Homilies on Leviticus — Homily 14 (Lev. 24:10–23 — the blasphemer (the son of the Israelite woman and the Egyptian father))
Latin source: Origen's Greek homilies on Leviticus, surviving only in Rufinus of Aquileia's Latin translation (c. 403–405), from the reading text of W. A. Baehrens (ed.), Origenes Werke VI (GCS 29, Leipzig, 1920), pp. 280–507. This English translation is released into the public domain.On the son of the Israelite woman and of an Egyptian father, who "named the name and cursed," and on the sentence of God pronounced against him.
1. A narrative has been read to us whose account, though it may seem plain, will nevertheless not easily disclose to us its inner sense unless we follow rather diligently its coherence according to the letter. The passage of Scripture, then, on which we must discourse, is this: "And there went out," it says, "the son of the Israelite woman, and this one was the son of an Egyptian among the sons of Israel; and they quarreled in the camp, he who was of the Israelite woman and a man who was an Israelite. And the son of the Israelite woman, naming the name, cursed; and they brought him to Moses; and the name of his mother was Salomith, the daughter of Dabri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him into prison, that they might judge concerning him according to the command of the Lord. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Cast out him who cursed, outside the camp, and all who heard shall lay their hands upon his head, and the whole synagogue shall stone him." Let us see, then, first what the narrative we have set forth means, and, although it seems plain, let us nevertheless attempt to set it before our eyes still more evidently. Let us suppose, then, one man rejoicing in the nobility of the Israelite name from both father and mother, and another from the mother only and not also from the father, and as it were noble in part and in part not—not of the father, which would surely seem the better, but of the mother, which is the inferior. For if the father had been an Israelite and the mother an Egyptian, there would be something more; for this is what Manasseh and Ephraim had been. But now it is written that he is the son of an Israelite woman and of an Egyptian father. If, then, you have diligently followed these two men, the one wholly noble, the other in part, behold now these men "quarreling with one another"; in which quarrel he who appears to have been begotten of an Egyptian father and of an Israelite mother alone, "naming, cursed," and on this account he who had cursed was brought to Moses, but Moses, daring neither to acquit him nor to condemn him without God, "handed him over to custody" until he should receive an answer from God as to what He willed to be done with him. This is the coherence of the narrative; now let us see what spiritual meaning there is in it, which ought to build up the Church.
2. First of all the passage says that "there went out the son of the Israelite woman" and of an Egyptian father; and from where or to where he went out, it does not matter. For both are found placed within the camp, as the word of the Lord indicates, which says: "Lead out the man who cursed, forth outside the camp." If, then, "he is led out from the camp," he was necessarily in the camp. What, then, is the meaning that, when he had not yet gone out from the camp, the divine Scripture says of him: "and there went out the son of the Israelite woman"? I think the divine word wishes to teach us that he who sins is said to go out in a twofold way. For first he goes out from his good purpose and right judgment, he goes out from the way of righteousness, he goes out from the law of God. But afterward, when he has been convicted for his sin, he goes out also from the assembly and congregation of the saints. So that, if for example we should say: one of the faithful has sinned—this man, even if he is not yet cast out by the sentence of the bishop, yet already by the very sin which he has committed he has been cast out; and although he enters the church, nevertheless he has been cast out and is outside, separated from the fellowship and unanimity of the faithful. "There went out," then, the son of an Egyptian father and of an Israelite mother. He who is wholly outside the faith is entirely an Egyptian. But he who is among us and sins, on the one part, in which he believes God, seems to be of Israelite origin; but on that part in which he sins, he draws his lineage from the Egyptian. Two men, then, Scripture has set forth quarreling: the one wholly an Israelite, who indeed quarreled but did not sin; but the other, whose sin it designates, it indicates to be for the greatest part mixed with the Egyptian race, against whom the Israelite quarrels, and perhaps quarrels fittingly and reasonably. For in Exodus too an Israelite and an Egyptian quarrel, where the Israelite prevails and the Egyptian falls. Therefore I too today, if I defend the truth, if I fight for the faith of the Church against him who indeed in part believes Christ and receives the Scriptures, but does not receive their sense wholly nor faithfully, I quarrel against him who is indeed by his mother an Israelite, but by his father an Egyptian. If, then, anyone is both by the belief of faith and by the profession of the name a Christian and a Catholic, this man is on both parts an Israelite. But he who by profession indeed is a Christian, but in the understanding of the faith is a heretic and perverse, this man has indeed an Israelite mother, but an Egyptian father. How, then, does this come about? When someone reads the Scriptures and follows indeed the letter, but repudiates the spiritual understanding, this man has indeed an Israelite mother, that is, the letter, but because he follows not the spiritual sense but the carnal, to him there is an Egyptian father; and therefore he quarrels against the churchman, against the Catholic, against him who is on both parts an Israelite, who is both according to the letter an Israelite and according to the spirit an Israelite—because he himself is according to the letter indeed an Israelite, but according to the spirit an Egyptian. What, then, is the case with both quarreling? Necessarily he who follows the carnal sense, as one drawing his lineage from the Egyptian, "names the name and curses." For he names the name of God, and names it with a curse; for he denies that He is the creator of the world, he denies that He is the Father of Christ. But we, who are Israelites of both races and defend both the letter and the spirit in the holy Scriptures, quarrel also against those who seem to be Israelites of the middle part, and we say that neither according to the letter ought He to be cursed, nor according to the spiritual understanding to be blasphemed. For the "reviler," not only against God but also against his neighbor, is by the sentence of the Apostle Paul excluded from the kingdom of God. For see how the Apostle says: "Do not err: neither fornicators nor adulterers nor the effeminate nor abusers of themselves with men nor thieves nor the covetous nor revilers shall possess the kingdom of God." See among what crimes—among "adulterers," among "abusers of themselves with men," among "the covetous," whom elsewhere he calls "servants of idols"—he has also placed "revilers" and has excluded them together with those from the kingdom of God. Let them see, then, if there are any who by an almost daily habit accustom their mouth to this vice, what peril hangs over them. For thinking this to be a slight and easy sin, they do not easily guard against it; but let them consider how the Apostle excludes the "reviler" from the kingdom of God, and how God through Moses commands the "reviler" to be punished. Whence I too have greatly marveled that in this passage which we have in hand, Scripture has not openly designated that this man who draws his lineage from the Egyptian cursed God, but has only set down that "naming, he cursed," and has left it in the middle, whether it is to be suspected of God or of man. Whence it seems to me that for this reason it was unwilling to declare openly concerning God, lest it should seem to have given license concerning men, and therefore it kept silence both concerning God and concerning man, that on both accounts one might beware.
3. But since we have set forth the sentence of the Apostle, in which he says that revilers are to be excluded from the kingdom of God, this discourse demands some consolation, lest we should seem in every way to pronounce despair upon those who are carried away by an almost daily habit of reviling and neglect to set a guard, or a door, upon their mouth. Of the future promise there is not one mode nor a single kind; but, as the Lord Himself taught in the Gospel, when He calls "blessed" the "poor in spirit" and says that "theirs is the kingdom of heaven," and again calls "blessed" the "meek," yet promises them not the kingdoms of heaven but "the inheritance of the earth." He calls "the peacemakers" also "blessed," but not even to them did He give the kingdom of heaven, yet He declares them to be "sons of God." And when He promises different things to different persons, He calls all "blessed" who attain to the promises, yet He has not granted to all the kingdoms of heaven. It can happen, then, that someone may perhaps in his other works and acts be corrected and perfect, yet be tripped up in the vice of the mouth and the slip of speech; to him, even if according to the sentence of the Apostle the kingdoms of heaven are denied, yet the place of another blessedness is not cut off. Nevertheless, all the more, if anyone is perfect in other things, he ought to labor also in this, lest the vice of a depraved habit, tripping him up, snatch away from him "the kingdoms of heaven," which is the summit of all blessednesses—although the Lord has said: "In my Father's house are many mansions." We can still add also this, that the nature of sin is like the material which is consumed by fire, which the Apostle Paul says is built up by sinners, who "upon the foundation" of Christ "build wood, hay, stubble." In which it is manifestly shown that there are certain sins so slight that they are compared to "stubble," over which, when fire is brought, it cannot tarry long; but others are like "hay," which the fire likewise consumes not with difficulty, yet tarries somewhat longer than upon "stubble"; but others there are which are compared to "wood," in which, according to the quality of the crimes, the fire finds lasting and great fuel. Thus, then, each sin, according to its quality or quantity, pays its just penalties. Nevertheless, what need is there for the faithful and for those who have known God to think about the qualities of penalties? What need to place "wood," what "hay," what even "stubble" itself "upon the foundation" of Christ? Why do we not rather place "gold" or "silver" or "precious stones" upon the precious "foundation," where, when the fire comes, it may find nothing that it may consume? For if it comes to "stubble," from "stubble" it will render embers and ashes; but if it comes to "gold," it will render "gold" purer. Let these things be said by us for those who neglect to cut off the habit of a reviling mouth; who, even if they do not curse from the heart, even if they do not utter curses with an evil wish and mind, yet incur the uncleanness of lips, according to the word of Isaiah, and the defilements of the mouth. Yet this man, who, though of an Israelite mother, was nevertheless begotten of an Egyptian father, "went out" and "naming the name, cursed." Concerning whom I think that, unless he had gone out, he would neither have quarreled against the true Israelite nor "naming, have cursed." For "he went out" from the truth, "he went out" from the fear of God, from faith, from charity, as we said above, in what manner someone "goes out" from the camp of the church, even if by the voice of the bishop he is by no means cast out. Just as, on the contrary, it sometimes happens that someone is driven off and put out by an unjust judgment of those who preside over the church. But if he himself has not first "gone out," that is, if he has not so acted that he deserved to "go out," he is in no way harmed by the fact that he seems by an unjust judgment to have been expelled by men. And thus it happens that sometimes he who is put out is within, and he is outside who seems to be retained within. Do you wish me to show you another also who is said to have "gone out" though cast out by none? It is written of Cain that: "he went out from the face of God." Whither did "he go out from the face of God"? For where was "the face of God" not? But "he is said to have gone out" for the reason that he went out from the law of nature and, the first, infected with a brother's blood the earth that was ignorant of so great a crime. Yet there are also those who go out well and are blessed because they go out. I will show this too from the Scriptures. In Exodus it is written: "All," it says, "who sought the name of the Lord went out forth to Moses outside the camp." These went out well "outside the camp," because they followed Moses, that is, the law of God. And of others it is said: "Go out, my people, from the midst of them, and do not touch the unclean thing." "There went out," then, it says, "the son of the Israelite woman, and this one was the son of an Egyptian, among the sons of Israel; and they quarreled in the camp, he who was of the Israelite woman and a man who was an Israelite." See how great is the caution of the divine Scripture, if only you attend, if you inspect diligently: him who was born of an Israelite mother and of an Egyptian father, it did not call "a man," but him who was of both races an Israelite it named "a man." Do we think these things were written by chance? Do we think it was added by accident, that the one should not be called "a man" and the other should? These things are not fortuitous; there is a reason. For nothing in the words of God has been written without a profound reason. For that one, who was in part an Egyptian, in part an Israelite, did not yet deserve to be named "a man"; but this one, who was wholly an Israelite, that is, who saw God with his mind, this one is called "a man"—that inner man who was made "according to the image of God" and can "see God."
4. After these things, now the matters which are recounted in what follows are not without a certain question, concerning which, though many have inquired, not many have been able to explain. But if you help me with your prayers, we too will attempt to bring forward into the midst what the Lord shall grant. "A man, a man," it says, "if he shall curse God, shall receive sin; but he who names the name of the Lord, let him die the death." What is this? He who "shall curse God" does not have the penalty of death, but "he who shall name the name of the Lord"? Is it not far more grievous to "curse God" than to "name" Him, although he is said to have named Him in vain? And how is it that he who "curses" only takes on sin, but he who "names" is punished "with death"? These, then, are the things which in this passage are wont to raise a question, which to those ignorant of the sense of the Scriptures seem to be said inconsequently and incongruously. For they think that he who curses the name of God ought to be punished at once; but that he "who shall name the name of the Lord," that is, shall name it superfluously and in vain, it should suffice that he "has received sin." But let us attempt to open the sequence of the passage with some such sense as this. That the sin is greater in which God is cursed than that in which He is named, we cannot doubt. It remains that we should show that it is far more grievous to "receive sin" and to have it with oneself than to be punished with death. Death, which is inflicted for the sake of penalty for sin, is a purgation of the sin itself for which it is commanded to be inflicted. The sin, then, is absolved through the penalty of death, nor does anything remain which the day of judgment and the penalty of eternal fire may find for this crime. But where someone "receives sin" and has it with himself and remains with it, and the penalty which is washed away does not pass by any punishment, it is with him even after death; and because he does not pay the temporal penalties here, there he pays the eternal punishments. You see, then, how much more grievous it is to "receive sin" than to be punished with death. For here death is given as vengeance, and with the "Lord, the just judge," "vengeance is not taken twice for the same thing," as the prophet said; but where the vengeance has not been paid, the sin remains to be extinguished by those eternal fires. And that these things are so, I can bring forward to you as witnesses from the divine volumes the patriarchs Reuben and Judah, speaking to their father Jacob, when they wished to take Benjamin with them and lead him to Egypt on account of the pledges which they had made with their brother Joseph. There, then, Reuben indeed speaks thus to his father: "Kill both my sons, unless I bring Benjamin back to you"; but Judah says: "I shall be a sinner against you, unless I bring him back to you." Jacob, then, their father, knowing that what Judah had promised, who had said "I shall be a sinner against you," was far more grievous than that of the one who had said "Kill my sons," did not entrust the son to Reuben, as to one who had chosen the lighter penalty, but handed him over to Judah, knowing that what he had chosen was more grievous. In this way, then, the divine Scripture has fittingly adapted to him who "shall curse God" that he "takes on sin," but to him who has offended more lightly that he "shall die the death." But do you also wish to learn from the Gospels that he who "shall have received in this life his evil things" does not there receive them again, but he who has not received them here, there all things are reserved for him? The example of "poor Lazarus" and of that rich man teaches us, to whom it is said "in the netherworld" by the patriarch Abraham: "Remember, son, that you received your good things in your life, and Lazarus likewise the evil things. But now you indeed are tormented, while this one is at rest." And men ignorant of the judgments of God, which are "a great abyss," are wont to complain against God and to say, why do wicked and unjust men, plunderers, impious, criminal, in this life suffer nothing adverse, but all things yield to them with prosperous successes—honors, riches, power, health too itself and the constitution of the body serve them; on the contrary, upon the innocent and pious and those who worship God innumerable troubles come, and they live abject, humble, despised, and under the buffets of the powerful, and sometimes even the diseases of the body themselves rule more savagely over them. But these things, as I said, are complained of by those ignorant of what the order is in the divine judgments. For the more grievously they wish those to be punished at whose power and iniquities they groan, the more necessary it is that the penalties be deferred, which, if they were not deferred, would surely be temporal and lighter, because they would receive their end with death; but now, because they are deferred, it is certain that they will be eternal and will be extended with the ages. On the contrary, therefore, if they should wish good things to be rendered to the just and innocent in the present age, those good things too would be temporal and to be concluded with a swift end; but the more they are deferred into the future, the more they will be perpetual and will know no end. This, then, is what this passage of Scripture, comprised in a few words, has taught us: that we may know that it is far more grievous to "receive sin" and to have it and carry it with oneself down to the netherworld than to pay the penalties of the deed in the present. And therefore, knowing these things to be expedient for the faithful, the Apostle Paul says of him who had sinned: "whom I have handed over," he says, "to Satan for the destruction of the flesh," that is, to have punished him with death. But what the fruit of this death is, he shows in what follows, saying: "that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." You see, then, how openly the Apostle has set forth the usefulness of this death. For what he says, "I have handed over for the destruction of the flesh," that is, for the affliction of the body, which is wont to be paid out by penitents, and he named it a destruction of the flesh which nevertheless confers life on the spirit. Whence now too, if perhaps any of us recalls in himself the consciousness of some sin, if anyone knows himself to be liable to an offense, let him take refuge in penitence and take upon himself a voluntary destruction of the flesh, that, purged in the present life, our spirit may proceed clean and pure to Christ our Lord, "who is glory and dominion unto the ages of ages. Amen!"