Jerome of Stridon, universalism and the commentary on Jonah

 

Jerome of Stridon, universalism and the commentary on Jonah

The aim of this post is to provide an example of how easy is to get to wrong conclusion about the belief of an author (or a single text) when one takes an apparently clear passage in isolation. As an example, I will consider the commentary on the book of Jonah[1] written by Jerome of Stridon[2] (c.a. 342-420), one of the most venerated Doctor of the Catholic Church, most famous for his translation of the Bible to Latin (‘the Vulgate’).

Let me start with this quote from Jerome’s commentary on Jonah:

“Verse 5b-6a. "the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever:" LXX: 'my head has penetrated to the base of mountains; I descended to into the earth whose bars are eternal bonds'. No one doubts that the ocean covered Jonah's head, that he went down to the roots of mountains and came to the depths of the earth by which as bars and columns by the will of God the earthly sphere is supported. This earth about which is said elsewhere, "I consolidated her columns" [Ps. 74:4]. With regard to the Lord Saviour, according to the two editions, this seems to me to be what is meant. His heart and his head, that is the spirit that he thought worthy to take with a body for our safety, went down to the base of the mountains which were covered by waves; they were restrained by the will of God, the deep covered them, they were parted by the majesty of God. His spirit then went down into hell, into those places to which in the last of the mud, the spirits of sinners were held, so too the psalmist says: "they will go down to the depths of the earth, they will be the lot of wolves" [Ps. 62:10.11]. These are the bars of the earth and like the locks of a final prison and tortures, which do not let the captive spirits out of hell. This is why the Septuagint has translated this is a pertinent way: "eternal bonds", that is, wanting to keep in all those whom it had once captured. But our Lord, about which we read these lines of Cyrus in Isaiah: "I will break the bronze bars, I will crack the iron bars" [Is. 45:2], He went down to the roots of the mountains, and was enclosed by eternal bars to free all the prisoners.” (Jerome of Stridon, commentary on Jonah 2:5b-6a)

From this passage, we could get the impression that Jerome, in this commentary, was supporting an universalist view, i.e. the view that all human being will be eventually saved. He writes that Christ descended to the ‘roots of the mountains’ and freed all prisoners. Also, this passage seems even also to say that Christ had the ability to break ‘eternal bonds’[3] that enclosed the prisoners in the realm of the dead.

However, later in the same work, Jerome writes:

“Verses 6-9. "For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?" LXX: 'the message reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, took off his robe and covered himself with sackcloth, and he sat down upon the earth. And by the order of the king and his nobles it was announced throughout Nineveh, saying, it is forbidden for any man or beast or oxen or sheep to eat anything, to drink any water. Men and beasts were covered in sackcloth and cried out to the Lord mightily. Let each one turn away from his wicked practises and from the unfairness that was in his hands, saying, who knows if God will turn and repent, if he will not abandon the fierceness of his wrath so that we might not die?'. I know certain men for whom the king of Nineveh, (who is the last to hear the proclamation and who descends from his throne, and forgoes the ornaments of his former vices and dressed in sackcloth sits on the ground, he is not content with his own conversion, preaches penitence to others with his leaders, saying, "let the men and beasts, big and small of size, be tortured by hunger, let them put on sackcloth, condemn their former sins and betake themselves without reservation to penitence!) is the symbol of the devil, who at the end of the world, (because no spiritual creature that is made reasoning by God will perish), will descend from his pride and do penitence and will be restored to his former position. To support this opinion they use this example of Daniel in which Nebuchadnezzar after seven years of penitence is returned to his former reign. [Dan. 4:24, 29, 33] But because this idea is not in the Holy Scripture and since it completely destroys the fear of God, (for men will slide easily into vices if they believe that even the devil, the creator of wickedness and the source of all sins, can be saved if he does penitence), we must eradicate this from our spirits. Let us remember though that the sinners in the Gospel are sent to the eternal fire [Mt. 25:41], which is prepared for the devil and his angels, about whom is said, "their worm will not die and their fire will not be extinguished" [Is. 66:24]. All the same we know that God is mild, and we sinners do not enjoy his cruelty, but we read, "the Lord is kindly and righteous, and our God will be merciful" [Ps. 114:5]. The justice of God is surrounded by mercy, and it is by this route that he proceeds to judgement: he spares to judge, he judges to be merciful. "Mercy and Truth are to be found in our path; Justice and Peace are to be embraced" [Ps. 84:11]. Moreover if all spiritual creatures are equal and if they raise themselves up by their virtues to heaven, or by their vices take themselves to the depths, then after a long circuit and infinite centuries, if all are returned to their original state with the same worthiness to all conflicting, what difference will there be between the virgin and the prostitute? What distinction will there be between the mother of the Lord and (it is wicked to say) the victims of public pleasures? Will Gabriel be like the devil? Will the apostles be as demons? Will the prophets be as pseudoprophets? Martyrs as their persecutors? Imagine all that you will, increase by two-fold the years and the time, take infinite time for torture: if the end for all is the same, all the past is then nothing, for what is of importance to us is not what we are at any given moment, but what we will be forever more.” (Jerome of Stridon, Commentary on Jonah 3:6-9)

Jerome couldn’t be clearer here with his rejection of ‘universalism’. Besides exegetical arguments, Jerome also makes a philosophical argument: if the ‘end is the same for all’, the previous history will become irrelevant because the choices that each human being has made will not have an ultimate significance[4]. Here we can see a reasoned rejection of universalism – even if one disagrees with Jerome, it is impossible to deny that he, indeed, rejected universalism. The first passage we quoted never really asserted that all will enter in a state of beatitude and didn’t present clear theological consideration. So, the most likely hypothesis we can make on this text is that Jerome rejected universalism here and the first passage should be interpreted in a consistent way with the explicit meaning of the second.

Here, I will not discuss the merits of Jerome’s argument and possible counter-arguments. However, I want to make clear how easy is to form a wrong opinion about the position of a thinker about a certain topic. One should be careful to get to conclusions about the views of a thinker after considering one or more isolated passages. That’s why it is important to, if possible, read the primary sources (i.e. the texts written by the authors themselves) and read how later writers (both ancient and modern) reacted and interpreted the texts of the author in consideration to minimize the risk of misinterpreting, e.g. due to one’s own biases (this is especially important if what remains of the texts of a given author are isolated fragments)[5].  

---

[1] An English translation of the commentary can be found here: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Jonah.html I’ll use this translation for the quotes.

[2] For some biographical information, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

[3] We shouldn’t be too surprised for the apparent end of an ‘eternal’ imprisonment, if we don’t take ‘eternal’ as automatically meaning ‘necessarily endless’. A ‘perpetual imprisonment’ isn’t necessarily ‘without end’. For instance, a prisoner condemned might be freed by someone else and/or might be at a certain point, for some reasons, pardoned.

[4] This argument against universalism was also made by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) much later:

“DRURY:  I had been reading Origen before.  Origen taught that at the end of time here would be a final restitution of all things.  That even Satan and the fallen angels would be restored to their former glory.  This was a conception that appealed to me — but it was at once condemned as heretical.

WITTGENSTEIN:  Of course it was rejected.  It would make nonsense of everything else.  If what we do now is to make no difference in the end, then all the seriousness of life is done away with.  Your religious ideas have always seemed to me more Greek than biblical.  Whereas my thoughts are one hundred per cent Hebraic.

(Recollections of Wittgenstein, ed. Rhees, Oxford,  1984, p. 161.)” (source: https://maverickphilosopher.blog/index.php/2019/12/16/death-as-the-muse-of-morality-limits-our-immorality-2/ )

[5] This doesn’t mean that, necessarily, the ‘usual interpretation’ of a text is a correct one. However, if someone proposes an interpretation of a text written more than a thousand years ago that has never been proposed before, it is more likely than not that this ‘new’ interpretation is wrong. Hence, it is also important, if one proposes an ‘alternative’ interpretation from an ‘usual’ one, to find out if there are historical precedents of the proposed ‘alternative’. If there are not, the likelihood of being wrong increases.