All of which assertions we not only do not receive, but, as being contrary to our belief, we refute and reject. After the refutation and rejection of such perverse opinions, we shall show, at the proper time and place, how those passages which they quote from the sacred Scriptures ought to be understood. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 4)

This ends the first book of Origen. There are three more books. But for now I will close my reading.

I began hoping for confirmation. Mostly I was challenged and argued.

I began encouraged by his authentic questions and provisional answers. I have been disappointed by a growing tendency for refutation and rejection.

I understand his desire for clarity and admire his disciplined pursuit.

But I am not persuaded by imposing Plato, or Ammonius Saccas, or Origen on the awesome expanse of God.

We think that those views are by no means to be admitted, which some are wont unnecessarily to advance and maintain, viz., that souls descend to such a pitch of abasement that they forget their rational nature and dignity, and sink into the condition of irrational animals, either large or small; and in support of these assertions they generally quote some pretended statements of Scripture, such as, that a beast, to which a woman has unnaturally prostituted herself, shall be deemed equally guilty with the woman, and shall be ordered to be stoned; or that a bull which strikes with its horn, shall be put to death in the same way; or even the speaking of Balaam's ass, when God opened its mouth, and the dumb beast of burden, answering with human voice, reproved the madness of the prophet. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 4)

In this age we may be more inclined to admire the dignity of irrational animals and doubt the dignity of man.

Like Balaam's ass wild animals seem to recognize and abide by a divine integrity that too often alludes us.

We wonder if retrieving a simpler, more basic, even animal-like innocence would bring us closer to God.

The image is of Balaam's ass and the Angel as told in Numbers 22.

But the third order of rational creatures is that of those who are judged fit by God to replenish the human race, i.e., the souls of men, assumed in consequence of their moral progress into the order of angels; of whom we see some assumed into the number: those, viz., who have been made the sons of God, or the children of the resurrection, or who have abandoned the darkness, and have loved the light, and have been made children of the light; or those who, proving victorious in every struggle, and being made men of peace, have been the sons of peace, and the sons of God; or those who, mortifying their members on the earth, and, rising above not only their corporeal nature, but even the uncertain and fragile movements of the soul itself, have united themselves to the Lord, being made altogether spiritual, that they may be for ever one spirit with Him, discerning along with Him each individual thing, until they arrive at a condition of perfect spirituality, and discern all things by their perfect illumination in all holiness through the word and wisdom of God, and are themselves altogether undistinguishable by any one. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 4)

To be masters of our own moral progress is very attractive.

With love, wisdom, discipline, and strength I would emerge victorious from the struggle.

But where in this is the work and grace of God?

Where in this is a realistic understanding of the human paradox?

We are children of God who choose badly even with the best intentions.

And the same view is to be entertained of those opposing influences which have given themselves up to such places and offices, that they derive the property by which they are made principalities, or powers, or rulers of the darkness of the world, or spirits of wickedness, or malignant spirits, or unclean demons, not from their essential nature, nor from their being so created, but have obtained these degrees in evil in proportion to their conduct, and the progress which they made in wickedness. And that is a second order of rational creatures, who have devoted themselves to wickedness in so headlong a course, that they are unwilling rather than unable to recall themselves; the thirst for evil being already a passion, and imparting to them pleasure. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 4)

Origen argues that all are created good. I agree.

Origen argues that wickedness is a choice. I agree.

Origen argues that we are punished for good choices and rewarded for bad choices. I do not entirely agree.

I agree that within creation there are patterns of cause and effect. Choose poorly - or be at the wrong place at the wrong time - and there can be punishing consequences. But I have not seen God specifically punish.

I have seen a series of wicked choices overturned by the experience of God's grace, love, and forgiveness.

It is sufficient only to know this much, in order to demonstrate the impartiality and righteousness of God, that, conformably with the declaration of the Apostle Paul, there is no acceptance of persons with Him, who rather disposes everything according to the deserts and moral progress of each individual. So, then, the angelic office does not exist except as a consequence of their desert; nor do powers exercise power except in virtue of their moral progress; nor do those which are called seats, i.e., the powers of judging and ruling, administer their powers unless by merit; nor do dominions rule undeservedly, for that great and distinguished order of rational creatures among celestial existences is arranged in a glorious variety of offices. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 4)

Is there a role for merit in grace? Is there a role for grace in merit?

Perhaps in this way: I cannot imagine any sort of angel who has not successfully submitted every hope and desire to loving God.

Such submission is surely a form of moral progress and it allows the Holy Spirit to inform and empower.

The image is Good and Evil Angels Struggling for Possession of a Child by William Blake

I am of opinion, then, so far as appears to me, that the preceding discussion has sufficiently proved that it is neither from want of discrimination, nor from any accidental cause, either that the principalities hold their dominion, or the other orders of spirits have obtained their respective offices; but that they have received the steps of their rank on account of their merits, although it is not our privilege to know or inquire what those acts of theirs were, by which they earned a place in any particular order. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 4)

Living, writing, and dying in a hierarchical and spiritual age, Origen perceives an ordered universe where reward and punishment is dispensed by a just God.

Living and writing in a more democratic and empirical age, I am skeptical of the entire angelic order.

Moreover, I doubt that free choice will often deserve much merit. It seems to me that even the best of (wo)men depend mostly on the grace of God.

In like manner, also, the nature of the Holy Spirit, being holy, does not admit of pollution; for it is holy by nature, or essential being. If there is any other nature which is holy, it possesses this property of being made holy by the reception or inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not having it by nature, but as an accidental quality, for which reason it may be lost, in consequence of being accidental. So also a man may possess an accidental righteousness, from which it is possible for him to fall away. Even the wisdom which a man has is still accidental, although it be within our own power to become wise, if we devote ourselves to wisdom with the zeal and effort of our life; and if we always pursue the study of it, we may always be participators of wisdom: and that result will follow either in a greater or less degree, according to the desert of our life or the amount of our zeal. For the goodness of God, as is worthy of Him, incites and attracts all to that blissful end, where all pain, and sadness, and sorrow fall away and disappear. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 3)

Origen writes:

"It be within our own power to become wise, if we devote ourselves to wisdom with the zeal and effort of our life; and if we always pursue the study of it, we may always be participators of wisdom."

If he had written this of knowledge, I would entirely agree. But wisdom, it seems to me, is of a different quality.

Knowledge can be passive. Wisdom is active. Wisdom seeks real and meaningful solutions.

Wisdom requires a deep understanding, profound empathy, for everyone, the way of the world, and the intent of God.

Wisdom requires pursuing outcomes beyond the self, even giving the self away in order to reconcile contention and fulfill potential.

Wisdom is a gift of God.

For, as we are taught by those quotations which we adduced from the prophets, there was once a time when he was good, when he walked in the paradise of God between the cherubim. As he, then, possessed the power either of receiving good or evil, but fell away from a virtuous course, and turned to evil with all the powers of his mind, so also other creatures, as having a capacity for either condition, in the exercise of the freedom of their will, flee from evil, and cleave to good. There is no nature, then, which may not admit of good or evil, except the nature of God— the fountain of all good things— and of Christ; for it is wisdom, and wisdom assuredly cannot admit folly; and it is righteousness, and righteousness will never certainly admit of unrighteousness; and it is the Word, or Reason, which certainly cannot be made irrational; nay, it is also the light, and it is certain that the darkness does not receive the light.(Book I, Chapter 8, Part 3)

I was created for - and by - wisdom, righteousness, and reason.

So were you. So was Satan.

We have the power to cleave to good or flee from evil.

We also have the power to choose the reverse.

How we choose will usually determine what we choose:

What is our motivation? Fear or hope, cynicism or faith, hate or love?

May we choose the light.

The image is Ancient of Days by William Blake

According to our view, there is no rational creature which is not capable both of good and evil. But it does not follow, that because we say there is no nature which may not admit evil, we therefore maintain that every nature has admitted evil, i.e., has become wicked. As we may say that the nature of every man admits of his being a sailor, but it does not follow from that, that every man will become so; or, again, it is possible for every one to learn grammar or medicine, but it is not therefore proved that every man is either a physician or a grammarian; so, if we say that there is no nature which may not admit evil, it is not necessarily indicated that it has done so. For, in our view, not even the devil himself was incapable of good; but although capable of admitting good, he did not therefore also desire it, or make any effort after virtue. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 3)

I agree and would take the logic even further.

Just as the best physician will occasionally and unintentionally make an error, so the best of mortals will err.

Just as the best grammarian will occasionally -- even intentionally -- err, so the best of mortals may consciously choose error.

And despite our errors we are loved.

And if a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, and as, according to them, Peter and Paul were sprung from the root of a good tree, how should they be deemed to have brought forth fruits so wicked? And if they should return the answer which is generally invented, that it was not Paul who persecuted, but some other person, I know not whom, who was in Paul; and that it was not Peter who uttered the denial, but some other individual in him; how should Paul say, if he had not sinned, that I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God? Or why did Peter weep most bitterly, if it were another than he who sinned? From which all their silly assertions will be proved to be baseless. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 2)

Good and evil often abide together.

Evil originally meant excessive, over-reaching. Good intent can over-reach.

Wicked is derived from words meaning a small place and came to mean a wretched and forsaken place.

Good can be too narrowly focused and contained.

To be good involves cultivating a balance that is neither too big nor too small.

Paul and Peter are undoubtedly proved to have been men of a spiritual nature. When, therefore, Paul is found to have acted contrary to religion, in having persecuted the Church of God, and Peter to have committed so grave a sin as, when questioned by the maid-servant, to have asserted with an oath that he did not know who Christ was, how is it possible that these— who, according to those persons of whom we speak, were spiritual beings— should fall into sins of such a nature, especially as they are frequently in the habit of saying that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits? (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 2)

I have never encountered a good tree that has not produced some bad fruit.

The bad fruit may derive from lack of rain, or worms, or hail, or frost, or excessive heat, or being overgrown, or any number of causes.

The tree is good, but at least some of its fruit is bad.

Which opinions indeed, in my judgment, are completely rejected by following out the reasoning explained above, and by which it was shown that the cause of the diversity and variety among these beings is due to their conduct, which has been marked either with greater earnestness or indifference, according to the goodness or badness of their nature, and not to any partiality on the part of the Disposer. But that this may more easily be shown to be the case with heavenly beings, let us borrow an illustration from what either has been done or is done among men, in order that from visible things we may, by way of consequence, behold also things invisible. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 2)

There is a human tendency to view variation as inconsistent, incoherent, unpredictable, therefore threatening, and thereby evil.

There is considerable evidence that for God diversity is a source of strength, beauty, creativity, and delight.

And now let us say something regarding those who maintain the existence of a diversity of spiritual natures, that we may avoid falling into the silly and impious fables of such as pretend that there is a diversity of spiritual natures both among heavenly existences and human souls, and for that reason allege that they were called into being by different creators; for while it seems, and is really, absurd that to one and the same Creator should be ascribed the creation of different natures of rational beings, they are nevertheless ignorant of the cause of that diversity. For they say that it seems inconsistent for one and the same Creator, without any existing ground of merit, to confer upon some beings the power of dominion, and to subject others again to authority; to bestow a principality upon some, and to render others subordinate to rulers. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 2)

Our spiritual nature is essentially the same as God's

We are in every way heirs of God, the Father and Creator.

In the face of my neighbor, a stranger, an enemy I encounter the face of God.

Too often we neglect or even seek to escape our inheritance.

Today is another opportunity to claim our inheritance.

All of which things were disposed, as I have said, not indiscriminately and fortuitously, but by a most appropriate and just decision of God, who arranged them according to deserts, in accordance with His own approval and judgment: so that to one angel the Church of the Ephesians was to be entrusted; to another, that of the Smyrnæans; one angel was to be Peter's, another Paul's; and so on through every one of the little ones that are in the Church, for such and such angels as even daily behold the face of God must be assigned to each one of them; and there must also be some angel that encamps round about them that fear God. All of which things, assuredly, it is to be believed, are not performed by accident or chance, or because they (the angels) were so created, lest on that view the Creator should be accused of partiality; but it is to be believed that they were conferred by God, the just and impartial Ruler of all things, agreeably to the merits and good qualities and mental vigour of each individual spirit. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 1)

I was first attracted to Origen by a summary of his writings in which I perceived great similarity with my own spiritual understandings.

Instead I have mostly fussed and argued with him.

Except when he has discussed angels. On matters angelic I have smiled indulgently, not necessarily agreeing but, perhaps, wishing it might be so.

I take scripture seriously. Scripture gives a serious role to angels.

It is worth taking Origen seriously and seeing what we might make make of angels as a literary or symbolic or operational expression of God.

A similar method must be followed in treating of the angels; nor are we to suppose that it is the result of accident that a particular office is assigned to a particular angel: as to Raphael, e.g., the work of curing and healing; to Gabriel, the conduct of wars; to Michael, the duty of attending to the prayers and supplications of mortals. For we are not to imagine that they obtained these offices otherwise than by their own merits, and by the zeal and excellent qualities which they severally displayed before this world was formed; so that afterwards in the order of archangels, this or that office was assigned to each one, while others deserved to be enrolled in the order of angels, and to act under this or that archangel, or that leader or head of an order. (Book I, Chapter 8, Part 1)

Origen is sure we are rewarded and punished according to what we deserve.

I am persuaded we are loved despite what we have done.

There are consequences to our choosing. These consequences reflect both circumstance and the patterns of the universe. But God is much more inclined to redeem our choosing than punish.

When we are able to organize our choosing around our best purposes, we will more often act with zeal and excellence.

Our best purpose may be, probably is, the same as God's intent.

Let us see now what is the freedom of the creature, or the termination of its bondage. When Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father, then also those living things, when they shall have first been made the kingdom of Christ, shall be delivered, along with the whole of that kingdom, to the rule of the Father, that when God shall be all in all, they also, since they are a part of all things, may have God in themselves, as He is in all things.(Book I, Chapter 7, Part 5)

I am free. I am also in bondage.

I am free to choose. I often fail to choose.

I generally accept the limitation that circumstance imposes.

I have been invited to a wedding feast.

I allow a dozen distractions to keep me from it.

See also whether the following words of Paul can apply to those who, although not willingly, yet in accordance with the will of Him who subjected them, and in hope of the promises, were made subject to vanity, when he says, For I could wish to be dissolved, or to return and be with Christ, which is far better. For I think that the sun might say in like manner, I would desire to be dissolved, or to return and be with Christ, which is far better. Paul indeed adds, Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is more needful for you; while the sun may say, To abide in this bright and heavenly body is more necessary, on account of the manifestation of the sons of God. The same views are to be believed and expressed regarding the moon and stars.(Book I, Chapter 7, Part 5)

In his letter to the church at Rome Paul writes, "For the creation was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope." (8:20) The Greek translated as vanity is mataiotes also meaning futile, useless, frail, and depraved.

So much for Augustine's original sin.

We were not created frail, we were created free with possibilities. The work of the sun is not futile, it is the energy on which natural life depends. The moon is not useless, it lights the night, raises the tide, and inspires lovers.

We can be depraved, but we can also be kind, courageous, and creative.

In my own life futility has been mostly the outcome of confused purpose. Clarity of purpose and alignment of personal purpose with God's intent is not futile. All is not vanity, much is beautiful and good. Much is worth joy and thanks.

And this creature, he remarks, was subjected to vanity not willingly. For it did not undertake a voluntary service to vanity, but because it was the will of Him who made it subject, and because of the promise of the Subjector to those who were reduced to this unwilling obedience, that when the ministry of their great work was performed, they were to be freed from this bondage of corruption and vanity when the time of the glorious redemption of God's children should have arrived. And the whole of creation, receiving this hope, and looking for the fulfilment of this promise now, in the meantime, as having an affection for those whom it serves, groans along with them, and patiently suffers with them, hoping for the fulfilment of the promises. (Book I, Chapter 7, Part 5)

There is cause to groan, but these are seldom the source of our groans. We groan entirely too much regarding the trivial.

Too seldom do we shout in joy and thanksgiving for the beauty, love, and opportunity that have been given us.

There is cause to hope. There is cause to be confident of the promise being fulfilled. There is cause for singing, dancing, and giving thanks.

And hence we have to inquire what are the groanings, and what are the pains. Let us see then, in the first place, what is the vanity to which the creature is subject. I apprehend that it is nothing else than the body; for although the body of the stars is ethereal, it is nevertheless material. Whence also Solomon appears to characterize the whole of corporeal nature as a kind of burden which enfeebles the vigour of the soul in the following language: Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher; all is vanity. I have looked, and seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity. To this vanity, then, is the creature subject, that creature especially which, being assuredly the greatest in this world, holds also a distinguished principality of labour, i.e., the sun, and moon, and stars, are said to be subject to vanity, because they are clothed with bodies, and set apart to the office of giving light to the human race. (Book I, Chapter 7, Part 4)

This disdain for creation is beyond my understanding, or rather it is contrary to my own reading of scripture.

God created the universe... and it was good. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory...

The sun, moon, and stars no doubt have many attributes of which I am not aware, but I profoundly doubt that vanity is one of them.

But let us see whether we can find in holy Scripture any indications properly applicable to these heavenly existences. The following is the statement of the Apostle Paul: The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. To what vanity, pray, was the creature made subject, or what creature is referred to, or how is it said not willingly, or in hope of what? And in what way is the creature itself to be delivered from the bondage of corruption? Elsewhere, also, the same apostle says: For the expectation of the creature waits for the manifestation of the sons of God. And again in another passage, And not only we, but the creation itself groans together, and is in pain until now. (Book I, Chapter 7, Part 5)

In the original Greek Paul is discussing κτίσις (ktisis)or creation, as well as creature. In orthodox Christian understanding this is the act or outcome of creating out of nothing. But in the Timeaeus Plato's demiurge creates replicas of universal forms.

According to Paul the very act of creation is the source of μάταιος (mataio): vanity, futility, purposeless, frail, and perverse. But in understanding -- and living -- our purpose there is hope and fulfillment. On this Paul and Plato would agree.