Apologia for Origen of Alexandria
The Christian Orthodoxy of Origen
Preface
In this simple medium article, I hope to express why Origen is a saint and not a heretic, and to convey an Origen not twisted or defamed by supposed experts of church history. Origen is often defamed by Protestant “literalists” (though their literalism varies) for using allegoresis as if a sound biblical interpretation does not require it, accused by the Orthobros (i.e. Eastern “Orthodox” radicals deviating from E. Orthodox tradition) in embracing a false postmortem eschatology (with the inclusion of believing in pre-existent souls), and even damned by these so-called church experts as a heretic. After constantly hearing and seeing so many misinformed comments on Origen, I have decided to compose an informative piece.
Defense for Allegoresis
It was common for the Early Church writers like Paul the apostle, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen of Alexandria to use an ancient rhetorical device like spiritual allegory into the sacred writings, or what Classicists term ‘allegoresis’. Whether we like it or not, the Jewish people were influenced by the Hellenistic culture, and so were the apostolic and patristic writers. In Paul’s epistles, he mentions to the Colossians that the mosaic customs prefigure the Lord Jesus via type and shadows; he writes, “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16–17). This does not mean that the authorial reading or historical context plainly pointed to Jesus, but spiritual allegory when applied to the types and shadows. In Corinthians, he writes concerning the mosaic command, “For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain” [Deuteronomy 25:4]. Is it for the oxen that God cares, 10 or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, it was written for our sake, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should partake of his hope. 11 If we sowed to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we reap your fleshly things?” (1st Corinthians 9:9–11). Pay attention. Paul takes the mosaic command and asks a dichotomous question concerning it: Was this mosaic command given by God for oxen, or was it given by God to the Church? He says this command was written for our sake, which implies he believes God inspired the spiritual or anagogical reading of this mosaic command, rather than the authorial or contextual reading, because the command in its original context was written for the care of oxen, not believers. In another instance, Paul says, “It is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the free woman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar — 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children — 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all” (Galatians 4:22–26). Paul is not saying that the narrative is authorial allegory for the two women, but rather he is appealing to spiritual allegory by reinterpreting the narrative of Genesis contrary to the authorial intent. Paul’s allegoresis is evident throughout his epistles, which many Christians misconstrue as regular exegesis.
The Book of Hebrews also demonstrates a similar interpretive usage like allegoresis. The author writes, “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming — not the realities themselves” (Hebrews 10:1). The author reinterprets the Old Testament priesthood against the authorial intentions. He says, “Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services, 7 but into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offers for himself, and for the errors of the people. 8 The Holy Spirit is indicating this, that the way into the Holy Place wasn’t yet revealed while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 This is a symbol of the present age, where gifts and sacrifices are offered that are incapable, concerning the conscience, of making the worshiper perfect, 10 being only (with meats and drinks and various washings) fleshly ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation” (9:6–10). The author mentions the Levitical priesthood, and then he uses spiritual allegory to reinterpret the sacrificial system; for example, he says “the Holy Spirit is indicating” and “this is a symbol of the present age”. The author also says that these fleshly ordinances were imposed until a time of reformation, meaning God didn’t confer the mosaic customs, yet He repurposed these to be decoded by spiritual allegory, and awaited the advent of Christ to correct the errors of this system (i.e. Mosaic Judaism) through the ministry of allegoresis by the Logos. The author teaches that both the old covenant and the people were at fault, but he uses spiritual allegory once more to argue for a new covenant to abolish the old despite the fact every new covenant in the Old Testament built upon the old instead of abolishing it (ibid. 8:7–13; Genesis 15, 17; Exodus 19–24; 2 Samuel 7:8–16; Jeremiah 31:31–34). The Jeremiah covenant says nothing about an abolishing of the mosaic customs in its original context, instead it claims that the Jewish people will follow the laws (plural), because God has instilled it into their minds as the new covenant. The author of Hebrews is not interpreting the passage of Jeremiah exegetically, but typologically.
In the epistle of patristic Barnabas (dated around 90–120 AD), he writes, “Moreover Moses says to them in Deuteronomy, “And I will make a covenant of my ordinances with this people.” So then the ordinance of God is not abstinence from eating, but Moses spoke in the spirit. He mentioned the swine for this reason: you shall not consort, he means, with men who are like swine, that is to say, when they have plenty they forget the Lord, but when they are in want they recognize the Lord, just as the swine when it eats does not know its master, but when it is hungry it cries out, and after receiving food is again silent…Moses received three doctrines concerning food and thus spoke of them in the Spirit; but they received them as truly referring to food, owing to the lust of their flesh” (Barnabas 10.2–3, 9). Barnabas (not the apostle) teaches that God never forbade the eating of pork, but how one should manage their company with others. He believes that the mosaic law should be fathomed according to the spiritual reading, rather than the literal or authorial reading. Barnabas, like sacred writings and the patristic authors, did not believe that God inspired the mosaic customs as they are written, and neither should we as Origen claims in Contra Celsum, Book 5, Chapter 60:
[We] would say that we both agree that the books were written by the Spirit of God, but that we do not agree about the meaning of their contents;…we are of opinion that the literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning of the legislation. And we maintain, that “when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart,” because the meaning of the law of Moses has been concealed from those who have not welcomed the way which is by Jesus Christ. But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for “the Lord is that Spirit”), the veil being taken away, “he beholds, as in a mirror with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord” in those thoughts which are concealed in their literal expression, and to his own glory becomes a participator of the divine glory; the term “face” being used figuratively for the “understanding,” as one would call it without a figure, in which is the face of the “inner man,” filled with light and glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law.
His Orthodoxy Among Saints
The modern antagonists of Origen always appeal to church figures like Methodius of Olympus, Epiphanius of Salamis, saint Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and so forth to discredit the Christian orthodoxy of Origen. But they never cite great church figures who not only noticed Origen’s orthodoxy, but revered him for his intellect and his writings. Permit me to name a few figures of the Early Church. Origen of Alexandria is always accused of being a heretic, yet no one seems to correlate Origen with Gregory Thuamaturgus, because had Origen not existed, Gregory the Wonder-worker wouldn’t have existed or become one of the most respected saints in church history. This Gregory (b. 213–270 AD) was a student of Origen of Alexandria, and Gregory wrote a panegyric in favor of Origen, saying:
“And this revered man coming from Egypt, from the city of Alexandria, where previously he happened to have his home, was moved by other circumstances to change his residence to this place, as if with the express object of meeting us…” (Argument 5). [Gregory identifies and reveres Origen]
“This man, however, was the first that induced me to philosophize by his words, as he pointed the exhortation by deeds before he gave it in words, and did not merely recite well-studied sentences; nay, he did not deem it right to speak on the subject at all, but with a sincere mind, and one bent on striving ardently after the practical accomplishment of the things expressed, and he endeavoured all the while to show himself in character like the man whom he describes in his discourses as the person who shall lead a noble life, and he ever exhibited (in himself), I would say, the pattern of the wise man…” (ibid. 11). [Origen taught Gregory to rationalize]
“Now that greatest gift this man has received from God, and that noblest of all endowments he has had bestowed upon him from heaven, that he should be an interpreter of the oracles of God to men, and that he might understand the words of God, even as if God spoke them to him, and that he might recount them to men in such wise as that they may hear them with intelligence” (bid. 15). [He credits Origen as a sound interpreter of the sacred writings by spiritual interpretation]
Saint Athanasius, the man who defended the deity of Christ against the Arians, was not only fond of Origen as a church father, but appealed to him as a proponent of the deity of Christ. Origen is often accused of Arianism, but such a claim is invalid. He writes:
«And concerning the everlasting co-existence of the Word with the Father, and that He is not of another essence or subsistence, but proper to the Father’s, as the Bishops in the Council said, you may hear again from the labour-loving Origen also…straightway he introduces his personal belief, thus:
“If there be an Image of the Invisible God, it is an invisible Image; nay, I will be bold to add, that, as being the likeness of the Father, never was it not. For when was that God, who, according to John, is called Light (for ‘God is Light’), without a radiance of His proper glory, that a man should presume to assert the Son’s origin of existence, as if before He was not? But when was not that Image of the Father’s Ineffable and Nameless and Unutterable subsistence, that Expression and Word, and He that knows the Father? For let him understand well who dares to say, ‘Once the Son was not,’ that he is saying, ‘Once Wisdom was not,’ and ‘Word was not,’ and ‘Life was not,’”…we are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father» (De Decretis 6.27).
Then we have Gregory Nazianzus (b. 329–390 AD), one of the Cappadocian Fathers and the indirect legacy of Gregory Thaumaturgus, who did not declare Origen as a heretic, but helped redact the Philocalia in honor of Origen of Alexandria. He mentions it in one of his letters:
(Sent about Easter a.d. 382 with a copy of the Philocalia, or Chrestomathy of Origen’s works edited by himself and S. Basil.)
“You anticipate the Festival, and the letters, and, which is better still, the time by your eagerness, and you bestow on us a preliminary festival. Such is what Your Reverence gives us. And we in return give you the greatest thing we have, our prayers. But that you may have some small thing to remember us by, we send you the volume of the Philocalia of Origen, containing a selection of passages useful to students of literature. Deign to accept this, and give us a proof of its usefulness, being aided by diligence and the Spirit” (Epistle CXV).
In conclusion, if great members of the Early Church like Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Gregory the Theologian held honor and praise of Origen, then the anti-Origen narrative has evidently, authentically, and immutably erred.
Apostolic Universalism
Since some people suggest that Origen’s universalism was condemned in the 5th ecumenical council, I will be discussing this briefly before I mention universalism as being present in Church history. Justinian the Emperor is regarded by many as a saint who supervised the council, but I would deny his sainthood and say he is not someone we should be adhering to. Justinian may be the emperor, but he is a wicked person, even by the report of his historian, Procopius of Caesarea (found in his writing, Secret History). The council did not condemn Christian universalism since neither Gregory of Nyssa, Diodore of Tarsus, nor Clement of Alexandria were ever condemned over this subject. To know what actually happened in the fifth ecumenical council, I address you to Father Aiden’s blog. And in another brief instance, Epiphanius of Salamis and Hippolytus of Rome wrote a list of heresies after Origen, but neither of them cited Christian universalism as one of them.
Here are some brief examples of Christian universalism throughout Church History:
Paul the Apostle (1st Century):
23 “But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24 Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:23–28). — God will be “all in all,” which demonstrates Paul’s emphasis on universality.
Mathetes/Disciple (dated around 2nd century):
“[It] is reserved for those who shall be sentenced to the indefinite [aionios] fire, which shall discipline and imprison them to it until an end. Then you shall marvel at those who endure the seasonal fire, which is for the sake of righteousness, and you shall consider them blessed when you know what the fire does.” (To Diognetus, 10.7–8). — Even if aionios was translated as eternal, this contradicts the passage saying, “imprison them to it until an end”. He indicates that they will endure the fire for righteousness to prevail, and for them to be blessed in a later time.
Gregory of Nyssa (b. 335–395 AD): In case anyone argues he’s anti-universalist, here’s this link that refutes it.
“Wherefore, that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan; to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness …either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire” (Orat. pro Mortuis). — According to Gregory, some will be purged in this life, or in the next by means of the cleansing fire.
Diodore of Tarsus (b. 300?-390 AD): Solomon of Basra (early 13th century), an East Syriac writer after the fifth ecumenical council, quotes Diodore of Tarsus in his Book of the Bee.
“But if punishment is to be weighed out according to sin, not even so would punishment be endless. For as regards that which is said in the Gospel, ‘These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal;’ this word ‘eternal’ (le-`âlam) is not definite:…And of Babylon He said, ‘No man shall dwell therein for ever and ever,’ and behold many generations dwell therein.” Source: The Book of the Bee, Chapter LX. — Diodore argues that since olam in Hebrew means indefinite and not strictly eternal, then the judgement of sinners aren’t definitively endless.
There are many examples of universalism from the apostolic writings and patristic literature, whether explicit or implicit, but I will refrain from citing more for the sake of time.
Origenism wasn’t Monolithic
According to the antagonists of Origen, he held to the belief of the pre-existence of souls, and they appeal to patristic literature to support this narrative, but are they aware that the report of Origenism in the Early Church was inconsistent and even blatantly wrong? In one of the earliest reports of Origenism, Methodius of Olympus comments on Origen’s supposed belief in pre-existing souls, so he writes, “Οrigen, whom you refer to as “Kentauros,” claimed that everything is consubstantial with the only wise and self-sufficient God. He argued that if there is a Creator without creations, a Maker without things made, or an Almighty without what is subject to His power (since the Creator is called such due to creations, the Maker due to things made, and the Almighty due to what is subject to His power), then these must have existed from the beginning by God’s necessity, without a time when they did not exist. If there were a time when these creations did not exist, considering that there is no creator without things created, he saw such a notion as impious” (De Creatis 2.1, fragments derived from Photius). Methodius assumes that Origen held to the doctrine of eternal pre-existing souls, which is inconsistent with not only Rufinus’ report of Origenism, but also contrary with what Origen actually taught in First Principles, Book 1, Chapter 3, Section 3. Origen denies the past eternity of creation. Rufinus reports Origenism as, “Others assert that God is every day making new souls, and infusing them into the bodies which have been framed in the womb; while others again believe that the souls were all made long ago, when God made all things of nothing, and that all that he now does is to plant out each soul in its body as it seems good to him” (Rufinus’ Apology 6). Origenism is often understood as temporal pre-existing souls, but some from church history understood it as eternal pre-existing souls, which demonstrates that Origenism was not monolithic or universally agreed among Origenistic proponents.
Paulus Orosius the Historian erroneously attributed Origenism to one of the most respected Capadoccian Fathers, saying, “However, these two Auitus and the holy Basil the Greek, who were teaching these things, my most blessed father, have handed down certain teachings from the books of Origen that are not correct, as I am now learning for the first time. Firstly, they asserted that all things existed eternally in the wisdom of God before they appeared, saying this in these words: ‘For God, whatever He has made, did not begin by making it’” (Paulus Orosius’ Reminder to Aurelius Augustine Concerning the Errors of the Priscillianists and Origenists, Section 3). There are list of errors except a few correct ideas that Orosius continues to attribute to Basil and such. Based on this, if the Origenistic proponents could not argee on what Origen taught, and if historians like Orosius wrongly conflated Basil the Great with Origenism, then there is less and less reason for us to presume that Origen ever taught it. Origenism is likely a grand misrepresentation of Origen’s thoughts, which later patristic writers like Methodius, Epiphanius, Orosius, and the rest perceived to be the supposedly true doctrine of Origen. Even Fr. John Behr, Eastern Orthodox scholar, attributes blame to Paul Koetschau for interpolating patristic critiques of Origen into Rufinus’ Latin translation. If anyone wishes to read Origen on First Principles, I suggest Fr John Behr’s new translation and revised edition.
So then, based on all the evidence, Origen is not a heretic, nor is he an inventor of the doctrine of Christian universalism, and the presence of allegoresis in his writings is orthodox in the early Christian tradition.
