Homilies on Jeremiah and 1 Kings 28

Homily 20 : Jeremiah 20.7–12

HOMILY 20 Jeremiah 20.7–12 On “You have deceived me, Lord, and I have been deceived” (in another sense again) up to “understanding minds and hearts.” 1 verything recorded about God, even if it may be immediately unsuitable, must be understood worthy of a good God. For who will not say that what is brought up regarding God, that he has anger, that he uses wrath, that he regrets, and that he even now sleeps, does not seem unsuitable?2 But each of these qualities, with the knowledge to hear dark words,3 will be found worthy of God. For his anger is not fruitless, but just as his word instructs, so his anger instructs. He instructs with anger those who were not instructed by the word, and it is necessary that God use what is called anger as he uses what is named word. For his word is not such as the word of all others. For of no one else is the word a living being,4 of no one else is the word God, for of no one else was the word in the beginning with5 that one of whom it was the word, even if it was6 only7 l.l.l.lfrom a certain 221 1. Title and “On . . . hearts,” additions of Klostermann. 2. Cf. Jer 38.26. 3. Cf. Prov 1.6. 4. From the Acts of Paul. Klostermann, 176, notes Princ 1.2.3 as another place Origen cites this text. 5. John 1.1. 6. “It was” (h\n), a correction of Cordier. S has h/\. 7. “Only” (movnon), a correction of Nautin. S has movno". Klostermann believes there is a lacuna here and has retained movno". beginning.8 So indeed the anger of God is an anger9 l.l.l.lof no one else,10 an anger of none whatsoever, and just as the word of God has something of a nature alien beyond every word of anyone else—and what is God and what is a living being while being11 a word, what subsists in itself12 and what is subject to the Father, has an alien nature—so too, since once it was named as being of God, what is called anger has something alien and different from all the anger of him who is angry, so too his wrath also has something individual. For it is13 the wrath of the purpose of the One who reproves by wrath, who wishes to convert the one reproved through the reproof. A word also reproves as a word instructs, but a word does not reprove in the way wrath reproves. For those who are helped by the reproof from the word will not need reproof from wrath. (2) I was also saying14 that a certain regret of God immediately seems unsuitable, since it was written, I have regretted15 that I annointed Saul as king,16 but inquire about the regret in a worthy way and do not suppose that his regret has some sort of relationship to the regret of those who have regretted . For as his word has something special, his anger has something17 special, his wrath has something exceptional, and nothing in them is akin to words of the same sound. Likewise also his regret is a homonym to our regret. And a homonym is where the name alone is common, but its conORIGEN 222 8. This sentence remains unclear after all conjectures. Klostermann is probably correct in seeing a lacuna here. The difficulty lies in the mention of “beginning ” twice in apparently different contexts or states. See the discussions of Nautin, 1:95, and Schadel, 328, n. 255. 9. Nautin notes here a small lacuna in S. 10. “No one”(ou[tino"). S has ou[ntino". 11. “While being,” an addition of Klostermann. 12. “Itself” (eJautovn), a correction of Nautin. S has eJautw/'. 13. “It is” (ejstiv), a correction of Klostermann. S has ei\. 14. “I was saying”(e[legon), a correction of Ghisleri. S has e[legcon. 15. “Regretted,” not in LXX but in Hebrew. 16. 1 Kings 15.11. 17. “Something,” an addition of Delarue. HOMILY 20 223 cept,18 according to the name of its substance, is other.19 Thus only the name of a wrath of God and a wrath of anyone is common, and only an anger of anyone and the anger of God is common. So also with respect to regret...