Homilies on Luke — Homily 17 (Luke 2:33–38)
Latin source: Origen's Greek homilies on Luke, surviving only in Jerome's Latin translation (c. 391), from the reading text of M. Rauer (ed.), Origenes Werke IX (GCS 35, Leipzig, 1930). This English translation is released into the public domain.Concerning what is written: "His father and mother were marveling at the things that were said of him", again up to that place where it is written concerning Anna.
Luke, who wrote: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also that which will be born holy will be called the Son of God", and who plainly handed down to us that Jesus was the son of a virgin and was not conceived of human seed, this same Luke bore witness that Joseph was his father, saying: "And his father and mother were marveling at the things that were said of him". What reason, then, was there that he should record as father one who was not the father? He who is content with a simple exposition will say: the Holy Spirit honored him with the title of father, because he had nourished the Savior. But he who inquires into something more profound can say: since the order of generation is traced from David down to Joseph, lest Joseph seem to be named in vain — he who had not been the father of the Savior — in order that the order of generation might have its place, he was called the "father" of the Lord. "His father", then, "and mother were marveling at the things that were said of him" both by the angel and by the "multitude of the heavenly host", and also by the shepherds. For hearing all these things they marveled most vehemently. Then the Scripture says: "Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother: Behold, this one is set for the ruin and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be contradicted. And a sword shall pierce through your own soul, that the thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed". In what way the Savior came "for the ruin and for the resurrection of many" is to be contemplated. He who expounds simply can say that he came "for the ruin" of unbelievers and "for the resurrection" of believers. But he who is a careful interpreter says that by no means does one fall who has not first stood. Give me, then, who that one was who stood, and for whose "ruin" the Savior came, and also him who rises up. For surely he rises up who had before fallen. And so we must see whether perhaps the Savior did not come "for the ruin" of some and "for the resurrection" of others, but came for the same persons both "for ruin and for resurrection". "For judgment", he says, "I have come, that those who did not see may see, and those who saw may become blind". For there is in us one thing that saw before and afterward ceased to see, and another thing that did not see and afterward began to see. For example, I wish to see with those eyes with which I did not see before and which were afterward opened to me, since after the disobedience of both Adam and Eve "their eyes were opened", concerning which we treated in the previous discourse. But now we must interpret what this means which he says: "Behold, this one is set for the ruin and for the resurrection of many in Israel". It is fitting that I first fall, and, when I have fallen, that I afterward rise up well, lest the Savior be to me the cause of an evil ruin. But for this reason he made me fall, that I might rise up, and the ruin has been far more useful to me than that time in which I seemed to stand. For I was standing in sin at that time in which I was living in sin; and because I was standing in sin, the first benefit to me was that I should fall and die to sin. Finally, the holy prophets too, when they contemplated something more august, fell upon their faces; and they fell for this reason, that through this fall their sins might be more fully purged. This very thing the Savior first grants to you as well, that you may fall. You were a heathen — let the heathen fall in you; you loved harlots — let the fornicator first perish in you; you were a sinner — let the sinner fall in you, that you may thereafter rise again and say: "if we have died with him, we shall also live with him", and: "if we have been made conformable to his death, we shall be conformable also to his resurrection". This one, therefore, "is set for the ruin and for the resurrection of many in Israel", that is, among those who are able to behold with full keenness and reason, and "for a sign that shall be contradicted". Everything that the account relates concerning the Savior is contradicted. The mother is a virgin — it is a sign that is contradicted: the Marcionites contradict this sign and say that he was not at all born of a woman; the Ebionites contradict the sign, saying that he was born of man and woman just as we too are born. He had a human body, and this is a sign that is contradicted: for some say that he came from the heavens, others that he had a body such as ours, so that through the likeness of the body he might also redeem our bodies from sins and give us the hope of resurrection. He rose from the dead, and this is a sign that is contradicted: in what way he rose, whether he himself and such as he had died, or rather rose in a body of better substance; and there is endless dispute, some saying: he showed to Thomas the mark of the nails in his hands, others arguing from the opposite side: if he had the same body, how did he "enter through closed doors and stand"? You see, therefore, how by various arguments even the question of his resurrection is stirred up, and how it is "a sign that is contradicted". I think that this too, which was foretold by the mouth of the prophets, is a sign that is contradicted; for there are many heretics who assert that he was not at all foretold by the prophets. And what need is there for me to pursue many things? Everything that the account relates concerning him is a sign that is contradicted — not that those who believe in him contradict it (for we indeed know that all things which are written are true), but because among unbelievers everything that is written concerning him is a sign that is contradicted. Then Simeon says: "and a sword shall pierce through your own soul". What is this sword, which pierced not only through the hearts of others, but even through the heart of Mary? It is plainly written that in the time of the passion all the apostles were scandalized, the Lord himself also saying: "you shall all be scandalized in me this night". Therefore they were all scandalized to such a degree that even Peter, the chief of the apostles, denied him three times. What are we to think — that, while the apostles were scandalized, the mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she suffered no scandal at the passion of the Lord, then Jesus did not die for her sins. But if "all have sinned and lack the glory of God, being justified by his grace and redeemed", then surely Mary too was scandalized at that time. And this is what Simeon now prophesies, saying: "and your own soul" — you who know that you gave birth as a virgin without a man, you who heard from Gabriel: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" — "the sword" of unbelief "shall pierce through", and you will be struck by the blade of doubt, and your thoughts will tear you in different directions, when you see him, whom you had heard to be the Son of God and knew to have been begotten without the seed of a man, crucified and dying and subjected to human torments and at the last tearfully complaining and saying: "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me". "And" therefore "a sword shall pierce through your soul, that the thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed". There were evil thoughts in men, which were for this reason revealed, that, being brought out into the open, they might be destroyed and slain, and cease to be, being dead, and that he who died for us might slay them. For as long as the thoughts were hidden and not brought out into the open, it was impossible for them to be utterly slain. Hence we too, if we have sinned, ought to say: "I have made my sin known to you, and my iniquity I have not hidden. I said: I will declare my injustice against myself to the Lord". For if we do this and reveal our sins not only to God but also to those who are able to heal our wounds and sins, our sins will be blotted out by him who says: "behold, I will blot out your iniquities like a cloud, and your sins like a mist". After the prophecy of Simeon, because it was necessary that women too should be saved, there came a prophetess, a woman, of whom it is written: "and there was Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser". How beautiful the order! The woman does not come before the man, but first comes Simeon, who took up the infant and held him in his arms, then the woman, whose words indeed are not set down, but it is said generally that "she confessed to the Lord and spoke of him to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem". And rightly did the holy woman deserve to receive the spirit of prophecy, because by long chastity and long fastings she had ascended to this height. See, women, the testimony of Anna, and imitate it! If it should ever happen to you that you lose your husbands, consider what is written of her: "she lived seven years from her virginity with a husband" and the rest; for this reason she was a "prophetess"; for the Holy Spirit did not dwell in her at random and by chance. It is good and best, if any woman is able to possess the grace of virginity; but if she has not been able to do this, and it has befallen her to lose her husband, let her remain a widow. And this she ought to have in mind not only after the death of her husband, but even while he lives, so that, even if her own will and resolve do not come to pass, she may be crowned by the Lord and may say: this I vow and promise, that if anything human, which I do not wish for, should befall me, I will do nothing else than remain undefiled and a widow. But now second and third and fourth marriages — to say nothing of more — are found in the Church, and we are not unaware that such a union will cast us out of the kingdom of God. For just as not only fornication but also second marriages exclude a man from ecclesiastical dignities — for neither a bishop nor a presbyter nor a deacon nor a widow can be twice-married — so perhaps the twice-married man will also be cast out from the assembly of the "firstborn and undefiled", the "Church, which has no spot or wrinkle"; not that he is sent into the eternal fire, but that he has no part in the kingdom of God. I recall that, when I was interpreting that which is written to the Corinthians: "to the church of God which is at Corinth, with all who call upon him", I said that there is a distinction between the "church" and those "who call upon" the name of the Lord. For I think that the man of one marriage and the virgin and he who perseveres in chastity belong to the church of God, but that he who is twice-married, although he may have had a good manner of life and abound in the other virtues, nevertheless does not belong to the "church" and to that number which "has no wrinkle or spot, or any such thing", but belongs to a second rank and to those "who call upon" the name of the Lord, and who are indeed saved in the name of Jesus Christ, yet are by no means crowned by him: to whom be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.