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.