Volume 13 of the Commentaries on the Gospel of John (Origen), Translated by ChatGPT from Migne's Patrologia Graeca
Perhaps it might have seemed to you, most godly and devout Ambrosius, that the discourse concerning the Samaritan woman should not be interrupted, so that a part of it would be in the twelfth volume, and the rest in the thirteenth. But since I see that the twelfth volume of the exegesis has received a sufficient outline, it seemed good to us to conclude the discourse about the Samaritan woman concerning the well mentioned by her, as Jacob gave it and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock, so that we may begin the thirteenth from the response of our Lord to her.
[John 4:13-14] Jesus answered and said to her: "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."
Jesus responds this second time to the Samaritan woman, previously saying: "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that says to you, 'Give me to drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water," and now, as encouraging her to ask for the living water, he says the preceding words. And at the former instance, the Samaritan woman did not speak but was puzzled about the comparison of the waters; after the Lord's second response, having accepted what was said, she says: "Give me this water." It is likely a principle that no one receives the divine gift who does not ask for it. Even the Savior himself, through the Psalm, is urged by the Father to ask, so that He may bestow it upon Him, as the Son teaches us by saying: "The Lord said to me: You are my Son; ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession"; and the Savior says: "Ask, and it will be given to you"; "for everyone who asks receives." The Samaritan woman is indeed persuaded to ask Jesus for water, being, as we mentioned, a representation of the opinion of those heterodox concerning the divine Scriptures, when she hears about the comparison of both waters. And observe from the things she suffered how, although drinking from the well she considered deep, she did not find rest nor was she freed from her thirst.
Let us see, then, what is meant by "Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again." For from the words "to thirst" and "to hunger" in the physical sense, two things are indicated: one, in that we need food, being emptied and desiring it, or drink when the liquid within us depletes; another, in that often the poor and those in want of necessities say they are sated with hunger or thirst. And indeed, a testimony of the former is in Exodus, when, being in want of foods, "on the nineteenth day of the second month after they had come out of the land of Egypt, the whole congregation of the sons of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron. And the sons of Israel said to them, 'If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat and ate bread to the full, for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole congregation with hunger.' And the Lord spoke to Moses, 'Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you, and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in my law or not.'" For those who were hungry and in want of necessary food, as far as the words permit. But also when in want of water and being thirsty, they grumbled against Moses, saying, "What shall we drink?" when "Moses cried to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a piece of wood, and he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet." And shortly after, when they came to Rephidim, it is written that "the people thirsted there for water, and the people grumbled against Moses." An example of the second meaning can be found in Paul, who says, "To the present hour we hunger and thirst and we are poorly clothed." Therefore, the first, to hunger and to thirst, necessarily happens to healthy bodies; the second occurs to the indigent. One must therefore inquire from "Everyone who drinks from this water will thirst again" what kind of "thirst" is being mentioned; first in the physical sense, or possibly what is implied, that even if for the present one is sated, but as soon as the drink subsides, the one who drank will experience the same condition again, that is, will thirst again, being restored to the state like at the beginning. He then adds, "But whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." But who, possessing a fountain within himself, will be able to thirst?
However, what is previously indicated would be such: he who partakes of what is considered the depth of words, even if he pauses for a little while, having received as the deepest concepts that seem to be stirring and discovered, yet again coming upon them a second time, will be perplexed regarding these, as many times as he paused over them, since the supposed depth cannot provide a clear and distinct comprehension of the matters sought after. Therefore, even if someone is seized and complies with the persuasiveness of the words, he will still find later that the same perplexity remains within him, which he had before learning certain things; but I have such a discourse, so that the fountain of the life-giving drink arises in the one who receives the words announced by me; and to such an extent will the one who has taken my water be benefited, that a fountain yielding all that is sought springs up in him with waters leaping upwards, with the mind springing and flying swiftly in accordance with this quick-moving water, carrying him with its leaps and bounds to the higher place, to eternal life. He says that the end of the leaping water is eternal life, just as Solomon, speaking of the bridegroom in the Song of Songs, says, "Behold, he comes leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills." For just as there the bridegroom leaps upon the mountains, which are called the nobler and more divine souls, and skips upon the lesser ones, called hills, so here the fountain that arises in the one who drinks of the water given by Jesus leaps up to eternal life. Perhaps it will also leap after eternal life to the Father beyond eternal life; for Christ is life; the one greater than Christ is greater than life. Then the one who drinks of the water that Jesus will give will have the fountain of water springing up into eternal life, when the promise made to those who hunger and thirst for righteousness is fulfilled. For the Word says, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled." And perhaps since it is necessary to hunger and thirst for righteousness before being filled, it is required to instill the hunger and the thirst in order to say, "As the deer longs for the springs of water, so my soul longs for you, O God. My soul thirsts for the strong, living God; when shall I come and appear before the face of God?" Therefore, to thirst, it is good first to drink from the spring of Jacob, not calling it similarly to the Samaritan woman a well. For the Savior even now, addressing her word, does not say that the water is from a well, but simply says, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again." If it were not beneficial to drink from the spring, neither would Jesus have sat by the spring, nor would He have said to the Samaritan woman, "Give me a drink." It is to be observed, then, that Jesus promising to provide the water to the Samaritan woman did so not from another place but from the spring, saying to her, "Go call your husband and come here."
Furthermore, we will understand if the combination of associating and combining with the truth and the scriptures produce a different kind of benefit from what is assumed, when the one who drinks from the spring of Jacob thirsts again, but the one who drinks from the water which Jesus gives has a spring of water within himself welling up to eternal life. For indeed, some of the most principal and divine mysteries of God have not been enclosed in scripture, and some not even in human speech according to the common significations of the words or human language. "For there are also many other things which Jesus did; if they were written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." John, intending to write what the seven thunders spoke, was prevented; but Paul says he heard inexpressible words which it is not lawful for a man to utter. These words it was lawful for angels to speak, but not for men. "All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient." What Paul heard were "inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to speak." I believe that all the scriptures are minor elements and brief introductions to the totality of knowledge, even if they are understood very precisely. Therefore, consider whether the well of Jacob, from which Jacob once drank–but no longer drinks now– and also his sons drank from it–but now they have a better drink than that–, and their livestock drank from it too, can be considered all of scripture, and the water of Jesus is "beyond what is written." Not everyone is permitted to investigate what is beyond what is written, unless they become like them, so that they may not be reproached by hearing "Do not seek what is too difficult for you, and do not investigate what is beyond your strength." If we say that what is "beyond what is written" exists, we are not saying that it could be known to the many, but to John who heard and was not permitted to write them, like the utterances of the thunders, and learned them and did not write them because he considered that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. But also what Paul learned, "unspeakable words," "beyond what is written," if indeed what is written is spoken by men; and "what no eye has seen" is beyond what is written, and "what no ear has heard" cannot be written. And the things that have not entered into the heart of man are greater than the well of Jacob, revealed from a spring of water welling up to eternal life to those who no longer have the heart of man, but can say "we have the mind of Christ," "that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God, which we also speak not in words taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit." And consider whether it is possible to not call human wisdom false doctrines, but the elementary principles of truth, still coming to men; and the teachings of the Spirit perhaps are the spring of water welling up to eternal life. Therefore, the scriptures are introductions, from which, having accurately comprehended them, now named the well of Jacob, we must go up to Jesus, so that he may grant us a spring of water welling up to eternal life. Not everyone draws alike from the well of Jacob; for if Jacob drank from it, and his sons and his livestock, and the Samaritan woman, who still was thirsty, came to it and drew from it, perhaps Jacob and his sons drank otherwise, with knowledge; and his livestock drank otherwise, more simply and brutishly; and the Samaritan woman drank otherwise than Jacob and his sons and his livestock. For the wise according to the scriptures drink like Jacob and his sons; and the simpler and more innocent ones, the so-called "sheep of Christ," drink like the livestock of Jacob; and those who distort the scriptures and introduce certain slanders on the pretext of understanding them drink like the Samaritan woman did before believing in Jesus.
[John 4:15] The woman says to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw."
Already, for the second time, the Samaritan woman addresses the Savior as "Lord"; the first time when she says, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep," when she inquires where he has the living water from, and whether he is greater than her patriarch Jacob. Now, she asks specifically for the water that becomes a spring within the drinker, welling up to eternal life. And if the saying, "You would have asked him, and he would have given you living water," is true, it is clear that when she says, "Give me this water," she receives the living water so that she may no longer struggle with thirst and may not need to come to Jacob's well to draw water, but without Jacob's water, she may be able to behold the truth angelically and beyond human capacity. For indeed, the angels do not need Jacob's well to drink, but each has within himself a spring of water springing up to eternal life, produced and revealed by the Logos and wisdom itself. Nevertheless, it is not possible to accommodate another water apart from the water from Jacob's well without diligently attending to the act of drawing and thirsting; thereby, many lack this refined practice of drawing from Jacob's well.
[John 4:16-17] He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." The woman answered and said, "I have no husband."
We also mentioned earlier the ruler of the soul, the law, to which each person subjects themselves, is considered the husband. Now, even from the Apostle's letter to the Romans, we will provide this testimony, saying: "Or do you not know, brothers—for I speak to those who know the law—that the law has dominion over a person as long as they live?" Who then lives? Taking the law in general, the law. Then he immediately says, "For the married woman is bound by the law to her living husband," as if he were saying, "to her living husband, who is the law." Then again, he says, "But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of the husband," as if the woman were released upon the death of the law, and her obligations as a wife to a husband no longer apply. Then he says, "So then, if while her husband lives she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she marries another man." The law, therefore, has died according to the letter, and the soul is not an adulteress when it marries another, the law according to the spirit. But if the husband has died, the wife might somehow be said to be dead to the husband, so that we understand it this way: "So, my brothers, you also were put to death in the law through the body of Christ, that you may belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God." If, then, the husband is the law, and the Samaritan woman has some husband, having subjected herself according to a certain law, according to which each of the heterodox wishes to live, the divine word intends to expose the ruler of that heterodox soul, who is her law, in order that she despise him as not being a lawful husband and seek another husband, to belong to another, to the resurrected Logos, who neither can be overturned nor will die, but remains eternal and subjugates all enemies, for "Christ, having been raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God, being at His right hand until all His enemies are made a footstool for His feet." Where, then, should the supposed husband of the Samaritan be exposed as not being her husband if not at Jacob's well by Jesus, unless the woman herself rejected the husband? Therefore, Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." As if she already had something of the water that leaps into eternal life by saying, "Give me this water," and relying on the truthful promise that "You would have asked him, and he would have given you living water," the woman answered, condemning herself for her association with such a husband, and said, "I have no husband."
[John 4:17-18] Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."
I think that every soul introduced into piety in Christ through the scriptures, beginning from the sensory and bodily matters mentioned, holds the five husbands as representatives of each of the senses, being a certain husband of each. But when, after associating with the sensory, someone desires and turns towards the intellectual, encountering rationality under the guise of allegory and unhealthy spiritual matters, this person, after the five husbands, comes to another, giving, so to speak, a divorce to the former five and deciding to coexist with the sixth. And as long as Jesus has not come to make us aware of such a man, we are united with that one; but when the Lord's word comes and converses with us, denying that man, we say, "I have no husband"; and the Lord praises us, saying, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband.'" The phrase "This you have said truly" is somewhat reproachful, as the former things said by her were not truly stated. And perhaps it was not true that "Jews do not associate with Samaritans." For Jesus himself, as we have said earlier, associates with Samaritans to benefit them as well. It is also not true that "You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep." Perhaps it is also not true that "Jacob drank from the well, and his sons and his livestock." For if Jacob and his sons and his livestock did not drink in the same manner as the Samaritan woman, but the Samaritan woman thinks that Jacob and his sons and his livestock drank entirely the same and identical drink, it is clear that she is lying.
Let us also consider the words of Heracleon regarding these matters, who says that that life and the glory associated with it were weak, temporary, and ceasing; for he says it was worldly; and he thinks he provides proof of it being worldly from the fact that the livestock of Jacob drank from it. And if indeed he took partial knowledge as weak, temporary, and deficient, namely the knowledge obtained from the Scriptures by comparison of ineffable sayings, "which it is not lawful for a man to speak," or all the knowledge that now comes "through a mirror dimly," being abolished when the perfect comes, we would not have blamed it. But if he does this to slander the old, he should be reproached. The water that the Savior gives, he says, is from his Spirit and his power, not lying. And to "he shall never thirst" he renders thus in these words: "For his life is eternal and never-perishing, unlike the first which is from the well, but remaining; for the grace and the gift of our Savior is irrevocable and not consumed nor corrupted in the one who partakes of it." But calling the first life perishable, if he meant according to the letter, seeking the removal of the veil done according to the spirit, and finding, he would speak correctly; but if he categorically accuses the old of corruption, it is clear he does this as one not seeing the good things of the future have their shadow there. Not improbably did he narrate the "leaping" and those partaking of what is abundantly supplied from above and also themselves gushing forth into others' eternal life what was provided to them. But he also praises the Samaritan woman as having revealed her indiscriminate and by nature suitable faith, not doubting what was said to her. Therefore, if he accepted the intention, not hinting anything about a differing nature, we would also agree; but if he attributes the cause of the agreement to the natural construction as if it is not present in all, his statement must be overturned. I do not know how Heracleon, taking the unrecorded, says that in regards to "Give me this water," having been briefly instructed by the Word, she henceforth hated both the place and the so-called living water. Furthermore, concerning "Give me this water, so that I may not thirst nor come here to draw," he says that the woman says these things showing the toilsome, difficult, and inadequate nature of that water. For where does he have the evidence to show that the water of Jacob is without stain? Moreover, Heracleon says concerning the phrase "He said to her," it is clear that saying something like this, "If you want to receive this water, go call your husband," he supposes that the man mentioned by the Savior is her fullness, so that being with him, she might be able to obtain from the Savior the power, the union, and the mingling towards her fullness. For, he says, He did not tell her to call a man of the world, since He was not unaware that she did not have a lawful husband. Obviously, he is overreaching here, saying that the Savior told her, "Call your husband and come here," meaning the spouse from the fullness. For if this were so, he ought to have said who the man was and in what manner he should be called, so that she might be with him before the Savior. But since, as Heracleon says, she did not recognize her own man in the intelligible sense, and in the simplistic sense was ashamed to say that she had a lover and not a husband, how is not his command, "Go, call your husband and come here," void? Then he says further to this, "You have rightly said that you have no husband," since the Samaritan woman did not have a husband in the world, for her husband was in the aeon. We, however, have read, "You have had five husbands," but in Heracleon's text, we found, "You have had six husbands." And he interprets that all material evil is indicated by the six husbands, with whom she had been entangled and associated unlawfully, fornicating and being violated and rejected by them. One must say to him that if the spiritual was fornicating, the spiritual was sinning; if the spiritual was sinning, the spiritual was not a good tree; for according to the gospel, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit." And it is clear that their myth-making falls apart. If it is impossible for the good tree to bear bad fruit, and the Samaritan woman, as a spiritual being, was a good tree, it follows to say that either her fornication was not a sin, or she did not fornicate.
[John 4:19-20] The woman said to Him, "Lord, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship."
For the third time the Samaritan woman calls our Savior "Lord" when it is lastly written that she spoke this to Him; but she does not yet consider Him greater than the prophets, nor the prophesied one, but some prophet. And even the heterodox opinion of those muddling with the scriptures, refuted by her by the earlier five husbands and the one left afterward by her believed to be a man, could not initially recognize what He is, says He is a prophet, as if something divine and having something superior to human, yet not as great as He was. Hence, she says, as if she somehow saw with new vision and assumed in contemplation, "I perceive that you are a prophet."
To this, "Our fathers" and what follows must be understood as the Samaritan's difference with the Jews concerning their considered holy place; for the Samaritans, believing the called Mount Gerizim to be holy, worship God there, as Moses remembers in Deuteronomy thus saying, "And Moses commanded the people on that day, saying: ‘These shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people when you have crossed over the Jordan: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin; and these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali.’" But the Jews, believing Zion to be a divine and proper place of God, think that it is the chosen place by the Father of all, and for this reason, they say the temple was built there by Solomon and all the Levitical and priestly services are performed there. Consequently, each nation has taken it upon themselves, according to their beliefs, that the fathers worshiped God on this or that mountain. And if ever the Samaritans and the Jews condescended to debate with each other, each would interrogate the other, and the Samaritan would say to the Jew the recorded words of the woman: "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain," pointing to Mount Gerizim, "but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." But since the Jews, from whom salvation comes, are pictures of those who possess sound reasoning, and the Samaritans of the heterodox, the Samaritans therefore venerate Mount Gerizim, which is interpreted as "cutting or division"—and from the historical cutting and division of the ten tribes separated from the remaining two that occurred during the times of Jeroboam, whose name means "judgment of the people." The Jews, however, venerate Zion, which means "watchtower." It is reasonable to question why the blessings of Moses happened on Mount Gerizim. It must be said in this respect that since the name Gerizim signifies cutting and division, the aspect of cutting is taken to mean when the people were divided by Jeroboam and the king dwelt in Samaria; the aspect of division applies to the blessing of the wise who divide matters precisely for understanding each issue, which is necessary for the understanding of truth. Therefore, as long as the hour spoken of by the Lord has not yet come, when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will they worship the Father, one must avoid the mountain of the Samaritans and worship God in Zion, where Jerusalem is, which is said to be the city of the great king, Christ. What is the city of the great king, the true Jerusalem, but the church built of living stones, where the sanctuary is holy, spiritual sacrifices are offered to God by those who are spiritual and understand the spiritual law? But when the fullness of time comes, then it must not be supposed that true worship and perfect piety will be performed in Jerusalem any longer, when someone is no longer in the flesh but in the spirit and no longer in type but wholly in truth, being made in such a way as to resemble those worshippers whom God seeks.
Twice it is written "The hour is coming," and in the first instance it is not added "And now is," but in the second instance, the evangelist says, "But the hour is coming and now is." And I think the former signifies the worship outside bodies to be consummated in perfection, and the latter the progress towards perfection as far as human nature allows in this life. Therefore, it is possible to worship the Father in spirit and truth when not only "the hour is coming" but "it now is," even if we think it happens in Jerusalem for those who have reached only so far. Hence, when it is written, "The hour is coming and now is," it is no longer said, "Neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father," as it was said where "The hour is coming" is written without "And now is." Yet still, the Samaritan woman has a similar mistaken belief as the one about the supposed well when she says these things. "Is it that you are greater," she says, "than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?" And here, "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain."
Heracleon says that in these very words the Samaritan woman has properly acknowledged the things spoken to her by him: for he says it belongs to a prophet alone to know everything; but he is doubly false: for angels are also capable of knowing such things, and a prophet does not know everything; "For we know in part and we prophesy in part," even if we prophesy or know. After this, he praises the Samaritan woman for acting according to her nature, neither lying nor openly confessing her own disgrace; he says she is convinced that he is a prophet, asking him at the same time to reveal the cause for which she committed adultery, due to her ignorance of God and neglect of the worship according to God and all the necessities of life for her, and otherwise always being involved in worldly things; for he says she would not have come to the well outside the city otherwise. I do not know how he thought to indicate the cause of her having committed adultery, or that ignorance became the cause of her transgressions and the worship according to God; but it seems he has made these statements without any probability. He adds to these things: that seeking to learn how and by whom she might please and worship God, and be freed from adulterous behavior, she says, "Our fathers worshiped on this mountain," and the following. But what has been said is very easily refutable; for whence is it that she wants to learn by whom she might please and be freed from adulterous behavior?
[John 4:21] Jesus said to her, "Believe me, woman, that the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father."
When it seemed most likely that Heracleon had observed in these words that it was not said to her previously, "Believe me, woman," but now this was commanded to her, then he obscured the plausible observation, saying that the mountain refers to the devil or to his world, since the devil, he said, was a part of the whole matter, while the world is the entirety of wickedness, a deserted dwelling place of beasts, to which all who were before the law and the Gentiles worshipped. But Jerusalem represents creation or the Creator, whom the Jews worshipped. But also secondly, he thought that the mountain referred to creation which the Gentiles worshipped, whereas Jerusalem referred to the Creator whom the Jews served. Therefore, he said, you, as if the spiritual ones, will worship neither creation nor the creator but rather the Father of truth; and indeed, he includes her, he said, as already faithful and included among those who truly worship. But we understand the pseudo-religion of the Gnostics and those called by seemingly high-sounding names among the heterodox to be clearly shown by the "Neither on this mountain," while the canon according to the majority of the church, which the perfect and holy one will surpass, worshipping the Father more theoretically, clearly, and divinely, is shown by the "Neither in Jerusalem will you worship the Father." For as even the Jews would confess, the angels do not worship the Father in Jerusalem, the place superior to worshipping the Father in Jerusalem, thus those who have already attained the angelic disposition will not worship the Father in Jerusalem, but rather better than those in Jerusalem, even if they accompany those in Jerusalem out of consideration for them, becoming Jews to the Jews so that they might win over the Jews. Let Jerusalem be understood by me as we have previously stated, and likewise the Jews. However, when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem anyone will worship, the hour having come, a son born with boldness will worship the Father. Therefore, it was not said, "Neither in Jerusalem will you worship God," but rather, "Neither in Jerusalem will you worship the Father."
[John 4:22] You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
The "you," in terms of the literal word, refers to the Samaritans; in terms of higher interpretation, it refers to the heterodox in relation to the scriptures. But the "we," in the literal sense, is the Jews; in the allegorical sense, it is I, the Word, and those formed according to me, holding salvation from the Jewish words; for the revealed mystery has now been manifested through the prophetic scriptures and the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But see whether Heracleon did not, on his own, and beyond the sequence of the words, interpret the "you" in place of "the Jews and the Gentiles." For how can it be said to a Samaritan, "You Jews," or to a Samaritan, "You Gentiles?" Yet the heterodox do not know what they worship, for it is a fabrication and not truth, both myth and not mysteries; but one who worships the Creator, especially according to the inner Jew and the spiritual words of the Jews, worships what he knows. It would be too lengthy now to present Heracleon's words, taken from the so-called "Preaching of Peter," and to stand examining them and whether the book is genuine, spurious, or mixed; thus, willingly passing over them, marking only that he attributes to Peter the teaching that one ought not worship according to the Greeks, accepting and serving material things and worshipping wood and stones, nor according to the Jews, as even they, thinking they alone know God, are ignorant of Him, worshipping angels and the moon and the sun. Yet it needs to be inquired, in regard to truth, to whom the bodily worship was conducted by the Jews; for it is evident that it was set before them to offer sacrifices to the Creator of all. It is also worth seeing what is written in the Acts of the Apostles: "But God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven." I do not understand how, with the Savior declaring openly that "salvation is from the Jews," the heterodox deny the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the fathers of the Jews. Moreover, if the Savior fulfills the law and in order to fulfill the things written in the prophets such and such happen according to the coming of the Lord, how is it not clear in what way "salvation is from the Jews?" For the same God is of Jews and Gentiles, "if indeed God is one, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." For we do not nullify the law through faith, but rather we uphold the law through it.
[John 4:23] But the hour is coming and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.
Those who do not at all profess to worship the Father should not even be called worshipers of God; but among all those who profess to worship the Creator, if they no longer walk in the flesh but in the spirit, and walk by the spirit and do not fulfill the desires of the flesh, these should be called true worshipers, those who worship the Father in spirit and not in flesh, and in truth and not in pretense. And one who is enslaved by the letter that kills, and has not partaken of the spirit that gives life, nor follows the spiritual aspects of the law, this one would be the untrue worshiper who does not worship the Father in spirit; and this very one, being wholly of the form and the bodily, when he seems to be succeeding most fully, then worships God in form and not in truth, thus being unable to be called a true worshiper. Perhaps it has ever been reasonably granted for the true worshiper, worshiping in spirit and truth, to also perform some formal acts, in order that by liberating those enslaved to the form in the most prudent manner from the forms, he may bring them to truth, as Paul seems to have done with Timothy, and perhaps also in Cenchreae and Jerusalem, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. It must be observed that the true worshipers worship the Father in spirit and in truth not only at the future hour but also at the present hour. But those who worship in spirit, as they have received the spirit’s earnest, worship presently, but in the fullness of the spirit, when they will possess all the spirit, they will worship the Father. If the one who sees through a mirror does not see the truth, as this is shown to those skilled in mirrors, Paul and those like him now see through a mirror, it is evident that as they see, so they worship God, and through a mirror, they worship God; but when the time comes which follows the present time, then worship will be in the truth "face to face" and no longer seen through a mirror. However, Heracleon thinks that "We worship" refers to the one in the age and those who came with him; for these, he says, knew whom they worshiped, worshiping in truth. But also the statement "For salvation is from the Jews" is said because it happened in Judea, but not through themselves—for not all of them were in favor—and because from that nation salvation and the word went out to the world. According to the understanding, salvation being from the Jews was told since they are considered images of those in His fullness. It was necessary for him and those from him to show how each of those in worship is an image of those in the fullness if indeed they say this not only by voice but also genuinely believe this. Additionally, he says, explaining "Worshiping God in spirit and in truth," that the former worshipers worshiped in flesh and in error to the not-Father, so, according to him, all those who worshiped the Creator were mistaken. And Heracleon adds that they served the creation, and not the true Creator, who is Christ if indeed "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made."