Homilies on 1 Samuel (1 Kingdoms) — Fragments on Kingdoms (from the catena)
These are twenty-two catena fragments preserving Origen's exegesis of 1–2 Samuel (1–2 Kingdoms) and 1–2 Kings (3–4 Kingdoms). They are terse exegetical notes excerpted by later compilers, and they follow the wording of Origen's Greek Septuagint. Source: E. Klostermann, GCS 6 (Origenes Werke III, 1901). Released into the public domain.[Fragment 1]
On 1 Samuel 3:11–21
Since the divine Scripture was about to foretell the destruction of the sons of Eli, and that the ark of God would be taken by the foreigners, it first prepares the hearer beforehand, lest anyone should suppose God to be harsh. For this reason, as I said, it relates that the wickedness and the sin of the sons of Eli were not lessened by the threat and by the prediction against them, but rather increased.[Fragment 2]
On 1 Samuel 4:13
Eli was pious in himself; for he was not anxious primarily about the salvation of his children, but about the ark, lest it should come to be under the foreigners — which indeed also happened.[Fragment 3]
On 1 Samuel 5:3
This was so that the foreigners might know that God had neither been defeated through the Israelites, nor had they conquered him by their own power, but that the sins and impieties of the Jews had brought about the defeat. And Dagon fell before the ark, not in order to worship — for he was not worthy — but in order to be crushed; which indeed also came to pass.[Fragment 4]
On 1 Samuel 15:9–11
Just as in the case of human beings "hand" and "foot" and "eye" and "ear" and anything else so named are indicative of the members of our body, but in the case of God "hand" means his creative power, "eye" his power of oversight, "ear" his power of hearing, and "foot" the power of his presence whenever he is at work upon something: so also God's "wrath" is said to be the discipline exercised against those who err, and not a passion of God; and "repentance" is the transference of God's dispensation from one course of action to another. For what we do when we repent — that is, we flee the things for which we felt regret, and pursue other, better things — this is what is called God's "repentance." Why? Because it was necessary for the prophets to discourse about God in a more bodily manner to those of the dullest understanding, so that it might be grasped. For those who supposed the images which they carved and cast to be gods — indeed, even irrational things — how could they have grasped what is said about God through spiritual concepts and words?And again:
If God foreknows all things, and is not angered or brought to repentance on the basis of things he comes to know afterward, then anger or repentance is not a passion of God; rather, the work of the "wrath" is punishment, and likewise the work of the "repentance" is a withdrawal from the former course and a transference to the other dispensation. So too it is said concerning the sword: "Sword, be sharpened and slay"; so too a "hand of iron" is named (Solomon: "that it may deliver you from the hand of iron") and "of a sword" (as David says: "into the hands of the sword"). So too God's wrath is said "to be angry," and sin to "have a face," according to David, and God's wrath to have "a face," as in the thirty-seventh Psalm, and the rivers to "clap with their hands." But neither do rivers have hands nor do sins have a face. Let us not, then, on account of the things said in a bodily way about God — as the ancients were able to receive them — suppose God to be a body, or that he is filled with passions.
The changeableness of human judgment must not be attributed to God; for it is we ourselves who, in our own case, bring about the turns of the divine dispensation that justly come upon us, showing ourselves through our deeds unworthy of the honor granted by God. So then, having condemned Saul and wishing to hand over the affairs of rule to David and to preserve the kingdom for his seed — on account of the King of all creation who was to be born from him according to the flesh — God used human words, speaking to human beings, and said, "I have repented that I anointed Saul as king," instead of, "I wish to give the rule of the kingdom to another, and to make this one cease from his dominion."
The "I have repented" on account of Saul means this: he made himself so unworthy of the kingdom that, if indeed I had a nature that repents, I would have changed my mind about him. Why, then, was he anointed? Because at that time he was worthy. But having turned, he again became unworthy.
[Fragment 5]
On 1 Samuel 15:11
From these things is shown what I said before: that God's "repentance" is the name for the transference of God's dispensation from one course of action to another.The passage shows that even a prophet and a righteous man, when he prays on behalf of others, is not otherwise heard unless that other person demonstrates repentance by his deed. For in this way the petition of the righteous man is effective when it is worked out through the one who has sinned. Therefore, in order that the matter may be brought to completion, both must run together: both the prayer of the righteous man and the deed of the one who repents.
[Fragment 6]
On 1 Samuel 16:12
Esau was "ruddy, hairy as a hide," having the deadness that comes from sin and thirsting for murder against Jacob. But David was ruddy together with beauty of eyes, so as to indicate David's power of discernment.[Fragment 7]
On 1 Samuel 16:18
How was he "a man," and how "prudent in speech," and how also "a warrior," while he was still shepherding sheep? He did not, then, speak of himself in saying this, but foretold the things to come as though present, and he testifies concerning David to the things which were going to be — except for the "the Lord is with him" and the "good in appearance," which belonged to him from childhood and remained with him, the one by nature, the other by grace.[Fragment 8]
On 1 Samuel 19:23–24
Since Saul was powerful, having a multitude to help him wickedly against David, while the two alone were pursued — Samuel and David — the grace of God makes Saul prophesy not only whatever was against him, but also the things on David's behalf; and it casts him down naked, signifying beforehand that he would be stripped of the kingdom.[Fragment 9]
On 1 Samuel 21:4
By "profane" he now means not the unclean, but those who are not holy, in contradistinction to the holy loaves set out upon the table. For the table continually held six loaves, being exchanged, on behalf of the twelve tribes of Israel, which they called the loaves "before the Lord," so that each of the loaves was offered on behalf of two tribes, and all of them on behalf of the twelve tribes. What good, then, came from this? That the tribes of Israel were joined together in concord. And what greater thing was signified beforehand? That the blessed apostles were sent out two by two by the Savior to preach first among the tribes of Israel, so that of the twelve disciples the number came to six pairs at once."Lay" bread: not because those who are not holy are profane, but because they are being compared with what is holy.
[Fragment 10]
On 1 Samuel 21:5–6
"Today it shall be sanctified because of the vessels" — he said this rather obscurely, but it means this: "My young men have been sanctified and have kept themselves from a woman both yesterday and the day before" — for this is what his saying that the young men were purified amounts to. And if it were not so, in any case it would be sanctified through the eating of the bread of the setting-forth. Persuaded by what was said, the priest gives David some of the loaves, which none other ought to eat except the priests alone. And this belongs to the prophecy that reveals through deeds: that, although the royal tribe was one, that is, that of Judah, and the priestly tribe was another, I mean the Levitical, the priestly dignity and the royal were going to be joined together and made one in the coming of our Savior descended from David, priest and king at once, the one "according to the order of Melchizedek."[Fragment 11]
On 1 Samuel 21:7
"The Neessar": this indicates either that Doeg the Edomite was detained on account of sin, being tended before the Lord and making confession, or that, being demon-possessed like Saul, he was not out pasturing the she-mules.[Fragment 12]
On 1 Samuel 21:7
Saul bears the type of the evil spirit, when Israel, then taking rule to itself, said, "We have no king." For indeed the people of old, having despised the Lord who reigned over them, asked that Saul be given to them as ruler.[Fragment 13]
On 1 Samuel 25:22
No one urinates standing, and that against a wall, unless he is at leisure. This, then, is what he means: also the man who is carefree and expects to suffer nothing — provided he belongs to Nabal.[Fragment 14]
On 1 Samuel 28:11–12
The witch of Endor did not bring up Samuel, for that is impossible; nor did the one who came up speak the truth. But who this was, and by what power he came up, inquire.[Fragment 15]
On 2 Samuel 5:6–8
David was besieging Jebus. Jebus was the name of what is now Jerusalem, when it was under the foreigners. So the Jebusites, knowing that David was a lover of the poor, set the blind and the lame up above upon the wall to insult him. But he, when he had taken possession of Jerusalem, was so far from treating badly those who were maimed in body that he even established a law of death for his own soldiers, if anyone should attempt to kill a blind or a lame man. For "everyone who strikes a lame or blind Jebusite," he says, "let him assail him with a dagger" — that is, let him be put to death. For even though they had hated David's life, yet they meet with mercy. Therefore he is deemed worthy of honor from all — those who had insulted David, whom he spared, being the ones of whom it is said, "The lame and the blind shall not enter into the house of the Lord."[Fragment 16]
On 2 Samuel 5:14
It should be noted that Nathan the son of David is born to him after he had captured and settled in Jerusalem. And this is the Nathan whom the blessed Luke sets in the genealogy, while the blessed Matthew sets in the genealogy Solomon his brother. And from this point — I mean from the aforementioned sons of David — the one line is traced through one genealogy, and the other through another.[Fragment 17]
On 2 Samuel 16:10–12
So that from this also it is shown that what God does not do, but permits to happen, he is said to have done. It is agreed, then, that the uprising of Absalom, and the reviling of Shimei, and his throwing stones at David, were not God's work. And David makes what I say clearer by saying, "Let him curse, because the Lord has told him to, so that he may look upon my humiliation, and the Lord will repay me good things in return for his cursing on this day." For it is evident that what was happening did not please God; and what did not please him, he would not have commanded to be done.[Fragment 18]
On 2 Samuel 21:2, 6, 9, 11
If Saul, in his zeal for Israel and Judah, attempted to kill the Gibeonites — with whom Joshua the son of Nun and all the people had made covenants — and on account of this seven of Saul's descendants, those born from his daughters, were killed, why is it that not the tribes, who were at fault, but those who had done no wrong, paid the penalty? For this is unjust. Unless, perhaps, someone should say that Saul, being king, was unable to withstand the Israelites and the tribe of Judah, and to break the fathers' covenants with the Gibeonites. But I would add to these considerations that it was God's dispensation that the whole family of Saul should be consumed — all that was ever suspected of laying claim to the royal dignity, and on account of this of rising up against David and against his children. And the "the Gibeonites exposed them to the sun before the Lord on the mountain" stands instead of saying that they did not bury the slain, but left them to lie under the sun. "And they were dissolved," it says, "and Dan the son of Joah, of the descendants of the giants, took them." It surely means to say that the giant, taking those who had been placed under the sun, carried off those who had already been dissolved by the sun's flame.The account concerning the Gibeonites remains obscure, unless perhaps we should say that, when he sat at Gibeah to make war, Saul both routed the foreigners and destroyed, along with them, the Gibeonites also. And the narrative is in the thirty-second and thirty-third section, and the thirty-seventh, of the First book of Kingdoms, where it says, "And he warred round about against all his enemies," and what follows. And what the text says is this: Saul did wrong against him, and from his house came the avenging of the wrong done against Joshua.
But those who obtained their being from that one are not wronged in being taken away together with the one who was at the beginning. For from the source whence they had their being, from there also they have their non-being; but if they were worthy of any good thing for their own sake, they receive this later.
[Fragment 19]
On 1 Kings 2:5, 6, 8, 9
It is inquired how David — who bears no grudge and is gentle — having pardoned Shimei, charges Solomon to kill him, and Joab too, who had toiled alongside him. Why, then, was this so arranged? Being wise, David knew that Solomon would not allow Shimei to live, for fear of an uprising — since, as from a royal dignity, he was going to fight Solomon over the kingdom — nor Joab, as one who, apart from David's judgment, had established David's son as king, and who moreover had killed Abner, though he had toiled alongside the father in many wars and had achieved success. Foreseeing these things, David charges Solomon beforehand to do what Solomon would in any case have done of himself, so that when the aforementioned men are killed by him — that is, by Solomon — Solomon might have excuse, as having fulfilled his father's will and not having been moved against them of his own accord.[Fragment 20]
On 1 Kings 19:5–7
"And turning," it says, "he slept. And the angel of the Lord returned a second time and touched him." Perhaps they were symbols of powers ministering to the prophet food befitting one who withdraws from human affairs and is worthy of the teaching that comes from such powers, so that afterward he might be able to hear, "Arise and eat," and might find at his head ineffable mysteries, of which the cake baked in the ashes was a type. Does he not also a second time partake, according to the command of the angel who said, "Arise, eat, for the journey is far from you"? "Loaves," then, "the ravens brought to Elijah in the morning" (corresponding to the things spoken by the Lord to Moses, among which was, "In the morning you shall be filled with bread, and you shall know that I am the Lord your God"), and "flesh in the evening" (similarly, "Toward evening you shall eat flesh").[Fragment 21]
On 2 Kings 2:16
The power of Christ Jesus is what makes men into sons. And if anyone is a man of power, he is clearly a son of Christ. But sometimes the powers under Christ cannot make sons; and if they do make them, they do not make men but infants.[Fragment 22]