Origen (Part Two)

Origen thus emphasizes the transcendence of the Father, such that there are no others besides him as members of the same class, yet at the same time he wants to ensure that the essence of the Son, even if it cannot unequivocally be stated to be the same as the Father’s, at least is not considered as separate from that of the Father, so that the divinity of the Son is affirmed.

The Way to Nicaea, John Behr

In this summary, we see the difficulty Origen had in describing the Son’s relationship to the Father. We have already seen that, in some manner, Origen holds both the humanity and divinity (unchanging, eternal) of the Son together. But, just how to describe this?

And…like a broken clock…I struggle with the idea that it was necessary to describe the relationship so precisely. Once understood that the Son was both God and man, where would human beings find words to describe exactly how? But…I was not living in that time and not dealing with those struggles. Again, most of the development of language was driven to counter that which was clearly in error.

Returning to Behr, describing Origen’s construct: Jesus Christ is both the beginning and the end for theological reflection. He is the beginning, as it is through Him the revelation of God in Scripture is understood; He is the end, as the model for those who are devoted to the Word would come to know God as He knows His Father. Paraphrasing Rowan Williams, The Word of God is “the paradigm for our knowing and loving the Father.”

Origen singles out for particular criticism those who refuse to analyze just what is meant by calling the Son “Word,” instead remaining at a superficial understanding. The Word is something much more than the utterance of the Father in syllables, as this then neither ascribes to the Son subsistence, nor does it explain His essence.

Yet, Origen makes two important qualifications: First, that the Son is never considered in isolation from the Father. The Son reveals the Father and is the way to Him. Second, the distinct subsistence of the Son must not result in an assertion that the divinity of the Son is somehow other than the divinity of the Father. He holds these together through the notion of participation.

Both the distinct subsistence of the Son and his divinity must be affirmed together, without either capitulating to the other.

As for the Father, Origen’s main concern is to preserve His transcendence. He is the source of the properties that characterize the Son as divine; the dependency of the Son on the Father is essential for Origen. Yet, he also describes this dependency as going both ways:

…the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.

In other words, this is an active participation, not merely that the Son is receiving a share of some divine stuff.

He is able to affirm both the transcendence of the Father as “the one true God” and also the divinity of the Son who reveals the Father.

That he is able to do this successfully is debatable, per Behr.

Origen’s tendency to obliqueness when speaking of the “essence” of the Father and the Son, suggests that he was aware of the difficulties of using participatory language to explain this relationship.

Origen’s work, On First Principles, is preserved in its entirety only in Latin. In it, he writes that Christ’s divine nature is one thing, His human nature another.

These two tasks are carried out in different parts of the work, though it is clear that Origen regarded them as being continuous.

I trip over this a little, first of all because I have grown to be sympathetic to the view of the non-Chalcedonian Churches, that Christ is of one nature made of both divine and human. But, also, this idea of two tasks carried out in different parts. Maybe I am not understanding Origen, or Behr, properly. But there it is.

It seems Origen is also struggling with this: this idea of the two natures should not be taken in materialistic terms, as if each nature were locatable parts within Christ’s being.

…although these “natures” can be differentiated conceptually, in Christ they exist together. … In Christ, God and man have become one…

In any case, Origen examines this exegetically, through how the Son is described in Scripture. Most of his attention is on terms that designate the Wisdom of God, and by “Wisdom” he does not intend something that does not actually exist, as the Son of God is “God’s Wisdom existing hypostatically.”

It is impossible to conceive of God as ever having existed without His Wisdom. He writes:

“We recognize that God was always the Father of his only-begotten Son, who was indeed born of him and draws his being from him, but is yet without any beginning… Wisdom therefore, must be believed to have been begotten beyond the limits of any beginning that we can speak of or understand.”

Being God’s Wisdom, the Son is continuously being begotten, eternally. It is, therefore, impossible for someone to say that there was a time when the Son was not. Also, this begetting should not be thought of in material terms, as a division of the divine nature into parts. Rather, it might be thought of as “an act of his will proceeding from the mind.” Even here, he does not intend that the Son’s existence is contingent.

With all this, it is impossible for our feeble human mind to comprehend how this Word of God existed within a man from Judea, born as a child, troubled and led to a shameful death. He writes:

“…human understanding with its narrow limits is baffled… we must pursue our contemplation with all fear and reverence…”

Yes, I agree. And be a little humble about it.

Conclusion

Both Arius and Nicaea would find fruit in Origen. This isn’t to suggest that Origen just threw a bunch of stuff out there. Removed from their context, his various statements can be aligned with contradictory positions.

This ambiguity, together with a lingering uneasiness about the role of the episcopy in Alexandria, made it almost inevitable that controversy would explode within the city, over issues so fundamental to the Christian faith, primarily of course the true divinity of Jesus Christ, that the whole of the Christian world would be drawn into the debate.

Epilogue

For Origen, the primary purpose of the Gospel accounts is not to give us a record of historical events, but to effect the coming of the Word into the hearts of its hearers.

As it should be.