For this point must above all others be maintained by those who allow nothing to be unbegotten, i.e., unborn, save God the Father only. And we must be careful not to fall into the absurdities of those who picture to themselves certain emanations, so as to divide the divine nature into parts, and who divide God the Father as far as they can, since even to entertain the remotest suspicion of such a thing regarding an incorporeal being is not only the height of impiety, but a mark of the greatest folly, it being most remote from any intelligent conception that there should be any physical division of any incorporeal nature. Rather, therefore, as an act of the will proceeds from the understanding, and neither cuts off any part nor is separated or divided from it, so after some such fashion is the Father to be supposed as having begotten the Son, His own image; namely, so that, as He is Himself invisible by nature, He also begot an image that was invisible. (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 6)

I observe. I reflect on my observation. My reflecting may be momentary or extended.

I make a decision regarding my observation. I may be tentative or confident in my decision.

I take action in accordance with my decision. My action may be wholehearted or somewhat less.

Each of these - observing, deciding, and acting - are aspects of my particular character my specific will.

To an outsider or even to myself these individual aspects of will are indivisible.

But the image of the Son of God, of whom we are now speaking, may be compared to the second of the above examples, even in respect of this, that He is the invisible image of the invisible God, in the same manner as we say, according to the sacred history, that the image of Adam is his son Seth. The words are, “And Adam begot Seth in his own likeness, and after his own image.” Now this image contains the unity of nature and substance belonging to Father and Son. For if the Son do, in like manner, all those things which the Father does, then, in virtue of the Son doing all things like the Father, is the image of the Father formed in the Son, who is born of Him, like an act of His will proceeding from the mind. And I am therefore of opinion that the will of the Father ought alone to be sufficient for the existence of that which He wishes to exist. For in the exercise of His will He employs no other way than that which is made known by the counsel of His will. And thus also the existence of the Son is generated by Him. (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 6)

God's will then, it would seem, preceded the Son?

To explain the origin of the universe physicists are now inclined to say that matter appeared "everywhere, all at once."

If God is beyond time and space it is inappropriate to speak in terms of pre or post. God is everywhere, all at once.

If a trinitarian perspective has value and validity, Father, Son, and Spirit are everywhere, all at once.

Or better: everywhere and always; of many aspects, but one identity.

Let us now see how we are to understand the expression “invisible image,” that we may in this way perceive how God is rightly called the Father of His Son; and let us, in the first place, draw our conclusions from what are customarily called images among men. That is sometimes called an image which is painted or sculptured on some material substance, such as wood or stone; and sometimes a child is called the image of his parent, when the features of the child in no respect belie their resemblance to the father. I think, therefore, that that man who was formed after the image and likeness of God may be fittingly compared to the first illustration. Respecting him, however, we shall see more precisely, God willing, when we come to expound the passage in Genesis. (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 6)

The English word "image" means a a physical likeness or representation of a person, animal, or thing, photographed, painted, sculptured, or otherwise made visible.

It is derived from the Latin imago meaning to form a mental picture, as in the imagination.

The Greek for "image" is eikon which also means a physical likeness but with a much stronger sense of incorporating the full character of the original.

Let us now ascertain how those statements which we have advanced are supported by the authority of holy Scripture. The Apostle Paul says, that the only-begotten Son is the “image of the invisible God,” and “the first-born of every creature.” And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person.” Now, we find in the treatise called the Wisdom of Solomon the following description of the wisdom of God: “For she is the breath of the power of God, and the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty.” Nothing that is polluted can therefore come upon her. For she is the splendour of the eternal light, and the stainless mirror of God's working, and the image of His goodness. Now we say, as before, that Wisdom has her existence nowhere else save in Him who is the beginning of all things: from whom also is derived everything that is wise, because He Himself is the only one who is by nature a Son, and is therefore termed the Only-begotten. (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 5)

Sophia (Wisdom) is coincident with the Son of God. Origen may even be arguing that Sophia can only be found through the Son of God.

In the Theatetus Plato can be read as suggesting that wisdom consists of knowledge (episteme) plus a true perception (semeion) plus an accurate account (logos (?))

Christ would certainly have Platonic knowledge, for Christ is the beginning of all things and therefore able to recall all.

Throughout the gospels Jesus is able to accurately discern his context and the situation of those he encounters.

The gospel of John claims that Jesus is the Word. In the life and teaching of Jesus we experience the fullness of creation.

But it is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son. Because His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun. For it is not by receiving the breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward act, but by His own nature. (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 4)

Origen recognizes the imperfect possibility of the analogy and rushes to close-off the possibility. (See yesterday's post.)

In 251, shortly after the death of Origen, the Synod of Antioch declared Christ to be "wholly God" and "wholly man." The confession of faith begins:

We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ, who was of God and the Father, who was begotten before the worlds of the Spirit, but in the end of days, was born of a virgin in the flesh, is one compound person of heavenly Deity and human flesh; and also in this, that he is man, wholly God and wholly man;

The Antioch confession continues to finely distinguish this "man" from any other, but at least for me it is a great comfort to understand Jesus as wholly man and as fully fallible and fearful as I can be.

I also understand that in relationship with God - an especially profound relationship - Jesus became more than man, and this too is all the more meaningful because Jesus shared my nature, both weakness and strength.

Whatever, therefore, we have predicated of the wisdom of God, will be appropriately applied and understood of the Son of God, in virtue of His being the Life, and the Word, and the Truth and the Resurrection: for all these titles are derived from His power and operations, and in none of them is there the slightest ground for understanding anything of a corporeal nature which might seem to denote either size, or form, or colour; for those children of men which appear among us, or those descendants of other living beings, correspond to the seed of those by whom they were begotten, or derive from those mothers, in whose wombs they are formed and nourished, whatever that is, which they bring into this life, and carry with them when they are born. (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 4)

It is the fundamental function of the Son of God to bring Life, Word, Truth and Resurrection.

For Origen, these are the Platonic Forms (eide) of the Christ. The corporeal being known as Jesus was a "copy" of these essential forms.

Jesus was ephemeral, Christ is eternal. Jesus was in flux, Christ is permanent.

If Origen strictly follows the Platonic model he should say that Jesus was imperfect, while Christ is perfect. He does not go so far... at least not yet.

What would it mean for Jesus to be imperfect, even while being the perceptible expression of the perfect?

And then, in the next place, since some of those who were created were not to be always willing to remain unchangeable and unalterable in the calm and moderate enjoyment of the blessings which they possessed, but, in consequence of the good which was in them being theirs not by nature or essence, but by accident, were to be perverted and changed, and to fall away from their position, therefore was the Word and Wisdom of God made the Way. And it was so termed because it leads to the Father those who walk along it. (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 4)

God is ultimate essence, original and unchangeable reality.

We are, according to Origen, accident and changeable.

We are certainly changeable and prone to accident. Does this confirm our essential character? Or is this merely a shadowy form that distracts from the more essential source? (I can play with Plato too).

For many Christians this is the day we celebrate the incarnation, the day when Word and Wisdom and Way became flesh and dwelt among us.

God chose to clarify and confirm the Way by assuming a human body, in our space, in our temporality, in our flux. This suggests - at least to this accident-prone, perverse, and changeable creature - the body has an essential role to play in any Wisdom.

This Son, accordingly, is also the truth and life of all things which exist. And with reason. For how could those things which were created live, unless they derived their being from life? Or how could those things which are, truly exist, unless they came down from the truth? Or how could rational beings exist, unless the Word or reason had previously existed? Or how could they be wise, unless there were wisdom? (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 4)

Truth begat truth. Life begets life. Wisdom begat wisdom. Makes sense.

But can not wisdom often evolve from foolishness and failure?

Does not the food on which life depends thrive in soil rich from death?

Doesn't our understanding of truth depend, in part, on our recognition of falsehood and error?

Did not Jesus die so that we might live abundantly?

John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, And God was the Word, and this was in the beginning with God. Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God, take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or anything else that can be so entitled. (Book I, Chapter 2, Part 3)

God was (is): logos, the word, order in complexity, pattern in chaos, the meaning around which a flood of events will strangely swirl.

This is surely wisdom, but we are challenged to fully engage. Our self-referential tendencies - finding analogies to father, son, and other human attributes - complicate as well as clarify.

As creatures of space and time we are limited in our ability to imagine realities beyond space and time.

Now, in the same way in which we have understood that Wisdom was the beginning of the ways of God, and is said to be created, forming beforehand and containing within herself the species and beginnings of all creatures, must we understand her to be the Word of God, because of her disclosing to all other beings, i.e., to universal creation, the nature of the mysteries and secrets which are contained within the divine wisdom; and on this account she is called the Word, because she is, as it were, the interpreter of the secrets of the mind. And therefore that language which is found in the Acts of Paul, where it is said that “here is the Word a living being,” appears to me to be rightly used. (Book II, Part 3)

Wisdom - the Greek is sophia (Σοφíα) - must be understood as the Word of God - the Greek is logos (λόγος).

Philo of Alexandria is the first I know to equate sophia and logos. There is in his treatment a sense that sophia - a female noun - is passive while logos - male noun - is active.

To be known and acted upon wisdom must be articulated. To be known divine wisdom must be incarnate, active in the world.

(Note: I am not familiar with the Acts of Paul. This is a second century text long considered non-canonical)

Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed. And since all the creative power of the coming creation was included in this very existence of Wisdom (whether of those things which have an original or of those which have a derived existence), having been formed beforehand and arranged by the power of foreknowledge; on account of these very creatures which had been described, as it were, and prefigured in Wisdom herself, does Wisdom say, in the words of Solomon, that she was created the beginning of the ways of God, inasmuch as she contained within herself either the beginnings, or forms, or species of all creation. (Book II, Part 2)

The use of the feminine for Wisdom is common across the ancient world. This identification of the feminine with the Christ is evocative.

Before the beginning was God and Wisdom, father and mother, male and female, and - somehow - father and son as well, each and all of one being.

This strikes me as speculative - and derivative as well - but when gently offered these images help us engage the awesome mystery of the ultimate reality we call God.

Today is the feast day of Thomas - apostle, teacher, and evangelist - with whom I have long had a particular sense of relationship.

This very early morning I have arisen to see a total eclipse of the moon, the first since 1638 to coincide with the winter solstice.

Today will be the darkest day of the Northern year. But especially as the moon is eaten up by the earth's shadow, with a short sun on a cold day, and in a world full of trouble we watch expectantly for light everlasting.

And who that is capable of entertaining reverential thoughts or feelings regarding God, can suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without having generated this Wisdom? For in that case he must say either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He afterwards called into being her who formerly did not exist, or that He possessed the power indeed, but— what cannot be said of God without impiety— was unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is patent to all, are alike absurd and impious: for they amount to this, either that God advanced from a condition of inability to one of ability, or that, although possessed of the power, He concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom. (Book II, Part 1)

I am sure my understanding of God is insufficient, but wisdom -- an effective application of intelligence and intention -- is fundamental to this understanding.

This does not discount, however, the possibility of God continuing to learn. Why should God be constrained from new experiences?

Divine restraint does not strike me as a source of impiety. It is at the heart of our freedom. Why should God be forced to take action?

Perhaps it is too limited an analogy, but human wisdom is often expressed in learning and restraint.

Let no one, however, imagine that we mean anything impersonal when we call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we understand Him to be, not a living being endowed with wisdom, but something which makes men wise, giving itself to, and implanting itself in, the minds of those who are made capable of receiving His virtues and intelligence. If, then, it is once rightly understood that the only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically existing, I know not whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this, or entertain any suspicion that that ὑπόστασις or substantia contains anything of a bodily nature, since everything that is corporeal is distinguished either by form, or colour, or magnitude. And who in his sound senses ever sought for form, or colour, or size, in wisdom, in respect of its being wisdom? (Book II, Part 2)

Hypostatis is "substance" or "substantive reality". Aristotle and Plato tussled over its precise meaning.

Origen is writing at least two generations before the formula "Three Hypostases in one Ousia" or "Three Existences in one Essence" was articulated as the orthodox Trinitarian structure. He does not, I am told, distinguish hypostasis from ousia.

These words - and especially a perceived difference between ὑπόστασις (hypostatis) or substantia (Latin) - troubled the Christian world for centuries. Even today the distinctions can raise the hackles of many, especially between Christian, Jew and Muslim and between the Roman and Greek churches.

What is the character of Wisdom? Does it have color, form, or size? It is, I understand, non-hypostatic, but I personify Wisdom in the wise people I have know. It is their color, form, and size that I recall when I consider the character of wisdom.

I see the faces of those I have "known" - what does that verb entail? - as teachers, friends, writers I have read, and Jesus who is also called the Christ.

In the first place, we must note that the nature of that deity which is in Christ in respect of His being the only-begotten Son of God is one thing, and that human nature which He assumed in these last times for the purposes of the dispensation (of grace) is another. And therefore we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: “The Lord created me— the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.” He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: “who is the first-born of every creature.” The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the Apostle Paul says that “Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God.”(Book II, Part 1)

Origen has completed his analysis of God and moves on to an analysis of the second person of the trinity.

The fixation on corporeality or incorporeality - whether God has a body or not - preoccupied Origen. In this he reflects the struggle between early Chritianity's Greek and Jewish identities and an effort to fully differentiate the still-young faith from other better established Hellenistic and Oriental religions.

Tensions attract our attention. Difference can cause tension. But differences can also illuminate. Tension can energize, strengthen, and bring together.

In like manner, also, it is said to employ the services of other members, which are transferred from their bodily appellations, and applied to the powers of the soul, according to the words of Solomon, “You will find a divine sense.” For he knew that there were within us two kinds of senses: the one mortal, corruptible, human; the other immortal and intellectual, which he now termed divine. By this divine sense, therefore, not of the eyes, but of a pure heart, which is the mind, God may be seen by those who are worthy. For you will certainly find in all the Scriptures, both old and new, the term “heart” repeatedly used instead of “mind,” i.e., intellectual power. In this manner, therefore, although far below the dignity of the subject, have we spoken of the nature of God, as those who understand it under the limitation of the human understanding. In the next place, let us see what is meant by the name of Christ. (Book I, Part 9)

Origen has intellectualized God. I am sure that readers of my meditations would say I do likewise. Yet I do not go nearly so far as Origen tries to take us.

I expect that some of this is the result of a trinitarian schema. I have not read ahead, but I can imagine a God (mind), Son (body), and Holy Ghost (spirit) being set out and then synthesized. If so, I may still come round to some sympathy.

But for now, God - the I AM of Exodus, the Father of the gospels, the reality with which I am in relationship - is not pure intellect.

In the psalms and throughout the Old Testament we read of "leb" or the heart. In psalm 26, verse 2 we read, "Examine me,O LORD, and try me; Test my mind and my heart." Here mind is more limited. It is the heart that encompasses the whole of the inner person: understanding, conscience, emotion, appetite, courage, will and soul.

God is the fullness and creator and culmination of all.

Here, if any one lay before us the passage where it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,” from that very passage, in my opinion, will our position derive additional strength; for what else is seeing God in heart, but, according to our exposition as above, understanding and knowing Him with the mind? For the names of the organs of sense are frequently applied to the soul, so that it may be said to see with the eyes of the heart, i.e., to perform an intellectual act by means of the power of intelligence. So also it is said to hear with the ears when it perceives the deeper meaning of a statement. So also we say that it makes use of teeth, when it chews and eats the bread of life which comes down from heaven. (Book I, Part 9)

How do we perceive? How do we know?

We have clear evidence our sensory observations -- and our mental interpretations of those observations -- can be mistaken.

Our mental interpretations of reality are especially undependable when our angle of physical observation is limited, obscured, or purposefully manipulated.

We know that two equally attentive and capable individuals can in good faith observe the same event, describe it differently, and discern very different meaning from it.

If our concept of God as beyond time and space, ultimately transcendent, and profoundly powerful has any validity at all, what is our capacity -- using senses, intellect, or any other skill -- to fully apprehend God? Very modest.

And if you should ask of me what is my opinion regarding the Only-begotten Himself, whether the nature of God, which is naturally invisible, be not visible even to Him, let not such a question appear to you at once to be either absurd or impious, because we shall give you a logical reason. It is one thing to see, and another to know: to see and to be seen is a property of bodies; to know and to be known, an attribute of intellectual being. Whatever, therefore, is a property of bodies, cannot be predicated either of the Father or of the Son; but what belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and the Son. Finally, even He Himself, in the Gospel, did not say that no one has seen the Father, save the Son, nor any one the Son, save the Father; but His words are: “No one knows the Son, save the Father; nor any one the Father, save the Son.” By which it is clearly shown, that whatever among bodily natures is called seeing and being seen, is termed, between the Father and the Son, a knowing and being known, by means of the power of knowledge, not by the frailness of the sense of sight. Because, then, neither seeing nor being seen can be properly applied to an incorporeal and invisible nature, neither is the Father, in the Gospel, said to be seen by the Son, nor the Son by the Father, but the one is said to be known by the other. (Book I, Part 8)

The Greek word used in Matthew 11:27 and translated above as knows is a form of epignosis. Origen is entirely correct in emphasizing the intellectual as opposed to sensory nature of this form of knowledge.

But the Septuagint -- the Greek Old Testament -- uses epignosis as a translation of the Hebrew yada(יָדָע)which means to perceive, to see, to reveal, to recognize.

We cannot be sure what Jesus said -- probably in Aramaic -- and even if we had a transcript we could undoubtedly argue over meaning.

I understand that Origen is seeking to claim and clarify the Christian God as a concept of divinity far beyond that of the Roman state religion, or Greek tradition, or Persian mysticism, or, perhaps, even beyond that of contemporary Jewish thought.

But Origen is, in my judgment, carrying his argument beyond the evidence. He is also planting the seeds for a Christian anti-materialism that I do not find in the life and teachings of Jesus.

But perhaps these declarations may seem to have less weight with those who wish to be instructed in divine things out of the holy Scriptures, and who seek to have it proved to them from that source how the nature of God surpasses the nature of bodies. See, therefore, if the apostle does not say the same thing, when, speaking of Christ, he declares, that “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature.” Not, as some suppose, that the nature of God is visible to some and invisible to others: for the apostle does not say “the image of God invisible” to men or “invisible” to sinners, but with unvarying constancy pronounces on the nature of God in these words: “the image of the invisible God.” Moreover, John, in his Gospel, when asserting that “no one has seen God at any time,” manifestly declares to all who are capable of understanding, that there is no nature to which God is visible: not as if, He were a being who was visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer creature, but because by the nature of His being it is impossible for Him to be seen. (Book I, Part 8)

From the thirty-third chapter, verses 18-23, of Exodus:

Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Then the LORD said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

Sounds like a body to me, no matter how awesome and even terrible to behold.

God not having a body is, I think, mostly a matter of neo-Platonic partisanship and disdain for the body. Origen has not convinced me.

How, then, should it not appear absurd, that under those senses which are inferior, substances should have been placed on which to exert their powers, but that under this power, which is far better than any other, i.e., the sense of mind, nothing at all of the nature of a substance should be placed, but that a power of an intellectual nature should be an accident, or consequent upon bodies? Those who assert this, doubtless do so to the disparagement of that better substance which is within them; nay, by so doing, they even do wrong to God Himself, when they imagine He may be understood by means of a bodily nature, so that according to their view He is a body, and that which may be understood or perceived by means of a body; and they are unwilling to have it understood that the mind bears a certain relationship to God, of whom the mind itself is an intellectual image, and that by means of this it may come to some knowledge of the nature of divinity, especially if it be purified and separated from bodily matter. (Book I, Part )

Origen perceives of mind and body in conflict, with the body too often victorious.

I perceive mind, body, and spirit as an interdependent system. The sensual, intellectual and spiritual can be complementary.

Balancing the three requires care and cultivation. Left to itself sensuality can be vulgar. The intellect will lose itself in abstraction. Spirituality can be arrogant.

Woven together and reinforcing there is a path to the beautiful, the true, and the good.

This day and every day may we engage the world around us, think deeply, and bring prayer to all we do.

I do not perceive, however, who shall be able to describe or state what is the colour of the mind, in respect of its being mind, and acting as an intelligent existence. Moreover, in confirmation and explanation of what we have already advanced regarding the mind or soul— to the effect that it is better than the whole bodily nature— the following remarks may be added. There underlies every bodily sense a certain peculiar sensible substance, on which the bodily sense exerts itself. For example, colours, form, size, underlie vision; voices and sound, the sense of hearing; odours, good or bad, that of smell; savours, that of taste; heat or cold, hardness or softness, roughness or smoothness, that of touch. Now, of those senses enumerated above, it is manifest to all that the sense of mind is much the best. (Book I, Part 7)

Origen was born into a spiritual age. I was born into a scientific age.

Our questions are nonetheless similar. His questions inspired the questions that unleashed the Enlightenment. I continue the line of inquiry.

Our questions of consciousness, of the mind's nature - perhaps of the soul - continue unanswered.

Above Origen seems to conflate mind with soul. I understand the mind as a physio-chemical system.

Our souls are - I hope more than perceive - the aspect of our identity that is God incarnate.

If there are any now who think that the mind itself and the soul is a body, I wish they would tell me by way of answer how it receives reasons and assertions on subjects of such importance— of such difficulty and such subtlety? Whence does it derive the power of memory? And whence comes the contemplation of invisible things? How does the body possess the faculty of understanding incorporeal existences? How does a bodily nature investigate the processes of the various arts, and contemplate the reasons of things? How, also, is it able to perceive and understand divine truths, which are manifestly incorporeal? Unless, indeed, some should happen to be of opinion, that as the very bodily shape and form of the ears or eyes contributes something to hearing and to sight, and as the individual members, formed by God, have some adaptation, even from the very quality of their form, to the end for which they were naturally appointed; so also he may think that the shape of the soul or mind is to be understood as if created purposely and designedly for perceiving and understanding individual things, and for being set in motion by vital movements. (Book I, Part 7)

It has only been in the last generation that corporeal answers have clearly emerged for Origen's questions regarding the mind. And even today there is plenty we do not know.

But we know in which regions of the brain memory function is found. We understand the physical foundations of intelligence, imagination, and creativity.

Some have even claimed to have found a "God gene".

There remain many mysteries. Human purpose and individual purpose continue to vex us. The difference between knowledge and wisdom is difficult to know.

The power of human relationships to inspire love and hate, beauty and terror, good and evil continues to confound us.

New knowledge requires that Origen's questions (and answers) sometimes be edited. Our knowledge has not - yet - eliminated the value of the questions.

But God, who is the beginning of all things, is not to be regarded as a composite being, lest perchance there should be found to exist elements prior to the beginning itself, out of which everything is composed, whatever that be which is called composite. Neither does the mind require bodily magnitude in order to perform any act or movement; as when the eye by gazing upon bodies of larger size is dilated, but is compressed and contracted in order to see smaller objects. The mind, indeed, requires magnitude of an intellectual kind, because it grows, not after the fashion of a body, but after that of intelligence. For the mind is not enlarged, together with the body, by means of corporal additions, up to the twentieth or thirtieth year of life; but the intellect is sharpened by exercises of learning, and the powers implanted within it for intelligent purposes are called forth; and it is rendered capable of greater intellectual efforts, not being increased by bodily additions, but carefully polished by learned exercises. But these it cannot receive immediately from boyhood, or from birth, because the framework of limbs which the mind employs as organs for exercising itself is weak and feeble; and it is unable to bear the weight of its own operations, or to exhibit a capacity for receiving training. (Book I, Part 6)

Body and mind each have their limitations.

Body and mind each have their beauties.

Body and mind are both created of God and, I perceive, reflect some aspect of God.

The universe is thought to be infinite in size and encompass past, present, and future. Yet it has a physical form we recognize, if only in petty part.

It is worthwhile to consider the nature of God. Wisdom will arise from humility.

And here, if any one were to object, for example, that among those who are at sea, and tossed by its waves the mind is considerably less vigorous than it is wont to be on land, we are to believe that it is in this state, not from diversity of situation, but from the commotion or disturbance of the body to which the mind is joined or attached. For it seems to be contrary to nature, as it were, for a human body to live at sea; and for that reason it appears, by a sort of inequality of its own, to enter upon its mental operations in a slovenly and irregular manner, and to perform the acts of the intellect with a duller sense, in as great degree as those who on land are prostrated with fever; with respect to whom it is certain, that if the mind do not discharge its functions as well as before, in consequence of the attack of disease, the blame is to be laid not upon the place, but upon the bodily malady, by which the body, being disturbed and disordered, renders to the mind its customary services under by no means the well-known and natural conditions: for we human beings are animals composed of a union of body and soul, and in this way (only) was it possible for us to live upon the earth. (Book I, Part 6)

There is certainly a relationship between mind and body. What is the relationship between soul and body?

Origen seems to suggest soul and mind are largely -- even wholly -- identical. The body is spiritually inconvenient and disposable. Soul and mind are better off without the body.

In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul writes, "If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." (I Corinthians 15:44)

For Paul whatever distinguishes physical from spiritual, the human soul has integrity within a kind of body, which is a temple of the wholly spirit within each of us (I Corinthians 6:19).

Origen will undoubtedly deal with Paul's teachings about the body. For now, I give thanks to God for the gift of body, mind, and spirit. May I also do what I can to preserve the sacredness of this trinity.

That mind, moreover, does not require space in order to carry on its movements agreeably to its nature, is certain from observation of our own mind. For if the mind abide within its own limits, and sustain no injury from any cause, it will never, from diversity of situation, be retarded in the discharge of its functions; nor, on the other hand, does it gain any addition or increase of mobility from the nature of particular places.(Book I, Part 6)

Origen is mostly, I think, focused on the locus of the mind, suggesting that a mind-without-body is limitless.

I am less able to conceive of a mind-without-brain than perhaps was possible for Origen and in this way may be more limited than he.

I perceive my mind begins in caring for my body, mostly by making sense of the physical space in which it finds itself.

From this very practical beginning a great many possibilities emerge.

As my mind-and-body engage the space in which I find myself I perceive - even only vaguely - internal and external evidence of a reality beyond immediate reality.

God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as an uncompounded intellectual nature, admitting within Himself no addition of any kind; so that He cannot be believed to have within him a greater and a less, but is such that He is in all parts Μονάς, and, so to speak, mind and source from which all intellectual nature or mind takes its beginning. But mind, for its movements or operations, needs no physical space, nor sensible magnitude, nor bodily shape, nor colour, nor any other of those adjuncts which are the properties of body or matter. Wherefore that simple and wholly intellectual nature can admit of no delay or hesitation in its movements or operations, lest the simplicity of the divine nature should appear to be circumscribed or in some degree hampered by such adjuncts, and lest that which is the beginning of all things should be found composite and differing, and that which ought to be free from all bodily intermixture, in virtue of being the one sole species of Deity, so to speak, should prove, instead of being one, to consist of many things. (Book I, Part 6)

While I am not ready to accept Origen's disdain for created things, my own conception of God is as a state-of-being beyond space and time. In this we seem to agree.

But even in agreement Origen and I highlight different characteristics. To insist that God has a "wholly intellectual nature" suggests a mental process analogous to our own. This seems as insufficient as a God bound by time and space.

Moreover, I look forward to how -- given his conception of God and Trinitarian confidence -- Origen explains Jesus. For it seems to me in the second person of the Trinity we encounter God in time, in space, circumscribed, and in some important ways composite, yet God-from-God.

I perceive God as principally existing beyond time and space. Yet God can just as comfortably occupy both time and space. God is beyond contradiction. God is pure paradox.

In this way I very much value Origen's description: "He is in all parts Μονάς..." The Greek is usually translated as move or moving. But in classical Greek it almost always means a relocation of where one votes in an election. It is to move the locus of your relationships. God is constantly Μονάς.

But it will not appear absurd if we employ another similitude to make the matter clearer. Our eyes frequently cannot look upon the nature of the light itself— that is, upon the substance of the sun; but when we behold his splendour or his rays pouring in, perhaps, through windows or some small openings to admit the light, we can reflect how great is the supply and source of the light of the body. So, in like manner. the works of Divine Providence and the plan of this whole world are a sort of rays, as it were, of the nature of God, in comparison with His real substance and being. As, therefore, our understanding is unable of itself to behold God Himself as He is, it knows the Father of the world from the beauty of His works and the comeliness of His creatures.(Book I, Part 6)

The divine is immanent in the physical universe. We are each of God's substance.

We encounter God - or can do so - in our encounter with neighbor and adversary.

In the beauty of bodies: human, heavenly, and more we have sense of of God's nature.

Photograph by Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn of the Milky Way over Ontario.

For, as if we were to see any one unable to bear a spark of light, or the flame of a very small lamp, and were desirous to acquaint such a one, whose vision could not admit a greater degree of light than what we have stated, with the brightness and splendour of the sun, would it not be necessary to tell him that the splendour of the sun was unspeakably and incalculably better and more glorious than all this light which he saw? So our understanding, when shut in by the fetters of flesh and blood, and rendered, on account of its participation in such material substances, duller and more obtuse, although, in comparison with our bodily nature, it is esteemed to be far superior, yet, in its efforts to examine and behold incorporeal things, scarcely holds the place of a spark or lamp. But among all intelligent, that is, incorporeal beings, what is so superior to all others— so unspeakably and incalculably superior— as God, whose nature cannot be grasped or seen by the power of any human understanding, even the purest and brightest? (Book I, Part 5)

For Plato our intelligence is too often bound as if to the back of a cave where we perceive only rough shadows of created forms.

Plato encourages us to turn from the back of the cave and ascend into the bright light of the sun and the domain of the ideal.

For Origen and many Christian neo-Platonists the body is the cave. The body keeps us in darkness and sin, separate from God.

We understand Jesus to be God incarnate or God in the flesh. Jesus taught his disciples, "take and eat, this is my flesh." Jesus healed and loved bodies.

We might say that Jesus appeared at the back of Plato's cave to beckon us to ascend, but if so he would ask us to begin by taking the first step with our own fleshly foot.

Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured. For whatever be the knowledge which we are able to obtain of God, either by perception or reflection, we must of necessity believe that He is by many degrees far better than what we perceive Him to be.(Book 1, Part 5)

Can we be serious, rigorous, and fully truth-seeking evenwhile rejecting dogmatism?

If God is ultimate reality, it is appropriate to vigorously pursue a fuller understanding of God.

But if God is incomprehensible, beyond measure, it is also realistic to accept our pursuit will never arrive at a full understanding.

For the Samaritan woman, believing Him to be a Jew, was inquiring of Him whether God ought to be worshipped in Jerusalem or on this mountain; and her words were, “All our fathers worshipped on this mountain, and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where we ought to worship.” To this opinion of the Samaritan woman, therefore, who imagined that God was less rightly or duly worshipped, according to the privileges of the different localities, either by the Jews in Jerusalem or by the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, the Saviour answered that he who would follow the Lord must lay aside all preference for particular places, and thus expressed Himself: “The hour is coming when neither in Jerusalem nor on this mountain shall the true worshippers worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” And observe how logically He has joined together the spirit and the truth: He called God a Spirit, that He might distinguish Him from bodies; and He named Him the truth, to distinguish Him from a shadow or an image. For they who worshipped in Jerusalem worshipped God neither in truth nor in spirit, being in subjection to the shadow or image of heavenly things; and such also was the case with those who worshipped on Mount Gerizim. (Book 1, Section 4)

This is a thoroughly Platonic reading of the fourth chapter of John's gospel. As such it is intellectually interesting and spiritually provocative.

If like the Samaritan woman we sometimes confuse our sacred places with the more fundamental reality we seek by worshiping in those places, Origen offers a helpful distinction between place and purpose.

But I do not read in the story of the woman at Jacob's well or otherwise in the gospel any intention by Jesus to deprecate the potential spiritual validity of sacred places.

Neither Mt. Zion nor Mt. Gerizim are appropriately understood as the dark, damp, and sooty depth of Plato's cave. Each is better understood as way stations on the ascent to the sunlight outside the allegorical cave.

The material can complement our engagement of the ideal.

But we must pass on to the language of the Gospel itself, in which it is declared that “God is a Spirit,” and where we have to show how that is to be understood agreeably to what we have stated. For let us inquire on what occasion these words were spoken by the Saviour, before whom He uttered them, and what was the subject of investigation. We find, without any doubt, that He spoke these words to the Samaritan woman, saying to her, who thought, agreeably to the Samaritan view, that God ought to be worshipped on Mount Gerizim, that “God is a Spirit.” (Book I, Section 4)

The Greek word for spirit being referenced is πνεύμα or pneuma. The literal use was as breath or wind. It came to be understood as the underlying source of vitality in all things. Pneuma is how the logos is expressed, it is the human soul, it is the transcendent form.

Plato had been dead for nearly 700 years when Origen wrote, but the neo-Platonists had used those seven centuries to further refine distinctions between the material and the ideal. In this tradition pneuma was the manifestation of the ideal in this material world.

The ultimate reality of Origen is God. In this corrupt material realm we encounter God as pneuma.

And in order that what we say may be more easily understood, let us take an illustration from things very dissimilar. There are many persons who take a part in the science or art of medicine: are we therefore to suppose that those who do so take to themselves the particles of some body called medicine, which is placed before them, and in this way participate in the same? Or must we not rather understand that all who with quick and trained minds come to understand the art and discipline itself, may be said to be partakers of the art of healing? But these are not to be deemed altogether parallel instances in a comparison of medicine to the Holy Spirit, as they have been adduced only to establish that that is not necessarily to be considered a body, a share in which is possessed by many individuals. For the Holy Spirit differs widely from the method or science of medicine, in respect that the Holy Spirit is an intellectual existence and subsists and exists in a peculiar manner, whereas medicine is not at all of that nature. (Book I, Section 3)

As Origen was writing in Greek and insisting on a non-corporeal, entirely spiritual nature of God, Tertullian was writing in Latin and insisting on the opposite.

Where Origen is clearly incorporating platonic and neo-platonic ideas into his work, Tertullian despised Greek philosophical speculation and embraced a very material reality.

Yet both were men of deep faith and each had considerable influence on the orthodoxy that emerged in the generations after them. What intrigues me is the freedom and multiple possibilities that existed at this moment, late in the second century, when these issues were very present but far from resolved.

What we are reading in Origen is one of the earliest efforts at systematic theology.

And since many saints participate in the Holy Spirit, He cannot therefore be understood to be a body, which being divided into corporeal parts, is partaken of by each one of the saints; but He is manifestly a sanctifying power, in which all are said to have a share who have deserved to be sanctified by His grace. (Book I, Section 3)

Origen is, I perceive, working his way through a very Greek problem: How to distinquish between the physical and spiritual or body and mind or flesh and soul.

This dualistic frame of reference can be found in Plato's Phaedo and in much of Western thinking ever since. It is a recurring feature in Paul's epistles.

I do not perceive the issue was important to Jesus. Where the Greeks sought clarity in distinction, Jesus preferred a Jewish embrace of wholeness.

Those, moreover, who, on account of the expression “God is a Spirit,” think that He is a body, are to be answered, I think, in the following manner. It is the custom of sacred Scripture, when it wishes to designate anything opposed to this gross and solid body, to call it spirit, as in the expression, “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life,” where there can be no doubt that by “letter” are meant bodily things, and by “spirit” intellectual things, which we also term “spiritual.” The apostle, moreover, says, “Even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart: nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” For so long as any one is not converted to a spiritual understanding, a veil is placed over his heart, with which veil, i.e., a gross understanding, Scripture itself is said or thought to be covered: and this is the meaning of the statement that a veil was placed over the countenance of Moses when he spoke to the people, i.e., when the law was publicly read aloud. But if we turn to the Lord, where also is the word of God, and where the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual knowledge, then the veil is taken away, and with unveiled face we shall behold the glory of the Lord in the holy Scriptures. (Book 1, Section 2)

Are spirit and body entirely distinct? Even in conflict?

Sun, moon and stars; trees, flowers, and vines; animals of everykind, including human, were created by God and "it was good."

Material and spiritual can be in tension. They can also be complementary, even mutually fulfilling.

If, then, they acquiesce in our assertion, which reason itself has demonstrated, regarding the nature of light, and acknowledge that God cannot be understood to be a body in the sense that light is, similar reasoning will hold true of the expression “a consuming fire.” For what will God consume in respect of His being fire? Shall He be thought to consume material substance, as wood, or hay, or stubble? And what in this view can be called worthy of the glory of God, if He be a fire, consuming materials of that kind? But let us reflect that God does indeed consume and utterly destroy; that He consumes evil thoughts, wicked actions, and sinful desires, when they find their way into the minds of believers; and that, inhabiting along with His Son those souls which are rendered capable of receiving His word and wisdom, according to His own declaration, “I and the Father shall come, and We shall make our abode with him?” He makes them, after all their vices and passions have been consumed, a holy temple, worthy of Himself. (From Book I, section 2)

For Origen, Fire is less "body" than process. So God is more fully analogous to fire than to light.

Light emerges from a body -- sun or moon -- that is physically specific and limited. When the body disappears, so does the light.

Fire, in contrast, can extend far beyond its point of origin. As a process, fire has no corporeal limits.

Light illumines but does not otherwise affect objects encountered. Fire consumes all in its path.

But fire destroys, while light is essential to growth. Origen has not - yet - persuaded me that fire is better than light in understanding the nature of God.

Truly He is that light which illuminates the whole understanding of those who are capable of receiving truth, as is said in the thirty-sixth Psalm, “In Your light we shall see light.” For what other light of God can be named, “in which any one sees light,” save an influence of God, by which a man, being enlightened, either thoroughly sees the truth of all things, or comes to know God Himself, who is called the truth? Such is the meaning of the expression, “In Your light we shall see light;” i.e., in Your word and wisdom which is Your Son, in Himself we shall see You the Father. Because He is called light, shall He be supposed to have any resemblance to the light of the sun? Or how should there be the slightest ground for imagining, that from that corporeal light any one could derive the cause of knowledge, and come to the understanding of the truth? (From Book I)

The relationship of God with Christ can be helpfully compared to that of the sun to light, but the analogy has limitations.

The light of the physical sun illumines physical objects by sharpening contrast in a field of other objects.

The Light of Christ is the light of God. Light from light, it does not cause contrast or shadow, but brings forward the source of light itself.

I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declarations of our own Scriptures, God is a body, because in the writings of Moses they find it said, that “our God is a consuming fire;” and in the Gospel according to John, that “God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” Fire and spirit, according to them, are to be regarded as nothing else than a body. Now, I should like to ask these persons what they have to say respecting that passage where it is declared that God is light; as John writes in his Epistle, “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” (From Book I)

What is the nature of God? What is the nature of ultimate reality?

Is God fire? Or spirit? Or light?

The issue here -- at least for Origen and the early church -- is whether or not God has a body or not. The issue emerges as notions of platonic idealism encounter the essentially Jewish worldview of the the church.

Is God corporeal or incorporeal -- with a body or without a body -- which is also a way of asking is God corruptible or incorruptible?

I expect Origen will focus mostly on light, and so do I. But the reality of God might encompass fire, spirit, and light, material and non-material, ephemeral form and ideal form.

Every one, therefore, must make use of elements and foundations of this sort, according to the precept, “Enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge,” if he would desire to form a connected series and body of truths agreeably to the reason of all these things, that by clear and necessary statements he may ascertain the truth regarding each individual topic, and form, as we have said, one body of doctrine, by means of illustrations and arguments—either those which he has discovered in holy Scripture, or which he has deduced by closely tracing out the consequences and following a correct method. (From the preface)

Knowledge consists of clear statements that coherently describe reality. These statements are derived from what we discern in scripture and other texts and what we deduce from observation and experience. Our knowledge is clarifed and advanced by means of illustrations and arguments in conversation with one another. Our knowledge is limited and fallible, but through self-critical, disciplined discussion with others we may ascertain the truth.

This also is a part of the teaching of the Church, that there are certain angels of God, and certain good influences, which are His servants in accomplishing the salvation of men. When these, however, were created, or of what nature they are, or how they exist, is not clearly stated. Regarding the sun, moon, and stars, whether they are living beings or without life, there is no distinct deliverance. (From the preface)

There are "good influences", but we know very little of them.

The sun, moon, and stars may well exert some influence, but they are not -- as in astrology -- a source of deliverance.

There is much we do not know, but in recognizing our ignorance we might seek to know.

Much worse is being confident of error and thereby leading ourselves into further error.

Humility is the foundation of wisdom, especially in the spiritual domain.

We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers call ἀσώματον, or “incorporeal,” is found in holy Scripture under another name. For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching. And the same inquiries have to be made regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as respecting every soul, and everything possessed of a rational nature. (From the preface)

How do we understand God? Can we understand God?

How do we understand ultimate reality? Can we understand ultimate reality?

This is beyond what we know, but is worth our inquiry.

Even if this inquiry is beyond what we can know, it is worthy of our effort.

In many ways this inquiry is our life.

The Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God, and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most. For those (words) which are written are the forms of certain mysteries, and the images of divine things. Respecting which there is one opinion throughout the whole Church, that the whole law is indeed spiritual; but that the spiritual meaning which the law conveys is not known to all, but to those only on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word of wisdom and knowledge. (From the preface)

Origen is almost certainly writing not so much of interpretation as insight, not hermeneutics but a sort of gnosticism.

How do we know? When I engage scripture there is a need to study its language, its origins, and especially its original context and audience. What was originally intended and why? How does the original context compare to my context? This is mostly an empirical task.

Scripture, poetry, and most literature requires more than the empirical. These demand an empathetic engagement. We must step outside ourselves and become part of the author's world.

This also is a part of the Church's teaching, that the world was made and took its beginning at a certain time, and is to be destroyed on account of its wickedness. But what existed before this world, or what will exist after it, has not become certainly known to the many, for there is no clear statement regarding it in the teaching of the Church. (From the preface)

There is much the Church does not know. This ignorance encompasses both the natural and spiritual domains.

Believers can cordially - or not - disagree regarding their speculations, studies, and findings.

But in this and much more Origen offers it is helpful to recognize where authoritative guidance does not exist.

Regarding the devil and his angels, and the opposing influences, the teaching of the Church has laid down that these beings exist indeed; but what they are, or how they exist, it has not explained with sufficient clearness. This opinion, however, is held by most, that the devil was an angel, and that, having become an apostate, he induced as many of the angels as possible to fall away with himself, and these up to the present time are called his angels. (From the preface)

What do we know of evil? We know it exists. But precisely what it is and how it exists "has not been explained with sufficient clearness."

Origen implies that evil emerges from our free choice. Satan was close to God but chose to rebel and persuaded others to join in rebellion.

This has been a week when the battle between good and evil, light and darkness, has seemed very close.

I have spent hours with those who are angry for good cause and nearly as long with those who are angry for reasons I cannot discern.

I have also seen people reach out in hope, thanksgiving, and love.

Every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition; that it has a struggle to maintain with the devil and his angels, and opposing influences, because they strive to burden it with sins; but if we live rightly and wisely, we should endeavour to shake ourselves free of a burden of that kind. From which it follows, also, that we understand ourselves not to be subject to necessity, so as to be compelled by all means, even against our will, to do either good or evil. For if we are our own masters, some influences perhaps may impel us to sin, and others help us to salvation; we are not forced, however, by any necessity either to act rightly or wrongly...(From the preface)

Yesterday a man -- perhaps in his late twenties -- approached me from behind as I was walking quickly to a meeting and asked a question. I was not sure of what he said and turned while continuing to walk.

He asked where the nearest homeless shelter was, explaining he and his wife had spent the night before in the cold and they were hungry. I responded that I was not from this place and did not know.

The man picked up his pace and began to ask for money. If his story was true I should have emptied my pockets... and I was carrying more cash than usual.

But there was something in the speed and clarity of his pitch that made me feel like a target. This caused me to see the man less as in need than manipulative.

I am sure I do not do enough for those in need. No matter what else, this man was certainly in need. The best choice might have been to exercise my free-will to give and depend on his free-will to do whatever with what I gave.

After these points, also, the apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this: and also, that there is to be a time of resurrection from the dead, when this body, which now “is sown in corruption, shall rise in incorruption,” and that which “is sown in dishonour will rise in glory.” (From the preface)

Accountability does not exclude transcendence.

I began this study of Origen based on a quick summary of his work highlighting his belief in universal redemption. According to that summary "even Satan" is not beyond being received into heaven fully forgiven and deeply loved.

This possibility is suggested by the above, but the means of moving beyond eternal life and blessedness or eternal fire and punishments is not yet explained.

Then, Thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or innate, or also as a Son of God or not: for these are points which have to be inquired into out of sacred Scripture according to the best of our ability, and which demand careful investigation. And that this Spirit inspired each one of the saints, whether prophets or apostles; and that there was not one Spirit in the men of the old dispensation, and another in those who were inspired at the advent of Christ, is most clearly taught throughout the Churches. (From the preface)

The nature of the Holy Spirit is "not clearly distinquished." The relationship of the Holy Spirit to God the Father and Christ the Son "demand(s) careful investigation." Origen does not presume to know.

At the first Council of Nicaea the creed simply noted belief in the Holy Ghost and, with Origen, did not attempt to characterize the third aspect of the Trinity. At the Council of Constantinople (381) it was added, "And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets."

On Trinity Sunday most Christians are told the Trinity is both fundamental and a mystery. To Unitarians the discussion is a distraction. To Muslims and Jews the Trinity is a scandal, dividing one God into three parts.

Writing a century after the death of Paul and a century before the great Councils began to more closely define acceptable and unacceptable, we find in Origen a mature Christian struggling to explain for himself (and others) the essential aspects of his faith.

Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things— “For by Him were all things made” — He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up. (From the preface)

In De Principiis Origin seeks "to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule" on the essential nature of the trinity. His writings certainly excited debate, but he was widely recognized as a great scholar of scripture and hermeneutics. Origen died in 254.

Compare Origen's summary explanation of Jesus Christ with the following adopted in 325 by the First Council of Nicaea:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

In 381 the First Council of Constantinople amended the portions of the creed italicized. Other adjustments were made at later Councils.

The main themes can be readily recognized and are shared. The differences are subtle, but became - and have remained - sources of significant controversy. Origen clearly contributed to what we now understand as orthodox belief. But he is actually pre-orthodox or proto-orthodox.

First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being— God from the first creation and foundation of the world... This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself gave the law and the prophets, and the Gospels, being also the God of the apostles and of the Old and New Testaments. (From the preface)

Origen was born in 185 AD in Alexandria. He was educated in both the religious and classical traditions, and was especially familiar with the works of Plato.

Origen was writing in the century prior to the First Council of Nicaea (325) and long before our current definitions of orthodoxy emerged. Some of Origen's arguments have been condemned as unorthodox.

De Principiis or First Principals was written in Greek, but we have lost the original. What survives is a Latin translation made by Rufinus more than a century after the death of Origen.

The book is organized in four parts: 1) God and the Trinity, (2) the world and its relation to God, (3) man and his free will, and (4) Scripture, its inspiration and interpretation.

We will spend the next few months examining Origen's proposed principles.