas. “His influence,” writes the French publisher of the Sinai catena on F. Petit’s Genesis and Exodus, “direct or indirect, affects most, if not all, of the ancient Fathers. His works represented the only biblical commentary that existed in Greek in the New Testament era, as a result of which it was the only accessible source for the first Christian exegetes of the Holy Scriptures. By the way, this acceptance of Philo by Christians turned Jewish thinkers away from him for a long time.”40 This exegetical school (the Judeo-Alexandrian school) was rejected by the Jews, among other things, because it was largely borrowed by Christians in their apologetic polemics both with the pagans and with the Jews themselves. The rabbinic Jewish traditions, whose unusual worldview almost personified the Wisdom of God and the God-given Torah, also reached Origen directly or indirectly. So, for example, the first words of the Bible “In the beginning”, which gave the Hebrew name to the book of Genesis - “Bereishit”, even in the rabbinic tradition are interpreted not in a temporal, but in an instrumental sense: in the beginning - that is, in Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22) 41. The same idea, but with a New Testament coloring, is picked up by Clement of Alexandria: “For there is one unbegotten - God Almighty, and one first begotten - through whom all things came into being, and without Him nothing began to be (John 1:3), (“for truly there is one God, who made the beginning of all things,” writes Peter 42, meaning the First-Born (πρωτóγονος) Son and meaning precisely the words: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth), and He is called Wisdom by all the prophets, then He is the Teacher of all who are born, the Advisor of God, who foreknew everything” 43. Origen also prefers an instrumental interpretation of the “beginning,” arguing with the same quotation from the Gospel of John, but replacing Clement’s “πρωτóγονος” with the more authoritative “πρωτóτοκος” from the Epistle of St. Paul, and completely omitting the quote from the apocrypha: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). What is the beginning of everything if not our Lord and Savior of all (I Tim.4:10) Jesus Christ, the Firstborn (πρωτóτοκος) of every creature (Col.1:15)? This means that it was in this beginning, that is, in His Word, that God created heaven and earth, just as the Evangelist John says at the beginning of his Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God. Everything came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being (John 1:1-3). Consequently, the Writer of Genesis does not speak here of any temporal beginning, but in the beginning - he says - that is, in the Savior, heaven and earth were created, and everything that began to be.” Origen’s conclusion “in the beginning, that is, in the Word” also recalls Philo’s interpretation: the incorporeal world was founded in the Divine Logos 44 . So, in interpreting only the first words of Genesis, Origen synthesized data from the rabbinic tradition, received through Clement, and from Philo. Often speaking out against “Jewish fables” (for example, Hom. on Genesis III, 6), Origen, when he considers it necessary, openly appeals to information from Jewish traditions, for example, when calculating the floors of the ark (Gom. on Genesis ΙΙ, 1) and its true dimensions, capable of accommodating all the many animals (ΙΙ, 2). It is significant that this information, given by Origen in the literal interpretation of the ark, is only partially used by him in the mystical interpretation (II, 3–5) and does not appear at all in the moral interpretation (II, 6). To a certain extent, this indicates that the Alexandrian was not very concerned about the internal consistency between the different meanings of Scripture: for him they exist, as it were, in different dimensions 45 . From early Christian authors (martyr Justin the Philosopher, Tertullian, martyr Irenaeus of Lyons), Origen actively adopted the typological method of revealing the spiritual understanding of “the great mystery with which Christ and the Church are filled” (Hom. on Genesis II, 6). This further expanded the range of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament as representative of the New and allowed Origen not to blindly borrow from previous allegorists, but to fill the allegorical interpretation with Christian content. So, for example, in the interpretation of the words: I will go down and see whether they act exactly as they do, what is the cry against them that ascends to Me, or not, I will find out (Gen. 18:21), how detached is Philo’s interpretation of the usual condescension to human nature for the Omniscient God to recognize the righteousness of human deeds 46, just as fresh in a Christian way is Origen’s representative interpretation of the condescension of Christ to earth, who came not only to take care of human weakness, but also to bear all that is ours in a slavish form, in order to enlighten the believers with His transfiguration (Hom. on Genesis IV, 5) and to make them worthy of His Divine knowledge (IV, 6). Origen achieves exceptional mastery in typology in the theme of Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac: Homilia VIII on Genesis is considered the most elegant of all sixteen 47 . If, in reflecting Abraham's experiences - temptation by the circumstances of a long journey (VIII, 3), temptation by related names and feelings (VIII, 2) - Origen develops what Philo began 48, then the denouement of this psychological drama is completely new: all temptations are overcome by the prophetic faith in the resurrection of the son and the prophetic foresight of Christ's sacrifice (VIII, 1). Origen sees in Isaac, carrying firewood, a prototype of Christ carrying His cross, uniting in Himself the Victim and the Priest, and in the fact that Abraham and Isaac climbed the mountain level, a prototype of the equal participation of the Father and the Son in the Calvary Sacrifice. Origen's exegetical findings are deeply embedded in the Tradition of the Church, having been assimilated in homiletics (St. John Chrysostom 49), hymnography (St. Roman the Sweet Singer 50) and in dogmatic theology (Councils of Constantinople 1156 and 1157 51). From the idea of the unity and inspiration of the two Testaments follows another important exegetical principle of Origen - the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture: “Of course, if anyone takes the time to compare and contrast some passages of Divine Scripture with others, matching the spiritual with the spiritual (cf. I Cor. 2:13), then, we have no doubt, he will discover in this place even more deep and hidden secrets...” (Hom. on Genesis II, 6). In practice, this means not only finding parallel passages in the understanding of modern biblical studies, but also boldly bringing together completely disparate quotations that have at least some, even formal, similarity: a coinciding word, a similar concept or action. We find an example of such a rapprochement already in the Evangelist John the Theologian, who runs like a red thread through his Gospel the idea of Christ as the Lamb: the Old Testament injunction about eating the Passover lamb “do not break his bones” (Ex. 12:46) is perceived by the evangelist as a prophecy that the legs of the Savior who died on the Cross were not broken ( John 19:36). The use of this principle in allegorical exegesis in Origen sometimes leads to the most unexpected results, which eloquently testify to its relative value. So, for example, Lot’s ascent to the mountain (Gen. 19:30) symbolizes for Origen the exaltation of the law through the construction of Solomon’s Temple, but the cave in which he settled on the mountain is a den of thieves (Luke 19:46), perpetrated by sinners in the Church (Hom. on Genesis V, 5). A similar stretch is found in Gom. III, 6, where the allegorical understanding of circumcision correlates the stone knives of circumcision (Joshua 5:2) with the two-edged sword of the word of God (Heb. 4:12) and with the words of the Lord: I did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword (Matt. 10:34). Finally, we cannot ignore Origen’s attempt to build an allegorical system, prompted both by the results of the commentary on Genesis that preceded the Homilies (this style includes, in particular, Philo’s Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim), and by the requirement of coherent exegetical genres (commentaries and homilies), where the interpreted phrases or words are not self-sufficient, but interconnected elements. This may include an attempt to create a simpler Christian arithmology, where instead of the neo-Pythagorean heaps of Philo, Origen, not without the mediation of Christian authors 52, notices a constant mysterious content behind some numbers: 1 - a symbol of one God, one faith, one goal of Christian life; 3 – number of the Holy Trinity; 4 – number of Gospels; 10 – symbol of perfection (10 commandments, 10 min); 30 – the number of years of Christ who came out to preach (or 3 x 10); 50 is a symbol of forgiveness and mercy; 100 – symbol of perfection (100 sheep); 300 – the number of those who won with Abraham and Gideon (or 3 x 100). These are sacred numbers. 5 – symbol of sensuality (5 senses: borrowed from Philo). This number is damning. It is impossible, of course, to talk about a new and perfect system, but for the needs of interpretation in the Homilies of Origen this adaptation was quite sufficient. Note that complex neo-Pythagoreanism nevertheless penetrated to Christian writers of a later period, who loved speculative numerical abstractions (for example, St. Maximus the Confessor). Other systems are less pronounced and less consistent. So, for example, the allegory of internal correspondence to the real differences between the masculine and feminine principles exists in different versions. In the creation of man, the spirit (animus) corresponds to the man, and the soul (anima) corresponds to the woman (Hom. on Genesis I, 15). And in the case of Abraham and Sarah, this is a rational feeling (sensus rationabilis) and the flesh that follows it (Hom. on Genesis IV, 4). Lot’s wife is also flesh, and Lot himself is “a rational feeling and a man’s spirit” (Hom. on Genesis V, 2). From Plato (Phaedrus, 246) and through Philo, who understands passions by animals 53, Origen comes to the allegorical interpretation of animals as stupid, soulful people (Hom. on Genesis I, 8-16; II, 5; X, 2; XII, 5). Constant allegories of vision as contemplation, descent and ascent as ascent to God and descent to vice (Hom. on Genesis XV), water as the source of the Divine mind (all Homilies on Genesis about wells: VII, X, XI, XIII, XIV) reach the level of the system. These systematic allegories are also borrowed from Philo 54 . Origen's homilies on Genesis. External characteristics. Theology The study of historical monuments, including the Homilies themselves on Genesis, allows us to make a number of important clarifications on the question of the conditions for the emergence of the monument. In addition to indisputable historical evidence (“Apology of Origen” by Pamphilus and Eusebius, 4th century; “Ecclesiastical History” of Socrates, 5th century), limiting the time and place of pronouncing Homilies on various books of Holy Scripture to the Caesarea period of Origen’s life (232–249), drawing on data from the “Apostolic Tradition” (anonymous 3rd century) and Homilies on Genesis (especially Homilia X) allows us to draw a conclusion about the duration of the cycles of biblical readings: the Old Testament, the Gospel and the Apostolic, in connection with which Origen preached sermons. Apparently, these cycles were designed for three years and ran in parallel: the Old Testament - with daily readings, and the Gospel and Apostolic - with readings on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays at Eucharistic meetings 55. Thus, Origen, appointed preacher in Caesarea, could pronounce all his Homilies in three continuous years, that is, in the period from 239 to 243, given that he had cursive writers with him at that time. So, the Homilies on Genesis belong to the mature period of the church activity of Origen, who by this time had developed as a teacher and theologian. These data also allow us to roughly imagine the total number of Homilies for Genesis and conclude that out of at least 60 Homilies, only 16 have reached us, that is, at best, about a quarter. They interpret: the entire chapter 1 of Genesis (Homilia I, the largest) and fragmentary chapters of Genesis 6, 17–22, 24–26, 45–49. In terms of volume, Homilies I and II make up about ¼ of the entire corpus, the smallest Homilies are VI and XIV, the rest are medium in size. The Homilies also differ in the amount of interpreted text: Homilies II, IX, XI, XII, XV and XVI dwell on very small biblical passages, approaching the genre of scholia; the remaining Homilies interpret more or less complete passages of text. The theory of the three meanings of Scripture, presented above and presupposing a three-part exegetical scheme - the disclosure of first the literal (“bodily”), then the moral (“mental”) and, finally, the mystical (“spiritual”) meaning - based on real conditions, such as the attentiveness of the audience, its spiritual state and needs, level of education, etc., in its implementation in the Homilies undergoes a noticeable bias towards the moralizing and mystagogical didactics, sometimes to the detriment of the interpretation of the literal, historical meaning of the Sacred Text. This is reflected in the composition of the Homilies as follows: in one case - a clear reproduction of the indicated three-part scheme (Homilies II, V, IX and XVI); in another - only a two-part one as a simplified version of a three-part one, with a clear predominance of the allegorical over the literal (Homilies I, III, IV), in the third - a mixed scheme corresponding to the possibilities of interpretation: somewhere literal, somewhere moral, and somewhere mystical. Origen bases his exegesis in the Homilies on the principle of benefit to his listener: Holy Scripture in all its senses should edify people. In all Homilies, the interpreted Sacred Text is only the starting point for a broader view of things, which allows us to touch upon a variety of issues of a dogmatic, ethical and mystical nature that are in no way connected with the beginning. For example, in Homilia III, called upon to interpret God's covenant on circumcision, the author switches to the interpretation of all the passages where circumcision is spoken of in a figurative sense: this serves as a bridge to the allegorical interpretation of the real circumcision itself. In addition, Origen willingly makes digressions of a specific nature, in addition to the periodic disciplinary indoctrination of his audience. The digressions concern mainly two topics: the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture (including in a polemical vein) and encouraging listeners to perfection by indicating different degrees of approach to God, which organically fits them into the general context of the Homilies. The very genre of Homilies, that is, sermons, gave dry exegesis a certain literary form, not without moderate rhetorical beauties and a sense of lively conversation. From time to time, Origen invites listeners to work on comparing various passages of Holy Scripture with each other in order to understand the deep spiritual meaning inherent in it. In several places, Origen admits that he is unable to give a satisfactory interpretation of the mystical or moral order right away - evidence of the utterance of the Homilies impromptu. All the features of the exegetical method in the Homilies are most closely related to the theology of Origen: this expresses his genius as a comprehensive synthesizer of the teaching and practice of Christianity. Even the compositional unevenness of the Homilies only reflects the instability of some of his theological views, in particular, the oscillating between trichotomy and dichotomy of anthropology, subsequently corrected by the conciliar mind of the Church: the IV Ecumenical Council, with its dogma on the humanity of Christ, finally and irrevocably established the two-component nature of human nature. When talking about the theological content of the Homilies on Genesis, it is necessary to take into account the varying degrees of freedom of theological thought that Origen allowed himself in works aimed at different audiences. The Russian researcher and translator of Origen’s most controversial work, the treatise On the Elements, the main source of the subsequently condemned views of the Alexandrian, N. Petrov writes the following about this: “In Origen’s later writings, his incorrect opinions are also not expressed equally fully and clearly; Thus, in the Commentaries (for example, on the Gospel of John and Matthew), Origen, in the words of Jerome, goes into the open sea of ​​speculation with all the sails of his mind, while the Conversations (that is, Homilies - M.A.) in their content are much closer to church teaching; The essay Against Celsus is also distinguished by significant restraint of thought. Meanwhile, the very origin of all these works in the later years of Origen’s literary activity does not allow us to explain the indicated difference in their content by a change in Origen’s views - youthful and not thought out - to more mature and thorough ones. This difference is explained by the different purposes of Origen's different works. Origen wrote some of his works for educated readers, others for the common people; He wrote some works for Christians, others for pagans. It is clear that in the works of the first order Origen expressed his thoughts more freely, but in the works of the second order he was restrained by fear - either to seduce those inexperienced in the faith, or to reveal more to non-Christians than is possible. Hence the moderate nature of speculation in the Conversations and in the essay Against Celsus” 56. Thus, we will not find in the Homilies those provisions of Origenism that would greatly deviate from the Tradition of the Church. So, for example, Origen's eschatology, usually associated with the idea of ​​apokatastasis, in the Homily on Genesis I, 2 does not contain anything other than a statement of hellish torment for sinners and heavenly bliss for the righteous 57. Some aspects of triadology, for example, the above-mentioned equal participation of the Father and the Son in the Calvary Sacrifice (Hom. on Genesis VIII), fit well into the consubstantial Persons of the Holy Trinity approved at the First Ecumenical Council. At the same time, Origen turns out to be unable to abandon the idea of ​​dividing the time of creation of “our inner man” - that which is in the image of God (Gen. 1, 26), from the creation of a bodily man (Gen. 2, 7), “molded from the dust of the ground” (Hom. on Genesis I, 13), - that which later received the formulation of the “pre-existence of souls” 58. An analysis of the sources shows how strongly Origen depends on Philo of Alexandria 59 and Clement of Alexandria 60 in this matter. Origen, like his predecessors, insists on a strict hierarchy of all existence, according to which the Logos is the first image of God, the human soul is a derivative image of the first image, the Logos, and physical man (in Philo “sensual”) is an image of the third order, a similarity to the mental 61. Thus, the Platonizing theology of his predecessors penetrated deeply into the thought of Origen, and through him exercised a certain influence on the minds of Christians both in the East and in the West. Origen’s interpretation of the appearance of the three Angels to Abraham is Platonically cautious: while the Jew Philo quite boldly sees in them God and His two Powers, Creative and Royal 62, the Christian Origen, adhering to the tradition of St. martyr Justina Philosopher 63, claims that Abraham showed hospitality to the Lord who saves (that is, the Logos of God, since God the Father cannot appear to anyone) and two destroying angels, who then went to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Hom. on Genesis IV, 1). Subsequent Christian exegetical thought synthesized both interpretations, recognizing the appearance of the Holy Trinity to Abraham and the creation of judgment on Sodom by the Son and the Holy Spirit 64, rejecting the philosophical postulate of the complete transcendence of the Supreme Absolute. A peculiar hierarchy also characterizes Origen’s ideas about Christ and His Church: Christ (the sun) is the light for the Church, consisting of the apostles and “sons of the day,” and the Church (the moon) is the light for those who walk in the night of ignorance (Hom. on Genesis I, 5–6). The Old Testament righteous (stars) stand apart, shedding their light according to the size of each (I, 7). The theme of the transfer of light or grace from one hierarchical level to another later formed the basis of the constructions of the ps. – Dionysius in his Heavenly and Church Hierarchies is a striking example of the influence of Neoplatonism on Christian thought. However, Origen perceives his “church hierarchy” not statically, but in the constant dynamic spiritual development of man from one stage to another. The main goal of this constant spiritual advancement, spiritual prosperity (προκοπή, progressus) is a person’s personal relationship with Christ, equated to the marriage between the human soul and the Logos of God (Hom. X, 2-4). One of the most important stages of the spiritual path is a person’s turning to himself, which originates in the interaction of two teachings: the biblical teaching about the creation of man “in the image of God” and the Platonic teaching about the improvement of man by becoming like God 65 . Origen's mysticism, which he firmly tied to the allegorical interpretation of Holy Scripture, is generally of a moral and intellectual nature: it is necessary to cleanse the soul of passions in order to contemplate within oneself the unclouded image of God (Homilies on Genesis I, 13, 15; XIII, 3–4). Although Origen in his mysticism does not go so far as to describe ecstatic union with God in the darkness of the vision of God, as St. Gregory of Nyssa, his teaching is filled with the realism of spiritual warfare and clear practical recommendations, testifying to the living ascetic experience of the writer himself. Thus, the description of sins and virtues in the Homily on Genesis I, 8 can be considered the spiritual basis of the ideals of the future monastic movement 66. Origen, due to the inquisitiveness of his mind, absorbed diverse sources concerning both the exegetical method and some ready-made provisions and ideas, tried to rework and transform them, as far as it was available to him, in the spirit of the New Testament Revelation of the incarnate Logos of God, who concentrated in Himself the work of man’s salvation and is the only one capable of returning him to his original paradise state. The ideas of the inspiration of Scripture, the unity and interconnection of the Testaments, the urgent need for improvement through the understanding of the Scriptures and the fulfillment of the instructions hidden in it, on the one hand, and the indiscretion of all possible achievements of philology and philosophy in all its three areas (dialectics, ethics and physics) as given by God to the pagans as preparation for the acceptance of the Gospel gospel - on the other, which also found their expression in the Homilies on Genesis, were adopted by subsequent Christian theology in general and exegesis in particular. This is clearly manifested in the borrowing of various elements of Origen's Commentary, albeit without reference to the source, by such authors as, for example, Didymus the Blind (On Genesis), St. Basil the Great (Conversations on the Six Days: used the meanings of the word “beginning” collected by Origen), St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the creation of man: the doctrine of the image of God; On the life of Moses the lawgiver: the image of ascension as a mystical symbol), St. John Chrysostom (two series of Conversations on Genesis: attacks against anthropomorphism, reproduction of the psychological picture of the sacrifice of Abraham, apology for Lot and his daughters 67) - in the East and the blj. Augustine and Gregory the Great (exegetical works) - in the West. An as yet little-studied aspect is also interesting - the influence of Origen’s exegesis on Byzantine hymnography (St. Roman Sladkopevets, St. Andrei Kritsky), by the power of the aesthetic laws of poetry, which justified many of those conditional connections that in prosaic exegetical forms rightly caused bewilderment and even rejection. All 16 Homilies on Genesis have come down to us in the Latin translation of the presbyter Rufinus of Aquileia (345–410), which he himself assessed as an adaptation 68. This assessment is confirmed by comparing the Latin text with the Greek fragments of the Second Homily, reconstructed by Fr. Louis Doutrelot on the Catenas and Procopius 69. Rufinus, indeed, does not so much translate as adapt the text of Origen, guided by the principle of usefulness for the Latin-speaking reader; he may even rearrange passages or omit them altogether (for example, mentioning other translations of the Old Testament). However, despite the originality of Rufinus’ “translation,” Origen’s thought, including his personal theological opinions, remains faithfully conveyed. We translated the Homilies from Latin according to the edition prepared by Fr. Louis Doutrelot in the French patrolological series "Sources Chrétiennes", No. 7 bis: Origéne. Homélies sur la Genèse. Paris, 1976. The publisher's notes have been taken into account in compiling the footnotes. The translation of the Greek fragments of Homilia II is based on the above-mentioned publication by the same scholar and is placed in the second column parallel to the translation of Rufinus's Latin version. In a separate line, it is necessary to mention the text of the Holy Scriptures: in the 16 Homilies there are about 1100 passages from both Testaments, given by Origen from memory - exact quotes, paraphrases and allusions. We had to translate most of the passages of Holy Scripture “manually”, synthesizing data from the Septuagint, the Greek text of the New Testament, the Vulgate, the Slavic Bible and the Synodal translation. In our work on Homilia II, we took into account, in particular, the translation of this text made by A. G. Dunaev as part of his diploma work at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. He also provided scientific guidance to our research into the thematic connections between Origen's Homilies on Genesis and the sources, the results of which were used in the preparation of the preface and notes. We take this opportunity to offer him our heartfelt gratitude. 1. In the beginning God created heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1). What is the beginning of everything if not our Lord and Savior of all (I Tim.4:10) Jesus Christ, the Firstborn of every creature (Col.1:15)? This means that it was in this beginning, that is, in His Word, that God created heaven and earth, just as the Evangelist John says at the beginning of his Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God. Everything came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being (John 1:1-3). Consequently, he does not speak here of any temporal beginning, but in the beginning, says [Scripture], that is, in the Savior, the heavens and the earth were created, and everything that began to be 70. The earth was invisible and unsettled, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters (Gen. 1:2). The earth was invisible and unsettled before God said: Let there be light (Gen. 1:3), and before He separated the light from the darkness, as indicated by the order of the narrative. Because, indeed, in the following [verses] He commands that the firmament become, and calls it heaven; the meaning of the difference between the sky and the firmament and why the firmament is called heaven will be said when we reach this place. In the meantime, it is said: Darkness was over the abyss. What kind of abyss is this? Of course, the one in which there will be 71 devils and his angels (cf. Apoc. 12:9; 20:3; Matt. 25:41). At least, this is also clearly indicated in the Gospel when it says about the Savior: And the demons whom He had cast out asked Him, so that He would not command them to go into the abyss (Luke 8:31). That is why God dispels darkness, as the Scripture says: And God said: Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and called the darkness night. And there was evening and there was morning one day (Gen. 1:3-5). According to the literal [understanding], God calls light both day and darkness night. And according to spiritual understanding, let us see the reason why God, having created the heaven and the earth in the beginning about which we spoke above, also saying that there was light, and separating light from darkness, and calling light day and darkness night, and saying that there was evening and there was morning, did not say: the first day, but: one day? Because there was no time yet before the world began to be. And time begins from the next days. For [the words] “second day”, and “third”, and “fourth”, and all the rest begin to designate time 72. 2. And God said: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate water from water. And so it became. And God created the firmament (Genesis 1:6–7). God, having previously created the heavens, is now creating the firmament. Indeed, first He created the kind of heaven about which He says: Heaven is My throne (Is. 66:1). Then the firmament, that is, the bodily sky, creates. After all, every body is, without a doubt, solid and durable; That’s why it divided between the water that is above the sky and the water that is under the sky (Gen. 1:7) 73. And since everything that God intended to create [must have] consisted of spirit and body 74 , therefore it is said that in the beginning and first of all the heaven was created, that is, every spiritual substance on which God rests, as if on a certain throne and seat 75 . And this is the sky, which is the firmament, bodily. And therefore, that first heaven, which we called spiritual, is our mind, which itself is spirit, that is, our spiritual man who sees and contemplates God. And this bodily sky, called the firmament, is our external man, who looks with 76 bodily [eyes]. And just as the firmament is called heaven because it separates the waters above it from the waters below it, so a person, being in the body, if he can separate and distinguish the upper water above the firmament from that which is under the firmament, he himself will also be called heaven, that is, a heavenly man (cf. I Cor. 15:48), according to the word of the Apostle Paul: But our citizenship is in heaven ( Phil.3:20) 77. So, this is what the very words of Scripture contain: And God created the firmament, and divided it between the waters that were under the firmament, and between the waters that were above the firmament. And God called the firmament heaven. And God saw that [it] was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day (Gen. 1:7-8). Therefore, let each of you strive to become a divider of your water into the above and below, so that, having thereby come to understand the spiritual water and partaking of that which is above the firmament, let from your belly a river of living water flowing into eternal life (cf. John 7:38 and 4:14), decisively moving away and separating yourself from the water that is below, that is, the waters of the abyss, where, according to the word of Scripture, darkness and where are the prince of this world (John 12:31), and the enemy is the dragon and his angels (Apoc. 12:7; 20:3), as stated above. Thus, by partaking of the water on high, which, according to the word [of Scripture], is above heaven, every faithful person becomes heavenly, that is, when, keeping his mind high and sublime, he does not think about anything earthly, but only about heavenly things, seeking those things that are above, where Christ is at the right hand of the Father (Col. 3:1). Then truly he will be awarded praise from God, which is written here in the words: And God saw that [it] was good. Finally, what is further told about the third day can be understood in the same sense. Indeed, [Scripture] says: And God said: Let the waters that are under heaven be gathered into one congregation, and let the dry land appear. And it became so (Gen. 1:9). We will try to collect and reject from ourselves the water that is under heaven, so that when this is done, the dry land will appear - our deeds completed in the body, so that people, seeing our good deeds, will glorify our Father, who is in heaven (Matthew 5:16). For if we do not remove from ourselves the water that is under heaven, that is, the sins and vices of our body, then our dry land will neither appear nor have the hope of rising to the light. For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be revealed and it becomes clear whether they were done in God (John 3:20.21). And this hope will in no way be given to us if we do not collect it like water and remove from ourselves bodily vices - the basis of sins. If this happens, then our land will no longer be dry, as will become clear from what follows. Indeed, [Scripture] says: And the waters that were under the heaven were gathered together, and the dry land appeared. And God called the dry land earth, and called the gatherings of waters seas (Gen. 1:9). Consequently, just as this dry land, after the separation of water from it in the manner that we spoke about above, no longer remained dry land, but is henceforth called earth, in the same way our bodies, if this separation occurs in them, will no longer remain dry land, but will be called earth because they will be able to bear fruit to God 78. And since God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth, and then created the firmament and dry land; and He called the firmament heaven, giving it the name of the sky that He created before, but He called the dry land earth because He endowed it with the ability to bear fruit. Therefore, if someone, through his own fault, is still dry and does not bear any fruit except thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:18; Heb. 6:8), producing, as it were, food for the fire (Isa. 9:19), he, in accordance with what he has produced from himself, also becomes food for the fire. And if, through his diligent efforts, he removed from himself the waters of the abyss, which are demonic thoughts, and showed himself to be a fruitful land, he can hope for the corresponding: that he too will be led by God into a land flowing with milk and honey (Ex. 3:8, etc.). 3. Let us see, however, from the following [words] what kind of fruits are these that God commands to produce in that land to which He Himself bestowed this name. And God saw, says [Scripture], that it was good, and God said: Let the earth bring forth grass of the field, yielding seed according to its kind and likeness, and a fruit tree bearing fruit, in which its seed is in its likeness, on the earth. And it became so (Genesis 1:10–11). In a literal sense, it is obvious that these are the fruits that the earth produces, and not the dry land. But let's turn to us again. If we have already become earth and ceased to be dry land, then we will bring to God abundant and various fruits, so that the Father may bless us with the words: This is the smell of my son, like the smell of a full field, which the Lord blessed (Gen. 27:27), and so that what was said by the Apostle will be fulfilled in us: For the earth, which receives the rain that falls on it many times and produces grain that is useful to those with which it is cultivated, will receive a blessing from the Lord. But the one who produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is close to curse, the end of which is burning (Heb. 6:7-8). 4. And the earth brought forth grass of the field, yielding seed according to its kind and likeness, and a fruit tree bearing fruit, in which is its seed, bearing fruit according to its kind on the earth. And God saw that [it] was good. And there was evening and there was morning: the third day (Gen. 1:12–13). [God] commands the earth to produce not only the grass of the field, but also the seed, so that it can always bear fruit. And - not just a fruitful tree, but one that bears fruit, in which its seed is according to its kind, so that, that is, it can always [in the future] bear fruit from those seeds that are in it. So, accordingly, we must both bear fruit and have seeds in ourselves, that is, contain in our hearts the seeds of all good deeds and all virtues, so that, holding them firmly in our consciousness, we, based on them, perform every act that appears to us in justice. For the fruits of such seed are our works, which come from the good treasure of our heart (Luke 6:45). However, if we listen to the word, and from hearing our land immediately produces grass, and this grass dries up before it reaches maturity or fruit, then our land will be called rocky (Matthew 13:5). If this word rests on deeper roots in our heart, so that it bears the fruit of deeds, containing in itself the seeds of future [deeds], then truly the earth of each of us will bear its fruit according to its strength, one hundredfold, another sixty, the third thirty (Matthew 13:8). But we consider it necessary to remind us that our fruit should in no case contain weeds (Matthew 13:25), that is, no weeds, that it should not be on the path (Luke 8:5), but be sown on the path itself, on the One who says: I am the Way (John 14:6), so that the birds of the air (Matthew 13:4) do not peck at our fruits and ours. grapes However, whoever of us is worthy to be a vineyard, let him see to it that he does not bring thorns instead of grapes; because for this it will no longer be pruned or dug in, and the clouds will not be commanded to rain on it, but, on the contrary, it will be left desolate so that thorns will grow in it (cf. Is. 5:2.6) 79. 5. After this, the firmament is now worthy of being decorated with luminaries. As God says: Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven, so that they shine on the earth and divide between day and night (Gen. 1:14). Just as on that firmament, which is already called heaven, God commands there to be luminaries to separate between day and night, so it can happen in us, but only if we strive to be called and become heaven: [then] we will have in ourselves the luminaries that would illuminate us - Christ and His Church. For He Himself is the Light of the world (John 8:12), illuminating the Church with His light. After all, just as the moon, as they say, receives light from the sun so that it can illuminate the night, so the Church, receiving the light of Christ, illuminates all who walk in the night of ignorance. If someone succeeds in becoming a son of the day, and acts well as in the day (Rom. 13:13), as if he were a son of the day and a son of light (I Thess. 5:5), he is illuminated by Christ Himself, as the day is illuminated by the sun. 6. And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years; and let them be for illumination in the firmament of heaven, to give light on the earth. And it became so (Genesis 1:14–15). Just as these luminaries visible to us are appointed for signs and times, and days, and years, so that they shine from the firmament of heaven to those on earth, so Christ, illuminating His Church, reveals signs with His commandments, so that everyone, having received a sign, knows how to flee from future wrath (Matthew 3:7), so that that day does not overtake him like a thief (I Thess. 5:4), but even more so that he was able to achieve the favorable year of the Lord (Isa. 61:2). So, Christ is the true light, which enlightens every person who comes into this world (John 1:9), and the Church, enlightened by His light, itself becomes the light of the world, enlightening those in darkness (Rom. 2:19), as Christ Himself testifies, saying to His disciples: You are the light of the world (Matthew 5:14). From which it turns out that Christ is the light of the apostles, and the apostles are the light of the world. Indeed, they, having no spot, or wrinkle, or anything like that, are the true Church, according to the words of the apostle: To present it to Himself as a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or anything like that (Eph. 5:27) 80. 7. And God created two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars. And God placed them in the firmament of the heaven to give light on the earth, and to rule the day and the night, and to divide between light and darkness. And God saw that [it] was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day (Gen. 1:16-19). Just as the sun and moon are called the great luminaries in the firmament of the sky, so are Christ and the Church in us. But since God placed more stars in the firmament, let us see what kind of stars are in us, that is, in the sky of our heart. The star within us, shining and illuminating us with its deeds, is Moses. Also Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, David and Daniel, and all of whom the Scripture testified that they pleased God (cf. Heb. 11:5) 81 . But just as star differs from star in glory (I Cor. 15:41), so each of the saints sheds his light on us according to his size. But just as the sun and moon illuminate our body, so our mind is illuminated by Christ and the Church. This is how we would be illuminated if we were not blind in our thoughts. For just as the sun and the moon, even if they shine on the blind with their bodily eyes, they cannot perceive the light, so Christ gives His light to our minds; but then it will only illuminate us if [our] mental blindness does not prevent it. Even if this happens, those who are blind must first of all follow Christ, saying and shouting: Have mercy on us, Son of David! (Matthew 9:27) - so that, having received sight from Him, they could then also be illuminated by the radiance of His light. However, not everyone who sees is equally enlightened by Christ, but everyone - to his own extent, to which he is able to perceive the power of radiance. And just as our bodily eyes are not illuminated by the sun to the same degree, but depending on the higher one rises and the more elevated the place of observation he contemplates the sunrise, the more brilliance and warmth it will receive, so also our mind, the higher and more exalted it will approach Christ 82 and how much closer to the radiance of His light it will place itself, the more magnificent and brighter it will be illuminated by His light, according to His word through Prophet: Draw close to Me, and I will draw close to you, says the Lord (Zech. 1, 3). And he also says: I am a God who approaches, and not a God from afar (Jer. 23:23). However, we do not all go to Him in the same way, but each according to his strength (cf. Matt. 25:15). Or we come to Him with crowds, and He strengthens us with parables (cf. Matt. 13:34) just so that we, having not eaten for a long time, do not become weak on the way (cf. Matt. 15:32); or we always and incessantly sit at His feet, striving only to listen to His word, not at all caring about a great treat, but choosing the good part, which will not be taken away from us (Luke 10:39 et seq.). And whoever approaches Him in this way (cf. Matt. 13:36) will certainly receive much more of His light. But if, like the apostles, we in no case depart one step from Him, but remain with Him all the time in all His misfortunes (cf. Luke 22:28), then in private He expounds and explains to us what He said to the crowd (cf. Mark 4:34), and illuminates us with greater light. If there is one who can ascend the mountain with Him, like Peter, James and John (cf. Matt. 17:1-3), he will be enlightened not only by the light of Christ, but also by the voice of the Father Himself 83 . 8. And God said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping things of the living souls, and the birds that fly above the earth in the firmament of the heavens. And it became so (Gen. 1:20). Literally, water, by the command of God, produces reptiles and birds, and [thus] we know the Creator of those [creatures] that we see. But let’s also see how the same thing happens in our firmament of heaven, that is, in the stronghold of our mind or heart. I think that our mind, if it is enlightened by our Sun - Christ, after this receives the command to produce from the waters in it 84 reptiles and flying birds, that is, to present either good or evil thoughts in the middle, so that a division is made between good and evil, both of which come from the heart. After all, it is from our heart, as from water, that good and evil thoughts are carried away (cf. Luke 6:45). And we, according to the word and covenant of God, will bring both this and this to His consideration and judgment, so that, being enlightened by Him, we can distinguish all that is evil from good, that is, remove from ourselves that which creeps on the earth and causes mundane worries. And we will let the best ones, that is, birds, fly not only over the earth, but also across the firmament of the sky, that is, so that we explore both heavenly and earthly feelings and thoughts in ourselves, and can also recognize what is harmful in us from reptiles. If we look at a woman with lust (Matthew 5:28) - this is a poisonous reptile in us; but if we have a sense of sobriety, then even if the Egyptian mistress burns with passion for us, we will turn into birds and, leaving her Egyptian dress in her hands, we will fly away from the dirty deceit (cf. Gen. 39:7 et seq.). If any thought tempts us to steal, behold, the worst reptile; if we have such an intention that, having only two mites, we will mercifully give them as a gift to God (Luke 21:2), this intention is like a bird, not thinking about anything earthly, but with its wings striving for the heavenly firmament. If a thought comes to us that wants to convince us that it is not for us to endure martyrdom, it is a poisonous reptile; but if the thought and intention comes to us to fight for the truth even to death (cf. Sir. 4:28) - it will be a bird rushing from the earthly to the heavenly 85. In a similar way, one must judge other types of sins and virtues and distinguish which [of them] are reptiles and which are birds, which our water is ordered to identify [all of them] for recognition before the face of God. 9. And God created the great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind (Gen. 1:21). We need to think about this in the same way as what was said above - that we must also produce large whales and the soul of reptiles according to their kind. In my opinion, these large whales mean wicked thoughts and all sorts of indecent, ungodly feelings, which, however, must all be brought out before the face of God and placed before Him, so that we can distinguish and separate good from evil, so that each of them would be assigned by the Lord their place, as shown in the following [words]. 10. And God saw that [all this] was good. And He blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth. And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day (Gen. 1:21-23). God commands the great fish and every living creature that moves, which the waters have produced, to remain in the sea, where the serpent also lives, which God created to laugh at him (Ps. 103:26). And He commands the birds to multiply on the earth, which was once dry land, but is now called earth, as we stated above. But someone may ask why evil is understood by large fish and reptiles, and good by birds, while it is said about all of them together: And God saw that they [all] were good? As for the saints, it is good for them [and] what is against them, for they can gain victory over him and, having won, gain even greater glory from God. In general, when the devil asked that he be given power over Job (cf. Job 1:9), the enemy attacking Job became the reason for his great glory after the victory [over him] (cf. Job 42:10). This is proven by the fact that what Job lost, he received back doubly here, having the opportunity to receive in the same way in heavenly [bloods]. And the apostle says that no one will be crowned unless he strives lawfully (II Tim. 2:5). But really, what is a competition without an opponent? No matter how dazzling beauty the day has, it would not be appreciated if it did not overcome the darkness of the night. Are some praised for their purity because others are condemned for their lewdness? Would they call brave men if there were no unwarlike and timid people? If you accept the bitter, the more worthy of praise the sweet will be. If you look at the dark, the light will seem more pleasant to you. In short, viewing the evil brings out more clearly the beauty of the good. That is why Scripture says this about everything: And God saw that [all this] was good. But why, however, is it not written: “And God said that [it] was good,” but: And God saw that [it] was good? This means that He saw their benefit and the reason why, although they are bad in themselves, they could make the good ones even better 86 . That is why He said: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth, that is, so that great whales and reptiles are in the sea, as we stated above, and birds are on the earth. 11. And God said: Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds, cattle and creeping things, and wild beasts of the earth according to their kinds. And so it became. And God created the beasts of the earth according to their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth according to their kind. And God saw that [all this] was good (Gen. 1:24–25). The literal explanation does not constitute any question, since it is clearly stated that God created animals on earth, and four-legged animals, and beasts, and snakes. But it is not useful to reconcile this in spiritual understanding with what we outlined above. There it was said: Let the waters bring forth reptiles, living souls, and birds that fly above the earth in the firmament of the heavens; and here He says: Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds, cattle and creeping things, and wild beasts of the earth according to their kinds. We have already indicated that what the water produced should be understood as the movements and thoughts of our mind that come from the depths of the heart. And by what is said now: Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kind, cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, I think, signifies the movements of our external, that is, carnal and earthly man. Indeed, where flesh is spoken of, not a single bird is mentioned, but only cattle, creeping things, and beasts of the earth. And since, according to the apostle, no good thing dwells in my flesh (Rom. 7:18) and the carnal mind is hostile to God (Rom. 8:7), these are precisely what the earth produces, that is, our flesh, about which the apostle again instructs, saying: Mortify your members on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, shamelessness, covetousness, idolatry (Col. 3:5), and so on. So, after everything visible to us arose by the command of God through His Word 87, and this immense visible world was arranged, and at the same time in the form of an allegory everything that could adorn the smaller world, that is, man, 88 was shown, then man is created as described in the following [lines]. 12. And he said: Let us make man in our image and likeness, and let him rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the animals, and over all the earth, and over everything that creeps on the earth (Gen. 1:26). From our previous presentation it follows that [God] wants precisely such a person as we have described to rule over the above-mentioned beasts, birds, reptiles, cattle and over everyone else. What should be understood by them allegorically, we stated when we said that water, that is, the human mind, was commanded to produce a spiritual feeling, and the earth to present a carnal feeling, so that the mind would rule over the feelings, and not they over it. For God wants man - this great creation of His (cf. Eph. 2:10), for the sake of which the whole world was created - not only not to be stained and affected by what is said above, but also to rule over him 89 . But now let's see how Scripture itself speaks about what a great creature man is. All other creations took place at the command of God, as Scripture says: And God said: Let there be a firmament (Gen. 1:6). And God said: Let the waters that are under the sky be gathered into one assembly, and let the dry land appear (Gen. 1:9). And God said: Let the earth produce grass (Gen. 1:11). [Scripture] says the same in other [cases]. Let us, however, look at what was created by God Himself, and through this we will appreciate all the greatness of man. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). In a similar way it says: And he created two great lights (Gen. 1:16), and here again: Let us create man (Gen. 1:26). The creation of only these, and no other [creatures], is attributed to God Himself. Only heaven and earth, the sun, moon and stars, and now man, were created by God; about all the others it is said that they were created by His command 90 . So, judge from this what is the greatness of man that he is equated with such great and main elements. He is given honor on a par with heaven, and therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is promised to him. He is given honor on a par with the land, for he hopes to enter the good land, the land of the living, flowing with milk and honey (cf. Ex. 3:8, etc.). He is given honor on a par with the sun and the moon, since it is promised to him that he will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 13:43). 13. I see that even more remarkable thing in the creation of man, which I do not find said anywhere else: And God created man, in the image of God he created him (Gen. 1:27). We will not find this written either about the sky, or about the earth, or about the sun or the moon. However, we do not consider the person about whom it is said that he was created in the image of God to be corporeal. Because bodily tissue does not contain the image of God, and a bodily man is called not created, but created, as it is written later: And God created, that is, fashioned, man from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7) 91. The same one who was created in the image of God is our inner man, invisible, incorporeal, incorruptible and immortal. For in these qualities it is most fair to recognize the image of God. If someone considers as corporeal one who is created in the image and likeness of God, then he, apparently, is forced to imagine God Himself as corporeal and looking like a man; but to think that way about God is completely wicked 92 . Those very people who, being deprived of any concept of the divine and reading in the Scriptures about God: Heaven is My throne, and the earth is the footstool of My feet (Is. 66:1), are corporeal, imagine a God of such a huge body that He sits, they think, in heaven, and His feet extend to the earth. They think this way because they do not have ears capable of hearing the words of God about God, transmitted through Scripture. The words: Heaven is my throne - then they are understood worthy of God, when we know that God rests and abides in those whose residence is in heaven (cf. Phil. 3:20). And those who still live with earthly intentions are reached by the edge of His Providence, which is figuratively shown in the naming of the feet. If suddenly there are among them those who zealously desired to become heavenly through the perfection of life and the sublimity of thoughts, then they too become the throne of God, having already previously become heavenly in their way of life; and they say: He raised us up with Christ and seated us together [with Him] in heaven (Eph. 2:6). Also, those who have treasure in heaven (cf. Matt. 19:21) can be called heavenly and the throne of God, for there is their heart, where their treasure is (cf. Luke 12:3). And God not only rests on them, but also lives in them (cf. II Cor. 6:16). If there is someone who has achieved such [perfection] that he can say: Or are you looking for evidence as to whether Christ speaks in me? (II Cor. 13:3) - then God not only dwells in him, but also walks in him. And therefore, all who are perfect, having become heavenly, or having become heaven, preach the glory of God (Ps. 18:1), as the psalm says. Therefore, the apostles, who were heaven, are sent to preach the glory of God and receive the name Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder (Mark 3:17), so that we believe that they, possessing the power of thunder, truly are heaven. So, God created man, in the image of God he created him (Gen. 1:27). We should consider what kind of image of God this is, and examine in the likeness of what image man was created. After all, it is not said that “God created man in His own image or likeness,” but: in the image of God He created him. What other [can there be] the image of God, in the likeness of which man was created, if not our Savior, the Firstborn of every creation (Col. 1:15), about Whom it is written that He is the radiance of eternal light and the sealed image of the hypostasis of God (Heb. 1:3), Who also says about Himself: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me (John 14:10) and He who has seen Me has seen and the Father (John 14:9)? And just as the one who sees someone’s image also sees the one whose image it is, so God can be seen through the Word of God, which is the image of God. And so what is said will be true: He who has seen Me has seen the Father also 93. So man was created in the likeness of this image; therefore the Savior, Who is the image of God, moved by mercy towards man, created in His likeness, and seeing that he, having laid aside His image, put on the image of the evil one, Himself, out of mercy, taking on the image of man, came to him, as the apostle testifies, saying: He, being in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but he made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man; He humbled himself even to death (Phil. 2:6-8). And so all those who come to Him and strive to become partakers of the rational image, as they advance from day to day, are renewed in the inner man (II Cor. 4:16) in the image of Him who created them, so that they can become conformed to His glorious body (Phil. 3:21), however each according to his ability. The apostles were transformed in His likeness to such an extent that He Himself said about them: I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God (John 20:17). After all, He Himself had already asked the Father for His disciples, so that their original likeness would be restored to them, saying: Father, grant that just as I and You are one, so they too may be one in Us (John 17:21-22). Let us, therefore, continually contemplate this Image of God, so that we may be transformed into His likeness. After all, if man, created in the image of God, contrary to nature, looking at the image of the devil, became like him through sin, then much more, looking at the image of God, in whose likeness he was created by God, through the Word and His power will again take on the form originally given to him by nature. And no one, seeing that he looks more like the devil than like God, should not despair that he will be able to regain the appearance of the image of God, for the Savior came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Luke 5:32). Matthew was a publican (cf. Matthew 10:3), and his image was undoubtedly similar to the devil; but having come to the image of God - our Lord and Savior - and following Him, he was transformed into the likeness of the image of God. James Zebedee and John his brother were fishermen (Matthew 4:17.21) and unlearned people (Acts 4:1.3), who, obviously, were then more like the image of the devil; but they, following the image of God, became like Him, like the other apostles. Paul was a persecutor (cf. I Tim.1:13) The very image of God; but when he was able to see His splendor and beauty, this vision transformed him in His likeness so much that he said: Or are you looking for evidence of whether Christ speaks in me? (II Cor. 13:3) 94. 14. He created them male and female, and blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it (Gen. 1:27-28). It seems necessary at this point to examine, according to the literal sense, why the Scripture says: Male and female created he them, although woman was not yet created. I believe it is possible for the sake of the blessing with which [God] blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, - [Scripture], anticipating what will happen, says: Male and female he created them, for a man could not be fruitful and multiply except with a wife. And so that there is no doubt that His blessing will come true, [Scripture] says: Male and female He created them. And therefore, a person, seeing that [the ability] to be fruitful and multiply is a consequence of his union with his wife, could have greater confidence in divine blessing. In fact, if Scripture had said: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, without adding that He created them male and female, then man, of course, would not believe the divine blessing, just as Mary answered the Angel’s blessing: How will this be when I don’t know a husband? (Luke 1:34). But, perhaps, since everything created by God is spoken of as being conjugate and united with each other, like heaven and earth, like the sun and moon; So, in order to show that man is God’s creation and he was not created without harmony and appropriate conjugation, that is why it is said in advance: He created them male and female. All this is said to explain only the literal meaning. 15. Let us now consider through allegory how man, created in the image of God, is male and female. Our inner man consists of spirit and soul. The spirit can be called a man, the soul can be called a woman. If there is agreement and unanimity between them, then in their very unity they are fruitful and multiply, giving birth to children - good feelings and thoughts, or useful considerations with which they fill the earth and possess it; that is, having subjugated the carnal feeling, they turn it to the best intentions and rule over it - then, of course, when the flesh in no way rebels over the will of the spirit. But if a soul, connected with the spirit and united with it, so to speak, by marriage, sometimes inclines towards bodily pleasures and inclines its feelings to the pleasures of the flesh, and then turns out to obey the saving impulses of the spirit, and sometimes gives in to carnal vices, such a soul, as if stained by bodily adultery, cannot be said to be lawfully fruitful and multiplying, for Scripture calls children adulterers imperfect (cf. Wisdom 3:16). And such a soul, which, having left unity with the spirit, rushes entirely towards carnal feelings and bodily desires, it, as if dishonestly turning away from God, will hear: The face of a harlot appeared on you, you shamelessly gave yourself to everyone (Jer. 3:2). So, she will be punished as a harlot, and she will be ordered to prepare her children for slaughter (cf. Isa. 14:21) 95. 16. And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the livestock, and over all [animals] that are on the earth, and over the creeping things that move on the earth (Gen. 1:28). We have already explained the literal meaning of these [words] when we talked about what God said: Let us create man, and so on, where He says: And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and so on. But in the allegory, it seems to me, fish, birds 96, animals and earthly reptiles signify what we just talked about above, that is, that which either comes from the spiritual feelings and thoughts of the heart, or flows from bodily desires and movements of the flesh: over them the saints hold dominion and keep the blessing of God within themselves, directing the whole [their] person according to the will of the spirit; sinners are rather dominated by that which flows from carnal vices and bodily pleasures. 17. And God said: Behold, I have given you every plant that yields seed that is on all the earth, and every tree that has fruit that yields seed: it will be for you for food, and for every beast of the earth, and for every bird of the air, and for every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, in which there is life (Gen. 1:29-30). The narrative [side] of this saying clearly indicates that in the very beginning God allowed only herbs, that is, vegetables and tree fruits, to be eaten. But later, when the covenant with Noah was made after the flood, people are given the opportunity to eat meat. We will explain the reasons for this better in its place 97. In an allegorical sense, grass and fruits of the earth, which are given to people as food, can be understood as bodily affects: for example, anger and desire are bodily embryos. The fruit of these embryos, that is, action, is common both to us, rational people, and to earthly animals. After all, when we are angry justly, that is, for the sake of reprimanding the offender and instructing him on the path of salvation, then we feed on this earthly fruit, and bodily anger becomes our food, with the help of which we suppress sin and restore justice. And lest it seem to you that we are deducing this more from our understanding than from the authority of Holy Scripture, turn to the book of Numbers and remember what the priest Phineas did, who, seeing the harlot Midianite, in full view of everyone hanging in the wicked embrace of a certain Israelite, and filled with the wrath of divine jealousy, drew a sword and pierced them both in the stomach (cf. Numbers 25: 7-8). This action was counted to him by God as righteousness, according to the word of the Lord: Phineas turned away My wrath, and this was counted to him as righteousness (Num. 25:11-12 and Ps. 105:31). So, the earthly food of wrath is our food if we use it wisely for the purposes of justice. If anger leads to such reckless actions as punishing the innocent or indignation at those who have sinned nothing, this will be the food of wild animals, earthly reptiles and birds of the air: this food is also fed by demons, who both feed on our evil deeds and favor them. An example of such an act is Cain, who killed an innocent brother out of anger from envy (cf. Gen. 3:8). The same thing needs to be thought about desire and all similar affects. For when our soul desires and yearns for the living God (Ps. 83:3), desire is our food. But if we either look with lust at another man’s wife (cf. Matt. 5:28), or desire something from our neighbor’s property (cf. Is. 20:17), then desire turns into animal food, an example of which can be the lust of Ahab and the act of Jezebel with the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite (cf. III Kings 21). It is, of course, necessary to note the foresight of Holy Scripture in the choice of words: while it was said about people that God said: Behold, I have given you every seed that is on the earth, and every tree that is on the earth: [this] will be for you for food, - about animals it is not said: “I have given them all this for food,” but it will be for them for food, so that, according to the spiritual understanding we have outlined, we understand that emotions are given by God to man, but that nevertheless God proclaims that they will also be food for the beasts of the earth. And this is why Divine Scripture is so careful in its choice of words; when it talks about how God says to people: I have given you this for food, and moving on to animals, it speaks in the sense of not a command, but as if a warning that it will also be food for animals, birds, and snakes. We, according to the word of the Apostle Paul, will engage in reading (I Tim. 4:13), so that we can acquire, as he puts it, the mind of Christ (I Cor. 2:16) and know what has been given to us from God (I Cor. 2:12), and we will not make what is given to us as food as food for pigs or dogs (cf. Matt. 7:6), but we will prepare in ourselves such food with which it would be worthy to receive in the shelter of our heart is the Word and the Son of God, who comes with His Father and wants to make an abode in us (cf. John 14:23) by the Holy Spirit, whose church we must first become through holiness (cf. I Cor. 6:19) 98 . To him be glory forever and ever. Amen (cf. Rom. 11:36). 1. When we begin to talk about the ark, which was built by Noah at the command of God, let us first of all see what is literally said about it, and, having stated the questions that are usually asked by many, we will find answers to them in the previous tradition, so that then, having laid such foundations, we can rise from the text of the narrative to the mysterious and allegorical meaning of spiritual understanding and, if there is something hidden in it, make it manifest with the assistance of God, who reveals knowledge to us Your word. And first of all, let us state what Scripture itself says: And the Lord said to Noah: The time of every man has come before Me, for the earth is filled with evil deeds from them; and behold, I will destroy them and the land. Make yourself an ark from square logs, make many nests in the ark and tar it with pitch inside and out. And so you will make the ark: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, and fifty cubits the width, and thirty cubits the height of it, narrowing it, you will make the ark, and you will complete it at the top of a cubit. You will make the door of the ark on the side, you will make the lower rooms two-story and the upper three-story 99 (Gen. 6:13-16). And a little later: And Noah did, says [Scripture], everything that the Lord God commanded him, so he did (Gen. 6:22). This must be said in terms of historical meaning, in opposition to those who persistently attack the Scriptures of the Old Testament as containing something impossible and meaningless. 3. And now, having prayed to the One who alone can remove the veil (cf. II Cor. 3:14) from the reading of the Old Testament, let us try to explore what other spiritual structure is contained in such a majestic structure of the ark. So, as far as my little understanding allows me, I believe that the flood that almost ended the world then bears the image of the end of the world, which will actually come. The Lord Himself foretold this, saying: For just as in the days of Noah they bought, sold, built, married, gave in marriage, and the flood came and destroyed everyone: so will the coming of the Son of Man (cf. Luke 17:26-27 and Matt. 24:27). With these [words the Lord] clearly indicates that just as the flood occurred earlier, in the same way, according to His word, the end of the world will come. And just as that Noah was then told to make an ark and bring there with him not only his sons and loved ones, but also animals of various kinds, so our Noah, truly the only righteous (cf. Gen. 6:9) and the only perfect Lord Jesus Christ, was told by the Father that at the end of the age 100 He would make Himself an ark from quadrangular logs and give it dimensions full of heavenly mysteries. This is indicated in the Psalm, where He says: Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the nations for Thy inheritance and the ends of the earth for Thy possession (Ps. 2:8). So, [Noah] builds an ark and makes nests in it, that is, some kind of storerooms to accommodate various kinds of animals. The prophet also says about them: Go, my people, enter your storerooms, hide yourself for a while, until the fury of My anger passes away (cf. Isa. 26:20). This means that the people who are saved in the Church are related to all those, be they people or animals, who were saved in the ark. But since neither merit nor advancement in faith is the same for everyone, therefore that ark does not provide everyone with a single location, but two floors below and three above, and nests are demarcated in them. This shows that in the Church, although everyone abide in the same faith and are washed by the same baptism, everyone does not have the same advancement, but each in his own rank (cf. I Cor. 15:23). Those who live with meaningful knowledge and are able not only to govern themselves, but also to teach others (cf. II Tim. 2:2), since there are very few of them [in the Church], are typified by those few who are saved with Noah and are related to him in the closest kinship, just as our Lord, the true Noah, Christ Jesus, has very few relatives, few sons and relatives who share in His word and are receptive to His wisdom. These are those who are located at the highest level and are placed at the top of the ark. The rest of the multitude of unreasonable and wild animals are located below, and at the very bottom are those of them whose rudeness and savagery were not softened even by the sweetness of faith. Somewhat higher than them are those who, although they have little intelligence, still retain a lot of simplicity and innocence. And so, gradually rising from one dwelling to another, one can reach Noah himself, which means “tranquility”, or “righteous man”, that is, to Jesus Christ. For what was said by his father Lamech does not apply to Noah: He will give us rest from the labors and sorrows of our hands and from the land that the Lord God has cursed (Gen. 5:29). After all, how would it be true that that Noah gave peace to Lamech or the people who then lived on earth, or that sorrow and labor ceased during the time of Noah, or that the curse imposed by the Lord on the earth was stopped, when, on the contrary, divine wrath is even more manifested, and the words of God are transmitted: I repented that I created man on the earth (Gen. 6, 6), and again He says: I will destroy all flesh that is on the earth (cf. Gen. 6, 7. 12), and, above all, the death of living beings indicates [His] greatest displeasure? But if you look at our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it is said: Behold, the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), and again of Him it is said: He became a curse for us, to redeem us from the curse of the law (cf. Gal. 3:13), and again when He [Himself] says: Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, and you will find rest your souls (Matthew 11:28–29), then you will find that He is the One who truly gave peace to people and freed the earth from the curse with which the Lord God cursed it. The words are addressed to this spiritual Noah, Who gave people peace and took away the sin of the world: Make yourself an ark from square logs (Gen. 6:14). 4. Let's see what quadrangular logs are. A quadrangular thing is something that doesn’t sway on any side, but no matter how you turn it, it stands strong and solid. Such logs are able to withstand the entire load of both animals from the inside and waves from the outside. In the Church these [logs] are, in my opinion, teachers, mentors and zealots of the faith, who encourage the nations within her with the word of exhortation and the grace of teaching, but also with the power of speech and the wisdom of judgment the pagans and heretics who attack her from without and raise waves of objections and storms of controversy. But do you want to see that the divine Scripture knows intelligent trees? Let us remember what is written by the prophet Ezekiel: In the eleventh year, says [Scripture], in the third month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Son of man! say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and his multitude: To whom are you equal in your height? Behold, Assur is a cypress tree in Lebanon with beautiful branches and a dense crown and tall growth. Its top is among the clouds; the water nourished it, the deep exalted it and surrounded it with its rivers and sent its accumulations to all the trees of the field (Ezek. 31:1-5). And a little later he says: The numerous cypress trees in the garden of God and the pines were not like its branches, and the fir trees were not like them. Not a single tree in the garden of God resembled him, and all the trees of the garden of God's delight envied him (Ezek. 31:8-9). Do you notice what kind of trees the prophet is talking about? How does he describe the Lebanese cypress, which no tree growing in the garden of God could compare with? And at the end he adds that all the trees in the garden of God were jealous of him, clearly indicating that in the spiritual understanding he means the intelligent trees in the garden of God, since he attributes to them a certain jealousy of the trees of Lebanon. Therefore - let's make a digression here - think about whether you should perhaps understand what is written: Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (Deut. 21:23), just like what is said elsewhere: Cursed is the man who trusts in a man (Jer. 17:5). For we must depend on God alone and on no one else, even if someone says about himself that he comes from the garden of God, as Paul says: Even if we or an angel from heaven were to preach the gospel to you differently than we preached to you, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8). But more on that another time. So, you have seen what kind of quadrangular logs these are, from which spiritual Noah assembles a kind of wall and protection for those inside from the waves outside. These logs are coated with pitch inside and outside (cf. Gen. 6:14). After all, the Architect of the Church, Christ, does not want you to be like those who outwardly seem righteous to people, but inside are the tombs of the dead (cf. Matt. 23:28.27), but wants you to be holy in body on the outside and pure in heart from the inside, fenced and protected on both sides by the virtue of chastity and innocence, which is what must be understood by tarring from the inside and outside (cf. Gen. 6, 14). 5. After this, the length, width and height of the ark are mentioned, and numbers are given to them, consecrated by the great sacraments. But before we talk about numbers, let us consider what [Scripture] calls length, width and height. In one place the apostle, speaking more intimately about the mystery of the Cross, says the following: So that you can comprehend what the breadth and length, and height and depth are (Eph. 3:18). However, depth and height mean the same thing, except that height is a dimension of space from bottom to top, and depth is from top to bottom. Thus, the Spirit of God quite consistently proclaims the types of great mysteries both through Moses and through Paul. For since Paul preached the mystery of Christ's condescension, he spoke of depth, as if [we were talking] about something coming from top to bottom; and Moses, since he destined the restoration of those whom Christ calls from the destruction of the world, as from a disastrous flood, from below to the highest and heavenly, when measuring the ark, he mentions not the depth, but the height, as if [we were talking about] where they rise from the earthly and low to the heavenly and high. The numbers are also set [mysterious] - three hundred cubits in length, fifty in width and thirty in height (cf. Gen. 6:15). Three hundred is three times a hundred, and the number one hundred seems complete and perfect, containing also the mystery of all rational creation in accordance with what we read in the following passage of the Gospel: Someone having a hundred sheep, when he lost one of them, leaving the ninety-nine in the mountains, went down to look for the lost one, and having found it, brought it back on his shoulders and added it to the ninety-nine that were not lost (cf. Luke 15, 4–5 and Matthew 18, 12–13). But since this hundredfold number of all rational creation does not exist by itself, but comes from the Trinity and receives from the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit the length of life, that is, the grace of immortality, therefore it is laid [in the length of the ark] tripled, [pointing] precisely to the one who, by the grace of the Trinity, ascends to perfection, and to the one who adds to the three hundred [sheep] through the knowledge of the Trinity that [sheep], which, through the ignorance of [the Trinity], strayed from the hundred. The width [of the ark] has the number fifty, dedicated to remission and forgiveness. For according to the law, the release was made in the fiftieth year (cf. Lev. 25:10), that is, if someone was deprived of property, he received it again; if a free man was enslaved, he regained his freedom; the debtor received forgiveness, and the exile returned to his homeland. Thus, the spiritual Noah, Christ, laid in the width of His ark, in which He freed the human race from destruction, that is, His Church, fifty - the number of redemption. After all, if He had not given the believers absolution, the Church would not have expanded throughout the world. And the number of the height [of the ark] - thirty - contains a mystery similar to the number three hundred: there hundreds are multiplied by three, here tens. The top of the entire structure is reduced to one, for there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord (I Cor. 8:6), and one faith of the Church, one baptism, one body and one spirit (Eph. 4:5.4), and everything strives towards one goal - perfection in God. You yourself, listener, if you take the time to study the Scriptures, you will find that very many great things have been accomplished with the numbers thirty and fifty. Joseph, being thirty years old, is taken out of prison and takes command over all of Egypt (cf. Gen. 41:46) in order, by Divine providence, to avert the threat of starvation. Jesus was, according to Scripture, thirty years old (cf. Luke 3:23 and Matt. 3:16) when He came to baptism and saw the heavens opened and the Spirit of God descending on Him in the form of a dove (cf. Mark 1:10) - then the mystery of the Trinity began to be revealed for the first time. You will find many other things like that. You will find that the feast of bringing new fruit fell on the fiftieth day (cf. Lev. 23:16; Deut. 16:9-10) and the fiftieth share of the Midianite spoil was given as tribute to the Lord (cf. Num. 31:28-30). You will find that Abraham defeated the Sodomites (cf. Gen. 14:14) with three hundred [soldiers], and Gideon won the victory with three hundred lapping up water with their tongues (cf. Judges 7:6.8). And the door is not placed in front and not on top, but on the side, on the opposite side, for this is the time of Divine wrath - after all, the day of the Lord is a day of anger and wrath (cf. Zeph. 1: 14-15), as it is written; and although some may be saved, the majority deservedly perishes and dies - [so,] the door is placed on the opposite side, pointing to what the prophet said: If you go against Me, then I will go against you in rage (cf. Lev. 26, 27-28) 101. Now let's look at what [Scripture] says separately about the two lower and three upper [floors] (cf. Gen. 6:16), whether this perhaps foretells what the apostle is talking about: at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Phil. 2:10), and whether it does not indicate that the lowest of all in the ark are those whom the apostle calls "underworld"; directly above them are the “earthly” ones, and on the upper three levels are those whom the apostle calls all together “heavenly”. However, among the latter, the merits of those who, according to the Apostle Paul, can rise to the third heaven stand out (cf. II Cor. 12:2). And many nests (cf. Gen. 6:14), since there were a large number of them in the ark, indicate that the Father has many mansions (cf. John 14:2). As for the [interpretation] of animals - beasts, livestock and various other living creatures - is it necessary to adhere to a different image than the one that Isaiah shows us, saying that in the Kingdom of Christ a wolf and a lamb, a leopard and a kid, a lion and an ox, graze together and their young eat food together, and even a small child - undoubtedly, the one about which the Savior spoke: If you do not turn and become like this child, you will not enter the Kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 18:3.4), - will he stretch out his hand even into the asp’s hole, and there will be no harm to him (cf. Is. 11:6-9)? Or the image that the Church already shows, what Peter teaches when he narrates his vision, in which all four-legged animals, beasts of the earth and birds of the air were in a single cloth of faith, tied at the four corners of the Gospels (cf. Acts 10:11-12)? 6. However, since the ark that we are trying to describe is being built, at the direction of God, not only two-story, but also three-story (cf. Gen. 6:14), then we will undertake the work of adding, at the command of God, a third to the two previous explanations. In fact, the first explanation, which preceded the others, is historical and, like some kind of foundation, is laid at the very bottom. The second explanation, the mysterious one, was more sublime and [placed] higher. Let us try, if possible, to add a third explanation, a moral one, although the very fact that [the Scripture] did not say that the ark was only two-story, and fell silent, or that it was only three-story, and stopped, but to what was already said “two-story” was added “three-story,” seems [an indication that] the sacrament cannot do without that very explanation that is next in line. For “three-story” means this threefold explanation. But since in the Divine Scriptures it is not always possible to establish the literal meaning, and sometimes it is not there at all, as, for example, when it is said: Thorns are born in the hand of a drunken man (Proverbs 26:9), or about the church built by Solomon: The voice of the hammer and adze was not heard in the house of God (III Kings 6:7), or even in the book of Leviticus: Leprosy on the wall, skin or cloth must be examined by the priests and cleansed (cf. Leo 14, 34; 13:48), then for the sake of these and similar places the ark is built not only three-story, but also two-story, so that we know that the Divine Scriptures do not always have a threefold explanation (since we do not always have the literal meaning), but sometimes only a twofold one. So, let us try to present the third explanation, according to the moral meaning. If there is someone capable, despite the growing evil and the oncoming waves of vices, to turn away from everything that is changeable, perishing and transitory and to listen to the word of God and the heavenly commandments, he builds in his heart the ark of salvation and sanctifies within himself, so to speak, the library of the Divine word, putting faith, love and hope in its length, breadth and height. He extends faith in the Trinity to the entire length of life and immortality; he bases the breadth of love on a feeling of forgiveness and kindness; he directs the height of hope to the heavenly and on high, for, walking on earth, he has his residence in heaven (cf. Phil. 3:20). The top of his deeds comes down to one thing, for he knows that everyone flees, but only one receives the reward (I Cor. 9:24), namely the one who will not be torn into many parts 102 due to changeability of thoughts and fickleness of mind. But he builds this library not from rough and unhewn logs, but from quadrangular and aligned in a straight line, that is, from books not of worldly authors, but of prophets and apostles. For it is they who, having chopped off and cut off all vices, having polished themselves in various trials, maintain an even (quadratam) life and balanced on all sides. For although the authors of worldly books can be called tall and shady trees - for Israel is accused of fornication under every tall and branchy tree (cf. Jer. 2:20; 3:6) - since they also speak about the sublime and use flowery eloquence, yet their actions did not correspond to their speeches; and therefore they cannot be called square logs (cf. Gen. 6:14), because they do not have a balance between deed and word. So, if you are building an ark, if you are collecting a library, compose it from the writings of the prophets and apostles or those who followed them in the straight lines of faith, and make it two-story and three-story. Use it to study historical narratives; with its help, learn the great mystery (cf. Eph. 5:32) with which Christ and the Church are filled; with its help, learn to correct your morals, cut off vices, cleanse your soul and remove the shackles of captivity from it, placing in it many nests (cf. Gen. 6:14) for various virtues and successes. You will truly tar it inside and out (cf. Gen. 6:14), believing with your heart, confessing with your lips (cf. Rom. 10:10), having knowledge within, deeds without, walking with a pure heart inside and a blameless body outside. Thus, into this ark, whether we accept it in a moral application as a library of divine books or as a believing soul, you must also introduce various kinds of animals, not only clean, but also unclean. As for pure animals, it is not difficult to guess that they should be understood as memory, erudition, understanding, research and judgment about what we read, and other similar [qualities]. As for unclean animals, it is difficult to say anything, considering also what [Scripture] said about them: two by two (cf. Gen. 6:19). Nevertheless, as far as we have the courage to [interpret] such difficult passages, I believe that the lust and anger inherent in every soul, to the extent that they serve a person for sin, are necessarily called unclean; but to the extent that neither continuation of the race is possible without lust, nor correction or education without anger, they are considered obligatory and subject to preservation. And although this may seem to relate not to morality, but to nature [of man], we turned everything that came to our minds now to the matter of housebuilding. Of course, if anyone takes the time to compare and contrast some passages of Divine Scripture with others, matching the spiritual with the spiritual (cf. I Cor. 2:13), then, we have no doubt, he will discover in this place even more deep and hidden secrets, which lack of time and fatigue of the listeners do not allow us to show. Let us, however, implore the mercy of Almighty God, so that He would make us not only hearers, but also doers of His word (cf. James 1:22), so that He would send down streams of His waters on our souls and destroy in us everything that He knows should be destroyed, and quicken everything that, in His judgment, should be quickened, through Christ our Lord and His Holy Spirit. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen (cf. Rom. 11:36). 1. Since in many places of Divine Scripture we read that God speaks to people, and because of this the Jews and some of our [teachers] 103 decided that God should be understood as a man, that is, having parts of the body and a human appearance, and philosophers saw here something mythical and figurative, as if it were a poetic fiction, then it seems to me appropriate to stipulate this in a few words and then move on to what was read 104 . Therefore, first we will talk about those who, being outside [the faith], boldly shout at us from all sides, saying that it is not fitting for the Most High - the Invisible and Incorporeal God - to have human affects. Indeed, they say, if you learn to Him the use of speech, then undoubtedly you will give Him a mouth, tongue and other members that perform the function of speech; and if this is so, then there is a retreat from the invisibility and incorporeality of God. And adding many other things like that, they greatly burden our [believers]. So, with your prayerful support, with God's help, we will briefly touch on this issue. 2. Just as we acknowledge that God is incorporeal, Almighty and invisible, we also confess as a true and unchangeable dogma that He cares for mortals and nothing happens either in heaven or on earth without His providence. Notice that we said: “Nothing happens without His providence,” and not “without will.” For many things happen without His will, but nothing happens without Providence. And providence is that which [God] cares for, disposes of, and foresees events, and will is that by which He wills something or does not will it. But more on this in another place, since this conversation is longer and more extensive 105. So, from the fact that we recognize God as the Seer and Manager of everything, it follows that He indicates what He desires and what is useful to people. After all, if He had not indicated, He would not have been a Seer for people and it would not have been believed that He cared about mortals. How can we designate the action with which God, in indicating His will to people for their actions, actually indicates? Isn't it what [it will be] that people have and know? After all, if we say, for example, that God is silent, which seems to be appropriate to His nature, how should we think [to understand] that He has indicated something through silence. In Scripture, “He said” is said for this purpose, so that people, knowing that in this way one makes his will known to another, would understand that what is announced to them through the prophets is an indication of the will of God. That [these words of the prophets] contain the will of God would, of course, be incomprehensible if it were not indicated that He “said” them, since it is completely unknown to people that the will can ever be indicated through silence. But, again, in our words we do not go so far as to consider, in accordance with the error of the Jews and some of our [believers], who are mistaken after those, that since human weakness is not able to hear about God otherwise, except if the thing itself and the words are familiar to it, then, they say, it means that God does this with members of the body similar to ours, and in human form. Such [judgment] is alien to the faith of the Church. But when God either inspires the heart of any saint, or brings the sound of a voice to his ears, then God is said to have “said” to the man. Likewise, when He wants to show that He knows who is saying and doing what, He says that He “hears”; when He points out that we are committing some unrighteous act, He says that He is “angry”; when he accuses us of ingratitude towards His benefits, he says that he is “dissatisfied,” denoting this with those affects that are common among people, but without using the organs of human nature. For His essence is simple and is not composed of any organs, compounds, or affects, but if anything is accomplished by Divine powers, it is understood by people in the names of the members of the human body or is designated through common and known affects. Only in this sense is it said that God is angry, or hears, or speaks. For if the human voice is defined as a gust of air from the blow of the tongue, then the voice of God can be called a gust of air from the power, or will of God. And therefore, when the voice of God is heard, it reaches not all ears, but [the ears] of those by whom it must be heard in order to understand that the sound was not given by pushing the tongue - otherwise it would have been heard by everyone - but was directed by the helm of the highest Will 106. True, it is reported that often the word of God reached the prophets, patriarchs and other saints without the sound of a voice, which we learn in abundance from all the sacred books. In this case, in short, the thought, enlightened by the Spirit of God, is transformed into words. That is why, when God indicates His will in this and other [as indicated above] ways, it is said that He “said.” Now, in accordance with this thought, let us present something from what has been read. 3. God proclaims many words to Abraham, but not all of them refer to the same [person]: some, indeed, to Abram, and others to Abraham, that is, the second after the change of name, and the first while he bore his own name. And first of all, God addresses the following words to the unrenamed Abram: Get out of your land, and from your kindred, and from your father’s house (Gen. 12:1), and so on. But here not a word is prescribed either about the covenant of God or about circumcision. He could not accept the covenant of God and the sign of circumcision, being Abram and bearing the name from his natural birth. But when he came out of the land and from his kinship, then more sacred words were addressed to him: You will no longer be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham (Gen. 17:5). Then only he accepted the covenant of God and received circumcision as a sign of faith (cf. Rom. 4:11), which he could not accept while he was in his father’s house and among his relatives according to the flesh and when he was still called Abram 107. And he and his wife were not called an old man (πρεσβύτερος) while he was in his father’s house and lived with flesh and blood (Gal. 1:16); but after he left there, he deserved to be called Abraham and an old man: Now both were old men, that is, old men, Abraham and his amazing wife, both in advanced years (Gen. 18:11). How many people before them lived a longer life in terms of the number of years, nine hundred or more years; Some [people] lived a little less years before the flood, but none of them was called an elder. For in Abraham it is not the oldness of the body that is called by this name, but the maturity of the heart. So the Lord says to Moses: Choose elders for yourself, whom you yourself know are elders (Numbers 11:16). Let us take a closer look at what the Lord said, which contains this addition: about whom you yourself know that they are elders. Wasn’t it obvious to everyone that the one who reached old age in body was an elder, that is, an old man. Why is it that only Moses, the greatest of the prophets, is given this special instruction: that he should choose not those whom other people know, and not those whom the ignorant crowd recognizes, but whom the prophet in God chooses? Because regarding them the judgment [should be] not about the body or age, but about the mind 108. How blessed were these elders, Abraham and Sarah! And first of all, their own names, which were given by physical birth, change. When Abraham was ninety-nine years old, God appeared to him and said: I am God, please before Me and be blameless, and I will make a covenant between Me and you. And Abraham fell on his face, and honored God, and God continued to speak to him, and said: This is I, this is my covenant with you, and you will be the father of many nations, and all nations will be blessed in you, and you will no longer be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham (Gen. 17: 1-5). And having given this name, He immediately adds: And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you. And this is the covenant that you will keep between Me and you and your descendants after you (Gen. 17:7). And after this he adds: Let all your males be circumcised, and circumcise the edge of your flesh (Gen. 17:10-11). 4. So, since we have reached this place, I want to know whether the Almighty God, who rules in heaven and earth, wishing to enter into a covenant with a holy man, determined that the main thing in such a matter would be the circumcision of the edges of the flesh of him and his descendants. For My covenant will be on your body (Gen. 17:13), He says. Was this what the Lord of heaven and earth (Gen. 24:3) charged to the one whom He alone chose from all mortals as a duty under the eternal covenant? The teachers and scholars of the Synagogue believe that this alone [lies] the glory of the saints. And as the Church of Christ, which said through the prophet: Thy friends are honorable enough to me, O God (Ps. 139:17), honors the friends of Her Bridegroom and what glory it gives to them, remembering their deeds, let them come, if they want, and hear. We, taught by the Apostle Paul, say that just as many things happened in the images and forms of the truth to come (cf. I Cor. 10:11), so this fleshly circumcision was an image of spiritual circumcision 109, which was both worthy and due to the God of glory to prescribe to people (cf. Ps. 27:3). Listen, then, to how Paul, teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth (cf. I Tim. 2:7), instructs the Church of Christ about the sacrament of circumcision. Beware of circumcision,” he says, referring to the Jews who circumcise their flesh, “for we who are circumcised are those who serve God in the spirit and do not trust in the flesh (Phil. 3:2.3). This is one of Paul's sayings about circumcision. Here is another thing: For he is not a Jew who is [such] outwardly, he says, nor is circumcision that is outwardly in the flesh; but [he] is a Jew who is inwardly [such], having circumcision of heart in the spirit, not in the letter (cf. Rom. 2:28-29). Don’t you think that it is more worthy to talk about such circumcision in relation to the saints and friends of God than about the carving of the flesh 110? However, the novelty of the word will perhaps frighten not only the Jews, but even some of our brothers. For Paul seems to assume the impossible when he proposes circumcision of the heart. After all, how would it be possible to circumcise an organ that, being hidden in the depths of the entrails, is hidden even from human sight? Then let us turn to the prophetic verbs, so that from here, through your prayers, it becomes clear what our question [has] arisen. The prophet Ezekiel says: No stranger, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in the flesh, will enter My sanctuary (Ezek. 44:9). And also in another place, with no less reproach, the prophet says: All foreign [nations] are uncircumcised in the flesh, but the sons of Israel are uncircumcised in heart (Jer. 9:26). So, it is indicated that unless [a person] is circumcised in heart and circumcised in the flesh, he will not enter the sanctuary of God. 5. But I may seem to have fallen under my own testimony. After all, with this very testimony of the prophet, the Jew immediately stops me and says: “Here the prophet indicates both circumcisions: of the flesh and of the heart; there is no place for allegory where both types of circumcision are given.” With the help of your prayers that the Word of the Living God (cf. I Pet. 1:23) would merit [us] to remain in the opening of our lips (cf. Eph. 6:19), we could, under His guidance, go out through this narrow path of questioning into the breadth of truth; for we must, regarding the circumcision of the flesh, refute not only the carnal Jews, but also some of those who seem to have accepted the name of Christ, but at the same time consider it necessary to receive fleshly circumcision, such as the Ebionites and those who are mistaken due to a similar poverty of mind 111 with them. Then let us use the evidence of the books of the Old Testament, which they listen to willingly. The prophet Jeremiah wrote: Behold, this people have uncircumcised ears (Jer. 6:10). Listen, Israel, to the prophetic voice, great wickedness is pointed out to you, great guilt is imputed to you. You are condemned for having uncircumcised ears. Why, hearing this, did you not bring iron to your ears and cut them off? After all, you were accused and condemned by God for having uncircumcised ears. But I do not allow you to resort to our allegories, which Paul teaches. Why are you delaying circumcision? Cut off the ears and chop off the organs that God created for the senses and for the adornment of man 112; for this is how you understand divine words. And I will offer you something else that you cannot contradict. In Exodus, where it is written in our church lists, Moses answers God in these words: Provide, O Lord, for another whom You would send. For I am weak of voice and slow of tongue (Ex. 4:13.10), in your Jewish copies it says: But I am uncircumcised with my lips 113. According to your texts, which you call more correct, here you have lip cutting. So, in your opinion, if Moses said that he was still unworthy because he was uncircumcised with his lips, then, obviously, he indicates that he is more worthy and more holy who is circumcised with his lips. So bring the knife to your lips and cut off the covering of your mouth, since you like this understanding of the divine Writings. But if you take the cutting of lips as an allegory and call the cutting of the ears no less allegorical and figurative, why don’t you look for an allegory in the cutting of the edges of the flesh? But let us leave those who, like idols, have ears and do not hear, and have eyes and do not see (Ps. 134:7.16; Ps. 113:14.13). But you, the people of God, and the people chosen for his own possession, in order to proclaim the praises of the Lord (cf. I Pet. 2:10.9), receive the worthy circumcision of the word of God in your ears and on your lips, and on your heart, and on the edge of your flesh, and, in general, on all your members 114. May your ears truly be circumcised according to the word of God, so as not to perceive the voice of the saboteur, so as not to hear the speech of the slanderer and slanderer, so as not to be open to false slander, deception and irritation. Let them be shut up and remain closed, so as not to hear about bloody trials (cf. Isa. 33:15) and open up to shameless songs and the sounds of the theater. Let them not accept anything indecent, but let them turn away from every scene of debauchery. This is the circumcision with which the Church of Christ trims the ears of its children. These ears, I think, are those that the Lord sought from His listeners, saying: He who has ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 13:9). For no one can hear the pure words of wisdom and truth with uncircumcised and unclean ears. Let's move on, if you like, to lip trimming. I consider him uncircumcised with his lips (cf. Ex. 6:30), who has not yet stopped speaking nonsense and ridicule (cf. Eph. 5:4), who humiliates the good, who condemns his neighbors, who incites discord, who spreads slander, who sets brothers against each other with false speech, who utters empty, inappropriate, worldly, shameless, shameful, unfair, impudent, blasphemous and other things unworthy of a Christian. But if anyone restrains his mouth from all this and orders his speech with reasoning (Ps. 111:5), suppresses talkativeness, tames the tongue, moderates words, he is deservedly called circumcised with lips. And just as those with uncircumcised and unclean lips should be called those who speak untruths on high and stretch out their tongues into the sky (Ps. 73:8.9), as heretics do, so those who are circumcised and pure, who always speak the word of God and pronounce the right teaching, enshrined in the Gospel and Apostolic canons. This means that lip circumcision is also given in the Church of God. 6. Now, in accordance with our promise, let us see how even circumcision of the flesh should be understood. No one will doubt that the organ on which the edge of the flesh is located serves the natural purpose of copulation and procreation. So, if someone does not show himself incontinent in movements of this kind and does not exceed the limits established by the laws, does not know another wife other than his lawful spouse, and even enters her only for the sake of offspring at a certain and lawful time, he is called circumcised in relation to the edge of his flesh. And whoever indulges in all kinds of sensuality and remains everywhere in various illicit embraces, and rushes unbridled into the abyss of all lust, is uncircumcised at the edge of his flesh. But the Church of Christ, strengthened by the grace of the One who was crucified for her, abstains not only from the unlawful and wicked bed, but even from the excusable and permissible, and as the Virgin and Bride of Christ she blossoms as pure and immaculate virgins, in whom the true circumcision of the edge of the flesh has taken place and the covenant of God and the eternal covenant is truly preserved in their flesh. It remains for us to also designate circumcision of the heart. If there is anyone who is inflamed by obscene desires and vile passions and who, to put it briefly, commits adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:28), then he is uncircumcised in heart (cf. Ezek. 44:9). But if anyone contains heretical thoughts in his mind and puts in his heart blasphemous arguments against the knowledge of Christ, then he too is uncircumcised in heart. And whoever maintains a pure faith in sincerity of conscience is circumcised in heart, and one can say about him: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God (Matthew 5:8). I, however, dare to add something similar to these prophetic verbs, for just as we must be circumcised with our ears, lips, heart and edges of the flesh in accordance with what we said above, so, probably, our hands, and feet, and sight, and smell, and touch need circumcision. For in order for a man of God to be perfect in everything (II Tim. 3:17), all members must be circumcised: hands, namely, from robbery, from theft and from murder, and must be stretched out only for God’s deeds. Their feet must be circumcised so that they do not hasten to shed blood (cf. Isa. 59:7), do not enter into the counsel of the wicked (cf. Ps. 1:1), but always walk according to the commandments of God. The eye is also circumcised so as not to covet someone else’s property and not look at a woman with lust (cf. Matt. 5:28). After all, anyone who has a voluptuous, curious gaze wandering over the appearance of women has an uncircumcised eye. But if there is anyone, whether he eats or drinks, he eats and drinks for the glory of God (cf. I Cor. 10:31), according to the teaching of the Apostle, he is circumcised in taste; but whoever has a belly is God (cf. Phil. 3:19) and whoever is devoted to the pleasures of the stomach, I would call such a taste uncircumcised. If anyone receives the fragrance of Christ (cf. II Cor. 2:15) and seeks a pleasant fragrance in works of mercy (cf. eg Exodus 29:18), then his sense of smell is cut off; and whoever walks anointed with the best ointments (cf. Am. 6:6; Song 4:14) must be called uncircumcised in regard to the sense of smell. And each of the members individually must be called circumcised when he serves to fulfill the commandments of God; when he transgresses the laws prescribed to him from above, he must be considered uncircumcised. This, I think, is what the apostle said: Just as you presented your members as slaves to lawlessness for the sake of lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification (Rom. 6:19). In fact, when our members served iniquity, they were not circumcised, and the covenant of God was not in them; when they began to serve righteousness for sanctification, then the promise given to Abraham was fulfilled in them. Then the law of God and His covenant are sealed in them. And this is truly a sign of faith (cf. Gen. 17:11), containing an agreement on eternal reconciliation between God and man. This is the circumcision given to the people of God with knives of stone (cf. Joshua 5:2) through Joshua (Joshua). What kind of stone knife is this and what kind of sword is this with which the people of God were circumcised? Listen to the words of the apostle: For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the dividing of soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12). This means that this is the sword with which we must be circumcised: the Lord Jesus speaks about it: I did not come to bring peace to earth, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). Don't you think that circumcision is more worthy, in which the covenant of God should be placed? Compare, if you like, this our [teaching] with your Jewish fables and stinking stories and see whether in yours or in those that the Church of Christ preaches, the circumcision [given] from above is observed; and don’t you yourself feel and understand that this circumcision of the Church is honorable, holy, worthy of God, but this of yours is shameful, disgusting, ugly, and even by its very structure and appearance it reveals [something] obscene. And, God says to Abraham, circumcision and My covenant will be upon your flesh (Gen. 17:13). So, if our life is such that there is balance and union between all members and all our movements are carried out according to the laws of God, indeed, the covenant of God will be on our flesh (cf. Gen. 17:13). And let what we have briefly examined from the Old Testament be in refutation of those who hope for circumcision of the flesh, as well as in the dispensation of the Church of the Lord. 7. But I also turn to the New Testament, in which the fullness of everything, in the desire and here to show how it is possible for us to have the covenant of our Lord Jesus Christ in our flesh (cf. Gen. 17:13). For it is not enough just to name it and talk about it: but you need to do it in practice. Because the Apostle John says: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus has come in the flesh is from God (I John 4:2). What then? Is it really possible that if someone, sinning and doing wrong, begins to confess that Jesus came in the flesh, will it turn out that he confesses [this] in the Spirit of God? This is not God's covenant in the flesh, but in speech. We must immediately say to him: “Man, you are mistaken: the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power” (I Cor. 4:20). So, I seek how the covenant of Christ will be in my flesh (cf. Gen. 17:13). If I mortify my earthly members (cf. Col. 3:5), then there is a covenant of Christ in my flesh. If I will always bear the death of Jesus Christ in my body (cf. II Cor. 4:10), that is, the covenant of Christ is in my body, since if we have compassion, we will also reign together (II Tim. 2:12). If I am united with [Him] in the likeness of His death (cf. Rom. 6:5), I show [this] His covenant in my flesh. Indeed, what good is it if I say that Jesus came only in the flesh that He received from Mary, and do not show that He also came in this flesh of mine? Let me only show that, just as I formerly gave over my members as slaves to iniquity for the sake of iniquity, now I will convert them and present them as slaves of righteousness for sanctification (cf. Rom. 6:19). I will show the covenant of God in my flesh if I can, like Paul, say that I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me (Gal. 2:19-20), and if I can speak as he said: I bear the stripes of my Lord 115 Jesus Christ on my body (cf. Gal. 6:17). And truly he demonstrated the covenant of God in his flesh, saying: Who will separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus? Tribulation, or distress, or danger, or a sword? (Rom.8:35). For if we only confess the Lord Jesus by speech and do not show His covenant in our flesh (cf. Gen. 17:13) in accordance with the above, then we will appear in some way similar to the Jews, who believe that they confess God with the sign of circumcision alone, but not with deeds. May the Lord grant us to believe with our hearts, to confess with our lips (cf. Rom. 10:9-10), and to confirm by deeds the covenant of God in our flesh, so that, seeing our good deeds, people will glorify our Father who is in heaven (cf. Matt. 5:16), through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen (Gal.1:5). Homilia IV. About what is written: God appeared to Abraham 1. We were read about another appearance of God to Abraham, [which happened] in this way: “God appeared,” says [Scripture], “to Abraham, when he was sitting at the entrance to his tent at the Mamre oak tree. And behold, three men stood over him, and, lifting up his eyes, Abraham saw, and behold, three men stood over him, and he went out to meet them (Gen. 18:1-2) and so on. First, if you want, let us compare this phenomenon with the one that happened to Lot. Three men come to Abraham and stand over him; Two people come to Lot and stop in the square (cf. Gen. 19:1–2). See if it is not according to the judgment of the Holy Spirit that events happen to everyone according to [his] merits. After all, Lot, in fact, stood much lower than Abraham. For if he had not been lower, he would not have been separated from Abraham and [he] 116 would not have said to him: If you are to the right, then I am to the left; if you go to the left, then I will go to the right (Gen. 13:9). And if he had not been inferior, he would not have liked the land and life in Sodom. So, three men come to Abraham at noon (Gen. 18:1), two to Lot, and in the evening (Gen. 19:1) 117. For Lot could not withstand the power of the midday light; Abraham was able to withstand the full brilliance of the light. Now let's see how Abraham received those who came and how Lot did, and compare how both of them furnished their hospitality. But first, notice that Abraham had the Lord along with two Angels, but only two Angels came to Lot. And what do they say to [the latter]? The Lord sent us to take and destroy the city (Gen. 19:13). So, he accepted those who destroy, and did not accept the One who saves; Abraham accepted both the One who saves and those who destroy. Now let's see how each one took it individually. Abraham saw it, says [Scripture], and ran out to meet them (Gen. 18:2). Note at once Abraham's readiness and agility in service. He himself runs towards him, and having run out, he hurries back, says [Scripture], to the tent and says to his wife: hasten to the tent (Gen. 18:6). See in detail how fast the reception is. There is haste in everything, diligence in everything, nothing is done lazily. So, he says to his wife Sarah: Hurry to the tent, and knead three measures of fine flour, and make loaves baked in ashes (Gen. 18:6). In Greek the word here is ἐγκρυφίας, which means secret or hidden bread 118 . He himself ran to the cows, says [Scripture], and took the calf (Gen. 18:7). What calf? Probably the first one you come across? No, but a good and tender calf (cf. Gen. 18:7). Although he is in a hurry in everything, he knows that he should present the Lord or the Angels as a treat [only] that is outstanding and significant. So, he chose a good and tender calf from the herd and gave [it] to the boy. The youth, says [Scripture], hastened to prepare it (Gen. 18:7). [Abraham] himself runs, the wife hurries, the boy hurries: no one is slow in the house of the wise 119. So, he puts the calf on the table and with it bread and the finest flour, as well as milk and butter (cf. Gen. 18:8). This is the hospitable ministry of Abraham and Sarah. Now let's see what Lot is. He has neither the best flour nor pure bread, there is only [ordinary] flour. He does not know the three measures of the best flour, and cannot offer those who come ἐγκρυφίας, that is, hidden and mysterious bread 120. 2. Now let us follow further: what does Abraham do with the three men who stood over him (cf. Gen. 18:1)? Notice the significance of the fact that they stand above him and not opposite him. All because he submitted himself to the will of God, which is why it is said that God stands above him 121. And so, he offers loaves mixed with three measures of fine flour (cf. Gen. 18:6). He receives three husbands, and kneads bread with three measures of the best flour. Everything he does is mysterious; everything is filled with mysteries. A calf is placed on the table - here, another sacrament. Moreover, the calf is not rough, but good and gentle. And what is so tender, what is so good, how [gentle and good] is He who for our sake humbled Himself even to death (cf. Phil. 2:8) and laid down His life for His friends (cf. I John 3:16; John 15:13)? This is the well-fed Taurus (cf. Luke 15:23), whom the Father will slaughter for the sake of the found repentant son. For He so loved this world that He gave His only Son (John 3:16) for the life of this world. However, it is not hidden from the wise one Whom he met. He runs out to meet the three, and worships One and talks with One 122, saying: Turn [out of the way] to your servant and cool yourself under the tree (cf. Gen. 18:3.4). But how does he immediately add, as if he were talking to people: Let them bring water and wash your feet (Gen. 18:4)? And with this Abraham, the father and teacher of the nations, instructs you how you should receive guests, so that you wash the guests’ feet; yet even this is said mysteriously. For he knew that the Lord’s Sacrament would not be completed without washing the feet (cf. John 13:6). Nor was he ignorant of the importance of the instruction spoken by the Savior: If anyone will not receive you, shake off the dust that clings to your feet as a testimony against them. Amen, I say to you: it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for that city (Mark 6:11; Matt. 10:15). And so, he wanted to be proactive and wash his feet, lest by chance any dust would remain, the shaking off of which as evidence of [his] infidelity could be reserved for the day of Judgment. This is why the wise Abraham says: Let them bring water and wash your feet (Gen. 18:4). 3. Now let's see what is said in the following words: And he himself stood next to them under the tree (Gen. 18:8). For narratives of this kind we call upon the cropped ears 123 . Is it necessary to think that the Holy Spirit had great concern to write in the books of the law where Abraham stood? Indeed, how will it help me, who came to listen to the instructions of the Holy Spirit to the human race 124, if I hear that Abraham stood under the tree (cf. Gen. 18:8)? It’s better to see what kind of tree it is under which Abraham stood and offered a meal to the Lord and the Angels. [Scripture] says: under the tree of Mamre (Gen. 18:1). "Mamvre" in our language means "vision" or "discernment." Do you see what kind of place and what it is like, where the Lord can eat? He liked Abraham's vision and insight. And he, therefore, was pure in heart if he could see God (cf. Matt. 5:8). In such a place and in such a heart, the Lord and His Angels can have a meal. After all, prophets were previously called seers (cf. I Samuel 9:9). 4. So, what does the Lord say to Abraham? Where is Sarah your wife? And he [answered]: Here, in the tent. Then the Lord said: When I return, I will come to you at this [same] time in a year, and Sarah your wife will have a son. And Sarah listened, standing at the entrance to the tent behind Abraham (Gen. 18:9-10). Let women learn by the example of the patriarchs, let them learn, I say, to follow their husbands. And indeed, it is not without reason that it is written that Sarah stood behind Abraham (cf. Gen. 18:9), but to show that if the husband comes forward to the Lord, the wife must follow [him]. And what I say, that the wife should follow him, [is] if she sees that her husband is before God. However, let us rise to a higher level of understanding and call the husband our rational feeling, and the wife our flesh, which is attached to him as to her husband 125. Thus, let the flesh always follow the rational feeling and never reach such idleness that the rational feeling, given over to its power, would follow the flesh, wallowed in luxury and pleasures. So Sarah stood behind Abraham (cf. Gen. 18:9). However, in these lines we can also see something mysterious if we look at how in the Exodus God preceded in a pillar of fire at night and in a pillar of cloud by day (cf. Ex. 13:21) and the host of the Lord followed Him. And so, I understand, Sarah followed, or stood behind Abraham. What are we talking about after this? And they were, says [Scripture], “both elders, that is, old men, and in advanced years (Gen. 18:11). As for bodily age, many people before them calculated life in a large number of years; however, no one was called an elder. Whence it follows that this name is assigned to saints not because of longevity, but because of maturity 126. 5. And what after this meal that Abraham offered to the Lord and the Angels under the tree of vision? The guests are leaving. Abraham, says [Scripture], saw them off and went with them. And the Lord said: I will not hide from My servant Abraham what I want to do. From Abraham, precisely, will come a great and great nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed. For he knew that he would command his sons, and they would preserve the ways of the Lord in doing righteousness and judgment, so that the Lord might fulfill on Abraham what he had spoken about him. And He said: The cry against Sodom and Gomorrah is full, and their sins are very great. And so, I came down to see whether they are doing exactly what the cry is against them, rising to Me, or not, I will know (Genesis 18:16-21). This is what Divine Scripture says. And now we will find out what would be worthy to understand in them. I came down to see (Gen. 18:21), says [God]. When the announcements refer to Abraham, it is not said that God descends, but that He stands above him, as we stated above: Three men stood over him (Gen. 18:2), says [Scripture]. And here, when the cause of action is sins, it is said that God descends. Look, don’t understand [here] the ascent and descent spatially. The fact is that in the Divine Letters this often comes across, as [for example] in the prophet Micah: Behold, the Lord came forth from His holy place, and came down and found Him on the heights of the earth (Mic. 1:3). Therefore, [then] it is said that God descends when He deigns [His] care to human weakness. This must be understood even more specifically in relation to our Lord and Savior, Who did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7). And He descends. For it is written: No one has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man, who is in heaven, who came down from heaven (John 3:13). In fact, the Lord came down not only to take care of all our [human] things, but also to bear [it]. After all, He took on the form of a servant, and although He Himself was invisible by nature as equal to the Father, He nevertheless took on a visible form and became in appearance like a man (cf. Phil. 2:7). However, having descended, for some He is below, and for others He rises and is above. After all, for the chosen apostles He ascends to a high mountain and there is transfigured before them (cf. Mark 9:2). So, for those whom He teaches the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Matt. 13:11), He is above; but for the people and for the Pharisees, whose sins He denounces, He is below, and there He is with them, where the grass is (cf. Matt. 14:19). But below he could not be transformed, and he ascends upward with those who could follow Him, and there he is transformed. 6. And behold, I have come down, says [God], to see whether they do exactly what is the cry that rises up to Me, or not, I will find out (Gen. 18:21). Regarding these words, heretics 127 usually attack my God, saying: behold, the God of the law did not know what was happening in Sodom, otherwise he would not have gone down to see and would not have sent to find out. But we, who are ordered to fight in the battles of the Lord, will sharpen the sword of the word of God against them and go to war against them. Let us stand in line, having girded our loins with the truth, and also holding in front the shield of faith (cf. Eph. 6:14-17), let us take [on it] their spears poisoned by spores and, having measured them out more carefully, we throw them back at [the heretics] themselves. Precisely, these are the battles of the Lord that David and the other patriarchs withstood. Let us also stand against our enemies in defense of our brothers. For it would be better for me to die (cf. I Cor. 9:15) than for them to seize one of my brothers as a prey and, with cunning verbal tricks, lead away infants in Christ into captivity (cf. I Cor. 3:1.2). But against the perfect ones, they will not be able to raise their hands and will not dare to go to competition. So, praying first of all to the Lord, and with your prayerful support, let us go out against them in the battle of the word. And so, we say with confidence that, according to Scripture, God does not know everyone. God does not know sin, and God does not know sinners, and He does not know those who are strangers to Him. Consider the words of Scripture: The Lord knows those who are His, and: Let everyone who calls on the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness (II Tim. 2:19). The Lord knows His own, but He does not know the unrighteous and wicked. Heed the words of the Savior: Depart from Me, all you who do iniquity; I do not know you (Matthew 7:23). And Paul also says: If anyone is a prophet or spiritual among you, let him know what I write, for it is the Lord’s. Those who do not know are not known (I Cor. 14:37–38). And in saying this, we do not think any blasphemy against God, as you do, and do not attribute ignorance to Him, but we understand this in such a way that those [people] whose actions are worthy of God are also considered worthy of the knowledge of God. For God does not honor with His knowledge the one who is turned away from Him and does not know Him. That is why the apostle says that those who do not know are not known (I Cor. 14:38). This means that here, too, the inhabitants of Sodom are spoken of in the same way: if they, in fact, act exactly as the cry [against them] that ascends to God (cf. Gen. 18:21), then they will turn out to be unworthy of His knowledge; if there is any conversion in them, or if ten righteous people were found among them (Gen. 18:32), then only God would know them. That's why He said: Or - no, I will find out (Gen. 18:21). He did not say, “I will know what they do,” but “I will recognize them and make them worthy of My knowledge, if I find among them anyone righteous, if I find anyone repentant, if anyone I should know.” Finally, since besides Lot there was no one found who would repent, no one who would turn, he alone [and] is known, he alone [and] is delivered from the fire (Gen. 19). Despite the admonitions, neither his sons-in-law, nor neighbors, nor acquaintances follow [him]; no one wanted to know God’s kindness or resort to His mercy: therefore no one is known by Him. This is precisely against those who speak lies on high (cf. Ps. 73:8). We will make every effort to perform such deeds, to make our conversion in such a way that we may prove worthy of the knowledge of God, so that He deigns to know us, so that we may prove worthy of the knowledge of His Son Jesus Christ and the knowledge of the Holy Spirit; so that, knowing the Trinity, we too deserve to know in fullness, integrity and perfection the mystery of the Trinity through the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11). Homilia V. About Lot and his daughters 1. The angels sent to destroy Sodom, wanting to speed up the fulfillment of the duty entrusted to [them], are first concerned about [the fate of their] host Lot, in order to save him from the threat of destruction by fire, remembering [his] hospitality. Hear these words, you who close the house for the stranger; Hear this, you who avoid a guest as if he were an enemy. Lot lived in Sodom. [And] we do not read about any other good deeds of his, only hospitality, which became his habit, is mentioned; he comes out of the fire only because he opened his house to guests 129. Angels entered the hospitable house; Fire entered houses closed to guests. Let's see what the Angels say to their host for the sake of the law of hospitality: On the mountain, says [Scripture], save your soul, lest you be caught [by fire] (Gen. 19:17). Lot, at any rate, had hospitality; he even escaped destruction, as Scripture testifies, by hospitably receiving Angels (cf. Heb. 13:2). But he was not so perfect that immediately after leaving Sodom he would be able to climb the mountain; for the words befit more perfect ones: I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from where help will come to me (Ps. 120:1). This means that he was not such as to perish properly among the Sodomites, nor was he such that it was possible for him to live with Abraham on the heights. After all, if he were like that, then Abraham would never have said to him: If you are to the right, then I am to the left, and if you are to the left, then I am to the right (Gen. 13:9), and Lot would not have liked the Sodom dwellings. This means that he was somewhere between perfect and lost. And he, knowing that he would not be able to climb the mountain, heartily and humbly apologizes, saying: I cannot be saved on the mountain, but this city is tiny, I will be saved in it, and it is not tiny (Gen. 19, 19-20). Indeed, having entered the tiny city of Zoar, he is saved in it (cf. Gen. 19:23). And [already] after him he climbs the mountain with his daughters (cf. Gen. 19:30). For he could not climb the mountain [directly] from Sodom, even though it is written about the land of Sodom that before the Lord destroyed it, at the time when Lot chose his abode, it was like the garden of God, like the land of Egypt (cf. Gen. 13:10). But still, for a small, so to speak, digression: what exactly should be the similarity with the garden of God and with the land of Egypt in order to fairly compare Sodom with them? This is what I think: before Sodom began to sin, as long as it maintained the simplicity of an immaculate life, it was like the garden of God; and when he began to decorate himself and dirtyly stain himself with sins, he became like the land of Egypt. But because the prophet says that your sister Sodom will return to its former state (Ezek. 16:55), we ask what kind of state the city will receive in its return: as the garden of God or only as the land of Egypt. In any case, I doubt that the sins of Sodom could evaporate to such an extent and the crimes would be so blotted out that it would return to such a [state] that it could be likened not only to the land of Egypt, but also to the garden of God. We, however, will be pestered by those who want to accept the latter solely on the basis of the word that is added to that promise - he did not say that Sodom will return, and that’s all, but: Sodom will return to its former state (Ezek. 16:55) - and they will claim that its former state was not like the land of Egypt, but like the garden of God 130. 2. But let us return to Lot, who, fleeing with his wife and daughters from the destruction of Sodom, having received orders from the Angels not to look back (cf. Gen. 19:17), was heading to Zoar. But his wife does not remember the instructions, looks back, breaks the established law and becomes a pillar of salt (cf. Gen. 19:26). Do we consider this act so criminal that a woman who looked behind her would be overtaken by the death from which she seemed to be fleeing by God’s grace? For what is so criminal if the confused female mind looked back, where only the terrifying crackle of fire came from? 131 But since the law is spiritual (cf. Rom. 7:14), and everything that happened to the ancients happened in images (cf. I Cor. 10:11), let’s see if, perhaps, Lot, who did not look back, is not a rational feeling and a man’s spirit, in contrast to the wife, who here represents the flesh 132. For the flesh is such that it constantly looks back at vices: while the spirit rushes towards salvation, it turns back and seeks former pleasures. Why, finally, did the Lord say: No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the Kingdom of God (Luke 9:62). And He added: Remember Lot's wife (Luke 17:32) 133. And that she became a pillar of salt, this, therefore, expresses an indication of her lack of wisdom. For salt is given in place of wisdom, which she lacked. So, Lot heads further to Zoar, and soon having gained strength there, which he could not have in Sodom, he ascended the mountain and settled there, as the Scripture says, himself and his two daughters with him (Gen. 19:30). About wickedness. Literal interpretation 3. Immediately after this comes the most famous story about how his daughter secretly stole cohabitation with her father (Gen. 19:31-38). Regarding this, I don’t know whether it is possible to excuse Lot in such a way that he would already be free from sin. On the other hand, I do not think that he should be so accused that he should bear [all] responsibility for such great wickedness. Because I do not find that he dishonored his daughters with intent or force, but rather that he himself was the victim of intent and fell for the trick. But, again, he would not have been deceived by his daughters if he had not first allowed himself to be intoxicated. Which is why, in my opinion, he is partly to blame and partly excusable. He can be excused, since he is free from the guilt of passionate lust and because he does not reveal either his desire or agreement with those who desired [daughters]; but he is subject to accusation because he allowed himself to be deceived, because he drank too much wine, not once, but twice. After all, Scripture itself, in my opinion, somehow justifies him, saying: After all, he did not know when he slept with them and when he arose (Gen. 19:35). [And] this is not said about daughters: they deceived their father by deliberate cunning. The latter, however, was so lulled by the wine that he did not know that he had slept with the eldest [daughter], or that he had slept with the younger one. See what intoxication does; Look how many crimes are caused by drunkenness. Watch and beware, you for whom this evil is not an offense, but a habit. Drunkenness deceived him whom Sodom did not deceive. The one who is not burned by the sulfur fire is kindled by the fires of women. So, by cunning, Lot was deceived against his own will. Therefore, he is some kind of average between sinners and righteous people; he, who although came from the Abrahamic family, nevertheless lived in Sodom. After all, the fact that he leaves Sodom, as Scripture indicates, relates more to the honor of Abraham than to the merits of Lot. Indeed, here are the words [of Scripture]: And it came to pass, when God was destroying the cities of Sodom, that God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of that land (Gen. 19:29). 4. However, I believe that the intention of his daughters is subject to more careful consideration; perhaps they do not deserve such a charge as they seem. Indeed, Scripture records that they said to each other: Our Father is old, and there is no one on earth who has come to us according to the custom of all the earth. Let us go and give our father wine to drink and sleep with him, and let us raise up a tribe from our father (Gen. 19:31-32). Because of what Scripture says about this, it seems that it somehow justifies them as well. For it shows that Lot's daughters had some idea of ​​the end of the world, which comes by fire, but this idea of ​​theirs as a girl's was incomplete and imperfect. They did not realize that during the destruction of the Sodom villages by fire, much land in the world still remained untouched; They knew from hearing that at the end of the age the earth and all its components should be destroyed by the heat of fire (cf. II Pet. 3:12). They saw the fire, they saw the burning of brimstone, they saw the desolation of everything; They also saw that their mother was not saved. They began to suspect that something similar to what they knew about the times of Noah had happened, and that only they and their parents were saved to continue the human race. And so, they are fulfilled by the desire to renew the human race and think that they must give rise to a restored generation. And although they saw how great the wickedness was to steal cohabitation with their father, they saw it as even greater wickedness to preserve their virginity and destroy, as they believed, the hope for the continuation of the human race. That is why they carry out the plan with the less guilt, in my opinion, the more reasoned hope there is [in it]. With wine they soften the father's sadness and relax his severity. Each entering only one night, they conceive from an ignorant father; They don’t repeat it anymore, and they don’t want to. Where does the guilt of lust appear here and where is the crime against chastity? How can you call something a vice that is not repeated in reality? I'm afraid to express my thoughts; I fear, I say, that their unchastity may not be more chaste than the purity of many. Let married women reflect and search within themselves whether they come to their husbands only for the sake of conceiving children and whether they leave after conception. For these [daughters], convicted, it would seem, of unchastity, as soon as they accepted conception, no longer begin to cohabit with a man. And there are some women - of course, our remark does not apply to everyone equally - but there are some who, like animals and indiscriminately, tirelessly enslave passions: I cannot compare such women to dumb animals. Because even animals know that, having conceived, they no longer [need] to allow males to approach them. About which the Divine Scripture also notes, saying: Do not be like a horse and a mule, who have no understanding (Ps. 31:9), and also: They have become furious horses (Jer. 5:8). But you, people of God, who love Christ unfailingly (cf. Eph. 6:24), understand this word of the apostle: Whether you eat, drink, or whatever you do, do everything to the glory of God (I Cor. 10:31). In fact, what he calls after eating and drinking “or whatever you do”, with this decent word he designated the unpronounceable things of marriage, showing that this too is done for the glory of God, if it comes solely from considerations of posterity. We, as best we could, went through the misdeeds of Lot and his daughters or, conversely, through their apologies 134. Allegorical interpretation 5. But as for the allegory, then, as I know, Lot is considered the personification of the Lord, and his daughters - the two Testaments. But I do not think that anyone who knows what Scripture says regarding the Ammonites and Moabites, descended from the tribe of Lot, would readily agree with this. Because how could it be applied to Christ that those who came from Him to the third and fourth generations (cf. Ex. 34:7) will not enter the church of the Lord (cf. Deut. 23:3)? We, as far as we can judge, represent Lot as the image of the law. Let this not seem senseless because our “law” is inflected in the feminine gender, for in Greek it retains the masculine gender 135 . We imagine his wife as the people who, having come out of Egypt and got rid of the Red Sea and the persecution of Pharaoh, as from the fire of Sodom, and, having again desired meat and garlic 136 Egyptian, and onions, and cucumbers (cf. Num. 11:5), turned back and perished in the desert, becoming a lonely monument of lust (cf. Ps. 105:14). For here the former people lost the law and abandoned it, just as Lot abandoned his wife who looked back. Coming from there, Lot settles in Zoar, about which he says: This city is tiny, and my soul will be saved in it, and it is not tiny (Gen. 19, 20). So, let’s see what “a city is tiny and not tiny” means in relation to the law. The name "city" comes from the habitation of many, because it brings into unity and observes in it the lives of a large number of people 137 . So, whoever is a citizen of the law, his city life is tiny and insignificant, as long as he understands the law literally. Indeed, there is nothing great in the bodily observance of the Sabbath, the new moon, circumcision of the flesh and the selection of food. But if someone begins to understand [the law] spiritually, then these observances themselves, which with a literal understanding were tiny and insignificant, in a spiritual application will [no longer] be tiny, but great 138 . So, after this, Lot climbs the mountain and settles there in a cave, as Scripture says, himself and his two daughters (Gen. 19:30). It can be considered that the law also rose, since its decoration was magnified by the construction of Solomon’s temple, when [the law] became the house of God, the house of prayer (cf. Isa. 56:7; Luke 19:46); but the evil inhabitants turned it into a cave of thieves (Jer. 7:11; Matt. 21:13). So, Lot and his two daughters lived in a cave (cf. Gen. 19:30). Undoubtedly, the prophet has these two daughters in mind when he says that there were two sisters, Oolah and Oolibah, and that Oolah is [the land of] Judah, and Oolibah is Samaria (cf. Ezek. 23:4) 139 . Thus, a people divided into two represents the two daughters of the law. In the desire to prolong the carnal tribe and strengthen the forces of the earthly kingdom by the large number of offspring, they, putting the father to sleep and putting him to sleep, that is, closing and darkening his spiritual sense, extract from him only the carnal concept. Therefore, they conceive and give birth to such children as the father does not know. For this was not the meaning and will of the law - to give birth according to the flesh, but [here] the law is put to sleep, so that such offspring would be born that cannot enter the church of the Lord. For the Ammonites and Moabites will not enter the church of the Lord until the third and fourth generation and forever (cf. Deut. 23:4 and Exodus 34:7), says [Scripture], indicating that the carnal generation of the law cannot enter the Church of Christ either in the third generation - the number of the Trinity, or in the fourth - the number of the Gospels, and forever, except perhaps if, perhaps, after the present age, when [already] the fullness of the nations will come in, and so all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:25–26). This is [what] we have extracted as best we can in an allegorical sense about Lot, about his wife and daughters, without saying anything in advance to those who can see here something even more sacred. 6. However, the fact that we morally took Lot himself for his rational feeling and masculine spirit (see above), and called his wife, who looked back, flesh, devoted to passions and lusts, you, listener, do not accept with negligence. For you must beware, as if by chance, even if you escape the fire of life and escape the kindling of the flesh, even if you rise above the tiny and not tiny city of Zoar (cf. Gen. 19:20), which is somewhere in the middle and in the sense of the city is more successful, and rise to the heights of knowledge, like to some mountain peaks; Be careful not to fall into the traps of those two daughters who do not retreat from you, but follow with you even when you climb a mountain - they are vanity and her elder sister, pride. See that these daughters do not embrace you, lulled and sleeping until you are unable to feel and understand. They are called daughters because they do not come upon us from outside, but come from us and our deeds, as [parts] from a certain whole. So, watch as much as you can, and beware lest you give birth to children from them: for those born from them will not enter the Church of the Lord (cf. Ex. 34:7 and Deut. 23:4). And if you want to give birth, give birth in the spirit, for he who sows in the spirit will from the spirit reap eternal life (Gal. 6:8). If you want an embrace, embrace wisdom with both and say that wisdom is your sister (cf. Proverbs 7:4), so that Wisdom may also say about you: Whoever does the will of My Father in Heaven is My brother and sister and mother (Matthew 12:50). This Wisdom is our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11). Homilia VI. About Abimelech, king of the Philistines, how he wanted to take Sarah as his wife 1. We were read episode 140 from the book of Genesis, which tells us that after the appearance of three men, after the destruction of Sodom and the salvation of Lot, either for hospitality, or for the sake of kinship with Abraham, Abraham went from there to the south (Gen. 20: 1) and came to the king of the Philistines. It is also said that he agreed with his wife Sarah so that she would call herself not Abraham’s wife, but his sister (cf. Gen. 20:2 et seq.); and that king Abimelech took her, but God came to Abimelech at night and said to him: You did not touch this woman, and I did not allow you to touch her (cf. Gen. 20:6), and so on. And after that Abimelech returned her to his husband, reprimanding Abraham at the same time why he did not [immediately] tell him the truth. It is also told that, since the prophet Abraham prayed for Abimelech, the Lord healed Abimelech and his wife and his servants (cf. Gen. 20:17). Almighty God made sure that the slave girls [Abimelech] were healed, for, says [Scripture], “the Lord shut up their womb so as not to give birth (Gen. 20:18). And they began to give birth thanks to Abraham’s prayer. If anyone wants to see and understand this in the literal sense, he should go to hear [interpretations] with Jews rather than with Christians. If he wants to be a Christian and a disciple of Paul, let him hear him say that the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), [and], talking about Abraham, about his wife and sons, declares what happened allegorical (cf. Gal. 4:24). And yet it would not be easy for any of us to find what kind of allegory there should be [here]; but whoever tries to turn to the Lord (cf. II Cor. 3:16), and the Lord is the Spirit (II Cor. 3:17), must pray that the veil from his heart will be removed, that He Himself will remove the veil of the letters and reveal the light of the Spirit, and so that we can say that we, beholding with open face the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Lord's Spirit (II Cor. 3, 18). Thus, I believe that Sarah, which means “ruler” or “ruler,” is an image of ἀρετῆς, that is, the virtue of the soul. And this virtue is associated with and accompanies a wise and faithful husband, just like that wise man who spoke about wisdom: I wanted to make her my bride (Wis. 8:2). That is why God says to Abraham: In everything that Sarah tells you, obey her voice (Gen. 21:12). What has been said is not at all suitable for spouses in the body, since God’s opinion on the relationship of a wife to her husband had already been made: Your desire is for him, and he will rule over you (Gen. 3:16). So, if it is said that the husband is the master of the wife, how can it suddenly be said to the husband: In everything that Sarah tells you, obey her voice (Gen. 21:12)? This means that the one who has taken virtue as his wife should obey her voice in everything that she advises him 141. But now, Abraham no longer wants virtue to be called his wife. For while virtue is called wife, it is its own and cannot take anyone [else] as an accomplice. And it is [quite] fitting that, while we achieve perfection, the virtue of the soul should be within us and [our] own; when we achieve perfection, so that we are able to teach others (cf. II Tim. 2:2), then let us not keep virtue to ourselves, like a wife, but let us give it, like a sister, to others who desire [it]. Namely, the word of God is addressed to the perfect: Say that wisdom is your sister (Proverbs 7:4). In accordance with this, therefore, Abraham said that Sarah was his sister. And so he, as if already perfect, allows [anyone] who wishes to acquire virtue 142. 2. However, Pharaoh once wanted to take Sarah [as his wife], but he did not want it with a pure heart (cf. Gen. 20:5); and virtue cannot come together except with purity of heart. That is why Scripture says that the Lord struck Pharaoh with great and heavy blows (Gen. 12:17). For virtue could not live with the persecutor - this is how the word “Pharaoh” is translated into our language. But let's see what Abimelech said to the Lord: You know, Lord, that I did this with a pure heart (cf. Gen. 20:4-5). Abimelech acts completely differently from Pharaoh. He is not so ignorant and vulgar, but knows that for virtue a pure heart must be prepared (cf. Gen. 20:5). And since he wanted to accept virtue with a pure heart, God heals him through Abraham’s prayer for him. He heals not only him, but also his slaves. What does it mean, however, that Scripture adds the words: And the Lord did not allow him to touch her (Gen. 20:6)? If Sarah is the image of virtue, and Abimelech with a pure heart wanted to take virtue, why is it said that the Lord did not allow him to touch her? "Abimelech" means "my father the king." Therefore, it seems to me that Abimelech is the image of the scientists and wise men of the world who, zealous in philosophy, that is, not having yet comprehended the complete and perfect rule of faith, nevertheless comprehend God as the Father and King of all, that is, as the One who gives birth to everything and rules everything. As for ethics, that is, moral philosophy, these people, it should be noted, to a certain extent approve of concern for the purity of the heart and the desire with all their souls and with all diligence to be inspired by divine virtue. But God did not allow him to touch her. Because this grace was preparing to be transmitted to the nations not through Abraham, who, although great, was still a servant, but through Christ. And this is why, even though Abraham hastened to fulfill through himself and in himself what was said to him, that all nations will be blessed in you (Gen. 18:18), but the promise is given to him in Isaac (Gen. 22:18), that is, in Christ, as the apostle says: It is not said “and to descendants,” as if about many, but as about one: “and to your seed,” which is Christ ( Gal.3:16). Yet the Lord heals Abimelech and his wife and his servants (cf. Gen. 20:17). 3. However, it seems to me that the mention not only of Abimelech’s wife, but also of Abimelech’s slaves, is not empty, and most of all, when it is said that God healed them and they began to give birth. For He shut them up so that they would not give birth (cf. Gen. 20:17–18). As far as we are able to understand such difficult passages, we believe that the wife of Abimelech can be called natural philosophy, 143 and his slaves - the many different schools of dialectics of different quality. However, Abraham also wants to endow the nations with the gift of divine virtue, but it is not yet time for God’s grace to pass from the first people to the pagans. For the apostle, albeit under a different guise and under a different image, says: A wife is bound by the law while her husband lives; if her husband dies, she is free from the law and will not be an adulteress, having married another husband (Rom. 7:2-3). Consequently, the law of the letter must first die, so that only the soul, already free, can unite with the spirit and acquire the marriage of the New Testament. This time in which we live is the time of the calling of the pagans and the death of the law, when free souls, freed from the law of marriage, could be united to a new husband - Christ. If you want to know how it is that the law has died, look and judge: where are the sacrifices today, where is the altar today, where is the church, where are the purifications, where is the annual celebration of Easter? Didn't the law die with all this? But let friends and defenders of the letter observe the letter of the law if they can 144. So, by way of allegory: Pharaoh, who is an unclean man and a persecutor, could not marry Sarah at all, that is, virtue. Another thing is Abimelech, that is, the one who lived purely and wisely, he could take [her] because he wanted with a pure heart (cf. Gen. 20:5), but the time had not yet come (cf. John 7:6). So, virtue remains with Abraham, remains in circumcision, until the time comes when in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (cf. Col. 2:9), full and perfect virtue will pass on to the Church from the Gentiles. And then the house of Abimelech and his servants, whom the Lord healed, will give birth to sons for the Church. Because this is the time when a barren woman gives birth and when she who is abandoned has many more children than she who has a husband (cf. Gal. 4:27; Isa. 54:1). For the Lord opens the barren womb, and it becomes pregnant, in order to give birth to a [whole] people at once (cf. Isa. 66:8). However, the saints also exclaim, saying: Lord, in Thy fear we were pregnant and gave birth; we have made the spirit of Thy salvation on earth (Isa. 26:17-18). Why does Paul speak in a similar way: My little children, for whom I am again in the throes of birth, until Christ is formed in you (Gal. 4:19). Such and such sons are born, such and such sons are born by the Church of God. For he who sows in the flesh will also reap corruption from the flesh (Gal.6:8). These are the sons of the Spirit, about whom the apostle says: A woman will be saved through childbearing if she continues in faith and chastity (I Tim. 2:15). So, let the Church of God understand birth in this way, perceive the continuation of the race in this way, so reinforce the actions of the forefathers with an elegant and worthy interpretation, so let not decorate the words of the Holy Spirit with worthless Jewish fables (cf. I Tim. 4:7; Tit. 1:14), but let her show them full of dignity, full of virtue and benefit. Otherwise, what instruction will there be for us in what we read about Abraham, how he not only deceived King Abimelech, but also betrayed the modesty of his wife? What can the wife of such a patriarch instruct us in, if we think that she was given over to dishonor with the connivance of her husband? This is the opinion of the Jews and those who with them are friends of the letter (cf. II Cor. 3:6), not of the spirit. Let us, conforming spiritual with spiritual (cf. I Cor. 2:13), be made spiritual both in action and in thought in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11). Homily VII. About the birth of Isaac and how he was weaned 1. In our church they read Moses. Let us pray to our Lord that, according to the word of the Apostle, when Moses is read, a veil does not lie over our hearts (cf. II Cor. 3:15). And it was read [to us] that Abraham gave birth to a son, Isaac, when he was a hundred years old (cf. Gen. 21:5). And Sarah said: Who will tell Abraham that Sarah is breastfeeding the child? (Gen. 21:7). And then Abraham circumcised his son on the eighth day (Gen. 21:4). Abraham does not celebrate the birthday of this boy, but celebrates the day when he was weaned and makes a great feast (cf. Gen. 21:8). What then? Are we really going to think that the Holy Spirit had the intention of telling in stories how the boy was weaned and how the feast was made, how [the child] played and did other childish things? Shouldn't we think that through this He wants to teach us something divine and worthy of being accepted by the human race from the words of God? Isaac means “laughter” or “joy” (cf. Gen. 21:6). What kind of person should he be who gives birth to such a son? This is, of course, who spoke of those born to him through the Gospel: For you are my joy and the crown of praise (I Thess. 2:20.19). For the sake of this kind of sons, when they are weaned, a feast is held and great joy is held about the fact that those who, knowing how to eat, have senses skillfully trained to distinguish between good and evil (cf. Heb. 5:12.14) no longer need milk, but solid food. A big feast is made for such people when they are weaned. But there cannot be a feast and joy for those about whom the apostle says: I fed you with milk, and not with solid food; for you were not yet able, and even now you are not able. And I could not speak to you as spiritual, but as carnal, as babes in Christ (I Cor. 3:2.1). Let those who want to understand the Divine Scriptures simply explain to us what the words mean: I could not speak to you as spiritual, but as carnal, as babes in Christ; did I feed you with milk and not with solid food (I Cor. 3:1–2)? Can they understand it simply? 2. But, at the same time, let's return to where we started. Abraham rejoices and makes a great feast on the day when his son Isaac was weaned (Gen. 21:8). Then Isaac plays, and plays with Ishmael. Sarah is indignant that the son of a slave woman plays with the son of a free woman, and, considering this game destructive, she gives Abraham advice, saying: Drive out the slave woman and her son. For the son of the slave woman will not inherit with my son Isaac (Gen. 21:10). How this should be understood is not what I will explain here. The apostle sets this out in the following words: Tell me, you who have studied the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a bondwoman and the other by a freewoman. But he who is of a slave is born according to the flesh, and he who is of a free woman is born according to promise. There is an allegory in this (Gal. 4:21–24). What then? Was Isaac not born according to the flesh? Wasn't it him who Sarah gave birth to? Wasn't he circumcised? The very fact that he played with Ishmael was not a game in the flesh? So the most amazing thing in the understanding of the apostle is that he calls allegorical deeds, the corporeality of which is beyond doubt; so that we learn to do the same in other places, and especially in those where the historical narrative does not seem to reflect anything worthy of the law of God 146. So, Ishmael, the son of a slave, is born according to the flesh. But Isaac, who was the son of a free woman, is born not according to the flesh, but according to promise. And about them the apostle says that the fire gave birth to a fleshly people into slavery (cf. Gal.4:24), but Sarah, who was free, gave birth to a people who were not according to the flesh, but who were called to freedom (cf. Gal.5:13), to that by which Christ freed them (cf. Gal.5:1). For He Himself said that: If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed (John 8:36). Let's see what the apostle adds to this in his explanation: But just as then he who was in the flesh persecuted him who was in the Spirit, so it is now (Gal. 4:29). Look how the apostle teaches us that the flesh resists the spirit in everything, whether it is that carnal people that resists this spiritual people, or among ourselves, if anyone is still carnal, then he resists the spiritual. But you, if you live according to the flesh and act according to the flesh, are the son of Hagar and therefore oppose those who live according to the Spirit. And if we look within ourselves, we will find that the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit desires what is contrary to the flesh, and they oppose each other (cf. Gal. 5:17), and we will find in our members a law that wars against the law of our mind and makes us captives of the law of sin (cf. Rom. 7:23). Do you see how much the flesh fights against the spirit? Moreover, there is another battle, perhaps more cruel than all these: those who explain the law according to the flesh oppose those who understand it according to the spirit, and persecute them. Why? Yes, because the natural man does not accept what is from the Spirit of God. Because for him this is madness, and he cannot understand, for this must be judged spiritually (I Cor. 2:14). So you too, if you have in you the fruit of the Spirit, which is joy, mercy, peace, longsuffering (cf. Gal. 5:22), then you can be Isaac, born not according to the flesh, but according to promise, and you are the son of a free woman (cf. Gal. 4:23.30), if you can still speak with Paul: For we, although we walk in the flesh, do not make war according to the flesh - for of arms Our warfare is not carnal, but mighty in God to the destruction of strongholds - overthrowing imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (II Cor. 10:3-5). If you can be such that the apostle’s statement will be appropriately applied to you: You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you (Rom. 8:9), and if you are such, then you are not born according to the flesh, but in the Spirit, according to the promise, and you will be an heir of the promise in accordance with the words: Heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). You will not be a joint heir with one born according to the flesh, but a joint heir with Christ, since even if we knew Christ according to the flesh, now we no longer know (II Cor. 5:16). 3. However, in what is written [about Isaac and Ishmael], I do not find anything that would motivate Sarah to order the expulsion of the son of the slave. He played with her son Isaac. Has he really spoiled or harmed anything with his play? As if the joint play of the son of a slave and the son of a free woman should not bring joy at this age. It is even more surprising that the apostle called this game persecution, saying: But just as then he who was according to the flesh persecuted him who was according to the Spirit, so it is now (Gal. 4:29), while in the story there is no manifestation of any manifestation of the persecution of Isaac by Ishmael, unless it was the childish game itself 147. But let's see what Paul understood in this game and what led Sarah to indignation. Above 148, in order of spiritual interpretation, we have already taken Sarah for virtue. Consequently, if the flesh, which is represented by Ishmael born according to the flesh, caresses the spirit, which is Isaac, and influences him with flattery and deceit, if it seduces with pleasures and weakens with lusts, such and such a game of the flesh with the spirit greatly offends Sarah, who is virtue; Paul judges such caresses as the bitterest persecution. Thus, you, listener of these words, do not think that there is only one persecution, when the pagans with threats force you to sacrifice to idols 149; but if suddenly you are seduced by carnal lust, if the charms of passion begin to play within you, run away, if you are the son of virtue, from this as the greatest persecution; That’s why the apostle says: Flee debauchery (I Cor. 6:18). But if injustice clings to you, so that, [for example,] accepting a powerful person (cf. Lev. 19:15) and depending on his favor, you will create an unjust judgment, then you must understand that you are suffering, under the guise of a game, subtle persecution from injustice. Likewise, for each type of sin, even if they are gentle, and pleasant, and like a game, consider [all] as persecution of the spirit, for by all of them virtue is insulted. 4. So Abraham has two sons, one by a slave woman, and the other by a free woman (cf. Gal. 4:22): however, both are sons of Abraham, although not both are from a free woman. Therefore, although one born of a slave does not inherit with the son of a free woman, he still receives gifts and is not sent away without anything. He receives the blessing, but the son of the free woman receives the promise. And that one becomes a great nation (cf. Gen. 21:13), but this one becomes a people of adoption (cf. Eph. 1:5). So, all who come to the knowledge of God through faith can be called spiritually children of Abraham; but some of them cleave to God out of love, while others out of fear and fear of future condemnation. Why does the Apostle John say: He who fears is not perfect in love; perfect love casts out fear (I John 4:18). So, whoever is perfect in love comes from Abraham and is the son of a free woman. And whoever keeps the commandments not out of perfect love, but because of the threat of future punishment and fear of retribution, is, of course, the son of Abraham, and he receives gifts, that is, a reward for his work - for the one who gives only a cup of cold water in the name of the disciple will not lose his reward (cf. Matt. 10:42) - but he is still lower than the one who is perfected not in slavish fear, but in freedom of love. The apostle also points to something similar when he says: The heir, while he is a child, is in no way different from a slave, although he is the master of all; he is subject to trustees and stewards until the time appointed by the father (Gal. 4:1–2). And a baby is one who feeds on milk, and is ignorant of the word of righteousness, and is unable to take solid food (cf. Heb. 5:13.14) of divine wisdom and knowledge of the law, he does not know how to conform the spiritual with the spiritual (cf. I Cor. 2:13), he still cannot say: When I became a man, I left childish things (I Cor. 13:11). This means that he is no different from a slave (cf. Gal.4:1). And if a person, having gone through the beginnings of the teaching of Christ (Heb. 6:1), strives for perfection and seeks the things above, where Christ sits at the right hand of God, and not the earthly (cf. Col. 3:1-2), looking not at the visible, but at the invisible (cf. II Cor. 4:18) and following in the Divine Scriptures not the deadening letter, but the life-giving spirit (cf. II Cor. 3:6), then he will undoubtedly be one of those who do not receive the spirit of slavery [to] again [live] in fear, but the Spirit of adoption, by whom they cry: Abba, Father! (cf. Rom. 8:15). 5. Let's see how, by the way, Abraham acts after Sarah's indignation. He throws out the slave woman and her son, but still gives her a bottle of water (cf. Gen. 21:14). Because his mother does not have a well of living water from which the boy could draw water (cf. Gen. 21:19). Isaac has wells, for which he even [later] argued with the Philistines (cf. Gen. 26, 15 et seq.) 150; Ishmael drinks water from the skin, but that skin, like [any] skin, runs out, and he experiences thirst and does not find a well. But you, son of the promise according to Isaac (cf. Gal. 4:28), drink water from your springs, and let not the water flow out of your wells, but let your waters flow through your wide areas (Prov. 5:15-16). But he who is born according to the flesh (cf. Gal. 4:29) drinks water from a bottle, and lacks both the water itself and much else. The wineskin is the letter of the law from which that carnal people drink, and from whence they take understanding; he often lacks this letter [for understanding], it can be impossible to interpret: indeed, historical understanding is in many ways defective. And the Church drinks from the Gospel and Apostolic sources, which are never exhausted, but flow in their latitudes, because they always abound and flow in the breadth of spiritual interpretation. The Church drinks from the wells when it draws and explores something deeper in the law 151 . About this sacrament, I think, our Lord and Savior spoke to the Samaritan woman, when He uttered, as if speaking to Hagar herself, the following words: Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again; and whoever drinks the water that I give him will never thirst (John 4:13-14). And she says to the Savior: Master! Give me this water, so that I will not thirst and will not have to come here to draw (John 4:15). After which the Lord says to her: Whoever believes in Me will have a fountain of water flowing into eternal life (John 6:47 and 4:14). 6. So Hagar wandered in the desert with the lad, and the lad wept; and Hagar left him, saying: so that I do not see the death of my son (cf. Gen. 21, 14. 16). After which, when he was already abandoned, as if doomed to death, and was crying, the Angel of the Lord came to her, and he opened Hagar’s eyes, and she saw a well of living water (cf. Gen. 21:19). How can this be viewed within history? Where, indeed, do we find that Hagar's eyes were closed and then opened? Is not the spiritual and mysterious meaning of this clearer than daylight, [which is] that the people who are according to the flesh are abandoned, and until the eyes of the Synagogue are opened, they remain in hunger and thirst, enduring not the hunger of bread and not the thirst for water, but the thirst for the word of God (cf. Am. 8:11)? This is what the apostle calls a mystery - that blindness affected a part of Israel, [until the time] until the full number of the Gentiles came in, and then all Israel would be saved (Rom. 11:25). This means the blindness of Hagar, who gives birth according to the flesh, which remains in her until the Angel of God removes the veil of the letters (cf. II Cor. 3:16) and she sees living water. For now the Jews are close to the well itself, but their eyes are closed, and they cannot drink from the well of the law and the Prophets. But [here] is a warning to us too, because we too are often near the well of living water, that is, near the Divine Scriptures, and get lost in them. We take books and read [them], but we do not reach the spiritual meaning. And this requires tears and unceasing prayer, so that the Lord will open our eyes; for even those blind men who sat in Jericho, if they had not cried out to the Lord, their eyes would not have received sight (cf. Matt. 20:30-34). But why do I say “so that our eyes may be opened” when they are already open? For Jesus came to open the eyes of the blind (cf. Isa. 42:7). This means that our eyes are open, and the veil has been lifted from the letter of the law. But I am afraid that we ourselves may close them in an even deeper sleep, until we [learn to] stay awake in the spiritual sense and until we are concerned about driving away sleep from our eyes and looking out for the spiritual, so that we do not get lost with the carnal people, being close to the water. It is much better that we stay awake and speak with the prophet: I will not give sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids, nor rest to my churches, until I find a place for the Lord, a dwelling place for the God of Jacob (Ps. 131:4-5). To him be glory and power forever and ever. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6). Homily VIII. About how Abraham sacrificed his son Isaac 152 1. Open your ears that have approached God, and diligently take into account, considering yourself faithful, how the faith of the faithful is tested in the passage read to us. And it came to pass,” says [Scripture], “after these words God tempted Abraham and said to him: Abraham! Abraham! He said: here am I (Gen. 22:1). Look at everything written in detail. For whoever knows how to dig deep will find treasure in [these] details, and perhaps even where no one thinks, the precious ornaments of the sacraments are hidden. This man's former name was Abram, but nowhere do we read that God called him by this name or said: Abram! Abram! In fact, God could not call him by a name that no longer exists, but calls him by the name that He Himself gave [to him], and not only calls him by this name, but calls him twice. And when he answered [Him]: Here am I, He said to him: Take your beloved son, whom you love, Isaac, and offer him as a sacrifice to Me. Go to a high place and offer it there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I will show you (Gen. 22:2). God Himself explained this name, why He gave it to him and called it Abraham: For I will make you the father of many nations (Gen. 17:5). God gave this promise to him when he had a son, Ishmael, but promised him that this promise would be fulfilled in the son who would be born from Sarah. And so He aroused in his soul great love for his son, not only by the continuation of offspring, but also by the hope of promise. But this one, on whom lies the great and amazing promise to Abraham, this - I repeat - son, because of whom he is called Abraham, is ordered to be offered as a burnt offering to the Lord on one of the mountains. What do you mean by this, Abraham? What thoughts are born in your heart? God has given a voice that shakes and tests your faith. What do you say to this? What are you thinking about? Are you resisting? Doesn’t the thought pass through your heart that if the promise is laid for me in Isaac, and I offer him as a burnt offering, then there will be no hope of that promise left? Or, rather, do you think and say that it is impossible for Him to lie (cf. Heb. 6:18) He who promised, and, no matter what happens, the promise will remain? In truth, I, as the least (cf. I Cor. 15:9), am not able to comprehend the thoughts of the great patriarch and cannot know what thoughts the voice of God, given to tempt him, aroused in him, and what he did in his soul, ordering the slaughter of his only [son]. But since the prophetic spirit is obedient to the prophets (cf. I Cor. 14:32), the Apostle Paul, who by the Spirit, I think, knew what was in Abraham’s soul and what was on his mind, designated [it] this way: By faith Abraham did not doubt, sacrificing his only begotten, about whom he had previously received a promise, thinking that God was able to raise him from the dead (cf. Heb. 11:17-19). So, the apostle conveyed to us the thoughts of a faithful man, [meaning] that faith in the resurrection began even then in relation to Isaac. That is, Abraham hoped for the resurrection of Isaac and believed that something would happen that had not happened before. How can those be the sons of Abraham (cf. John 8:37) who do not believe that in Christ what Abraham believed would happen to Isaac was accomplished? Moreover, I will say more clearly, Abraham knew that he was the image of the truth to come, he knew that from his offspring Christ would be born, who would be offered as the true sacrifice for the whole world and would rise from the dead. 2. But meanwhile [Scripture] says: God tempted Abraham and said to him: Take your beloved son, whom you love (Gen. 22: 1-2). Wasn’t it enough to say “son”, but adds “beloved”. So be it! Why is “the one you love” added to this? - Look how hard temptation is. Repeated many times, tender and loving words 153 fuel the father’s feeling, so that the undying memory of love will keep the father’s right hand from slaughtering his son and so that the entire militia of the flesh will rebel against the faith of the spirit. So, take, he says, your beloved son, whom you love, Isaac (Gen. 22:2). May You, Lord, remind the father of the “son”; You also add the “beloved” whom you command to be slaughtered. This is enough to make the father feel sorry for him; You also add “the one you love.” This triples the father's pity. But what need is there for You to remind us of “Isaac”? Did Abraham really not know that his very beloved son, whom he loved, was named Isaac? Why is this addition here? In order for Abraham to remember what God once told him: In Isaac your seed will be called, and in Isaac your promise will be (cf. Gen. 21:12; Rom. 9:7.8; Heb. 11:18; Gal. 3:16.18 and 4.23). Let there be a reminder of the name, so that [Abraham] distrust may creep in towards the promise associated with this name. But all this is because God tempted Abraham. 3. What then? Go,” says [the Lord], “to an exalted place, to one of the mountains that I will show you, and there offer it as a burnt offering (Gen. 22:2). Consider in detail how temptation increases. Go to a sublime place. Couldn’t He have first brought Abraham and the boy to this elevated place and led them first to the mountain that the Lord had chosen, and there told him to sacrifice his son? But He first tells him that he must sacrifice his son, and then he orders him to go to an elevated place and climb a mountain. With what intention? So that all the way, while making his journey, he would be tormented by thoughts, so that he would be torn into pieces by a painful assignment, on the one hand, and the opposite feeling for his only [son] on the other. This is why road 154 and even climbing the mountain are proposed, so that throughout this entire path there would be a battle of feeling and faith, the love of God and the love of the flesh, contentment with the present and expectation of the future. So, he is sent to an exalted place, but for the patriarch who is going to accomplish such an important work for the Lord, an exalted place is not enough, and he is ordered to climb the mountain, if desired, so that he, exalted by faith, would leave earthly things and ascend to the heavenly. 4 And behold, Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his donkey, and split the wood of the burnt offering. And he took his son Isaac and two youths, and on the third day he came to the place about which God had told him (Gen. 22:3). Abraham got up early in the morning - adding early in the morning, [the Genesis writer] probably wanted to show that the dawn was shining in his heart - saddled his donkey, prepared firewood and took his son. He does not hesitate, does not hesitate, does not discuss [his] decision with any person, but immediately sets off on the road. And he reached the place about which God told him on the third day (Gen. 22:3), says [Scripture]. Now I am not talking about the mysterious content of the third day; I consider the wisdom of the decision of the Tempter. So, there was no mountain anywhere nearby, whereas everything should happen in the mountains, and the journey is extended for three days, and all three days an annoying anxiety torments everything inside the father, when throughout such a long journey he looks at his son and eats with him, [and] the boy lies for so many nights in his father’s arms, clinging to his chest and resting on his bosom. See how the temptation intensifies. And the third day is always reserved for the sacraments. For even after the exodus of the people [of Israel] from Egypt, on the third day a sacrifice was made to God and on the third day the people were purified (cf. Exod. 19, 11, 15, 16 and 24, 5), and the day of the resurrection of the Lord is the third (cf. Matt. 26, 63; Mark 8:31); many other sacraments were performed on the third day. 5. Having looked, says [Scripture], Abraham saw the place from afar and said to his youths: Stay here with the donkey, and I and my son will go there and, having bowed, will return to you (Gen. 22:4-5). He leaves the youths because they were unable to go up with Abraham to the place of burnt offering that God showed. So he says: You sit here, and I and the child will go; and having bowed, we will return to you (Gen. 22:5). Tell me, Abraham, are you telling the truth to the youths that you will bow down and return with the child, or are you deceiving? If you speak the truth, then you will not make a burnt offering. If you deceive, [but] it is indecent for such a patriarch to deceive. What state of spirit does your word reveal in [you]? “I speak the truth,” he answers, “and I will offer the boy as a burnt offering, for which I am carrying the wood with me, and with him I will return to you.” For I think, and my faith is such, that God is able to raise him from the dead (Heb. 11:19). 6. After this, says [Scripture], Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering, and laid it on Isaac his son, and took the fire and the knife in his hands, and they went together (Gen. 22:6). The fact that Isaac himself carries the wood for the burnt offering is an image of how Christ Himself carried His cross (cf. John 19:17); at the same time, it is the duty of the priest to carry firewood for the burnt offering. Thus, he is both a victim and a priest. This is also indicated by the addition: and they both went together. For, although Abraham, as the sacrificer, carries fire and a knife, Isaac does not step behind him, but with him, showing that he is equally performing the sacred act with him 155. What after this? Isaac, reports [Scripture], said to Abraham his father: Father! (Gen. 22:7). And this voice, cast at [this] moment by the son, is the voice of temptation. What do you think was the father’s inner shock from this voice of his son, whom he had to slay? And although Abraham was adamant for the sake of faith, he nevertheless gives voice to feeling and answers: What is it, son? And he: “Here,” he said, “there is fire and wood, where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” Abraham answers this: God Himself will arrange for Himself a lamb for a burnt offering, son! (Genesis 22:7–8). I am struck by [this] very correct and careful answer from Abraham. I don’t know if he saw in spirit that he was speaking not about the present, but about the future: God Himself will provide for Himself a lamb (Gen. 22:8); predicts the future to a son who asks about the present. For the Lord Himself will provide for Himself the Lamb in Christ, just as Wisdom herself built herself a house (Prov. 9:1), and He humbled Himself even to death (Cf. Phil. 2:8); and whatever you read about Christ, you will find that it was not done by force, but voluntarily. 7. And they both walked further together and came to the place about which God had told him (Gen. 22:8-9). When Moses came to the place indicated to him by God, he was not allowed to go up [the mountain], but first he was told: Take off your shoes from your feet (Ex. 3:5). Nothing like this is said to Abraham and Isaac, but they ascend without taking off their shoes. This probably means that although Moses was great (cf. Ex. 11:3), he came from Egypt and the shackles of mortality seemed to hang on his feet. But Abraham and Isaac have nothing of the kind, and they come to the place. Abraham builds an altar, puts wood on it, binds the youth, and prepares for the slaughter (cf. Gen. 22:9-10). Among you listening to this, there are many fathers in the Church of God. Do you think that any of you will acquire from this historical story such constancy and such strength of spirit that, in the event that he loses his son in the common death that is due to all, his only son, and his beloved one at that, he would cite Abraham as an example and keep before his eyes the greatness of his spirit? At the same time, this greatness of spirit is not required of you, so that you yourself bind your son, tighten it yourself, prepare the knife yourself, kill your only [son] yourself. All these actions are not required from you. At least be decisive, be constant in mind and with strong faith joyfully sacrifice your son for God. Be the priest of your son's soul; and it is not proper for a priest making a sacrifice to God to cry. Do you want to see why this is required of you? In the Gospel, the Lord says: If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham (John 8:39). This is the work of Abraham. Do the works of Abraham, but without grief; for God loves a cheerful giver (cf. II Cor. 9:7). If you too find yourself ready for God, and it will be said to you: Go up to an exalted place and to the mountain that I will show you; and there sacrifice your son to Me (Gen. 22:2). Not in the depths of the earth and not in the valley of tears (cf. Ps. 83:7), but on the high peaks of the mountains, sacrifice your son. Show that faith in God is stronger than bodily feelings. After all, Abraham, according to Scripture, loved Isaac his son, but he preferred the love of the flesh to the love of God, and it turned out that he was not [moved] by the womb of the flesh, but by the womb of Christ (cf. Phil. 1:8), that is, by the internal [movement] of the Word of God and Truth and Wisdom. 8. And Abraham stretched out his hand, says [Scripture], to take a knife and slay his son. But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said: Abraham! Abraham! And he said: Here I am. And [the Angel] said: Do not raise your hand against the boy and do not do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God (Gen. 22:10-12). Regarding this saying, the argument that is usually put forward against us 156 is that God says that he now knows that Abraham fears God, as if he did not know [this] before. God knew, and this was not hidden from Him, since He knows everything before His existence (Dan. 13:42), and this was written for your sake because you, having believed in God, if you do not fulfill the works of faith (cf. II Thess. 1:11), you will not obey all orders, even difficult ones, you will not sacrifice and you will not show that you do not prefer your father, mother, or children to God. (cf. Matt. 10:37), you will not be recognized as fearing God, and [God] will not say about you: Now I know that you fear God (Gen. 22:12). However, it should be noted that these [words], based on Scripture, were spoken to Abraham by an Angel and that what follows clearly indicates that this Angel is the Lord. Whence I conclude that just as among us humans He became in appearance like a man (Phil. 2:7), so among the Angels He became in appearance as an Angel 157. And following His example, the Angels rejoice over one sinner who repents (cf. Luke 15:10) and boasts about the successes of people. After all, they have, as it were, some kind of control over our lives, and to them, while we are in childhood, we submit, as trustees and stewards until the time appointed by the Father (cf. Gal. 4: 1-2). This means that they, too, now seeing the success of one of us, say: Now I know that you fear God (Gen. 22:12). For example, I have the intention of martyrdom, but from this the Angel could not yet tell me: Now I have learned that you fear God; because God alone knows the intentions of the mind. If I enter the [path] of exploits, demonstrate a good confession [of faith] (cf. I Tim. 6:12) and accept with courage everything that is done to me, then the Angel can say, as if encouraging and strengthening me: Now I know that you fear God. However, this was said to Abraham, revealing that he feared God. Why? Because he did not spare his son. Let us compare this with the words of the apostle, where he speaks of God: Who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all (Rom. 8:32). See how God competes with people in generosity: Abraham did not sacrifice his mortal son to God to die; God gave the Immortal Son to die for the sake of people. What can we say to this? What shall we render to the Lord for all that he has done for us? (Ps. 115:3) God the Father did not spare His own Son (cf. Rom. 8:32) for our sake. Do you think any of you will ever hear the voice of an Angel saying to [him]: Now I know that you fear God, for you did not spare your son (Gen. 22:12), or your daughter, or your wife, or did not spare money, or the honors of earthly and worldly passions, but neglected all [this] and counted everything as rubbish, in order to find Christ (Phil. 3:8), sold everything and gave it to the poor, and followed the Word of God (cf. Matt. 19:21)? Which of you do you think will hear such an Angel's voice? Meanwhile, Abraham hears this voice, and it is said to him: You did not spare your beloved son for Me (Gen. 22:12). 9. And lifting up, says [Scripture], Abraham his eyes, he saw, and behold, a ram was entangled with its horns in the bush of the tree (Gen. 22:13). We said above that Isaac, in my opinion, bears the image of Christ, however, this ram seems to be no less an image of Christ. At the same time, it is worth finding out how both of them relate to Christ: both Isaac, who was not slain, and the ram, who was slain. Christ is the Word of God, and the Word became flesh (John 1:14). But one is in Christ from above, the other is received from human nature and from the virgin’s womb. So, Christ experiences suffering, but in the flesh; and it is [His] flesh that suffers death, the image of which is the ram. So John said: Behold the Lamb of God, behold the One who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). But the Word, who in spirit is Christ, remained incorruptible (cf. I Cor. 15:42): His image is Isaac. Therefore, he is both the Victim and the High Priest. For in the spirit he offers sacrifice to the Father, [and] in the flesh he sacrifices himself on the altar of the Cross, why, as it is said about him: Behold the Lamb of God, here is Who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), and about him it is said: You are a Priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109:4). So, the ram got entangled with its horns in the thickets of savek (cf. Gen. 22:13). 10. And he took, says [Scripture], a ram and offered it as a burnt offering instead of Isaac his son, and Abraham called the name of that place: The Lord sees (Gen. 22:13-14). A clear path of spiritual understanding opens up to those who know how to listen. Because all events come to vision; for it is said that the Lord sees. But the vision with which the Lord sees is spiritual, so that you too would see spiritually everything that is written, and so that, just as in God there is nothing corporeal, so in all this you would not understand anything bodily, but spiritually even you would give birth to a son Isaac, beginning to have the fruit of the Spirit, joy, peace (cf. Gal. 5:22). You will give birth to such a son only when, as it is written about Sarah, that Sarah’s feminine things ceased (cf. Gen. 18:11) and then she gave birth to Isaac, [all] feminine things in your soul will also cease, so that nothing feminine and effeminate will remain in your soul, but you will act courageously (cf. Deut. 31:6) and like a man. you would gird your loins, just as your chest would be protected with the armor of righteousness, and you would have a helmet of salvation and fasten the sword of the Spirit (cf. Eph. 6:14-17). So, if the feminine has ceased to be in your soul, then you give birth to a son - joy and joy, a son from your wife - virtue and wisdom. But you give birth to joy if you consider everything joy when you fall into various temptations (cf. James 1:2), and you sacrifice this joy to God. When you approach God in joy, He returns to you again what you have sacrificed and says to you: You will see Me again, and your heart will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you (cf. John 16:22.17). So, whatever you sacrifice to God, you will receive it multiplied. Something similar, although under a different image, is told in the Gospels when it is said in a parable that someone received one mina in order to use it in business and buy money for the master (cf. Matt. 25:16 et seq.). And if you bring five, multiplied to ten, min, they will give it to you, they will leave it for you. Indeed, listen to what is said [in Scripture]: Take the mina from him and give it to the one who has ten minas (Luke 19:24). So, we are only laborers with the Lord, but we receive interest from the turnover; It seems to us that we are making sacrifices to the Lord, but we are rewarded with what we sacrificed. For God does not need anything, but wants us to be rich, desires our success in every matter. This image is also shown to us in what happened to Job. After all, he, being rich, lost everything for the sake of God. But since he passed well the field of patience and in everything that he endured, he was generous and said: The Lord gave, the Lord took away; as the Lord wanted, so it happened, blessed be the name of the Lord (Job 1:22), then look at what is written about him at the end: He received everything twice as much as he lost (Job 42:10). You see: losing something for God means getting it multiplied for yourself. The Gospels promise you something more, they promise you a hundredfold and, above all, eternal life (cf. Matt. 19:29) in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6). Homily IX. About the second promise to Abraham 1. The further we move through the text, the greater the number of sacraments becomes for us. And just as if someone goes to sea on a small ship, while he is close to the land, he is little afraid, but when he sails a little into the depths and begins to rise high on the rising waves or be carried into the depths in their failures, then the mind is seized with great trepidation and horror that it entrusted the weak stern to such huge waves: the same, it seems, we experience, daring with modest merits and a skinny mind to go into such a vast ocean sacraments But if through your prayers the Lord deigns to give us a passing breath of His Holy Spirit, then with a favorable flow of the word we will enter the harbor of salvation. So, let's see what was read to us. And secondly, says [Scripture], the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven and said: I swear by myself, says the Lord, that because you have fulfilled this word and have not withheld your beloved son for My sake, I will bless you in blessing and multiply you, and your seed will be like the stars of heaven in abundance and like the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered (Gen. 22, 15–17), and so on. These words require interest and attention from the listener. For in what is said: And the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time (Gen. 22:15), there is [something] new. And what comes next is not new. For by blessing I will bless you (Gen. 22:15; cf. Gen. 12:2) and it was already said before, and by multiplying I will multiply you (Gen. 22:17) was promised before, and your seed will be like the stars of heaven and like the sand of the sea (Gen. 22:17; cf. Gen. 13:16), and before it was foretold. What more is there now in this second proclamation from heaven? What new things are added to the old promises? How much greater is the reward from the words: Because you fulfilled this word (Gen. 22:16), that is, because you sacrificed your son, because you did not spare your only son? I don't see any addition; [everything] that was previously promised is repeated. So wouldn't it seem unnecessary to return to the same thing over and over again? On the contrary, it is very necessary. For everything that is accomplished is accomplished in the sacraments. If Abraham had lived only according to the flesh (cf. Gal. 4:29) and had become the father of only one nation, whom he begat according to the flesh, the promise alone would have been sufficient. But then, in order to show him to be the father, first, of those offspring who are circumcised according to the flesh, at the time of his circumcision a promise is given to him, which should apply to the people of the circumcision. And since, secondly, he is the future father of those who are of faith (cf. Gal. 3:9) and who through the Passion of Christ enters into the inheritance, it is during the suffering of Isaac that the promise is renewed, which should apply to the people saved by the Passion and Resurrection of Christ. And it seems that the same thing is repeated, but there are also serious differences. Indeed, what was said before and concerns the former people was said on earth. For this is what the Scripture says: And he brought him out - that is, out of the tent - and said to him: Look at the stars of heaven, whether they can be counted because of their multitude. And he added: You and your descendants will have so many (Gen. 15:5). When the promise is repeated a second time, [Scripture] notes that it was spoken to him from heaven (cf. Gen. 22:15); So, the first promise is given from earth, the second from heaven. Doesn’t it seem obvious here that there is an indication of what the apostle is talking about: The first man is from the earth, earthy; is the second man from heaven, heavenly (I Cor. 15:47–48)? So this promise concerning a faithful people comes from heaven, and then from earth. In that [promise] there was only a word; here an oath is used, which the holy apostle explains in the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying this: God, wanting to show the heirs of the promise the immutability of His will, used an oath as a medium (Heb. 6:17). And one more thing: People swear by their superiors (Heb. 6:16). God, just as he had no one higher by whom he would swear (Heb. 6:13), I swear by myself - said the Lord (Gen. 22:16) 158. Not that necessity forced God to an oath - for who could demand an obligation from Him? - but, as the Apostle Paul explained, [God swears] in order to show believers the immutability of His will (cf. Heb. 6:17). So in another place it is said through the prophet: The Lord has sworn and will not repent: You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109:4). Finally, then, in the first promise, the reason why the promise was given was not presented, [but] it only says that [God] brought him out and showed him the stars of heaven, and said: You will have so many descendants (cf. Gen. 15:5). Here he adds the reason for which he swears to the reliability of the promise. For he says: Because you fulfilled this word and did not spare your son (Gen. 22:16). And so it shows that the promise is confirmed for the sake of the sacrifice and suffering of the son, clearly indicating that for the sake of the Passion of Christ over the people of the pagans, who according to the faith of Abraham (cf. Rom. 4:16), the promise remains immutable. Is it only in this place that what is repeated turns out to be more reliable than what is said once? In many places of this kind you will find the intended sacraments. Moses broke and threw away the first tablets of the literal law (cf. Ex. 32:19); accepted [the] second law - spiritual, and the second is more reliable than the first. He, again, having concluded the whole law in four books, writes Deuteronomy, that is, the second law. Ishmael is the first (cf. Gen. 17:19-21), the second is Isaac, but again preference is given to the second. You will find the same thing similarly outlined in [the cases of] Esau and Jacob (cf. Gen. 25:25 et seq.), with Ephraim and Manasseh (cf. Gen. 41:51-52) and with many, many others. 2. Let us turn to ourselves and offer a moral application to each detail. As we mentioned above, the apostle says: The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second person is from heaven, heavenly. As is the earthy, so are the earthy; and as is the heavenly, so are the heavenly. [And] just as we have borne the image of earthly, let us bear the image of heavenly things (I Cor. 15:47–49). You see how he points out that if you remain in the first, earthly state, you will be condemned, unless you change, convert, and accept, becoming heavenly, the image of the heavenly. He says the same thing in another place: Having put off the old man with his deeds and put on the new man, who was created according to God (Col. 3:9-10). He writes the same thing in another place: The ancient things have passed away, everything is new (II Cor. 5:17). So, God renews his promises to show you that you too must be renewed. He does not remain in the old, so that you do not remain the old man (cf. Rom. 6:6); He pronounces this [new promise] from heaven, so that you too may receive the image of the heavenly (cf. I Cor. 15:49). After all, what good does it benefit you if God renews the promises and you are not renewed? If he speaks from heaven and you listen from earth? What will it add to you if God binds Himself with an oath, and you pass by this, as if you were listening to an ordinary story? How can you not understand that for your sake God uses even what seems to be less characteristic of His nature? [The Scripture] says that God swears so that, when you hear, you fear and tremble, and, driven by fear, you seek, which is what God alone swears for, as it says [in Scripture]. And this happens so that you will be attentive and concerned, and so that, hearing that a promise is being prepared for you in heaven, you will watch and ask yourself how worthy you are of the divine promises. With all this, the apostle explains this passage in these words: God promises Abraham and his seed. It is not said “and to descendants,” as if speaking about many, but as speaking about one: “and to your seed,” which is Christ (Gal. 3:16). This means that it is said about Christ: By multiplying I will multiply your seed, and they will be like the stars of heaven in abundance and like the sand on the seashore (Gen. 22:17). But does anyone need to explain how the seed of Christ multiplies when he sees that the preaching of the Gospel has spread from one end to the other of the earth (Acts 1:8; cf. Rom. 10:18) and there is hardly a place that would not accept the sowing of the word? 159 For this is also typified at the beginning of the world in what was said to Adam: Be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). The apostle says the same thing: I speak in relation to Christ and to the Church (cf. Eph. 5:32). And what is said: Like the stars of heaven in multitude, and added: and like the sand on the shore of the sea, countless (Gen. 22:17), someone, perhaps, will even say that the image of the heavenly number corresponds to the Christian people, [and the image of] the sand of the sea - to the Jews. However, I rather believe that both comparisons can be applied to both people. After all, in that people there were many righteous people and prophets, whom it is fair to compare with the stars of heaven 160: and in our people there are many who think about earthly things (cf. Phil. 3:19) and whose poverty of mind is heavier than the sand of the sea (cf. Job 6:3); Among them, I think, first of all we need to look for crowds of heretics. But it’s not that we’re safe; for until one of us puts aside the image of the earthly and puts on the image of the heavenly (cf. I Cor. 15:49), he is likened to earthly things. This, it seems to me, is what the apostle is guided by when he presents the resurrection using the example of the heavenly and earthly bodies, saying: There is another glory of the heavenly [bodies], and another of the earthly. And star differs from star in glory; so it will be at the resurrection of the dead (I Cor. 15:40–42). However, when the Lord says: So let your light shine before people, so that, seeing your good deeds, they glorify your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16), he instructs those who know how to listen in the same way. 3. And the fact that Christ is a descendant of Abraham and the son of Abraham, if you want to learn more clearly from the words of Scripture, listen to how it is written in the Gospel: The genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1). This means that in Him is also fulfilled the word that says: Your seed will take the cities of your enemies as an inheritance (Gen. 22:17). How did Christ take the cities of his enemies as his inheritance? Thus, without a doubt, the voice of the apostles went throughout the whole earth, and their words throughout the universe (cf. Ps. 18:5; Rom. 10:18). Therefore, those Angels who held power over each nation separately became indignant. For when the Most High divided the nations according to the number of the Angels of God, then Jacob became a part of Him, and Israel became His inherited inheritance (cf. Deut. 32:8-9). And Christ, to whom the Father said: Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for Your inheritance and the ends of the earth for Your possession (Ps. 2:8), removing the Angels from the power and dominion that they had over the nations, brought them into indignation. And therefore [the Psalmist] says that the kings of the earth have risen, and the princes have gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ (Ps. 2:2). That is why they oppose us and raise battles and wars against us. This is what the Apostle of Christ [speaks] about: [Our] struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, and powers, and rulers of this world (Eph. 6:12). Therefore, it means that we need to stay awake and beware, for our adversary walks around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour (I Pet. 5:8). If we do not resist him, strong in faith (cf. I Pet. 5:9), he will again take us captive. If this happens to us, then we will make useless the work of the One who nailed the principalities and powers to His cross, confidently triumphing over them in Himself (Col. 2:14-15), and Who came to set the captives free (Luke 4:18). Is it not better for us to hold on to faith in Christ, who triumphed over them, [and] break their fetters with which they subjected us to their power. The chains that bind us are our passions and vices, with which we are entangled until we crucify our flesh with passions and lusts (cf. Gal. 5:24), and then we will only dissolve their bonds and cast off their yoke from ourselves (Ps. 2:3) 161. Thus, the seed of Abraham, that is, the seed of the word, which is the preaching of the Gospel and faith in Christ, occupied the cities of the enemies (cf. Gen. 22:17). But I ask: Did God act unjustly in taking nations away from the power of his enemies and calling them to His faith and dominion? - No way. Because Israel was once a part of the Lord (cf. Sir. 17, 17; Deut. 32, 9), but enemies taught Israel to sin before his God, and because of his sins God said to him: Behold, you are torn by your sins and for your sins you are scattered throughout all the heavens (Neh. 1, 8 = LXX: II Ezra 11, 8). And he also says to them: Even if you were scattered from the end of the sky to the [other] end of it, [and] from there I will gather you, says the Lord (Neh. 1, 9 = LXX: II Ezra 11, 9; cf. Deut. 30, 4). And since the princes of this world (cf. John 16:11) were the first to seize the Lord’s portion, it became necessary for the Good Shepherd (John 10:11), leaving the ninety-nine on the high places, to go down to earth and look for one lost sheep and, having found it and taking it on his shoulders, return [it] to the high sheepfold of perfection (cf. Matt. 18:12-13; Luke 15:4–5). But what good will it do me if the seed of Abraham, who is Christ (cf. Gal. 3:16), will have the cities of enemies as an inheritance (cf. Gen. 22:17), but my city will not? If in my city, that is, in my soul, which is the city of the Great King (cf. Ps. 7:3; Matt. 5:35), neither His laws nor His commandments are observed? What will it give me that it subdues the whole world and owns the cities of its enemies, if it does not conquer its opponents in me, if it does not destroy the law that wars in my members, the law of my mind and makes me captive to the law of sin (cf. Rom. 7:23)? So, let each of us make every effort to ensure that both in his soul and in his body Christ defeats his enemies and, having subdued them, triumphed [over them], takes possession of the city of his soul. For in this way we will find ourselves in a part of Him, a better part, which is like the stars of heaven in radiance (cf. I Cor. 15:41), so that we too can receive the blessing of Abraham through Christ our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6). Homilia X. About Rebecca, how she went out to draw water and the youth of Abraham met her 1. Isaac, says Scripture, grew (cf. Gen. 21:8) and became stronger, that is, the “joy” of Abraham increased, paying attention not to the visible, but to the invisible (cf. II Cor. 4:18). For Abraham rejoiced not in the present, nor in the riches of the world and the deeds of the age. But do you want to hear why Abraham rejoiced? Listen to the Lord saying to the Jews: Abraham your father rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad (John 8:56). This means that Isaac grew (cf. Gen. 21:8) insofar as the vision of the day of Christ and the hope that was in Him increased the joy of Abraham. Oh, that you too would become Isaac and be the joy of the mother of your Church! But I am afraid that the Church is still giving birth to sons in sorrow and lamentation. And how can there not be sorrow and lamentation for Her when you are not going to listen to the word of God and come to church only on holidays, but [and] not so much out of a desire to [hear] the word, but out of love for solemnity and for the sake of some general absolution? 162 What should I do, who has been entrusted with the ministry of the word (cf. I Cor. 9:17; II Cor. 3:6)? Although I am an unbreakable slave (cf. Luke 17:10), I nevertheless accepted an order from the Lord to distribute a measure of bread to the master’s servants (cf. Luke 12:42). But look what the word of the Lord adds: Distribute the measure of bread in due season (Luke 12:42). What should I do? Where and when will I find your time? You spend most of it, almost all of it, on worldly concerns; you spend one time on the forum, the other at work; one devotes himself to the field, another to the courts, and no one, except only a few, devotes himself to listening to the word of God. But why am I blaming worries on you? Why am I complaining about those who are absent? Even if you are present and in church, you do not listen, but chatter gossip that is in common use with everyone, turning your back on the word of God or Divine reading. I fear that what the Lord said through the prophet would not be addressed to you: They turned their backs to Me, and not their faces (cf. Jer. 32, 33 = LXX: 39, 33). What should I do, who has been entrusted with the ministry of the word? What is being read to you is mysterious; it must be explained through the mysteries of allegory. Can I put pearls (cf. Matt. 7:6) of the words of God into deaf ears that are turned in the other direction? The apostle does not act like that. Look what he says: You who read the law, you do not listen to the law. For Abraham had two sons (Gal. 4:21-22), and so on, to which he adds: There is an allegory in this (Gal. 4:24). Did he begin to reveal the secrets of the law to those who do not read or listen to the law? [No], but he said to those who read the law: You do not listen to the law (Gal.4:21). How then can I reveal the mysteries of the law and allegory, which we have learned from the apostle, and impart [them] to those who are ignorant of both the hearing and the reading of the law? I may seem too harsh to you, but I cannot grease the falling wall (cf. Ezek. 13:10 et seq.), for I am afraid of the following word: My people, those who please you lead you astray and spoil the paths of your feet (Is. 3:12). [But] I admonish you as my beloved children (cf. I Cor. 4:14). I am surprised if you have not yet learned about the path of Christ; if you have not heard that the way that leads to life is not wide and broad, but narrow and narrow. Here you are: enter through the narrow gate (cf. Matt. 7:13-14), [and] leave the wideness to those who are perishing. The night has passed and the day has come (Rom. 13:12), act as children of light (Eph. 5:8). Time is [already] short; those who have it remain to be as if they did not have it, and those who use this world remain as if they do not use it (cf. I Cor. 7:29-31) 163 . The Apostle teaches to pray without ceasing (cf. I Thess. 5:17); How can you, without getting ready for prayer, constantly do what you constantly omit? Yes, and the Lord teaches: Watch and pray so as not to fall into temptation (Mark 14:38; Matt. 26:41). If those who watch and pray and constantly listen to the word of God do not at all escape temptation, what happens to those who come to church only on holidays? If the righteous are barely saved, then where will the sinner and the wicked appear? (I Pet. 4:18; Proverbs 11:31). I hate to say anything about what was read [to us]. For the apostle also speaks of words of such a kind that they cannot be interpreted, because you have become unable to listen (Heb. 5:11). 2. Let us still consider what was just read to us. Rebekah, says [Scripture], went out with the daughters of the [residents] of the city to draw water from the well (cf. Gen. 24:15-16). Rebekah went to the wells every day and drew water every day. And since she spent time at the wells every day, she was able to meet the youth of Abraham and marry Isaac. Do you think that these are [only] legends and that the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures tells stories? - [No, but] this is the education of souls and spiritual teaching, which instructs and teaches you to come daily to the wells of the Scriptures 164, to the waters of the Holy Spirit, to constantly draw and take home a filled vessel, as did Saint Rebecca, who could not otherwise unite with such a patriarch Isaac, born according to the promise (cf. Gal. 4:23), except by drawing water, and drawing as much as was needed to give drink not only to those who were at home, but also to the youth of Abraham; and not only the boy, but the water she drew from the wells was so abundant that she could also add water to the camels until they stopped drinking (Gen. 24:22). Everything written is a sacrament. Christ wants to betroth you to Himself; So He turns to you through the prophet, saying: I will betroth you to Me forever, and I will betroth you to Me in fidelity and mercy, and you will know the Lord (Hos. 2, 19–20 = LXX: 2, 21–22). And so, since He wants to betroth you to Himself, He first sends that [same] boy to you. This youth is a prophetic word, which if you do not first accept, you will not be able to become ignorant of Christ. Know, however, that no one who is unskillful and ignorant receives the prophetic word, but [one receives it] who knows how to draw water from the depths of a well and knows how to draw enough so that there is enough for those who seem foolish and wicked - their image is carried by camels 165 so that you yourself can say that I am a debtor to the wise and the ignorant (Rom. 1:14). In the end, this youth said in his heart this: Of those maidens who go out on the water, the one who says to me: Drink, and I will water your camels, she will be my master’s bride (cf. Gen. 24:13-14). So, Rebekah - which means “patience” - seeing the boy and seeing [in his face] the prophetic word, puts the jug from his shoulder (cf. Gen. 24:18). She, that is, puts aside the sublime arrogance of Greek eloquence and, bowing to the meek and simple prophetic word, says: Drink, I will water your camels (Gen. 24:14). 3. But you will probably say: if the boy bears the image of the prophetic word, how can he drink from the hands of Rebekah, then how should he rather drink? So, look, is it not by chance that [the prophetic word acts] in the same way as the Lord Jesus, who, being the Bread of life (cf. John 6:35.48) and feeding hungry souls, on the other hand, recognizes himself as hungry when he says: I was hungry, and you gave me food (Matthew 25:35), and who, again, being living water (cf. John 7:38) and giving drink to all who are thirsty, he says, on the other hand, to the Samaritan: Give me something to drink (John 4:7); so the prophetic word, although it itself gives drink to the thirsty, nevertheless, as they say, it becomes drunk with them when it becomes the subject of diligent study by the zealous. And so, such a soul, which does everything with patience, which is so well prepared and relies on such education, accustomed to drawing streams of knowledge from the depths - such a one can be married to Christ. So, if you do not come to the wells every day, if you do not draw water every day, you will not only not be able to give others something to drink, but you yourself will thirst for the word of God (cf. Am. 8:11). Listen to the Lord, who said in the Gospels: If anyone thirsts, let him come and drink (cf. John 7:37). But you, I see, do not hunger or thirst for righteousness (cf. Matt. 5:6); can you say: As a deer longs for springs of water, so longs my soul for You, O God. My soul thirsts for the living God; when will I come and appear before Him (Ps. 41:2-3)? I ask you, who always come to hear the word: patiently accept [that] for now we give a little admonition to the careless and lazy. Be patient, because we are talking about Rebekah, that is, “patience.” And we need to patiently rebuke a little those who despise the meeting and avoid listening to the word of God, who do not desire the Bread of Life (cf. John 6:35.48) and Living Water (cf. John 7:38); who do not leave the camp and do not crawl out of mortal churches (cf. Job 4:19) in order to gather manna for themselves (cf. Ex. 16:13 et seq.); who do not come to the stone to drink from the spiritual stone. The stone is Christ (cf. I Cor. 10:4), as the apostle says. Have, I tell you, a little patience; for our speech is to those who are careless and to those who are sick. For it is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick (Luke 5:31). Tell me, you who gather in church only on holidays: aren’t the other days holidays? are they not the days of the Lord? [It is] the custom of the Jews to celebrate holidays on certain few days; and therefore God says to them: I cannot endure your New Moon and your Sabbaths and your High Day. My soul hates your fasts and holidays and holidays (Isa. 1:13-14). This means that God hates those who think that the Lord’s day is [only] one holiday. Christians eat the flesh of the lamb all day long, that is, they eat the flesh of the Word 166. For our Passover is the slain Christ (I Cor. 5:7). And since the law of Passover is such that it is eaten in the evening (cf. Ex. 16:8), therefore the Lord suffered in the earthly evening, so that you would always eat from the flesh of the Word, since for you it is always evening until the morning comes. And if this evening you are worried and lead a life of weeping and fasting (cf. Joel 2:12) and in all righteous labor, [then] you too will be able to say: Weeping will last until the evening, but in the morning there will be joy (Ps. 29:6). So, you will rejoice in the morning, that is, in the age to come, if in this age, through mourning and labor, you reap the fruit of righteousness (cf. James 3:18; Phil. 1:11; Heb. 12:11). Come, and while there is time, let us drink from the well of vision, where Isaac passes (cf. Gen. 24, 62, 63) and where he goes out to meditate. Notice how many [great] things are done by the water, so that you too may be encouraged to come to the waters of the word of God and dwell at its wells, as Rebekah did, about whom it is said: The maiden was very beautiful, a virgin, her husband did not know her (Gen. 24:16). And she, says [Scripture], went out in the evening to draw water (cf. Gen. 24, 15. 11). 4. It was not in vain that this was written about her. However, I am interested in what is meant by what is said: She was a girl, a virgin, her husband did not know her (Gen. 24:16), as if a virgin were anything other than one whom her husband did not touch. And what does the addition about the virgin mean when it says that her husband did not know her? Is it possible that some virgin has been touched by her husband? I have often told you that in such places stories are not told, but mysteries are woven. And so, I think that something similar is indicated in this place. Just as Christ is called the husband of the soul, with whom the soul is united, coming to faith, so the husband opposite to Him is the one with whom the soul is united, deviating into unbelief, the same one who is called the human enemy, sowing tares among the wheat (cf. Matt. 13:25). Therefore, it is not enough for the soul that the body be pure; It is also necessary that this worst husband does not touch her. Indeed, it may happen that someone has virginity in his body, but having come to know the devil, this worst husband, and having received arrows of passion from him in his heart, he will lose the purity of his soul. This means that since Rebecca was a virgin, holy in body and spirit (I Cor. 7:34), therefore Scripture doubles her praise and says: She was a virgin, her husband did not know her (Gen. 24:16) 167. So, she comes in the evening to the water (cf. Gen. 24:11). We have already mentioned the evening above. But pay attention to the youth’s prudence: he does not want to take any other bride for his master Isaac, except the one whom he finds a worthy and beautiful girl, and not only a girl, but also one who has not been touched by her husband; and besides the one whom he finds drawing water, he does not want to find another wife for his master. If she were not like that, he would not have given her jewelry, he would not have given her earrings, he would not have given her a wrist (cf. Gen. 24:22); it would remain simple, unrefined and untidy. Do we need to think that Rebekah's father, a rich man, did not have wrists and earrings to hang on his daughter? Or that such was his neglect or greed that he could not give jewelry to his daughter? No, it is Rebekah who does not want to be adorned with Bethuel's gold. The decorations of a rude and ignorant person do not suit her; she requires jewels from the house of Abraham, because “patience” is adorned from the house of the “wise.” This means that Rebekah’s ears could not have received their decoration if the youth of Abraham had not come and decorated them himself; and her hands are to accept the ornaments, except those that Isaac sends. For she wants to receive golden words in her ears and have golden deeds in her hands. But she could not get what she deserved before she came to the wells to draw water. You, who do not want to come to the waters, who do not want to receive the golden words of the prophets into your ears, how can you be adorned with a worldview, adorned with deeds, adorned with morals? 5. However, omitting much - for now is the time not for commentary, but for the building of the Church of God and for awakening idle and lazy listeners with the examples of saints and mysterious explanations 168 - Rebekah, following the youth, comes to Isaac; in fact, the Church, following the prophetic word, comes to Christ. Where does she find him? At the well of oaths, says [Scripture], where he passed (cf. Gen. 24, 62, 63). Nowhere does [the action] depart from wells, nowhere is it far from water. Rebekah is found at a well (Gen. 24:16), and Rebekah finds Isaac at the well; there she first turns her gaze to him, there she descends from the camels (cf. Gen. 24:64), there she sees Isaac, indicated to her by the youth. Would you think this is the only story about wells? But Jacob also comes to the well and finds Rachel there, there he discovers that Rachel is beautiful in appearance and beautiful in appearance (cf. Gen. 29:17). Yes, and Moses finds Zipporah, the daughter of Raguel, at the well (cf. Ex. 2:15 et seq.). Are you still not prompted to understand that this is said spiritually? Or do you think that it always happens by chance that patriarchs come to wells and get wives at the waters? He who thinks this way is a spiritual man, and he does not understand the things of the Spirit of God (cf. I Cor. 2:14). But whoever wants, let him remain with this [opinion], let him remain spiritual. I, following Paul the Apostle, say that these [words] are allegorical (cf. Gal. 4:24), and I say that the marriages of saints are the union of the soul with the Word of God: For he who is united with the Lord is one spirit [with Him] (cf. I Cor. 6:17). And this union of the soul with the Word of God, of course, cannot happen otherwise than through the instruction of the divine Books, which are figuratively called treasures. To which if anyone comes and draws water from them, that is, by reasoning, extracts a deeper meaning and understanding, he will find a marriage worthy of God: for his soul is united with God. The soul also descends from camels (cf. Gen. 24:64), that is, it moves away from vices, rejects unreasonable feelings, and unites with Isaac; for it is worthy of Isaac that he should move from virtue to virtue (cf. Ps. 83:8). The son of virtue-Sarah is now united and combined with patience-Rebekah. This is what it means to move from virtue to virtue and from faith to faith (cf. Rom. 1:17). But let's turn to the Gospels. Let's see where the Lord Himself, tired from the journey, seeks rest. He came to a well, says [Scripture], and sat down by it (cf. John 4:6). You see the sacraments coordinated with each other everywhere, you see the consonant images of the New and Old Testaments. There they come to wells and water to find a wife; and the Church is united with Christ by the washing of water (Eph. 5:26). You see what a vastness of sacraments towers over us; we are not able to explain what [all] what is presented here is: this, at least, should motivate you to listen, to participate in the meeting, so that even if we missed something for the sake of brevity, you, re-reading and searching, you yourself reasoned and found, or, rather, remained in search of them, so that the Word of God, having found you by the water, would take and unite you, so that you would become one spirit with Him (cf. I Cor. 6:17) in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6). Homily XI. About the fact that Abraham took Keturah as his wife, and that Isaac settled at the well of vision 1. The holy Apostle constantly presents to us cases of spiritual understanding and gives, albeit few, but necessary instructions for the zealous, by which it is known that the law is spiritual (cf. Rom. 7:14) in everything. He, speaking in one place about Abraham and Sarah, says: Not having fainted in faith, he did not realize that his body, almost a hundred years old, was already dead, and Sarah’s womb was dead (Rom. 4:19). And about him, about whom Paul says that his body became dead by the age of one hundred years and that he gave birth to Isaac more by the power of faith than by the fertility of the body, the Scripture tells about him today that he took a wife named Keturah, and begat many sons from her, being, it seems, about one hundred and thirty-seven years old (cf. Gen. 25: 1 et seq.). For it is written that Sarah his wife was ten years younger than him (cf. Gen. 17:17), and the fact that she died in the one hundred and twenty-seventh year (cf. Gen. 23:1) shows that Abraham was more than one hundred and thirty-seven years old when he took Keturah as his wife. What then? Do we really need to think that in such a patriarch the impulses of the flesh are alive for just as long? Is it really necessary to believe that he who was said to have long ago become dead to natural impulses has now come to life again to lust? Or, as we have often said, do the marriages of the patriarchs signify something mysterious and sacred, like the one who spoke about wisdom: I decided to take her as my wife (Wis. 8:9)? This means that Abraham then probably thought something similar and, although he was wise, he nevertheless knew that there is no end to wisdom and that old age does not set a limit to learning [in it]. Indeed, whoever is accustomed to marry in the very way that we outlined above, that is, who is accustomed to being married with virtue, can a marriage of this kind ever cease? For Sarah’s dormition should be understood as the fulfillment of virtue. And for one whose virtue is complete and perfect, it is necessary to constantly be in some kind of teaching; The Divine word calls this teaching his wife. According to this, in my opinion, a single and barren person is subject to a curse in the law; for it is said: Cursed is he who leaves no descendants in Israel (cf. Deut. 7:14; 25:5-10). If we assume that this is said about carnal offspring, then all the virgins of the Church will be subject to damnation. And what can we say about the virgins of the Church? John himself, greater than whom was no one born of women (cf. Matt. 11:11), and many other saints did not leave offspring in the flesh, because it is not said that they were even married. But it is known that they left spiritual offspring and spiritual children, and each of them had wisdom as a wife, just as Paul begat children through the gospel (cf. I Cor. 4:15). So, old Abraham, with his flesh already dead, took Keturah as his wife. In accordance with the above consideration, I believe that the best wife is then taken when the body is dead, when the members are mortified (cf. Col. 3:5). For in our feelings there is greater receptivity to wisdom when the death of Christ is carried in our mortal body (cf. II Cor. 4:10). Finally, Keturah, whom old Abraham now chooses as his wife, means θυμίαμα, that is, incense, or fragrance. He really could say, as Paul said: We are the aroma of Christ (II Cor. 2:15). Let's see how someone becomes the fragrance of Christ. Sin is a stinking thing. In the end, sinners are compared to pigs (cf. Matt. 8:30), who, like in stinking dung, wallow in sins. And David, on behalf of a repentant sinner, says: My wounds have become stinking and rotten (Ps. 37:6). 2. So, if there is one of you in whom there is no longer any smell of sin, but the aroma of righteousness, the sweetness of mercy, if someone in unceasing (cf. I Thess. 5:17) prayer constantly brings incense to the Lord and says: May my prayer be corrected as incense before Thy presence, the lifting of my hands is the evening sacrifice (Ps. 140:2), - he has taken a wife Keturah. This is how, in my opinion, it is more worthy to interpret the marriages of old people, this is how it is more graceful to interpret the marriages of patriarchs, which begin already at an extreme and inactive age; This is how I think it is necessary to understand the enumeration of the births of children. Indeed, for such marriages and for this kind of offspring, the young are not as capable as the old. For the more weak someone is in body, the more strong he is in spiritual virtue and the more suitable he is for the embrace of wisdom. So is Elkanah, that righteous man from the Scriptures who had two wives at once (cf. I Samuel 1, 2 et seq.), one of whom was called Peninnah, the other Anna, that is, “conversion” and “grace.” And first, it is said, he received children from Pennana, that is, from “conversion,” and only then from Anna, “grace.” It is true that Scripture figuratively symbolizes the successes of the saints by marriages. Why, if you want, you can become a groom in such a marriage, and if, for example, you show willing hospitality, you will take her, it turns out, as your wife. If you add to this caring for the poor, you will end up getting married. And if you combine patience and meekness and other virtues, then you will take as many wives as you love virtues. That is why Scripture mentions that some patriarchs had many wives at once, others, after the death of the first, married the second (cf. Gen. 16:3; 25:1); to figuratively indicate that some are able to practice many virtues at once, while others cannot take up the next ones before they perfect the first ones. Therefore, finally, it is said about Solomon that he had many wives at once (cf. Song 6:7), [and] the Lord said to him: Such a wise man was not before you, and there will not be after you (II Chron. 1, 12; III Kings 3, 13). And since the Lord gave him a lot of wisdom, like the sand of the sea (cf. Gen. 22:17), so that he could judge his people in wisdom (cf. II Chron. 1:11), therefore he could demonstrate many virtues at once. Of course, if we, in addition to what we learn from the law of God, touch on some of those sciences that are external, worldly - such as, for example, the study of literature or grammatical art, such as geometric science or the understanding of numbers, or even the subject of dialectics - and use all this taken from outside in our education and borrow for the defense of our law, then we will find ourselves married to foreigners or even to concubines (cf. Song 6:7 ). And if, by talking about such marriages, reasoning and refuting those who contradict, we could convert someone to the faith and, surpassing them in their own understandings and methods, would convince them to accept the true philosophy of Christ and the true worship of God, then it will turn out that we have given birth to children from dialectics or rhetoric, as if from some foreigner or concubines 169 . Therefore, old age is not an obstacle for anyone in such marriages and in the birth of such children; this pure offspring is much better suited to adulthood. Likewise, now Abraham, long-lived and, as Scripture says, old and full of days (cf. Gen. 24:1), takes Keturah as his wife. But what the descendants who spread from her should not be hidden from us from the historical narrative. For if we remember them, we will be able to more easily recognize what the Scriptures say about the various generations; for example, when it is said that Moses took as his wife the daughter of Jethro, the priest of Midian (cf. Ex. 2:21), which Midian is the son of Keturah and Abraham (cf. Gen. 25: 2). So, we learn that Moses' wife was from Abraham and she was not a foreigner. But even when the Queen of Kedar is described (cf. Jer. 30:23), one must nevertheless know that Kedar comes from the same family of Keturah and Abraham (cf. Gen. 25:13) 170. And you will find similar things in the descendants of Ishmael. If you look at them diligently, you will learn a lot of historical information unknown to others. But in the meantime, leaving this for another time, we will hasten to what was read after this. 3. And it came to pass, says [Scripture], that after the death of Abraham the Lord blessed Isaac his son, and he dwelt by the well of vision (Gen. 25:11). Can we be told more fully about the death of Abraham than the word of the Lord says in the Gospels: And about the resurrection of the dead, have you not read how [Moses] says at the bush: the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not [God] of the dead, but of the living. For with Him all are alive (Luke 20:37–38; Mark 12:26–27). So let us wish for ourselves a similar death, as the apostle says, so that we die to sin and live for God (cf. Rom. 6:10). For this is how we need to understand the death of Abraham, that it expanded his bosom so much that all the saints coming from the four corners of the world are carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom (cf. Luke 16:22). But now let's see how after his death the Lord blessed Isaac his son, and what this blessing is. The Lord blessed Isaac, says [Scripture], and he settled at the well of vision (Gen. 25:11). This is the whole blessing with which the Lord blessed Isaac - that he should dwell at the well of vision. For those who understand, this is a great blessing. Oh, that the Lord would grant me this blessing too, so that I might gain habitation at the well of vision! Who is capable of knowing and understanding what the vision was that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saw (cf. Isaiah 1:1 et seq.)? Who can know what Nahum's vision is (cf. Nahum 1, 1 et seq.)? Who is able to understand what is contained in the vision that Jacob saw in Bethel on the road to Mesopotamia, when he said: This is the house of God and the gates of heaven (Gen. 28:17)? And if anyone is able to know and understand each individual vision, whether in the law or in the Prophets, he dwells at the well of vision 171. But consider even more diligently that Isaac deserved from the Lord to receive such a great blessing - to dwell at the well of vision; but we, when we are sufficiently capable of deserving [something], it is good if we can pass near the well of vision. He deserved to stay and dwell in the vision, [and] we, illuminated by God’s mercy, can hardly feel or guess little about anything from any vision. However, if I can sense one thing from the visions of God, it will be that I spent one day at the well of vision. But if I can touch on something not only in the literal, but also in the spiritual [sense], it turns out that I spent two days at the well of vision. Also, if I reach the moral level, I will spend three days. In any case, even if I cannot understand everything, I lean, however, on the Scriptures and on the law of God I reflect day and night (cf. Ps. 1:2) and, in general, I never cease to search, reason, explore and, of course, the most important thing - to pray to God and ask for understanding from the One who teaches man understanding (cf. Ps. 93:10), I will nevertheless appear to those who live among well of vision. If I neglect and do not study the word of God at home, nor come often to church to listen to the word, like some of you, as I see, who come to church only on holidays, such people do not dwell at the well of vision. But I fear that by chance [it may happen that] such careless people, even when they come to church, do not drink from the well of life and are not refreshed, but are busy with their heartfelt concerns and thoughts that they carry with them, and leave the wells of Scripture with no less thirst. So, hurry up and try so that this blessing of the Lord may come to you, according to which you could dwell at the well of vision, so that the Lord will open your eyes and you would see the well of vision and draw from it living water (cf. Gen. 26:19), which would become in you a source of water flowing into eternal life (cf. John 4:14). But if someone rarely comes to church, rarely draws from the sources of the Scriptures, and immediately forgets what he hears, leaving and doing other things, he does not dwell at the well of vision. Would you like me to show you someone who never departs from the well of vision? - the Apostle Paul, who said: We all behold with open face the glory of the Lord (cf. II Cor. 3:18). So you, if you constantly explore prophetic visions, always seek, always want to know, reflect on them, abide in them, you too will receive a blessing from the Lord and dwell at the well of vision. And the Lord Jesus will indeed appear to you on the way and will open the Scriptures to you, so that you will say: Didn’t our heart burn within us when He explained the Scriptures to us? (Luke 24:32). But He appears to those who think about Him, and meditate on Him, and abide in His law day and night (cf. Ps. 1:2). To him be glory and power forever and ever. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6). Homily XII. How Rebekah conceived and gave birth 1. At every reading, when they read Moses (cf. II Cor. 3:15), we need to pray to the Father of the Word, so that He will fulfill in us what is written in the Psalms: Open my eyes, and I will see the wonders of Your law (cf. Ps. 119:18). For if He Himself does not open our eyes, then how can we see such sacraments that are formed on the patriarchs, presented in the images of wells, marriages, childbirth, or even infertility? For today's reading tells us that Isaac prayed for Rebekah his wife, because she was barren; and God heard him, and she conceived. And the sons, says [Scripture], began to beat in her womb (Gen. 25, 21-22). First of all, consider why the Scriptures tell us that many holy wives were barren, like Sarah herself (cf. Gen. 11:30), and now Rebecca. And Rachel, beloved by Israel, was barren (cf. Gen. 29:31). It is also written that Hannah, the mother of Samuel, was barren (cf. I Samuel 1:2). And the Gospels mention that Elizabeth was barren (cf. Luke 1:7). And this one name for all of them means that they will all give a holy birth after infertility. So, it means that now it is said that Rebekah was barren, but Isaac prayed to the Lord about her, says [Scripture], and He heard him, and she conceived. And the sons began to beat in her womb (Gen. 25:21-22). Is this not the infertility that conceived? The sons of a barren woman, not yet born, fight, and she who despairs of offspring bears tribes and peoples in her womb. Indeed, [Scripture] says this: Rebekah went out to ask the Lord, and the Lord said to her: two tribes are in your womb, and two nations will come from your womb (Gen. 25, 22-23). Here it would be possible to study the beating of children for a long time when they are still in the womb. One could go on for a long time about the interpretations and mysteries written by the apostle about what is mysterious [here] and what is the reason why, before sons were born and did anything good or bad in this world (cf. Rom. 9:11), it is said about them: One nation will become stronger than another, and the older will serve the younger (Gen. 25:23); why, when they had not yet come out of their mother’s womb, through the prophet it is said: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (Mal. 1, 2. 3; Rom. 9:13). Talking about this is beyond my strength, but listening is beyond yours 172 . 2. Now, however, let’s see what is said: Rebekah went out to ask the Lord (Gen. 25:22). Came out. Where did you go? Did something come from the place where the Lord was not to the place where he was? After all, it seems that this means what was said: She went out to ask the Lord. Isn't God everywhere? Didn't He Himself say: I fill the heavens and the earth, says the Lord (Jer. 23, 24)? Where, then, did Rebekah go? I believe that she did not go from [one] place to [another] place, but that she went from [one] life to [another] life, from [one] deed to [another] deed, from good to better, moved from useful to most useful, rushed from holy to most holy. For it would be absurd for us to consider Rebekah, who was instructed by the most learned husband Isaac in the house of the wise Abraham, so ignorant and uneducated that she supposedly believed that God was imprisoned in any one place, and she went there to inquire what the beating of babies in her womb meant. But do you want to see that this comes from the custom of the saints, so that when they see something shown to themselves from God, they say that they “went out” or “went out”? When Moses saw the bush burning and not being consumed, he, amazed at what he saw, said: I will go and see this vision (Ex. 3:3). And he did not at all indicate [by this] that he would go along any road on the ground, would climb mountains or go down the slopes of hills. The vision was close to him, in front of his face and before his very eyes. However, he says “I will go” to show that he, called by a heavenly vision to the life above, must get up and go from where he was to the better. This means that it is also now told about Rebekah that she went out to ask the Lord (cf. Gen. 25:22); which should be considered, as we said, that it came out not by the steps of the feet, but by the advances of the mind. Consequently, if you begin to look not at the visible, but at the invisible (cf. II Cor. 4:18), that is, not at the physical, but at the spiritual, not at the present, but at the future, you will be called one who has gone out to inquire of the Lord. If you break away from your previous way of life and from communication with those with whom you lived shamefully and shamefully, and draw closer to worthy deeds of faith, then when they look for you among shameful comrades and by no means find you in the crowds of criminals, then they will say about you: he went out to inquire of the Lord (cf. Gen. 25:22). So, therefore, the saints do not go from place to place, but from life to life, from the first instructions to the best instructions. 3. And the Lord said to her: Two tribes are in your womb, and two nations will come from your womb. And [one] nation will become stronger than [another] nation, and the greater will serve the lesser (Gen. 25:23). How one people became stronger than another, that is, the Church - Synagogue, and how the greater serves the lesser, is known even to the Jews, who are still not believers. But I consider it redundant to talk about what is obvious and very commonly used. But, if you wish, we will add something that could thoroughly instruct each of us listening to this 173. I think that about each of us it can be said that within us there are two tribes and two peoples. Because within us there is both a people of virtues and no less a people of vices: For out of our hearts come evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, false witness (Matthew 15:19), and also temptations, strife, heresies, envy, drunkenness and the like (Gal. 5:20-21). Do you see what a large nation of evil there is within us? But if we are worthy to say with that voice of the saints: Out of Thy fear, O Lord, we were conceived in the womb and gave birth, and created the spirit of Thy salvation on earth (Isa. 26:18), then another people born in the spirit will be found within us. For the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, meekness, self-control, purity (Gal. 5:22-23) and the like. You see the second people, which is also within us; but this one is smaller, [and] that one is greater. For there is always more evil than good, and vices are more numerous than virtues. But if we were like Rebecca, and were worthy to be conceived from Isaac, that is, from the Word of God, then in us one nation would become stronger than the other, and the greater would serve the lesser (cf. Gen. 25:23); for the flesh would serve the spirit, and vices would yield to virtues. And the days were fulfilled, says [Scripture], for her to give birth, and there were twins in her womb (Gen. 25:24). This expression - “the days are fulfilled for her to give birth” - is almost never used in Scripture except in reference to holy women. For this is said about this Rebecca, and about Elizabeth, the mother of John (Luke 1:57), and about Mary, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 2:16). Why does it seem to me that a birth of this kind indicates something exceptional and different from other people, and the fulfillment of days means the birth of a perfect industry. 4. And the first son came out, - says [Scripture], - red, and all shaggy, like a skin. And they called his name Esau. And then his brother came out, holding Esau’s heel with his hand: and they called him Jacob (Gen. 25:25-26). About them in another place of Scripture it is said that Jacob kicked his brother in the womb (Hos. 12:4), and the proof of this can be the fact that he held on to the heel of his brother Esau with his hand. This Esau came out of his mother’s womb shaggy, like a skin (cf. Gen. 25:25), while Jacob was smooth and hairless. Therefore Jacob received the name from wrestling or stumbling; and Esau was named [so] - according to the interpreters of Hebrew names - probably either from redness, or from earth, that is, “red”, or “earthy”, or, as others decided, “work” (factura) 174. However, it is not for me to discuss what the advantages of this birth are, or why he kicked his brother and was born smooth and hairless (although the conception of both sons was, according to the word of the Apostle, in any case, from one Isaac, our father (cf. Rom. 9:10)), or why this one is all shaggy and terrible, and covered, so to speak, with the uncleanness of sin and debauchery. For if I want to dig into the depths and open the hidden veins of living water (Gen. 26:19), the Philistines will immediately come and fight with me, and raise strife and treachery against me, and begin to fill my wells with their earth and dirt. For, in fact, if these Philistines would allow it, I, too, would like to approach my Lord, the most patient Lord, who says: Him who comes to me I will not cast out (John 6:37), - I would like to approach and, as the disciples then said to Him: Lord, who sinned, he or his parents, that he was born blind? (John 9:2) - and I would like to ask him this question: Lord, who sinned, Esau or his parents, that he was born so shaggy and scary that he was kicked by his brother in the womb? But if I wanted to question and find out the word of God about this, the Philistines would immediately lead lawsuits against me (cf. Gen. 26:21-22) and intrigues. And therefore, we, leaving this well and calling it Enmity, will dig another 175. 5. After this, says [Scripture], Isaac sowed barley, and received it a hundredfold. And the Lord blessed him, and he became a great man, and increased more and more until he became very great (cf. Gen. 26:12). What does it mean that Isaac sowed barley and not wheat, and was blessed in that he sowed barley, and was exalted to the point that he became great? It turns out that this means that he was not yet great, but after he sowed barley and reaped a hundredfold, then he became very great. Barley is mostly food for livestock or village slaves. This is a tougher variety and seems to prick like needles when someone touches it. Isaac is the word of God, who sows barley in the law, [and] in the Gospels, wheat. This he prepares for food for the more perfect and spiritual, and that for the more inexperienced and spiritual (animalibus) 176, as it is written: You keep men and beasts, O Lord (Ps. 35:7). So, Isaac - the word of the law - sows barley, but even in the barley he finds a hundredfold fruit (cf. Matt. 13:8). For even in the law you will find martyrs, whose fruit is a hundredfold 177. However, our Lord - Isaac of the Gospel - spoke to the apostles something more perfect, while to the people - simple and general (cf. Matt. 13:34 et seq.). Do you want to see how He Himself offers barley food to beginners? The Gospels describe how He fed the people a second time (cf. Matt. 15:32 et seq.). But those whom He feeds for the first time, that is, beginners, He feeds with barley loaves (cf. John 6:9; Matthew 14:19 et seq.). Then, when they have already excelled in speech and teaching, He offers them wheat bread 178. But after this [Scripture] says: The Lord blessed Isaac, and he became very great (Gen. 26:12). Isaac was small in law, but as time goes on he becomes great. He becomes great over time in the prophets. For while he is only in the law, he is not yet great, for the law is covered with a veil (cf. II Cor. 3:14). And on the Prophets, it means it is already growing; when he reaches the point where he even takes off the veil, then he will be very great. When the letter of the law begins to stand out like chaff from barley, and it is revealed that the law is spiritual (cf. Rom. 7:14), then Isaac will be exalted and become very great. Note that the Lord, in fact, in the Gospels breaks several loaves, and how many thousands of people he strengthens, and how many boxes with leftovers are left (cf. Matt. 14:19 et seq.; 15, 36 et seq.; 16:9). While the loaves are intact, no one is satisfied, no one is refreshed, and the loaves themselves do not seem to increase. And now look how we break a few breads: we take a few words from the Divine Scriptures, and how many thousands of people are fed. But if these breads had not been broken, the disciples would not have broken them into pieces, that is, if the letter had not been broken and broken into small pieces, its meaning could not have reached everyone. When we begin to explore and study everything separately, then the people will take as much as they can. And what he cannot, must be collected and preserved so that nothing is lost (John 6:12). So, let us also save it, if people cannot take something, and put it in boxes and baskets. In the end, when we just broke bread for Jacob and Esau, let's see how many pieces were left of this bread: we diligently collected them so that they would not be lost, and buried them in baskets or boxes until the Lord commanded what to do with them. Now, as far as possible, let us eat from the loaves or draw from the wells. Let us try to do what Wisdom instructs, saying: Drink water from your springs and from your wells, and let you have your own spring (Proverbs 5:15.18). So try, listener, to have your own well and your own source; so that you, studying the book of Scripture, would begin to gain some understanding from your own understanding; try, too, in accordance with what you have learned in the Church, to drink from the source of your mind. There is within you the origin of living water (cf. Gen. 26:19), there are permanent channels and irrigation channels of rational feeling, unless they are clogged with earth and debris. But try diligently to dig up your soil and cleanse the dirt, that is, drive away laziness from your mind and destroy insensibility of your heart. Listen to what the Scripture actually says: Prick an eye, and it will bring forth tears; prick the heart, and the feeling will wear out 179 (Sir. 22:19). So, cleanse your mind too, so that someday you will begin to drink from your springs (cf. Proverbs 5:15) and draw living water (cf. Gen. 26:19) from your wells. For if you have received the word of God within yourself, if you have received living water from Jesus and received it with faith, there will be in you a fountain of water flowing into eternal life (cf. John 4:14), in Jesus Christ Himself, our Lord, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6). Homily XIII. About the wells dug by Isaac and filled up by the Philistines 180 1. We constantly find the patriarchs doing their usual work with wells. Here too, Scripture reports that Isaac, after the Lord blessed him and he became greatly exalted (cf. Gen. 26:12.13), began a great work. And he began, says [Scripture], to dig wells, those wells that his servants had dug during the life of his father Abraham, but the Philistines filled them up and covered them with earth (Gen. 26:15). So, first he settled at the well of vision (Gen. 25:11) and, enlightened by the well of vision, he begins to open other wells - and at first not new ones, but those that his father Abraham dug. And when he dug the first well, the Philistines, says [Scripture], began to envy him (Gen. 26:14). But he was not frightened by their jealousy and did not give in to envy, but again, as [Scripture] relates, he dug the wells that the servants of Abraham his father had dug, and the Philistines filled them up after the death of Abraham his father; and he called them by the same names that his father called him (Gen. 26:18). This means that he dug the wells that his father had dug, but due to the wickedness of the Philistines they were covered with earth. He also dug new ones in the valley of Gerar, not himself, of course, but his slaves, and he found there, says [Scripture], a well of living water. But the shepherds of Gerar argued with the shepherds of Isaac, saying that the water was theirs; and he named the well the name Offense. For they treated him offensively (Gen. 26:19–20). But Isaac left their anger and again dug another well; nevertheless, they began to argue about him, and he called his name Enmity. And he left there and dug another well again, and they did not argue about it; and he called its name Space, for, he said, now God has spread us and multiplied us on earth (Gen. 26:21-22). The holy apostle says well in some place, discussing the greatness of the sacraments: And who is capable of this? (II Cor. 2:16). In a similar way - or, on the contrary, very different, we are so much below it - and we, seeing such a well-like depth in the sacraments, say: And who is capable of this? For who would be able to adequately explain the mysteries of such wells or what is told about the acts associated with them, except if we call on the Father of the living Word and He Himself deigns to give the word into our mouth (cf. Eph. 6:19), so that we, who are thirsty, can draw at least a little bit of living water (cf. Gen. 26:19; John 4:10) from these so abundant and numerous wells? 2. So, there are wells that Abraham's servants dug, and the Philistines filled them with earth. This means that Isaac first undertakes to cleanse them. The Philistines hate water, love land; Isaac loves water, always looking for wells, cleaning old ones, opening new ones. Look, our Isaac, Who gave Himself as a sacrifice for us (cf. Eph. 5:2), goes into the valley of Gerar, which is translated as “barrier” or “fence”, goes, I repeat, to abolish [the enmity wall standing] in the middle - in His flesh (cf. Eph. 2:14), goes to destroy the barrier, that is, the sin dividing between us and God, a barrier that is in the middle between us and the heavenly virtues, in order to make one out of both (cf. Eph. 2:14) and on our shoulders to bring back the lost sheep to the mountains and restore it among the ninety-nine who were not lost (cf. Matt. 18:12; Luke 15:6). And this Isaac, our Savior, having come to this very valley of Gerar, first of all wants to dig those wells that His Father’s servants dug; this means He wants to renew the treasures of the law and the Prophets, which the Philistines covered with earth. Who is it who fills the treasure troves with earth? Undoubtedly, those who believe in the law an earthly, carnal meaning, and close the spiritual and mysterious, so that they themselves do not drink and do not give it to others 181. Listen to what Isaac - our Lord Jesus - says in the Gospels: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, because you took the key of understanding and did not enter in yourselves, and did not allow those who wanted to (Luke 11:52; Matt. 23:13). This means that these are the ones who filled up the wells that Abraham’s servants dug with earth, who teach the law in a carnal way and pollute the waters of the Holy Spirit; they have wells not to get water, but to put earth [there]. So, Isaac undertakes to dig these wells. Let's see how he dug them. When the servants of Isaac, who are the apostles of our Lord, passed, according to the word [of the Gospel], through the sown fields, they plucked the ears of corn and, rubbing them with their hands, ate (cf. Luke 6:1). Then those who filled up His Father’s wells with earth began to say to Him: Behold, Your disciples do on the Sabbath what they should not do (Matthew 12:2). He, in order to dig up their earthly understanding, says to them: Haven’t you read what David did when he and those with him were hungry, how he went in to the priest Abiathar and ate the showbread, he and his servants, which it was not lawful for the priests to eat? (cf. Matthew 12:3–4). And to this he adds: If you knew what it means: I want mercy, not sacrifice (Hos. 6:6), you would never condemn the innocent (Matthew 12:7). But what was their answer to this? They argued with His servants and said: This Man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath (John 9:16) 182. In this way Isaac dug the wells that his father's servants had dug. His Father's servant was Moses, who dug the well of the law; His Father's servants were David, Solomon, the prophets and everyone who wrote the books of the Old Testament, which were covered with the earthly and dirty understanding of the Jews. When Isaac wanted to clear the latter and show that everything that was said in the law and the Prophets (cf., for example, Matthew 7:12; John 5:46) was said about Him, the Philistines began to argue with Him. But He leaves them; for He cannot be with those who want to have land, not water, in wells; and He says to them: Behold, your house is left to you empty (Matthew 23:38). But Isaac also dug new wells, that is, of course, Isaac’s slaves dug them. Isaac's slaves - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; His servants are Peter, James, Judas, His servant is the Apostle Paul; they all dug up treasures of the New Testament 183 . But those who think about earthly things also argue about them (cf. Phil. 3:19) and cannot tolerate either new ones being built or old [wells] being cleaned out. They contradict the Gospel treasures, they resist the Apostolic treasures. And since they contradict everything, argue with everything, it is said to them: Since you have made yourselves unworthy of the grace of God, from now on we will go to the pagans (cf. Acts 13:46; 18:6). 3. So, after this, Isaac dug a third well and called the name of that place Space, for, he said, now the Lord has spread us and multiplied us on the earth (Gen. 26:22). Indeed, now Isaac has truly spread and his name has been magnified throughout the whole earth because he showed us the full knowledge of the Trinity. For then only in Judea was God known and in Israel His name was spoken (cf. Ps. 75:2), but now their sound went out into the whole earth, and their words to the ends of the universe (Ps. 18:5). Indeed, passing throughout the whole world, Isaac's servants dug wells and showed living water to everyone (cf. Gen. 26:19), baptizing all nations in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt. 28:19). For the earth is the Lord's and what fills it (Ps. 23:1). However, each of us who serves the word of God also digs a well and seeks living water with which to strengthen the listeners. This means that if I begin to analyze the sayings of the ancients and look for the spiritual meaning in them, if I begin to remove the veil of the law and show that what is written is allegorical (Gal. 4:24), of course, I am digging a well; but the friends of the letter will immediately plot treachery against me and will plot against me, they will immediately prepare for enmity and persecution, saying that the truth cannot be found except on earth 184. But if we are servants of Isaac, let us love the wells and springs of living water; Let us leave the disputants and treacherous ones and leave them in the land they love. Let us never stop digging wells of living water and, studying both old and sometimes new [wells], let us become like that gospel scribe about whom the Lord said that he brings out of his treasury new and old (Matthew 13:52). But if one of those versed in secular literature listens to my reasoning, he may say: “What you say is ours, and this is the skill of our art; the very thing you talk about and teach is our eloquence.” And he, like some Philistine, brings a lawsuit against me, saying: “You dug a well on my land,” and deservedly, it would seem, returning to himself what is on his own land. However, to this I will answer that every earth has water, but whoever is a Philistine and thinks about earthly things (cf. Phil. 3:19) does not know how to find water in any land, does not know how to find a rational feeling and image of God in any soul, does not know that one can find faith, piety, and holiness in everything. What good is it for you to have knowledge and not be able to use it, to have command of the word and not be able to speak? 185 This, in fact, is the work of Isaac’s servants: they dig wells of living water all over the earth, that is, they preach the word of God to every soul and collect the fruits. In general, do you want to see how many wells one servant of Isaac dug in a foreign land? Look at Paul, who spread the Gospel of God from Jerusalem and its surroundings to Illyricum (cf. Rom. 15:19). But for each of these wells he suffered persecution from the Philistines. Listen to how he says: How many things happened to me in Iconium, in Lystra (II Tim. 3:11), how many in Ephesus (cf. I Cor. 15:32)? How many times was he beaten, stoned (cf. II Cor. 11:25), how many times did he fight with beasts (cf. I Cor. 15:32)? But he survived until he entered space (cf. II Kings 22:20; Ps. 17:20), that is, until he established churches throughout the entire expanse of the earth. So, the wells dug by Abraham, that is, the books of the Old Testament, were covered with earth by the Philistines - either by bad teachers, scribes and Pharisees, or even by opposing forces; and their veins were blocked, so that they would not give drink to those who were from Abraham. That people cannot drink from the Scriptures, but are thirsty for the word of God (cf. Am. 8:11), until Isaac comes and opens them for his servants to drink. So, thanksgiving to the Son of Abraham Christ - about whom it is written: The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1), - who came and opened treasures for us. It was these that He opened to those who said: Did not our heart burn within us when He explained the Scriptures to us? (Luke 24:32). So, he opened these wells and called them, says [Scripture], just as Abraham his father called them (Gen. 26:18). He really didn't change the names of the wells. One may be surprised that Moses is still called Moses and all the prophets go by their own names. In fact, Christ did not change the names, but the understanding of them. And he changes it so that we no longer occupy ourselves with Jewish fables (cf. Titus 1:14) and endless genealogies (cf. I Tim. 1:4), because they turn our ears away from the truth, and turn to fables (cf. II Tim. 4:4). So He opened treasures for us and taught us so that we should not look for God in any place, but know that throughout the whole earth a sacrifice is offered to His name (cf. Mal. 1:11). For now is the time when true worshipers worship the Father, not in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim, but in spirit and truth (cf. John 4:20-23). This means that God does not dwell in [some] place or on earth, but dwells in the heart. And if you are looking for God’s place: a pure heart is His place. Because in this place He says that He will dwell, through the prophet, in these words: I will dwell in them and will walk [in them]; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, says the Lord (Lev. 26, 12; II Cor. 6, 16). Note that, perhaps, even in the soul of each of us there is a well of living water, some heavenly feeling and image of God is hidden, and this well was filled up by the Philistines, that is, the opposing forces, with earth. What kind of land is this? Carnal feelings and earthly thoughts, which is why we bore the image of earthy things (cf. I Cor. 15:49). This means that when we wear the image of dust, then the Philistines filled up our wells. But now that our Isaac has come, let us accept His coming and let us dig our wells, throw the earth out of them, cleanse them from all rubbish and from all dirty and earthly thoughts, and we will find in them living water, the one about which the Lord says: Whoever believes in Me, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water (John 7:38). Look at the breadth of the Lord: the Philistines filled up the wells and were jealous of our meager and thin water veins, and instead of them springs and rivers are returned to us! 4. If you, listening to these [words] today, perceive with faith what you hear, it means that Isaac is working in you, cleansing your hearts from earthly feelings, and you, seeing that so many of these sacraments are hidden in the Divine Scriptures, are improving in understanding, improving in spiritual feelings. You even begin to be teachers, and rivers of living water flow out of you (cf. John 7:38). For the Word of God is present here, and such is His work today to extract the earth from the soul of each of you and open the source to you. For He is within you and does not come from outside, just as the Kingdom of God is within you (cf. Luke 17:21). And that woman who has lost the drachma finds it not outside, but in her house after she has lit a lamp and swept the house (cf. Luke 15:8) from the rubbish and uncleanness that laziness and slackness have accumulated for a long time, and there she finds the drachma. This means that you, too, if you light a lamp, if you take the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit to help you and in His light you see light (cf. Ps. 35:10), you will find a drachma within you. Because inside you is the image of the King of Heaven. In fact, when God created man at the beginning, He created him in His own image and likeness (cf. Gen. 1:26; 5:1); and He placed this image not outside, but inside it. This [image] could not appear in you while your house was full of sewage and garbage. This source of knowledge was located in you, but it could not flow, because the Philistines covered it with earth and created in you the image of earthy (I Cor. 15:49). But just as then you bore the image of the earthly, so now, cleansed by the Word of God from all earthly burdens and pressures, you will make the image of the heavenly shine within you (I Cor. 15:49). This, then, is the image about which the Father spoke to the Son: Let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26). The Son of God is the Artist of this image. And since the Artist is so great, His image can be obscured by neglect, [but] it cannot be destroyed by evil. For the image of God always remains in you, even if you prefer the image of earth for yourself. The last picture you paint is for yourself. After all, when whim blackened you, it was you who applied one earthly color; if you are still inflamed with greed, you also mixed in another. And when anger also makes you bloodthirsty, you thereby add a third color. Another color of pride is also added, and another of wickedness. And thus, through all the individual types of evil, collected like different paints, you paint in yourself the image of earthly things that God did not create in you. Therefore, we must pray to the One who speaks through the prophet: Behold, I will blot out your iniquities like a cloud and your sins like a cloud (Is. 44:22). And when He erases all these colors of yours, which are taken from the color of evil, then the image that was created by God will shine in you. So, you see how the Divine Scriptures introduce forms and images by which the soul would learn to know and purify itself. Do you want to see another form of this image? There are some letters that God writes; there are other letters that we write. We write the letters of sin. Listen to the words of the apostle: “Having destroyed,” he says, “the handwriting that was against us, which was against us, He took it out of the way and nailed it to His cross (Col. 2:14). What he calls handwriting was evidence of our sins. And in fact, whatever each of us is guilty of, he becomes a debtor and writes the letters of his sin. For even at the judgment of God, the passage of which Daniel describes, books are opened, he says (cf. Dan. 7:10), without a doubt containing human sins. This means that we write them to ourselves by what we commit wrongdoings. The image of precisely this matter is that which is spoken of in the Gospel, as the unfaithful steward (cf. Luke 16:8) says to each debtor: Take your receipt, sit down and write eighty (Luke 16:7), and the rest of the story. So, you see, what everyone is told: Take your receipt. Whence it follows that our writings are a receipt of sin; and God writes the letters of righteousness. For this is what the apostle says: You are a letter written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of flesh of the heart (II Cor. 3:2-3). Therefore, you have in you the writings of God and the writings of the Holy Spirit. If you sin, you sign the handwriting of sin to yourself. However, note that at the same time as you approached the cross of Christ and the grace of baptism, your handwriting was nailed to the cross (cf. Col. 2:14) and blotted out at the source of baptism. Do not write more than what has been blotted out, and do not renew what has been destroyed: keep only God’s writings within you, so that only the writing of the Holy Spirit may abide in you. But let us return to Isaac and dig with him wells of living water; even if the Philistines advance, even if they argue, we will still remain inseparably with him, digging wells, so that it may be said to us: Drink water from your vessels and from your wells (Prov. 5:15), and digging so that the water from the well abounds in our squares (Prov. 5:16), so that not only we receive the knowledge of the Scriptures, but that we also They taught some and instructed others, so that when people drink, cattle also drink. Let the intelligent listen, and let the simple also listen: for the teacher of the Church is a debtor to the wise and the ignorant (cf. Rom. 1:14), he is obliged to give water to people, and to water cattle; because the prophet also says: You save men and beasts, O Lord (Ps. 35:7), if the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, our Savior, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever, enlightens us and purifies our hearts. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6). Homily XIV. About how the Lord appeared to Isaac at the well of the oath, and about the alliance concluded with Abimelech 1. The prophet wrote the words on behalf of the Lord: And in the hands of the prophets I became a parable (Hos. 12:11). This saying means that while our Lord Jesus Christ is one in His nature and is nothing other than the Son of God, yet in the images and forms of the Scriptures He is diverse and different 186 . For example, as we remember, we stated above 187, it was He Himself in the type (typo) of Isaac when he was offered as a burnt offering, but the ox [also] carried His image. I say more: that in the Angel who turned to Abraham and said to him: Do not lift up your hand against the boy (Gen. 22:12), He Himself appears, for he then says to him: Since you have fulfilled this word, I will bless you with blessing (Gen. 22:16-17). He is called the Sheep or the Lamb slain at Passover (cf. I Cor. 5:7), and He is depicted as the Shepherd of the sheep (cf. John 10:11.14; Heb. 13:20): He is likewise described as a Priest offering a sacrifice (cf. Heb. 5:6). As the Word of God, He is called the Bridegroom (cf. Matt. 9:15, etc.), and as Wisdom, He is already called the Bride, just as the prophet speaks on His behalf: As on a bridegroom, He put a crown on me and, like a bride, adorned me with ornaments (Isa. 61:10), and much more, which, in fact, is [too] long to mention now. And just as the Lord Himself adapts His image in place and time to each individual case, so the saints, who were His prototypes, one must think, bore the images of the sacraments, in accordance with the place, time and circumstances; which, as we see, happened today to Isaac, about whom it was read to us: From there, says [Scripture], he went up to the well of the oath, and that night God appeared to him and said: I am the God of Abraham your father, do not be afraid. For I am with you, and I will bless you and multiply your descendants for the sake of Abraham your father (Gen. 26:23-24). The Apostle Paul presented to us two images of this Isaac: one in which he said that Ishmael, the son of Hagar, is a people according to the flesh, and Isaac is a people by faith (cf. Gal. 4:22); another, in which he says: He did not say: “in the descendants” as if about many, but as about one: “and to your seed,” which is Christ (Gal. 3:16). So, Isaac bears the image of both the people [faithful to God] and Christ. But it is obvious that Christ as the Word of God speaks not only in the Gospels, but also in the law and in the Prophets. However, in the law He teaches beginners, in the Gospels - perfect 188. And this means that Isaac here bears the image of the Word, which is in the law and in the Prophets. 2. So, Isaac ascends to the well of the oath, and the Lord appears to him (cf. Gen. 26:23–24). We have already called the decoration of the church and the services that are performed in it the ascension of the law 189. The addition of Prophets can also be called the ascension of the law; therefore, perhaps, it is said that he went up to the well of the oath and there the Lord appeared to him. For through the prophet the Lord has sworn and will not repent, because He is a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (cf. Ps. 109:4). So, at the well of the oath, God appeared to him, confirming the future promises in him. And Isaac built an altar there and called on the name of the Lord, and pitched his tent there. And Isaac's servants dug a well there (Gen. 26:25). Even in the law, Isaac builds an altar and pitches his tent; in the Gospels he does not pitch a tent, but builds a house and lays a foundation. Listen to what Wisdom says about the Church: Wisdom built herself a house and set up seven pillars (Proverbs 9:1). Listen to what Paul also says about this: For no one can lay any other foundation than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (I Cor. 3:11). This means that where there is a tent, even if it spreads out, it must [someday] be folded up; and where there are foundations and a house is built on a rock, that house will never be destroyed, for it is founded on a rock (cf. Matt. 7:24). Meanwhile, Isaac is digging a well here too, and he does not stop digging wells until a source of living water appears (cf. Gen. 26:19) and the river flow begins to make glad the city of God (cf. Ps. 45:5). 3. But Abimelech, the one who first honored Abraham, came to Isaac from Gerar with his friends: And Isaac said to them: Why have you come to me? You hated me and sent me away from you. To this they answer: “We have clearly seen,” [Scripture] reports, “that the Lord is with you, and we said: Let there be an oath between us and you, and we will enter into an alliance with you so that you do not harm us (Gen. 26:26-29), and so on. This Abimelech, as I see, is not always at peace with Isaac, but sometimes he disagrees, and sometimes he asks for peace. If you remember how we said above 190 about Abimelech that he personifies secular scientists and philosophers who, with the help of philosophical education, have already understood much of the truth, then you can understand how he can neither be constantly at odds, nor all the time at peace with Isaac, who bears the image of the Word of God, which is in the law. For philosophy is not in everything contrary, and not in everything consonant with the law of God. In fact, many philosophers write that there is only one God who created everything. In this they are consistent with the law. Some even add that with His Word God created everything and governs everything, and that the Word of God orders everything. In this, their creations are consonant not only with the law, but also with the Gospels. And the so-called moral and natural philosophy almost all thinks the same way as we do. She differs from us when she says that matter is co-eternal with God. He diverges when he says that God does not care about mortals, but that His providence is limited to the space of the supralunar sphere. They disagree with us when life is made dependent on the course of the stars at birth 191. They differ when they say that this world is eternal and is not limited by any end. There are many other things on which they either disagree with us or agree 192 . That is why it is described that Abimelech, according to this image, is either at peace with Isaac or at odds [with him]. However, I do not at all believe that the Holy Spirit, who writes this, simply took the trouble to include the other two who came with Abimelech, namely, Ahuzath, his son-in-law, and Phichol, his commander (cf. Gen. 26:26). Ahuzav is translated as “holding one,” and Phichol is translated as “the mouth of all,” while Abimelech himself means “my father the king.” These three, in my understanding, bear the image of all philosophy, which is divided into three parts: logic, physics and ethics, that is, rational, natural and moral [philosophy]. The reasonable one is the one who recognizes God as the Father of all, like Abimelech. Natural is the one that is fixed and holds everything, as if relying on the forces of nature itself, it is represented by Ahuzaf, which means “holding.” The moral is the one that is on everyone’s lips, and it concerns everyone, and it is on everyone’s lips because of the similarity of general instructions: it is depicted by Fihol, which is translated “the mouth of all.” And so, all of them, trained in knowledge of this kind, come to the law of God and say: We have clearly seen that the Lord is with you, and we said: Let there be an oath between us and between you, and we will make an alliance with you so that you do not harm us, but just as we did not curse you, so you are blessed by the Lord (Gen. 26, 28-29). Perhaps these three, asking for peace from the Word of God and wishing to prevent communication with Him by union, bear the image of the Magi who come from the eastern countries, brought up on the books of their fathers and on the instructions of their ancestors 193, and say: We clearly saw (cf. Gen. 26:28) the born King (Matt. 2:2) and saw that God is with Him (cf. Gen. 26:28), and came to worship Him (Matthew 2:2). But if anyone is instructed in this kind of knowledge, let him, seeing that God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself (cf. II Cor. 5:19), and admiring the greatness of His deeds, also say: We have clearly seen that the Lord is with you, and said: Let there be an oath between us (Gen. 26:28). Indeed, he who approaches the law of God must say: I have sworn and decided to keep Your commandments (Ps. 119:106). 4. However, what are they asking for? Whatever you do, they say, is evil to us; but just as we did not curse you, so you are blessed by the Lord (Gen. 26:29). By this, it seems to me, they ask for forgiveness of sins in order to avoid evil. They ask for blessings, not retribution. However, look what happens next. And Isaac made them, says [Scripture], a great feast: and they ate and drank (Gen. 26:30). Indeed, it is obvious that he who serves the Word is a debtor to the wise and the ignorant (cf. Rom. 1:14). And since he offers a feast to the sages, that is why it is said that he made not a small, but a great feast. And you, if you are not still a baby and do not need milk, but show accustomed feelings (cf. Heb. 5:12) and, having studied a lot in advance, come capable of understanding the word of God, then there will be a great feast for you. Vegetables will not be prepared for you to eat (cf. Rom. 14:2), the weak will not be fed, and you will not be given the milk that babies eat, but the minister of the Word will make you a great feast. He will tell you about the wisdom that is preached among the perfect, he will preach to you the wisdom of God, hidden in the sacrament, which none of the authorities of this age has known (cf. I Cor. 2:6-8). He will reveal Christ to you regarding the fact that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom (cf. Col. 2:3). So, he gives you a great feast and feasts with you himself, if he does not find you in such a way as to say to you: I could not speak to you as spiritual, but as carnal; as with the babes in Christ (I Cor. 3:1–2). He says this to the Corinthians, to which he also adds: For if there are disputes and disagreements among you, are you not carnal, and are you not walking according to human [custom]? (I Cor. 3:3). Paul did not give them a great feast, so much so that when he was with them and in need, he did not become a burden to anyone and did not eat anyone’s bread for nothing, but, working day and night, he served himself and all those with him with his own hands (cf. I Cor. 4:12). The Corinthians were so far removed from having a great feast that the herald of the word of God could not have even the smallest and meager treat with them. And whoever knows how to listen more perfectly, who shows educated and accustomed to listening to the words of God feelings (cf. Heb. 5:14), for those there is a great feast when Isaac feasts with them, and not only feasts, but also, standing up, promises them peace for the future with an oath (cf. Gen. 26:31). So, let us pray that we too may begin to hear the word of God with such a mood and with such faith that God will make us worthy of a great feast. For Wisdom slaughtered her sacrifices, dissolved her wine in a cup, and sent her servants (Prov. 9:1-3), who would bring everyone they could find to her feast. It is such that, having entered the feast of Wisdom, we will no longer carry back with us the garments of foolishness, we will no longer be covered with the garment of infidelity, we will no longer be blackened by the stains of sins, but in the simplicity and purity of our hearts we will embrace the Word and begin to serve the Divine Wisdom, which is Christ Jesus our Lord: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (cf. I Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6). Homily XV. About what is written: and they went up from Egypt, and came to the land of Canaan to Jacob their father, and told him, saying: Your son Joseph is alive, and he rules over all the land of Egypt (Gen. 45: 25-26) 1. When reading the Holy Scripture, we should note how in each separate place the [word] “ascend” and “descend” is used. Because if we take a closer look, we will discover that it is almost never said that anyone should descend into a holy place, and it is not mentioned that anyone should ascend into an evil place. These remarks show that the Divine Scripture is not composed in a rude and unlearned style, as many seem, but in accordance with an order adapted for divine education, and serves not so much for historical narratives as for mysterious things and meanings. Thus, you will find that in the Scripture those born of Abraham went down to Egypt, and the children of Israel went up back from Egypt. Even about Abraham himself it is said this way: And Abraham rose up from Egypt, he and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the wilderness (Gen. 13:1). Then it is said about Isaac that the Lord appeared to him and said to him: Do not go down to Egypt (Gen. 26:2). However, it is also said that the Ishmaelites, who also descended from the seed of Abraham, carrying θυμιάματα, resin and balm, descended into Egypt (cf. Gen. 37:25 et seq.), with them, it is said, Joseph also descended into Egypt. But even after this [Scripture] says: When Jacob saw that grain was being sold in Egypt, he said to his sons: Why are you idle? Behold, I hear that there is bread in Egypt; go down there and buy us food, so that we may live and not die (Gen. 42:1-2). And a little later it is said: Joseph’s brothers went down to Egypt to stock up on wheat (Gen. 42:3). Of course, when Simeon was detained in Egypt, and his nine brothers who had been released were returning to their father, it is not written that they went up from Egypt, but: Having put bread on their donkeys, they say, they went from there (cf. Gen. 42:26). For it was not appropriate to call those ascending those whose brother was kept in custody in Egypt, along with whom they themselves, alarmed in mind and spirit, were tormented, as if squeezed by some kind of shackles of love. And when, having received their brother and recognized Joseph, and, moreover, having introduced Benjamin to his eyes, they return with joy, then it is said: They went up from Egypt and came to the land of Canaan to Jacob their father (Gen. 45:25). Then they say to their father: Joseph your son is alive and he rules over all the land of Egypt (Gen. 45:26). Indeed, the ascent from the simple and base to the complex and sublime of those who [go to] proclaim that Joseph lives and rules over all Egypt is necessarily indicated. Meanwhile, this is what [only] now occurred to us regarding the ascent and descent; on the basis of this, anyone who is zealous can collect from the Holy Scriptures a lot of evidence for such statements 194. 2. Let’s better see how we should perceive what is written: Joseph your son is alive (Gen. 45:26). I maintain that this is not said in a general manner. After all, if, for example, we assume that he allowed himself to be overcome by passion and sinned with his master’s wife (Gen. 39:7 et seq.), I do not think that the patriarchs announced about him to his father Jacob that your son Joseph is alive. For if he had done this, he would no doubt not have lived. For the soul that sins shall die (Ezek.18:4). Susanna also teaches this when she says: I feel cramped everywhere. For if I do this—that is, if I sin—death is mine; but if I do not, I will not escape your hands (Dan.13:22). So you see, she also posits death in sin. And the advice addressed by God to the first man contains the same thing in these words: And on the day that you eat of it, you will die (Gen. 2:17). For as soon as he violated the command, he died. Indeed, the soul that sinned has died, and the serpent is exposed as a lie, saying: You will not die the death (Gen. 3, 4). And this [refers] to what was said by the sons of Israel to Jacob: Joseph your son lives (Gen. 45:26). A similar thing to this is also related in the following [verses], when it says: And the spirit of Jacob their father revived. And Israel said: It is a great deal to me if Joseph my son is still alive (Gen. 45:27–28). What in Latin is said to “revive” (resuscitatus) the spirit, in Greek is written “ἀνεζω πύρησεν,” which means, as I would say, not so much “to revive” as “to kindle again” or “to kindle again” 195 . This is usually said when, for example, the fire in some thing is exhausted to the point that it seems to have gone out; and if, by chance, it is renewed by the added brushwood, it is said to have "ignited." Or when the light from the lamp reaches such a point that one must think that it has gone out, if it is revived by added oil, then, although in a less smooth syllable, it is said that the lamp has “ignited.” They speak in a similar way about lamps or other lamps of this kind. This means that this word, apparently, means something the same in Isaac, because while he was away from Joseph and his life was not announced to him, it was as if his spirit was exhausted in him and the light that was in him was already darkened due to lack of food; when those who announced the life of Joseph came, that is, who said that life was the light of men (John 1:4), he kindled his spirit within himself and the radiance of the true light was renewed in him. 3. But since the divine fire can sometimes go out even among the saints and the faithful, listen to how the Apostle Paul instructs those who are worthy to receive the gifts of the Spirit and grace, saying: Do not quench the Spirit (I Thess. 5:19). This means that since Jacob suffered something that, according to Paul’s instructions, should not happen, but restored himself by what was announced to him about the life of Joseph, it is said about him: And Jacob kindled his spirit and said to Israel: It is a great deal for me if my son Joseph is still alive (Gen. 45:27-28). However, it should also be noted that the one who kindled his almost seemingly extinguished spirit is called Jacob; and the one who says: It is a great thing for me if my son Joseph lives, as if understanding and seeing how great the life that is in the spiritual Joseph, it is written that he is no longer Jacob, but Israel, as one who sees with his mind the true life, which is the true God Christ. But he was excited not only because he heard that Joseph his son was alive, but also extremely because it was announced to him that he was ruler over all Egypt (Gen. 45:26). For it really meant a lot to him that he brought Egypt under his rule. For to trample on lust, avoid luxury, restrain and bridle all bodily lusts - this is to have dominion over all of Egypt. This is what is called many things in the eyes of Israel and serves to their surprise. If there is someone who, having conquered, in any case, some vices of the body, nevertheless yields and submits to others, it is not said about him that he completely owns the entire land of Egypt, but, for example, that he is the ruler of one, or perhaps two, or three cities. Joseph, over whom no bodily lust rules, was the ruler and lord of all Egypt. So, it is no longer Jacob who says, but Israel with a kindled spirit: It is a great deal to me if Joseph my son lives. I will go and see him before I die (Gen. 45:28). However, one cannot neglect the fact that [Scripture] calls not the soul, but the spirit as its best part, revived or kindled. After all, even if the radiance of the light that was in him did not completely go out when his sons showed him Joseph’s clothes, stained with goat’s blood, and he allowed himself to be deceived by them, so that he tore his clothes, and put sackcloth on his loins, and mourned his son, and did not want to be consoled at all, but said: I will go down to my son in the grave with sorrow (Gen. 37, 31-35), - even if then, as we said, the light in him did not completely go out, however, for the most part it was darkened, once he allowed himself to be tricked, once he tore his clothes, once he mourned in vain, once he begged for death, once he longed to descend with sorrow into the underworld. That is why now he revives and kindles his spirit, which was reasonable, so that the light, which the cunning of deception had darkened in him, would be kindled and strengthened by hearing the truth. 4. However, because we said that Jacob is the one who kindled his spirit, and Israel is the one who says: It is a great deal for me if my son Joseph is still alive (Gen. 45:28), and you can, starting from the place where it is written that He said to him: From now on your name will not be Jacob, but Israel, for you have wrestled with God, and have become strong with men (Gen. 32:28), walk through throughout Scripture and find the difference between these names. For example, when he says: Tell me Your name (Gen. 32:29), he, who does not know the name, is called not Israel, but Jacob. And where the patriarchs do not eat the sinew that is on the thigh (Gen. 32:32), it is said - not the sons of Jacob, but the sons of Israel. However, the one who, looking, saw that Esau was coming and with him four hundred people, and bowed down seven times (cf. Gen. 33:1.3) before the depraved and rude one and before the one who sold his birthright for one meal (cf. Gen. 25:33; Heb. 12:16), is called not Israel, but Jacob. And when he offers him gifts and says: If I have found favor in your sight, accept these gifts from my hands, for I have seen your face, as if someone had seen the face of God (Gen. 33:10), this was not Israel, but Jacob. And when he heard that Dinah his daughter had been defamed, it is not said Israel, but Jacob remained silent until his sons came (cf. Gen. 34:5). But you, as I said, will find something similar if you look closely. So, in today's reading, it is not Jacob, but Israel who says: It is much for me if my son Joseph is still alive (Gen. 45:28). But also, when he comes to the well of oath and makes a sacrifice to the God of his father Isaac (cf. Gen. 46:1), he is not called Jacob, but Israel. And if you ask why in a vision at night God does not address him: “Israel, Israel,” but: Jacob, Jacob (cf. Gen. 46:2), probably because it was night and he deserved to hear the voice of God only in a vision, and not in reality. And when he enters Egypt, it is said not Israel, but Jacob and his sons with him (cf. Gen. 46:6), and when he appears before Pharaoh (cf. Gen. 47:7) to bless him, he is called not Israel, but Jacob; so Pharaoh never received Israel's blessing. And it is Jacob, not Israel, who says to Pharaoh: The days of my life are short and miserable (cf. Gen. 47:9). At least this is something Israel would never say. But after this it is said not about Jacob, but about Israel, that he called his son Joseph and said to him: if I have found favor in your sight, put your hand under my lash, and you will show me mercy and righteousness (Gen. 47:29). And the one who bowed to the top of Joseph's rod (Gen. 47:31) was not Jacob, but Israel. Then, when he blesses the sons of Joseph (Gen. 48:14), he is called Israel. And when he calls his sons together, he says: Gather together, so that I will tell you what will happen to you in the days to come. Come together, sons of Jacob, and listen to Israel your father (Gen. 49:1-2). But you will probably ask why it is said that the sons of Jacob come together, but the one who blesses them is called Israel. See if this does not mean, by chance, that they have not yet succeeded enough to be equal to the merits of Israel. And therefore they are called the sons of Jacob, as external, and the one who was already perfect and, knowing about the future, gave blessings, is called Israel. Of course, it may seem like a big question why it is said that the Egyptian burials buried not Jacob, but Israel (Gen. 50:3). But I believe that this reveals the depravity of those who hate every concept of good and every insight of heavenly understanding, which, says [Scripture], Israel is buried, because for the wicked the saints died and were buried. Here is what we could mention that now comes to mind about the difference between Jacob and Israel. 5. Of course, after this it would be good to look closely and consider what God says to Israel himself in the vision and how He, strengthening and encouraging him, as if he were going into some battle, sends him to Egypt. For He says: Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt (Gen. 46:3), in other words: When you gather against the principalities and powers and against the rulers of this darkness of this world (cf. Eph. 6:12) - which is figuratively called Egypt 196 - do not be afraid, do not be alarmed. And if you want to know the reason why you should not be afraid, listen to My promise: For there I will make you a great nation, and I will go down with you to Egypt, and at the end I will bring you back from there (Gen. 46:3-4). So, he with whom God descends to battle is not afraid to go down to Egypt, he is not afraid to accept the battles of this world and the struggle of attacking demons. Finally, listen to the words of the Apostle Paul: “I have labored more than all of them,” he says, “not I, however, but the grace of God, which is with me (I Cor. 15:10). However, in Jerusalem, when an uprising was raised against him and he was enduring a most brilliant controversy for preaching the word of God, the Lord appeared to him and said the same thing that is now said to Israel: Do not be afraid, Paul, He says, for as you have testified about Me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome (Acts 23:11). However, I believe that there is something even more mysterious hidden in this place. For I am shocked by what He said: I will make you a great nation, and I will go down with you to Egypt, and at the end I will bring you back from there (Gen. 46:3-4). Who is this who became a great people in Egypt and was returned in the end? If we attribute this to this Jacob, about whom [this] is thought to be said, it will not turn out to be true. For he was not returned at the end: after all, he died in Egypt. But it would be nonsense if anyone said that God returned Jacob in this way, that his body was carried out [from Egypt]. If this is accepted, it will not be true that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matthew 22:32). This means that this should not be understood about a dead body, but must be proven in living and full-vigorated [people]. Let us see whether this, by chance, is not the image of either the descent of the Lord into this world and His transformation into a great people, that is, into the Church of the pagans, and His return after the fulfillment of everything to the Father, or the image of the primordial (cf. Wisdom 7:1), who descended into Egypt for battles, when he, deprived of heavenly bliss, is taken to the hardships and sorrows of this world, and is invited to fight the serpent in such words: You will bruise his head, and he will bruise your heel (cf. Gen. 3:15), - and again when he says to the woman: I will put enmity between you and him, and between your descendants and his descendants (cf. Gen. 3:15) 197. However, God does not abandon those who are assigned to this battle, but He is with them all the time. He accepts Abel, He reprimands Cain (Gen. 4:3–12); He is next to Enoch, who calls Him (Gen. 5:22); He instructs Noah to build an ark for salvation from the flood (Gen. 6:14); He leads Abraham out of his father's house and from his tribe (Gen. 12:1); He blesses Isaac (Gen. 25:11) and Jacob (Gen. 32:27.29); He leads the children of Israel out of Egypt (Ex. 14). Through Moses He writes the law in letters; through the prophets He fills in what is lacking. This is what it means to be with them in Egypt. And what He says: At the end I will bring you back from there (Gen. 46:4), this, I think, means, as we said above, that at the end of the ages 198 His Only Begotten Son for the salvation of the world descended even to the underworld (Eph. 4:9) and from there returned the first-created (cf. Wis. 7:1). For what He said to the thief: Today you will be with Me in Paradise (Luke 23:43), understand what was said not only to him, but also to all the saints, for whose sake He descended into the underworld. Thus, on him [Adam] more surely than on Jacob, what was said will be fulfilled: In the end I will bring you back from there (Gen. 46:4). 6. But each of us, in the same order and in the same way, enters Egypt and the struggle, and if he deserves that God will always be with him, He will make him a great people. For the quantity of virtues and the multitude of righteousness is a great nation, in which all the saints, as they are said of them, grow and multiply. For everyone, what has been said is also fulfilled: In the end I will bring you back from there (Gen. 46:4). Indeed, doing deeds and practicing virtues brings an end. Therefore, finally, some other saint said: Do not take me away in half my days (Ps. 101:25). And once again Scripture testifies to the great Patriarch Abraham that Abraham died full of days (Gen. 25:8). This means that in the end I will bring you out of there, it’s the same as if He said: Since you have fought a good fight, kept the faith, and completed your course (cf. II Tim. 4:7), I will return you from this world to the future bliss, to the perfection of eternal life, to the crown of righteousness, which the Lord will give at the end of the ages to all who love Him (cf. II Tim. 4:8; James 1:12). 7. Let's look at how we need to understand the words: And Joseph will put his hands on your eyes (Gen. 46:4). Many mysteries of inner meaning, it seems to me, are hidden under the cover of this expression, which [can be] touched upon and analyzed at another time. Meanwhile, now it does not seem meaningless to say that some of our ancestors decided that this, it turns out, indicated some kind of prophecy. Because it was from the tribe of Joseph that Jeroboam was the one who made two golden calves (cf. III Kings 12:28) in order to seduce the people to worship them, and with this, as if laying on his hands, he blinded and closed the eyes of Israel so that they would not see their wickedness, of which it is said: All this is for the wickedness of Jacob and for the sin of the house of Israel. What kind of wickedness is Jacob? Isn't it Samaria? (Mic. 1, 5). But if someone, perhaps, says that what was foretold by God in the form of piety should not be turned into a vicious side, 199 then we will say that the true Joseph - our Lord and Savior - just as he laid His bodily hand on the eyes of the blind and restored his lost sight, so he also laid His spiritual hands on the eyes of the scribes and Pharisees, blinded by their bodily understanding, and restored sight to them [the eyes], so that those to whom The Lord opens the Scriptures (cf. Luke 24:32), and spiritual vision and understanding would appear in the law. Oh, that the Lord Jesus would lay His hands on our eyes, so that we, too, would begin to notice not the visible, but the invisible (II Cor. 4:18), and would open our eyes, which see not the present, but the future, and would open to us the sight of the heart, by which God is seen in the spirit, through the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, to whom be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (Apoc.5:13). Homilia XVI. About what is written: And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians [each] sold their land to Pharaoh, for hunger overcame them. And the land became Pharaoh’s, and he enslaved the people from one end of Egypt to the other (Gen. 47, 20-21) 1. According to Scripture, no Egyptian is free. The fact is that Pharaoh enslaved his people and did not leave anyone free within Egypt, but freedom was abolished throughout Egypt. Therefore, it is probably written: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery (Ex. 20:2). Consequently, Egypt became a house of slavery. For although it is said of the Jews that they were enslaved and, deprived of their freedom, they accepted the yoke of domination, yet it is mentioned that they were taken there by force. Indeed, it is written that: the Egyptians abhorred the children of Israel and the Egyptians cruelly forced the children of Israel, and made their life bitter from hard work on clay and bricks and from all the work of the field, all of which they forced them to do (cf. Ex. 1: 12-24). Pay special attention to the fact that the Jews, as it is written, were enslaved by force; they had a natural freedom that was torn away from them not simply or with some trick, but with violence. Pharaoh, however, easily enslaved the Egyptian people, and it is not written that he did this by force. For the Egyptians are prone to an ignoble life and quickly fall into slavery to all sorts of vices. Consider the origin of their family, and you will find that their father Ham, having mocked the nakedness of [his] father (Gen. 9:22), deserved the conclusion of that family that his son Canaan would be a slave to his brothers (Gen. 9:25), so that his servile position would expose his bad morals. It is no coincidence, then, that the offspring that have changed their [skin] color depicts the baseness of the race 200. The Jews, on the contrary, even if they are enslaved, even if they suffer tyranny from the Egyptians, they endure by force and under duress. That is why they are freed from the house of slavery and return to the original freedom, which they lost against their will. Finally, even God’s laws warn that if someone accidentally buys a Jewish slave, he should not take him into eternal slavery, but that he should serve him for six years, and in the seventh year he should be set free (Ex. 21:2). Nothing of the kind is decreed against the Egyptians, and God's law does not even care for the Egyptian freedom, which they voluntarily lost, but leaves them under the eternal yoke of [their] condition and in constant slavery. 2. So, if we understand this spiritually, we will know what this Egyptian slavery is like, because to serve the Egyptians is nothing else than to become subject to carnal vices and to be subject to demons. In any case, everyone is forced to this not by necessity coming from outside, but by the relaxation of the spirit and the lustful lust of the body, to which the spirit succumbs due to carelessness. Whoever, however, cares about the freedom of the soul and in his thoughts extols the dignity of the heavenly mind, he is [one of] the sons of Israel. Even if he submits to violent pressure for a while, he does not lose his freedom forever. Finally, our Savior, discussing freedom and slavery in the Gospel, says this: Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin (John 8:34). And he also says: If you continue in My word, you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free (John 8:31.32). And if someone inadvertently objected to us: how is it said that the whole earth is transferred by Joseph to the possession of Pharaoh and all this slavery, which is taken, as we stated above, from a sinful state, is arranged for Pharaoh by a holy man? - we could answer this that the very word of Scripture justifies the act of the holy man, since it says that the Egyptians themselves sold themselves and their property (Gen. 47:20). This means that the blame does not fall on the manager where measures worthy of the managed are taken. For you will find that something similar happens with Paul, when he betrays to Satan the one who by the abomination of his actions has made himself unworthy of the fellowship of the saints, so that he learns not to blaspheme (cf. I Cor. 5:5; I Tim. 1:20). In this regard, no one, at least, will say that Paul acted cruelly by excommunicating a man from the Church and handing him over to Satan. But without any doubt, the blame falls on the one who, by his actions, deserved not to have a place in the Church, but who deserves to join the fate of Satan. So, it means that Joseph, not seeing in the Egyptians anything similar to the freedom of the Jews and the nobility of the Israelites, combined deserved slavery with worthy domination. I'll say even more. In God's distribution you will also find a somewhat similar act where Moses says: When the Most High divided the nations and determined the boundaries of the nations, he set them according to the number of the Angels of God, and Jacob became a part of the Lord, Israel became His inheritance (Deut. 32:8-9). You see that the leadership of angels is placed over each nation according to [its] merits, and the people of Israel become part of the Lord. 3. Then the following words follow: The Egyptians [each] sold their land to Pharaoh, for hunger overcame them (Gen. 47:20). And this, it seems to me, contains the censure of the Egyptians. Because it will not be easy for you to find in Scripture about the Jews that they were overcome by hunger. For although it is written that the famine increased on earth (cf. Gen. 43:1), it is not written that the famine overcame Jacob or his sons, as it is said about the Egyptians that their famine overcame them. After all, even if hunger comes to the righteous, it still does not overcome them; therefore they are glorified in it, just as Paul can be found boasting of this kind of suffering, saying: In hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness (cf. II Cor. 11:27). Consequently, what is an exercise in virtue for the righteous is a punishment for sin for the unrighteous. In the end, it is written about the time of Abraham that: there was a famine on the earth, and Abraham went down to Egypt to live there, because the famine intensified on the earth (Gen. 12:10). And if the word of the Divine Scripture were composed, as some think, imprudently and artlessly, it, of course, could say that Abraham went down to Egypt to live there, because hunger overcame him. But look with what prudence, with what prudence, the word of God is used. When talking about saints, it is said that the famine has increased on earth; when speaking about the unrighteous, he says that they themselves are overcome by hunger. So, neither Abraham, nor Jacob, nor their sons were overcome by hunger. But if it intensifies, it is said that it intensifies on earth. Nevertheless, it is written that in the time of Isaac: There was a famine on the earth, in addition to the former famine that was in the days of Abraham (Gen. 26:1). But hunger was so unable to overcome Isaac that the Lord said to him: Do not go to Egypt, but live in the land that I will show you, live in it, and I will be with you (Gen. 26:2-3). In accordance with this, as I think, observation, long after these times, the prophet said: I was young and old, and I did not see the righteous abandoned and his descendants asking for bread (Ps. 36:25). And in another place: The Lord will not allow the soul of the righteous to suffer hunger (Proverbs 10:3). From all this it becomes clear that only the earth and those who think about earthly things can endure famine (cf. Phil. 3:19). And for those whose food is to do the will of the Heavenly Father (cf. Matt. 7:21), and whose souls are nourished by the Bread that came down from heaven (cf. John 6:51.58), they can never suffer from lack of food during famine. And in connection with this, the Divine Scripture does not prudently say that hunger overcomes those who, as it knows, have the knowledge of God and partake of the food of heavenly wisdom. Yes, and in the Third Book of Kings you will find similar caution in the description of the famine, where, when the famine intensified on the earth, Elijah said to Ahab: As the Lord God of hosts lives, the God of Israel, before whom I stand! in these years there will be neither dew nor rain, except at the word of my mouth (III Kings 17:1), after which the Lord commands the raven to feed the prophet, and to drink water from the stream of Horath. And in Zarephath of Sidon the widow is again commanded to feed the prophet, so that the food that she had left for no more than one day will not be exhausted when consumed, and will be filled many times over when exhausted. For the tub of flour and the jug of oil, according to the word of the Lord, did not decrease, feeding the prophet (cf. III Kings 17:2). You will also find something similar in the time of Elisha, when the son of Jader, king of Syria, rose up against Samaria and besieged it: And there was, says [Scripture], a great famine in Samaria, so that a donkey’s head was sold for fifty shekels of silver, and a quarter of a cabbage of pigeon dung for five shekels (IV Kings 6:25). But suddenly an amazing change occurs according to the word of the prophet: Hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord: Tomorrow at this time a measure of fine flour will be a shekel, and two measures of barley will be a shekel at the gate of Samaria (IV Kings 7:1). So, you see what comes out of all this: when famine overcomes the earth, not only does it not overcome the righteous, but through them a remedy is rather provided against the threatening disaster. 4. Since you now see that in almost all places of Holy Scripture this kind of caution is carefully observed, turn them into a figurative and allegorical sense, which we learn from the words even of the prophets themselves. For one of the twelve prophets directly declares that we are talking openly and obviously about spiritual hunger, saying: Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will send a famine on the earth - not a famine of bread, not a thirst for water, but a thirst for hearing the words of the Lord ( Am. 8:11 ). Do you see what hunger overcomes sinners? Do you see how much hunger has increased on earth? For those who are from the earth and think about earthly things (cf. Phil. 3:19) and cannot accept what is from the Spirit of God (cf. I Cor. 2:14), they suffer from a thirst for the word of God, they do not listen to the commandments of the law, they do not know the reproaches of the prophets, they do not know the apostolic exhortations, they do not feel healing from the Gospel. And therefore it is deservedly said about such people that the famine increased on earth (Gen. 43:1). But for the righteous and for those who meditate on the law of the Lord day and night (cf. Ps. 1:2), wisdom prepares a table for herself, slaughters her sacrifices, dissolves her wine in a cup and calls with a loud voice (cf. Proverbs 9:2-6), not that everyone should come, not that the rich and the rich, and the wise of this world will turn to herself, but: if anyone, she says, - poor in mind, may they come to me (cf. Proverbs 9:4; Matthew 11:25.28); that is, if someone is humble in heart, who has learned from Christ to be meek and humble in heart (cf. Matt. 11:29) - which is elsewhere called the poor in spirit (cf. Matt. 5, 3; James 2:5), but rich in faith - these gather at the table of wisdom and, strengthened by its dishes, satisfy the hunger that is increasing on earth. So, beware lest you suddenly find yourself an Egyptian and be overcome by hunger, lest by chance you, occupied with worldly affairs, or bound by the shackles of greed, or dissolute from the extravagance of luxury, find yourself alienated from the food of wisdom, which is constantly offered in the churches of God. In fact, if you turn your ears away from what is either read or said in the Church, you will undoubtedly suffer from a thirst for the word of God. If you come from the Abrahamic branch and observe the nobility of the Israelite family, you are constantly nourished by the law, the Prophets and Apostles nourish you and offer you abundant feasts. Then the Gospels will call you to recline in the bosoms of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the Kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 8:11), where you would eat from the tree of life (cf. Apoc. 2:7) and drink wine from the true vine (cf. John 15:1), new wine with Christ in the Kingdom of His Father (cf. Matt. 26:29). For in this food the sons of the Bridegroom can neither fast nor experience hunger while the Bridegroom is with them (cf. Luke 5:34; Matt. 9:15) 201. 5. However, in the following [verses] it is said that the land of the Egyptian priests was not taken into the service of Pharaoh and they did not sell themselves along with the rest of the Egyptians, but that in addition they received either bread or gifts not from Joseph, but from Pharaoh himself, and therefore they, as those closest to him more than others, did not sell their land to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:22). But this shows that they are more unfit than others, they who, due to excessive closeness to Pharaoh, do not receive any change, but remain in bad possession. And just as the Lord says to those who are successful in faith and holiness: I no longer call you slaves, but friends (cf. John 15:15), so Pharaoh says to those who have reached the very last stage of worthlessness and disastrous priesthood: “I no longer call you slaves, but friends.” In general, do you want to know what distinguishes the priests of God from the priests of Pharaoh? Pharaoh allocates lands to his priests; and the Lord does not give His priests a portion on earth, but says to them: I am your portion (cf. Numbers 18:20). So, watch, those reading this, all the priests of the Lord and see how the priests differ, no matter how by chance they, having a part on earth and giving themselves to earthly occupations and concerns, turned out to be not so much the Lord's, but Pharaoh's priests. For the latter wants his priests to have land holdings and to look after the soil, not souls, and to apply diligence to the field, and not to the law. But let us listen to what Christ our Lord commands to His priests. Whoever does not renounce, He says, from everything he has cannot be My disciple (Luke 14:33). I say this with trepidation. For, first of all, I am my own, I say, my own accuser, I myself pronounce my verdict. Christ says that the one whom He saw owning something and who does not renounce everything he owns is not His disciple. What are we doing? How do we either read it ourselves or explain it to people, we who not only do not renounce what we own, but also want to acquire what we never had before we came to Christ? But can we, with our conscience convicting us, hide and not tell what is written? I don't want to become guilty of a double crime. I admit, before the listening people I openly admit that this is written, although I know that I have not yet fulfilled [this] 202. But, being at least admonished by these [words], let us hasten to fulfill, let us hasten to move from the priests of Pharaoh, whose possessions are earthly, to the priests of the Lord, of whom there is no part on earth, whose inheritance is the Lord (cf. Ps. 119:57). Such, indeed, was the one who said: As poor, but making many rich; as having nothing, but possessing everything (II Cor. 6:10). Paul is the one who is glorified in such [non-covetousness]. Do you want to hear what Peter also proclaims about himself? Listen to how he confesses together with John, saying: I have no gold and silver, but what I have, I give it to you. In the name of Jesus Christ, arise and walk (Acts 3:6). You see the riches of the priests of Christ, you see what and how much they give, having nothing. Such property cannot be conferred by earthly possessions. 6. We have compared priests with priests; now, if you want, let us also compare the Egyptian people with the people of Israel. For in the following [verses] it is said that after famine and slavery the Egyptian people will bring a fifth to Pharaoh (Gen. 47:24); however, in contrast [to this], the people of Israel bring tithes to the priests. Note that in this too, Divine Scripture relies on great reason. Note that the Egyptian people pay their rent in quintuple numbers: in fact, [this] designates the five bodily senses to which the carnal people are enslaved; for the Egyptians always trust in visible and corporeal things. And, on the contrary, the Israeli people honor ten - the number of perfection 203; indeed, he received ten words of the law and, strengthened by the power of the Decalogue, received from Divine generosity mysteries unknown to this world. Yes, and in the New Testament the number ten is revered in a similar way, and how spiritual fruit is described as growing by ten virtues (cf. Gal. 5:22), and how a faithful servant from the profit of his business brings ten minas to his master and receives ten cities to rule (cf. Luke 19:16-17). But since there is one Creator of all things, and one Source and Beginning - Christ, therefore the people give tithes to the ministers and priests, but bring the firstborn to the Firstborn of every creation (cf. Col. 1:15) and the firstfruits to the Firstfruits of all things, about whom it is written: He is the firstfruits ( Col. 1:18), the firstborn of every creation ( Col. 1:15). So, from all this, notice the difference between the people of Egypt and the people of Israel and between the priests of Pharaoh and the priests of the Lord and, studying yourself, see what kind of people you are from and what priestly rank you adhere to. If you are still a slave to carnal feelings, if you still pay taxes in quintuple and pay attention to the visible and temporary, but do not notice the invisible and eternal (cf. II Cor. 4:18) - know that you belong to the Egyptian people. If you constantly keep before your eyes the Decalogue of the Law and the Decade of the New Testament, which we mentioned above, and from them you bring tithes and slaughter the primary of your feelings in faith to the Firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18) and refer your firstfruits to the Firstfruits of all, then you are a true Israeli, in whom there is no guile (cf. John 1:47). However, even the priests of the Lord, if they study themselves and are free from earthly affairs and from worldly possessions, they can truly say to the Lord: Behold, we have left everything and followed You (Matthew 19:27), and hear from Him: You who have followed Me, in the end of all things, when the Son of Man comes in His kingdom, you too will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes Israel (Matthew 19:28). 7. After this, let's see what Moses says: And Israel lived in Egypt, in the land of Goshen (Gen. 47:27). Goshen is translated “closeness” or “approaching”. This shows that although Israel lived in Egypt, he was not far from God, but was close to Him and united with Him, as He Himself says: I will go down with you to Egypt and will be with you (Gen. 46:4; 26:3). This means, even if it turns out that we also descended into Egypt, even if, being in the flesh, we endure the battles and battles of this world, even if we live among those who enslaved Pharaoh, however, if we are close to God, if we are meditating on His commandments and studying His decrees and laws (cf. Deut. 12:1) - for to meditate on God and seek God (cf. Phil. 2:21) this is to be always near God 204 - then God will always be with us, through Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen (cf. Gal. 1:5). Karsavin L.P. Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. (Disclosure of Orthodoxy in their creations). M., 1994. P. 40. Losev A. F. History of ancient aesthetics. Late Hellenism. T.VI. M., 1980. P. 83. Meyendorff J. Le Christ dans la théologie byzantine. Paris, 1969. R. 62. Soloviev Vl. Origen // Brockhaus-Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. St. Petersburg, 1897 et seq. T. XXII. P. 144. Kraft H. Texte der Kirchenväter. Munich, 1966, pp. 393–394. In this regard, the French learned biography of Origen, P. Notin, whose chronology we mainly adhere to, notes that when examining his errors, one must remember that from the lips of the heretic Paul, Origen could first perceive the Gnostic and pagan philosophical ideas that formed the basis of his doctrinal errors. Nautin P. Origene. Sa vie et son oeuvre. Paris, 1977. P. 415. On the debated issue in science about two Origens and two Ammoni, see a very detailed article: Seregin A.V. On the issue of two Origens // BT 42. M., 2009. pp. 44–86. Trubetskoy S.N. The doctrine of Logos in its history / Trubetskoy S.N. Works. M., 1994. P. 153. The question of including the Hebrew text itself in Gezzapla has been debated in the literature. On the problem of identifying Hippolytus and his works, see Tkachenko A.A. Hippolytus of Rome // PE. T. XXVI. pp. 202–222. Nautin P. Hippolyte et Josipe: contribution à l’histoire de la littérature chrétienne du troisiéme siécle. P. 1947. Conversation with Heraclides 2 and others. See Nautin P. Origéne... P. 418. Note 25. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical history VI, 15. See fragment preserved in Origen's Apology. PG 17, 544 C. See Origéne. Philocalie, 1–20. Sur les Écritures. SC 302. pp. 406–413. Characteristic is Origen's call to consider whether a moral, physical or theological problem can be properly represented without the precision of concepts revealed in accordance with the laws of language (κατὰ τὸν λογικὸν τόπον).” Ibid. P. 408. A convincing reconstruction of the cycle was carried out by Nothen: op.cit. P. 389–401. Jerome. Excerpts from the Psalter. Preface. PL Suppl. II. P. 30. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History VI, 39, 5. Philokalia (“Philokalia”, that is, “love of beauty”) - in this case, the most liked passages from the works of Origen, collected by St. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian as part of their acquaintance with the legacy of the great Alexandrian in the library of Caesarea Palestine after completing their studies at the Athens Pagan Academy. Publication: SC No. 226 and 302. Rus. lane among the works of the blessed one. Jerome: Translation of two discourses of Origen on the book of Song of Songs. Creations of the blessed Hieronymus of Stridon. Part 6 / Library of the works of St. Fathers and Teachers of the Western Church, published at the Kyiv Theological Academy. Book 11. K., 1880. pp. 137–174. Rus. Transl.: Origen. Eight homilies on Isaiah (translated from Latin by M. G. Kalinin, edited by A. G. Dunaev) // BT 45. M., 2013. pp. 11–64. Rus. lane 10th and 11th volumes: Origen. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Books 10–11 (preface, translation and notes by A. V. Seregin) // BT 41. M., 2007. P. 20–84. Rus. lane Volume I, Ch. I–XX: Origen. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Prev., trans. and note A. G. Dunaeva // BT 38. M., 2003. P. 97–119; of all extant volumes: Origen. Interpretation of the Gospel of John (translation, commentary and foreword by O. I. Kuliev). St. Petersburg: Publishing house RKhGA, 2018. Rus. trans.: ibid. pp. 168–229. Rus. lane books 1–4: Origen. Against Celsus. Per. from Greek L. Pisareva. Educational and information ecumenical center ap. Paul, 1996. Book 5. Trans. from Greek A. R. Fokina // Theological collection of PSTBI. Vol. 2. M., 1999. pp. 47–62. Rus. Transl.: On prayer and Exhortation to martyrdom. Works of the Church teacher Origen. Per. and note N. Korsunsky. St. Petersburg, 1897, pp. 6–164. Rus. Transl.: On the Elements, the work of Origen, teacher of Alexandria. Transl., note. and will join. Art. N. Petrova. Novosibirsk, 1993 (reprint). Rus. trans.: Letter of Origen to St. Gregory the Wonderworker / Works of Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea. Per. prof. N. Sagardy. Petrograd, 1916. pp. 53–56. Παπαδοπούλου Στ. Γ. Πατρολογία. Τ. Α′. Αθήνα, 1997. Σ. 398–399. Origen. About the beginnings. IV, 14 (based on the text of Philocalia). C. 290. Right there. IV, 6 (based on the text of Philocalia). Decree. ed. P. 273. Right there. IV, 11. 12 (according to the text of Philocalia). pp. 283–285. Right there. IV, 12. 13 (according to the text of Philocalia). pp. 286–288. Original see: Origéne. Traite des principles. T.III. SC 268. Paris, 1980. P. 322–324. See our article: Asmus M., diak. Origen and his Homilies on the book of Genesis. Thematic connections with sources // Theological collection of PSTBI No. 12. M., 2003. P. 94–127. Tradition also tells about the Alexandrian Jew Aristobulus, who wrote c. 175 BC for Ptolemy VII Philometor “Ἐξηγήσεις” - an allegorical interpretation of the Pentateuch. About the sublime. Transl., articles and notes. N. A. Chistyakova. M., 1966. P. 19. Losev A. F. Decree. Op. P. 106. Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum. 1. Catena Sinaitica. Turnhout, 1977. S. XV. La Bible d'Alexandrie, I. La Genése. Paris, 1986. R. 86. Kerygma Petri. Fr. 2 // TU XI, 1. R. 18. Clement of Alexandria. Stromata VI, 7, 58. St. Petersburg, 2003. Greek. text: p. 123–124. Our translation. Philo of Alexandria. On the creation of the world according to Moses 36 / Philo of Alexandria. Interpretations of the Old Testament. M., 2000. P. 57. Here we are forced to challenge the main provisions of the study by O. E. Nesterova: Allegoria pro typologia. Origen and the fate of allegorical methods of interpreting Holy Scripture in the early patristic era. M., 2006. The author proceeds from a strictly logical sequence, in which recognition of an allegory in the text entails a rejection of its literal understanding. However, in Origen’s exegetical practice, all three senses of Scripture exist quite autonomously, revealing different spheres of existence, sometimes not even intersecting with each other. Philo Alexandrinus. Quaestiones et solutions in Genesin IV, 24 / Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. No. 34 b. Paris, 1984. “This is the case when we need to say together with St. Jerome (In Isaiam, 5): Ubi bene Origénes, nemo melius. “Where Origen does it well, no one [can do it better].” Origéne. Homélies sur la Genése. SC No. 7 bis. Paris, 1976. R. 212. (Publisher's note.) Philo Alexandrinus. De Abrahamo 169–172 / Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. No. 20. Paris, 1966. John Chrysostom. Discourse 47 on the book of Genesis/Creations of our holy father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, in Russian translation. T. IV, book. 2. pp. 518–526. Roman the Sweet Singer, St. Kontakion on the Sacrifice of Abraham (Russian translation by M. V. Asmus) // Theological collection of PSTBI. Vol. VIII. M., 2001. pp. 261–268. See Pavel (Cheremukhin), priest. Council of Constantinople 1157 and Nicholas, Bishop of Metho // BT 1. M., 1960. P. 87–109. In the acts of the council there are references to the holy fathers who theologized about the Sacrifice of the Cross. Wed. Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. VI, 11, 84. Decree. ed. pp. 48–49. Philo Alexandrinus. Legum allegoriae II, 11 / Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. Vol. 1. Berlin, 1896. P. 61–169. Philo Alexandrinus. Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim V, 94; 100 / Les œuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie. No. 34 b. Paris, 1984. Reconstruction by P. Noten. Op. cit. 389–412. All links to sources are there. Petrov N. Origen’s essay “On the Principles”. Historical-critical essay // On the beginnings, an essay by Origen, teacher of Alexandria. Transl., note. and will join. Art. N. Petrova. Novosibirsk, 1993 (reprint). pp. 9–10. On Origen’s traditional church understanding of the eternity of torment, see the quotation from K. I. Skvortsov’s Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew: The Philosophy of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church (The Period of Ancient Church Apologists). Kyiv, 2003 (reprint). P. 390. "Soul" appears in a similar context in Didymus the Blind. On Genesis I, 57: Didyme l'Aveugle. Sur la Genese. SC 233. Paris, 1981. Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim I, 4; De opificio mundi secundum Moisen 69. Above. ed. λήμης ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς. Λόγος προτρεπτικός X, 98, 4 / ΒΕΠΕΣ 7–8. Ἀθῆναι, 1956. In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Origen completes the outlined hierarchy with one more element - the human soul of Christ: Origéne. Philocalie 21–27. Sur le libre arbitre. SC 226. Paris, 1976. P. 218. Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim, IV, 2. Above. ed. Justin Philosopher. Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. 56, 1–22. Rus. Transl.: Works of Saint Justin the Philosopher and Martyr. M., 1892. pp. 219–225. For example, Cyril of Alexandria. Catena Sinaitica G 74 (= PG 68, col. 173 C15–D6). Above ed. This interaction is seen in Philo, then in Theophilus of Antioch and Clement of Alexandria. See Festugiére P. Divinisation du chrétien // Vie Spirituelle, 1939. P. 97 et ss. For more information on Origen's influence on Eastern and Western monasticism, see J. Daniélou's essay “La mystique d'Origéne” in his popular book: Origène. Paris, 1948, pp. 287–301. See Sidorov A.I. Exegetical works of Origen: homilies / Patristics. Works of the Church Fathers and patrolological studies. N. Novgorod, 2007. pp. 276–277. Origene. Homélies sur la Genèse. SC, no. 7 bis. Paris, 1976. R. 7. (Introduction.) Le fragment grec de l’Homélie II d’Origéne sur la Genése. Critique du texte // Revue d’Histoire des Textes. T. 77. Paris, 1975. P. 13–44. The rejection of the temporal understanding of the “beginning” and its correlation with Wisdom (Prov. 8:22) and Logos (Ps. 33:6) (that is, instrumentally: Thou hast created all things with wisdom) is already present in the rabbinic tradition: the Palestinian Targum (in the hand of Neofiti) offers a double translation: “in the beginning, in wisdom,” and the second version is older; in the same text, the “word of Yahweh” is constantly called the Creator of the world (see Targum du Pentateuque. I. Genese. SC 245. Paris, 1978. P. 74–5. Ibid.: notes 1, 2 and 5). Philo, also denying the temporal meaning of the “beginning” (De Opif. 26), affirms the creation of the world of ideas “in the Logos” (36) (Philo of Alexandria. Interpretations of the Old Testament. M., 2000. P. 54–7). Christian authors correlate the “beginning” with the teachings of John. 1, 3 All That Was: Justin. Apol. 59, 1; Irenaeus. Dem. 42; Clement. Page VI, 7. Origen is closest to the latter. The theme of "beginning" is discussed at length by Origen in Comm. in Iohannem I, 94–124 and partially echoes the above interpretations, however, in this place of the Homily, the idea of ​​​​the pre-existence of the intelligible world in the Divine Logos, coming from Philo, retreats before the instrumental understanding of the Beginning. In the different readings of the manuscript for this place erit (will) / erat (was) the publishers prefer the future. The present tense of the devil ( habitant ) appears in § 2 in the context of spiritual interpretation and does not clarify whether Origen could have thought about the devil's presence in a pre-temporal abyss. Moreover, the future fits perfectly with the parable of the Last Judgment in Matt. 25 (eternal fire prepared for the devil). However, we must not lose sight of the fact that St. Basil the Great, who took up arms against “some who imagined the abyss as a multitude of opposing forces” (Conversation II on the Six Days), could have had precisely this reading of Origen in mind. Of the options proposed by Philo (De Opif. 26) (time is either contemporary with the world or younger than it), Origen chooses the second, completely abandoning Philo’s philosophical interpretation of “one day” as an expression of the monad (Ibid. 15 and 35). St. Basil the Great, in Discourse I on the Sixth Day, tries to apply those developed by Origen in Comm. in Iohannem meanings of the word “beginning” to Gen. 1, 1 as a result, in one sense, the world was created in time, in another – not in time (Creations. Book 1. M., 1845. P. 9–11). See about “one day” in his Conversation II (Ibid. pp. 37–39). The distinction between heaven and firmament, as well as then between earth and land, between internal man (created in the image) and external man (created from dust), undoubtedly comes from Philo (De Opif. 36), who here connects the word “firmament” (sterema) with the concept of “volumetric, spatial” (stereon), in contrast to the immaterial idea of ​​“sky”. Origen (or Rufinus: “firm and durable” may be a translation doublet), although he hears in the “firmament” the concept of “solid” (St. Basil also testifies to this meaning: Conversation V) and therefore capable of dividing waters, he learns the main thing that this is a characteristic of the bodily. According to Origen, every creature has a body, each with its own special one (De Princ. II, 2, 2). The idea of ​​a pre-temporal intelligible world in our Homily is limited by Origen to the interpretation of the first “heaven” as “every spiritual substance”, which in the context of § 13 is even more narrowed to the world of human souls or even the souls of the righteous (based on the same saying of Isaiah), that is, it is carried out inconsistently. The first “earth, darkness, light, water” are not mentioned at all. The difference between the verbs of vision is not accidental: the Greeks traditionally brought together ouranos - sky with horos - limit or horao - to see (see Plato. Resp. VI, 509 d; Philo. De Opif. 37; St. Basil. Conversation V). The spiritualism of the previous paragraphs here, in the interpretation of the firmament, which receives the name of heaven, turns into a completely biblical anthropological monism, based on a quote from I Cor. 15, where the division is not between body and soul, but between the soul-body and the spiritual. Attracting Phil. 3:20, not convincing in itself, begins to sound taking into account the context of the next verse: Christ will transform our lowly body so that it will be like His glorious Body... (v. 21) Cf. below in the same vein: the dry land, which receives the name of earth, symbolizes “our deeds completed in the body.” Wed. also § 13. The same idea is expressed in more detail in Hom. in Num. 26, 5 (SC 29. P. 505–506). This digression, based on the contamination of the parable of the sower and the parable of the vine, like the digression in § 7, is devoted to the degrees of spiritual perfection of man. Origen repeatedly returns to this theme in the Homilies on Genesis, comparing the images of Noah and animals (II, 3), Abraham and Lot (IV, 1), Isaac and Ishmael (VII, 2), Rebecca and camels (X, 2), etc. A peculiar hierarchy permeates all of Origen’s ideas: triadological, cosmological, anthropological and, here, mystical. Wed. ecclesiology of the following paragraphs. The mystical hierarchy of Christ - the Church of saints (apostles and sons of the Day) - walking in the night of ignorance, bearing a certain Gnostic overtones, gave impetus to the development of the idea in Ps. – Dionysius in his Church Hierarchy. The list of “stars” is limited to the Old Testament righteous, since the apostles already constitute the Church (the moon). In Origen's view, the Old Testament righteous stand apart from the Church; they, along with the guardian angels, were sent down to earth for the sake of teaching, for the purposes of Divine economy. See De Princ. II, 9, 7. The image of the ascension, then used by St. Gregory of Nyssa in the Life of Moses, becomes typical of Christian mysticism. The synergistic principle in the matter of human salvation also attracts attention. This digression, showing the degrees of intellectual enlightenment by the Sun-Christ, goes against the above hierarchy, establishing a direct personal contact of each person with Christ. See Harl M. Origéne et la fonction révélatrice du Verbe incarné. Paris, 1958. P. 244 et ss. An example of an interpretation that is inconsistent, from the point of view of the “letter,”: just now (§ 2) the lower waters appeared in a negative sense, but here they are thought of neutrally, as a kind of primal substance, the source of all subsequent development. Origen periodically tries to systematize and, thereby, objectify the exegetical process (cf. the theme of wells in Homilies VII, X, XI, XIII and XIV on Genesis), but he is not always able to maintain his system to the end. Most of all, the interpreter is concerned with moral conclusions, which he sometimes comes to in the most unexpected ways. The list of specific sins and virtues given by Origen, reflecting to a certain extent the moral state of his audience, at the same time lays the foundations of Christian asceticism, which found a lively response in the era that followed the end of the persecution, among the emerging monasticism - this new form of Christian witness, the indispensable conditions of which even to this day are considered: celibacy, non-covetousness and absolute self-denial (obedience). In his life, Origen himself had to choose three times between the indicated sins and virtues and, we must give him his due, was not unsuccessful. This place reflects Origen’s idea of ​​universal harmony, which presupposes the harmonious action of all, even opposing beings, striving towards a single goal under the guidance of Divine Wisdom. See De Princ. II, 1, 2; III, 5. In Num. IX, 2. …fierent jussu Dei per Verbum ejus: the construction with per presupposes the “Word” in the hypostatic sense. The idea of ​​creation through the Logos takes us back again to the beginning of the Homily (see above); here Origen introduces a distinction between creation through the Logos by command and the Father's own participation. See below. The idea of ​​"microcosm" goes back to Aristotle (Phys. 8, 2, 252 b 26). Philo also often turns to her. Here Greek and biblical thought naturally come together. The likening of animals to passions goes back to Plato (Phaedr. 246) and Philo (Leg. All. II, 11 et 14). Dominion over animals, interpreted as dominion over the passions, is found in Philo (De Opif. 84–85). Wed. further in Didymus (In Gen. I, 26–28) and in Ambrose (De Paradiso 11, 51). Formally, this is not so: God is credited with the creation (or creation) of the firmament, whales, animals, cattle and reptiles. Moreover, the LXX text in Gen. 1 does not distinguish between the Hebrew verbs “to create” and “to create.” However, Origen’s selection is not justified by the Hebrew original: in it, heaven and earth, whales and birds and man are “created” (in v. 27); and the firmament, the stars, the animals, and again man are “created” (in v. 26). The interpreter, obviously aware of this distinction, forgot or did not want to remember - for the sake of consistency of interpretation - the actual distribution of creations into two classes. Here Origen appeals to the distinction between the Greek verbs ποιέω and πλάσσω, which allows him to dissect man into his component parts and even draw far-reaching conclusions about the different times of “creation” and “creation.” Origen's attack on the anthropomorphic concept of God is repeated by St. John Chrysostom in both series of his Conversations on Genesis when interpreting this passage (Creations... Vol. 4, book 1, pp. 62–3 and book 2, pp. 737–8), although with a different argument. In addition, the image of God in man, according to Chrysostom, consists of dominion, that is, the similarity of the Divine function, and not in the property of essence, as in Origen. The influence of Philo (De Opif. 69) on the plan of the argument is undeniable: the order of the argument is almost the same. See Preface. The idea of ​​perfection as likeness to the Logos goes back to Clement (Protr. XII, 122, 4; Paed. I, XII, 98, 2; Str. II, VIII, 38, 5, etc.). According to Origen, sin does not destroy the image of God in man, but darkens it. Origen’s distinction between masculine and feminine in man does not always pass between spirit and soul: in Homily IV on Genesis, Abraham means rational feeling, Sarah means flesh (§ 4); in Homily V Lot is the rational sense, Lot's wife is also flesh (§ 2). On this issue, Philo is more consistent: Abraham and Sarah mean the virtuous and his virtue, and Lot and his wife mean mind and feeling (Quaestiones et Solutiones in Genesim IV, 13 et 52. Paris, 1984). Wed. § 8, where birds are contrasted with reptiles as good thoughts to evil ones. Here the interpreter focuses on the idea of ​​dominion and, appealing to his own interpretation and distinguishing between spiritual-heart and carnal manifestations, no longer distinguishes birds from a number of other creatures: a clear example of the relativity of the allegorical commentary. Origen's Homily II On Noah's Ark does not reach this point. The Alexandrian either did not pronounce a homily for this passage, or its text has not survived. The idea of ​​the synergy of God and man in the matter of salvation is again expressed. See above § 7 and note. The description of the number of storeys of the ark - two at the bottom and three at the top - textually and in meaning diverges from the quite clear presentation of the Seventy: κατάγαια, διώροφα καὶ τριώροφα ποιήσεις αὐτήν ( you will make it with the lower, second and third floors), but it corresponds to the rabbinic tradition of interpretation, which Origen reproduces below. Origen considers the coming of the Son of God to earth to be the end of the ages. Wed. a similar place in Homily XV, 5. The meaning of the paragraph becomes clearer when referring to the Greek text of the Holy Scripture: the door on the side of the ark - ἐκ πλαγίων (Gen. 6, 16), you will go against Me - πλάγιοι (Lev. 26, 27-28). Rufinus tried to convey, as far as possible in Latin, this comparison: on the side - e latere ex transverso, against - perversi. Moral fragmentation (multiplex) is contrasted here with integrity (unus). In the corresponding fragment of commentaries or scholia on Genesis, Origen argues with the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bschmch. Meliton of Sardis, contained in the title of his lost work On the fact that God is clothed with a body - Περὶ τοῦ ἐνσώματον εἶναι τὸν Θεόν (PG 12, 93 AB). Evidence of the pronouncement of the homily immediately after reading a passage of Holy Scripture (see also p. 167, note 1). The theme of the relationship between God's providence and human free will was examined in detail by Origen in other works, the most expressive passages of which were collected by the Cappadocians in chapter. 21–27 Philocalia. See: Origène. Philocalie 21–27. Sur le libre arbitre. SC 226. Paris, 1976. Origen's reasoning reproduces St. Basil the Great: On the Sixth Day, conversation 2, 7. SC 26. P. 173. Behind this conclusion lies the mystical idea of ​​removing those who are spiritually improving from human society, introduced into circulation by Philo: De Abrahamo 87 / Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. No. 20. Paris, 1966. Philo drew attention to the use in Holy Scripture of the word πρεσβύτερος in a figurative sense - regarding the mind: Quaestiones et solutions in Genesin IV, 14 / Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. No. 34 b. Paris, 1984. This reasoning is repeated by St. Ambrose of Milan: De Abrahamo II, 78. CSEL 32, 1. P. 630. For development of thought, see Commentary on Romans 2, 12. PG 14. Col. 898 et ss. Origen mocks the self-name of the Judeo-Christian sect “Ebionites,” which comes from a Hebrew word meaning “poor.” Origen also speaks about the Ebionites in: Against Celsus II, 1. SC 132. P. 280. According to Origen, the Ebionites are “little different” from the carnal Jews: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew ΧΙ, 12. GCS X. P. 52. According to the Stoics, everything in the human form is designed not only to satisfy needs, but also for beauty. See fragments from Cicero in: SVF II, 1165–1167. Origen quotes verbatim the Hebrew original Ex. 6, 30. In the surviving Hexapla passages, none of the literalist translations support this reading. The use of the concept of circumcision of various members of the body as a metaphor for continence in various senses goes back to Philo: Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim III, 47 / Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. No. 34 b. Paris, 1984. The singular pronoun in this quotation is recorded only in one minuscule manuscript of the apostle Atous Laurae B 64, but it is very characteristic of the worldview of Origen, who repeatedly uses the expressions “my Savior,” “my Christ,” “my Jesus.” See Bertrand F. Mystique de Jésus chez Origène. Paris, 1951, pp. 147–148. There are also links to other works of Origen. The change of subject is reconstructed according to Gen. 13, 8. Origen points out that the replica belongs to Abram, and not to Lot, in Homily V, 1 (see below). The borrowing of the comparative analysis of Abraham and Lot is clearly evidenced by an almost exact quotation from Philo: δὲ Λὼτ δύο καὶ ἑσπέρας. Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim IV, 14 / Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. No. 34 b. Paris, 1984. The translator Rufinus made this note so that the reader could more easily perceive the mystical interpretation of these loaves at the end of the paragraph. The thought, close to the text, reproduces the corresponding remark of Philo: De Abrahamo 108–109 / Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie. No. 20. Paris, 1966. R. 69. The allegory of the “mysterious bread” is more fully revealed by Origen in the Homilies on Leviticus XIII, 3. PG 12. Col. 547–548. This is the knowledge of faith in God, the sacraments of Christ and the unity of the Holy Spirit. Philo has a more general interpretation of the word ἐπάνω: “God is above everything.” Quaestiones et solutionses in Genesim IV, 2. None of the interpreters appeals to the second meaning of the Hebrew preposition - “about”; both are interested only in the allegorical meaning of the Septuagint text. With this, Origen argues for his foresight in not accepting Philo’s interpretation of the appearance of God and His two Powers to Abraham: Royal and Creative. See Preface. A reference to the previous Homily, which dealt with the metaphorical interpretation of circumcision. The Holy Spirit does not want to “tell stories”; He hides His instructions under the veil of history for those who agree to look for them there. See below Homilies VI, 3; VII, 1 and 6; X, 2 and 4; XV, 1. Philo has a different interpretation of Abraham and Sarah - the virtuous man and his virtue. Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim IV, 13. Wed. above Homilia III, 3 and note. This refers to the Marcionites, who contrasted the cruel and imperfect God of the Old Testament with the good and all-perfect God of the New. Origen also responds to this objection of Marcion in Homilies on Jeremiah I, 8. SC 232. P. 225. In this place, Origen prefers the mystical understanding of the knowledge of God, that is, personal contact between the Living God and man, to his usual argument against anthropomorphism. Therefore, towards the end of the argument, he insists on God's knowledge of man, and not of his works. In Excerpts on Psalms 1, 6, when interpreting the verse For the Lord is the way of the righteous, Origen is forced to make a more general conclusion: “God does not know and does not know evil, not because He is not able to embrace and embrace everything in His thought (it would be impious to even think so about God), but because evil is not worthy of His knowledge.” PG 12. Col. 1100. This hyperbole of Origen (the accusation of unnatural relations, for which the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah received punishment from God, clearly cannot be applied to Lot, cf. Jude 1: 7) stems from the comparison of Abraham and Lot inherited from Philo. See the previous Homily and below in this Homily. Behind these words lies a polemic with the Jewish exegetical tradition, which took the prophet’s promise literally and did not distinguish between the two comparisons of Sodom in Gen. 13, 10. For Origen's more detailed explanation of his position, see Homilies on Ezekiel 12, 3. PG 13. Col. 743. There is also a spiritual interpretation of the prophecy. Origen is ready to excuse the “vessel of infirmity” in a literal reading, just as he partially excuses Lot’s daughters below. The excess of punishment in his eyes is a signal for an allegorical interpretation. In this interpretation, Origen departs from Philo, who understands Lot as mind, and his wife as feeling (Quaest. IV, 52). Wed. also Homilia IV, 4 and note. Origen brings together two disparate sayings of the Savior: the first speaks of the moral steadfastness of the believer, the second refers to the end of the world, like the flood under Noah and the destruction of Sodom under Lot. But in both contexts there is an idea of ​​not reversing. The partial justification of both Lot and his daughters has a long tradition among Christian authors: sschmch. Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, St. John Chrysostom, bl. Theodoret, St. Ambrose, blessed Jerome and St. Augustine (for references, see the French edition of Homilies. SC 7 bis. P. 168–169, note). However, Philo already excused them with the same words, deducing a completely positive allegory from this situation: Lot is reason, his two daughters are reflection and agreement, which cannot exist without reason (Quaest. IV, 56). In his allegorical and moral interpretation of Lot and his daughters, Origen departs from Philo's scheme, and also polemicizes with other Christian interpretations, offering his own: see below. The remark belongs to the Latin translator. Blzh. has similar reasoning. Augustine: Ennar. in Ps. 59, 10 (PL 36, 720); Contra Faustum 22, 41 (PL 42, 426). The reading "garlic (allia)" instead of "pots (ollas)" is reconstructed by Fr. L. Dutrello according to Num. 11, 5 (according to the Seventy). Since all the manuscripts without exception contain ollas, the publisher assumes that a copyist's error has already crept into the archetype. The reasoning is based on the etymological convergence of πóλις with πολίτευμα and πολλοὶ (cf. Plato. Republic II, 11), relevant for the Greek reader, but disappearing in translation. Philo interprets this passage somewhat differently (Quaest. IV, 47), but both interpreters are quite satisfied with the incomprehensible reading of the Septuagint “the city is small and not small” as a signal of the need for allegorical interpretation. The Hebrew reading: “the city is small, isn’t it small” does not give rise to the use of the allegorical method. Quoting from memory, Origen makes a mistake with the correspondence of the daughters to the lands: for the prophet, Oola is correlated with Samaria, and Ooliva with Jerusalem. In the Commentary on Song of Songs II (PG 13, 137 A) Origen gives the correspondence correctly. Recitata est nobis ... again indicates that the sermon is delivered shortly after the reading of Holy Scripture, and is read by someone other than the preacher, who listens with everyone to the word of God, and then takes his teaching place (see also p. 125, note 2). Violation of the gender hierarchy established by God in Genesis. 3, 16, for Origen means only one thing: the need for allegorical understanding. See the same thing in Philo: Quaest. III, 53 and IV, 60–61. Wed. Philo has a similar reasoning: Quaest. IV, 60. On natural philosophy in its relation to the law of God, see below Homily XIV, 3. The polemic with defenders of the literal understanding of the Scriptures runs like a red thread through the interpretations of Origen, who sees in them a threat of reducing Christianity from a spiritual religion to forms of a dead religion. See below, also Homily XIII, 3. The allegorical understanding of food is present before the New Testament Scriptures in Philo: De somniis II, 10 / Les œuvres de Philon d’ Alexandrie. Paris, 1962. Favorite quote from Gal. 4, 21–22, so necessary for Origen to substantiate the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, is given here in its entirety, since it was pronounced by the apostle in connection with the passage from Genesis discussed in the Homily. Along the way, Origen argues that the allegorical interpretation does not cancel the literal one, but is simply necessary where literal understanding is difficult. See de Lubac H. Histoire et Esprit. Paris, 1950. Ch. III and IV, as well as our remark regarding O. Nesterova’s research in the Preface. A good example of Origen's imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew language, as well as the delivery of sermons without prior preparation: in the original Gen. 21:9 Ishmael was caught mocking Isaac, which in the transmission of the Seventy turned into playing with Isaac. In this light, Origen’s bewilderment regarding the completely organic interpretation of the situation by the Apostle Paul (mockery as persecution), as well as the entire allegorical interpretation built on this bewilderment, do not look sufficiently thorough. The mention of pagan persecution is of a very specific nature: the homilies were pronounced by Origen shortly after the end of the persecution of Maximinus the Thracian (235–238), the threat of renewed persecution constantly hung over the Church, Origen himself would suffer during the persecution of Decius (after 250). Wed. also Homilia VIII, 8. The entire Homilia XIII is dedicated to the Wells of Isaac. See below. The opposition of skin water and well water allows Origen here to contrast the literal and spiritual (allegorical) interpretations of Scripture using the New Testament perspective. Elsewhere, Origen depends more closely on Philo, who interprets water as the source of the Divine mind (Quaest. V, 94, 100). This Homily is considered one of the most elegant: built on the conflict between paternal feelings and the duty of loyalty to God, it reveals another side of the personality of Origen, sensitive to psychological details and capable of empathy. In the introductory note to the Homily, the French editor (P. 212–213) gives a long list of ecclesiastical writers who were influenced by this text of Origen - Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Bede the Venerable, Claudius of Turin. Regarding the typology of Isaac in ancient Christian writing, he also makes a reference to Daniélou J. Sacramentum futuri. Paris, 1950. P. 97–128 (Russian translation: Jean Danielou. The Sacrament of the Future. M.: Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2013). Let us add on our own that the first author to develop a psychological picture of Abraham’s experiences was Philo (De Abrahamo. 169–172). Origen's merit lies in the Christianization of this interpretation through a typological interpretation of the sacrifice of Isaac as a prototype of the Savior's Sacrifice on the Cross. The whole plot also gained great popularity in the poetic works of Eastern Christian hymnographers, Syriac-speaking and Greek-speaking. See Preface. Wed. Philo has a similar expression: συγγενίας ὀνόματα και φίλτρα (De Abr. 170). Origen develops the theme of temptation by the circumstances of a long journey, begun by Philo (De Abr. 169). The unity of action of the Father and the Son in the Calvary sacrifice was examined in detail at the Councils of Constantinople in 1156–1157. It follows from the dogma of the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. See Preface. This refers to the Marcionites who rejected the Old Testament. Wed. above Homilius IV, 6 and note. One of the original views of Origen, different from Church Tradition. The Homilet repeats it in Homily XIV, 1, as well as in the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 23, 37-39 (the essential - substantialiter - presence of Christ in Moses, in the prophets and in the Angels who take care of the salvation of people in each generation). Wed. Philo’s reasoning: “It is good to confirm your promises with an oath, and an oath befitting God: you see, God does not swear by anyone else, since there is nothing higher than Him, but swears by Himself, for He is the best of all things” (Legum allegoriae III, 203). This statement is true only in relation to the Roman Empire (οἰκουμένη from Rom. 10, 18 in the technical sense). In his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (24:9–14), Origen lists in detail the peoples and countries to which the gospel preaching has not yet reached. The entire passage clearly illustrates Origen’s views on the world of spirits, which he set out in his treatise On Elements I, ch. 5–8: Angels and demons, like human souls, are not fixed in their status, but are capable of changing at will for evil or good. The main idea of ​​the passage - the bright Angels, who were given pagan peoples into submission, did not want to give their inheritance to Christ, turning into dark spirits and opponents of Christians - was never accepted by the Church. An interesting detail from the life of the Church in the 3rd century, echoing the practice of “general” confession in the modern history of the Church. Citing from memory, Origen abbreviates and generalizes the apostle’s thought: those who have wives as if they do not have... those who buy as if they do not have... Here and below are testimonies of daily meetings of Christians for the sake of reading the Holy Scripture and its explanation. Understanding under the wells of learning and understanding is laid down by Philo: Quaest. 191. For a similar understanding of animals as stupid or evil people, see also Homilies I, 8–16; II, 5; XII, 5. This understanding goes back through Philo to Plato. see Preface. The context, as well as other historical sources, does not allow us to claim that we are talking about the daily Eucharist. “eating the flesh of the word” can be understood by Origen in an intellectual sense as reading the Holy Scriptures. According to Philo's exegetical principles, the repetition or doubling of anything in Scripture is a signal to understand one part of the expression literally, carnally, and the other allegorically, spiritually (Quaest. IV, 99). Origen uses Philo's principle, but fills it with new Christian content by drawing on the Gospel context (Matthew 13:25). Wed Clement. stromata IV, 26, taking as a basis the interpretation of this passage I Cor. 3, 17. An indicative definition of the genre of the Homilies: a selection of the most instructive passages and an emphasis on their allegorical (“sacramental”) interpretation for the sake of the “dispensation” of the Church of God. On the benefits of secular sciences, see Homilies on Exodus XI, 6 (SC 16. P. 241) and Homilies on Numbers XX, 3 (SC 29. P. 401-403). For their danger, see Gregory the Wonderworker. Thanksgiving speech to Origen XIII–XIV (SC 148. P. 158–172). Citing from memory, Origen confuses the descendants of Abraham from Keturah and the descendants of Ishmael: Kedar belongs to the latter (Gen. 25:13). The following sentence may have been uttered to correct an oversight. Vision is understood by Origen in the sense of understanding the deep meaning of Holy Scripture, that is, again in an intellectual key. For the peculiarities of Origen's mysticism, see the preface. Wed. also Homily XIII. Origen signals a deliberate omission in interpretation, in accordance with the expediency and state of the audience. Origen briefly outlined the typological aspect, moving on to a more useful, in his view, aspect - the moral one. This is not the first time that the hierarchy of levels of interpretation is rearranged by the homilet for the sake of “building the Church of God.” The listing of variants of the meaning of the name indicates that Origen actively used contemporary onomasticons. In these words one can hear echoes of the attacks to which Origen was constantly subjected for using the allegorical method. Perhaps the homilet is also held back from developing the topic by his inability to give an impromptu coherent interpretation. The Philistines are an image of the enemies of the spiritual understanding of the Scriptures, developed in Homily XIII. Animal – an animal, everything animate. A peculiar hierarchy of holiness is characteristic of this era: widows are a 30-fold fruit, virgins are a 60-fold fruit, martyrs are a 100-fold fruit. See Gom. on Joshua 2, 1. SC 71. P. 118. Cf. a similar place in Cyprian of Carthage. De habitu virginum 21. CSEL 3, 1. P. 202. Only the Gospel of John speaks of barley loaves, but there is no account of the second feeding. In Matthew and Mark, in the description of both saturations, the word ἄρτος is used, usually applied to wheat bread. In Luke it is also only ἄρτος. Greek Rufinus constantly renders αἴσθησιν as sensum, meaning, following Origen, “rational sense,” that is, the spiritual understanding of Scripture. The symbolism of wells runs as a running theme throughout many of Origen's exegetical works, including the Homilies on Genesis. See above Homilies VII, 5; X, 2; XI, 3; XII, 5. In Homilies on Numbers XII (SC 29. P. 235-248) Origen collected all the texts of Scripture on wells to show the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. The wells symbolize the Holy Scriptures, and taking care of them is the study of the Scriptures by an improving soul. The image of water as the source of the Divine mind was already proposed by Philo (Quaest. V, 94, 100). Philo has a similar understanding of the Philistines (Quaest. IV, 191). Here and above, Origen’s free comparison of quotations from different Gospels, quoted by him from memory, attracts attention. A similar list of New Testament books in the Homily to Joshua 7, 1 (SC 71. P. 196 and notes). Both here and there the Apocalypse is missing, which Origen nevertheless recognized as belonging to St. to the Apostle John the Theologian (Comments on the Gospel of John V). Again, Origen hints at opposition to the allegorical method, both on the part of the Jews and Ebionites, and on the part of Christians, who had a negative attitude towards the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. The superiority of the spiritual over the physical, expressed in the use of the epithet terrenus in a negative sense, reveals the hidden Platonism of Origen's worldview. Origen rejects secular sciences if they do not serve the knowledge of God and moral improvement. See the very derogatory characteristics in the Homily on Exodus 4, 6 (SC 16. P. 127). Above, in Homily X, 2, the possibility of converting pagans with the help of philosophy is allowed, but her status is equated to “a foreigner or a concubine.” In Origen's theology, the difference in images and names of the Son of God (the doctrine of ἐπίνοιαι) in no way weakens the unity and simplicity of the Person in Christ. Wed. Commentary on the Gospel of John I, 9–10, 21–23 (SC 120. P. 88–94, 126–136). See above Homily XII, 5. In the Homily on Leviticus I, 4, another intermediate category is added to these two categories - perfectors. Homily V, 5 speaks of this even more briefly than here. Perhaps Origen dwelled on this idea in more detail in one of the Homilies on Genesis that has not come down to us or in the Homilies on the New Testament, which, according to the reconstruction of P. Nothen, were pronounced in parallel with the Old Testament. See Preface. Origen means the Chaldeans. While admitting the influence of stars for some natural phenomena (rains, thunderstorms, droughts, etc.), Origen categorically rejects their influence on human free will. See Philocalia 23 and other fragments under the theme of free will: 21–27 (SC 226. Paris, 1976, pp. 25–65). For more information about Origen’s attitude to various philosophical movements, see Crouzel H. Origène et la philosophie. Paris, 1962. Origen was confident that the Magi were familiar with the prophecy of Balaam about the rising of a star in Jacob and a man in Israel: Homilies on Numbers XIII, 7 (SC 29. P. 278). Origen periodically ends his brief excursions on the use of certain concepts or names with an appeal to his listeners to continue their research into “parallel passages” in Holy Scripture. Wed. below, regarding Jacob and Israel. Remarque by Rufinus, without which the subsequent interpretation of Origen would be incomprehensible. A common theme among many Christian writers is their figurative interpretation of the exodus from Egypt. Wed. Homily on Exodus I, 2 and notes. A. de Lubac (SC 16. P. 79). Citing from memory, Origen makes mistakes both times with the addressees of God’s words: in the text of Genesis, the first are addressed to the serpent, the second to Eve. The coming of Christ to earth in Origen's ideas is the end of times, the end of centuries and the beginning of the eschatological present. Wed. Homilia ΙΙ, 3. We are talking about an axiological correspondence between the image (the pious custom of closing the eyes of the deceased) and its interpretation, which is contradicted by the cited opinion of “some of our ancestors.” Therefore, the spiritual meaning is proposed by Origen himself in a positive way. For a negative understanding of Egypt, see above Homilia XV, 5 and notes. In the Homilies, this understanding applies only to the ancient, biblical Egypt of the pharaohs. In the Commentary on the Gospel of John VI, 2, 9, there is also an autobiographical mention of “all the winds of Egyptian depravity” raised by the enemy against the great Alexandrian (SC 157. P. 133). On the eating of the word of God and its relation to the Eucharist in Origen, see de Lubac H. Histoire et Esprit. P. 363–373. Presbyter Origen, who all his life limited himself to the bare necessities, admits here that he does not fully correspond to the ideal of a priest of Christ, who must renounce everything earthly for the sake of building the Church of God. For the entire Alexandrian school, starting from Philo, numerical symbolism was very common, although in a lighter form than among the Pythagoreans. See Preface and Homily II, 5. The unambiguous shift of mysticism into the intellectual sphere perfectly characterizes the “Christian Gnosticism” of the Alexandrian School.