On a slightly different note... an examination of the views of an early church father

Background: Origen (185-254 A.D) grew up in Alexandria and then moved to Caesarea and taught in the church there. He was one of the last non-bishop theologians and is remembered especially for his consistently anti-Gnostic stance, and his work arguing against Celsus (a prominent secular critic of Christianity). Unless noted otherwise, all quotes are from Origen's On First Principles and cited as book.chapter.section.

The Concept of a Savior in Origen’s Cosmological System

Different wars require different weapons and tactics. Likewise, different rescue options require very different strategies. For instance, there is no need of a flotation device to rescue someone from a burning building. In much the same way, one’s view of the world will greatly influence what kind of a savior is needed to save the world, if indeed a savior is even required. In Christianity there were different views of the world and hence different views of the nature of the savior. The early church father Origen, wrote many works about the nature of the Christian savior, Jesus Christ. He also believed in a very well defined cosmological system into which one would expect to be able to place his conception of Jesus Christ. Central to Origen’s cosmology is the belief that “the sun also, and the moon and the rest of the heavenly bodies are living beings” (1.7.4) and so have souls, as do men, angles, and daemons. Origen further argues that the “entire creation” will be subjected to Christ, which “implies the salvation, proceeding from Christ, of those who are subject” (1.6.1). Yet he reasons that the Lord “desired… to save the body, just as it was likewise his will to save also the soul” and that “the whole man would not have been saved unless he had taken upon him the whole man” (Dialogue with Heraclides 136). Despite the fact that Origen’s concept of salvation is a part of his cosmological system there is a tension between the two as it is difficult to understand how a salvation could come from Christ that was effective for the souls in non-human bodies, as the nature of Christ was a dichotomy between the human and divine and nothing else.

In order to understand Origen’s cosmology the first step is to grasp his concept of the soul. He held that “before the ages” there were souls, called “minds”, which later became angels, daemons, and people. In addition, he believed that, “all souls and all rational natures, whether holy or wicked, were made or created. All these are incorporeal in respect to their proper nature, but though incorporeal they were nevertheless made. For all things were made by God through Christ” (1.7.1). This is an important distinction for it indicates that each of the souls were on a level playing field at the beginning, and that Christ, who would later become the savior was not one of these souls who was made, but rather they were made through him. Furthermore, these souls were “all pure” until they fell due to their sin. Origen describes the Fall this way:

Before the ages minds were all pure, both daemons and souls and angels, offering service to God and keeping his commandments. But the devil, who was one of them, since he possessed free-will, desired to resist God, and God drove him away. With him revolted all the other powers. Some sinned deeply and became daemons, others less and became angels; others still less and became archangels; and thus each in turn received the reward for his individual sin (1.8.1).

Thus Origen believes that while every soul sinned, some sinned to a greater degree, and that the final state of the soul was a punishment for the sin. This is further emphasized when he says, “there remained some souls who had not sinned so greatly as to become daemons, nor on the other hand so very lightly as to become angels. God therefore made the present world and bound the soul to the body as a punishment” (1.8.1). Origen also extends this idea to the conclusion that the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon, and stars, are also souls that “have been given bodies of one sort or another” (1.7.4)

This cosmological system leads to several conclusions about the character of God, the need of a Savior, and the nature of that savior, namely Jesus Christ. Origen sees God as the creator, judge, and one who desires to bring all creation once again into subjection to him (1.6.1). As the creator, God made all souls as well as the world, though the world was made later and souls were placed in bodies afterwards. It is indeed interesting that God calls the world good (Genesis 1) even though Origen says that God “made the present world and bound the soul to the body as a punishment” (1.8.1). But in light of God’s desire to restore the souls to unity and Origen’s argument that God uses these punishments to do so (1.6.3), it makes sense that God would call the world good for it serves to bring about His ultimate goal. Origen also places a large emphasis on the free will of the souls. He argues that “God is no ‘respecter of persons’” (1.8.1) and so punishes and rewards each soul according to their actions which they freely chose to do. Through this argument Origen presents God as having a broad purpose, restoring the souls to subjection to Him (1.6.2), but not as much a specific purpose for every single soul. For instance he reasons that,

All these duties (the roles of different angels) are not performed by accident or chance, nor because the angels were naturally created for them, lest in so doing we should chare the Creator with partiality. Rather must we believe that they were conferred in accordance with merit and virtue and with the activity and ability of each individual spirit, by God the most righteous and impartial governor of all things (1.8.1).

Yet this reasoning arguably limits the role of God in the world. For God, who cannot be impartial, instead of designing a world with each actor having a specific purpose becomes simply a judge whose role is to respond to the actions of the souls and hand out the “most appropriate and righteous judgment… being settled in accordance with merit” (1.8.1). However, at the same time, Origen recognizes that God is active in the world, for He is the creator and assigns the judgments specifically, rather than simply by chance, though their basis is merit (1.8.1). Further, Origen points out that God took an active role in seeking to reconcile creation to Him. For “(the savior) descended to earth to grieve for the human race and took our sufferings on himself before he endured the cross and deigned to assume our flesh” (Homilia in Ezechiel 6.6) . But why was such intervention by God necessary?

Origen argues that all of creation is need of a savior as all have rebelled against God (1.8.1), been cast from His presence, and are currently in a state of punishment for their sin (1.6.1, 1.7.4, 1.8.1). All souls are guilty of sin, even before they enter the body to which they are constrained, and so regardless of their form, every soul is separated from God. Though each man is punished according to his sins and rewarded according to their good acts (1.6.3), “salvation procede(s) from Christ” (1.6.1). Origen argues that salvation is necessary because “the end is always like the beginning” and so though all sinned they “in their turn are restored, through God’s goodness, through their subjection to Christ and their unity with the Holy Spirit” (1.6.2). Furthermore, he says, “had there been no death of Christ, there would certainly have been no resurrection and there would have been no ‘firstborn from the dead’” (Homilia in Ezechiel 6.6)2. An interesting caveat about Origen’s conception of salvation is that he believes that in the end all souls will be saved, including the enemies of God, daemons (1.6.1), and even Satan himself (Gregg). It may take more time for the souls that are currently in rebellion and actively opposing the people of God (1.6.3) to be saved as they, due to their free will are not forced to salvation. Yet they, “over may ages, are by these stern methods of correction (various punishments for sin) renewed and restored, first by the instruction of angels and afterwards by that of powers yet higher in rank” (1.6.3). So despite initial resistance, eventually all will believe, though a savior is needed as part of the process of bringing about that belief.

What kind of savior would fit in Origen’s cosmology? If, as he argues, all souls have sinned but at the very end of things all will again be brought into subjection to God then it follows that all need a savior. This is particularly true as Origen mentions no distinctions between the souls before they fell, which would imply that the only difference between them now is the degree to which they sinned and the body to which they are constrained. Further evidence that these are the only major distinctions between the souls is that all of the souls have free will and that all of them sinned, none resisted completely. So if all souls need a savior then the savior should be able to save all of the souls. As will be discussed later Origen argues that the savior, Jesus Christ, himself had a soul of the same nature as every other soul (2.6.3), which would then mean that he is sufficient to save all souls if only the souls were to be saved. But Origen emphasizes that the body will be saved as well stating that “even for those destined for eternal fire or for punishment there will be an incorruptible body through the change of the resurrection” (de Principiis 2.10.3) . If one were to base their conception of the savior solely on the basis of Origen’s cosmology then they would expect that the savior would not only be a “soul like all souls” (2.6.3) but would also somehow take on the bodily nature of every being that he intended to save, namely all of creation. Since Origen emphasizes that “God is no ‘respecter of persons’” (1.8.1) and cannot be charged with partiality, it seems counter-intuitive that He should not endeavor to save all souls as well as all bodies, so as not to treat the bodies of men different than the bodies of other souls. If this is the case one would also expect the savior to be able to identify with those he is saving and to either somehow nullify their sin or provide a method and reason for the souls to strive to be near to God as Origen says that the angels, who sinned the least, do (1.8.1).

However, the kind of savior that Origen depicts when he describes Christ is notably different from what one would expect. Origen’s focus when it comes to Christ is the nature of Christ, namely that it is both fully human and fully divine at the same time. He argues that Jesus Christ is comprised of both a divine nature and a human nature, each of which is essential. The divine nature is the Logos, the Word of God, through whom God created the world (2.6.3). On the other hand the human nature was a soul, the nature of which “was that which belongs to all souls” (2.6.5). It was the soul that had sinned the least, and had, “from the beginning of its creation and after, clung inseparably and persistently to him, to the Wisdom and Logos of God… It entered itself into his light and his glory. So it was made, in the proper sense, one spirit with him” (2.6.3). But in order to be able to save mankind this soul, while being like all other souls (as Origen claimed was essential in his Dialogue with Heraclides 136) was different in the sense that,

The capacity to choose good and evil present in all souls, this soul, which belongs to Christ, chose to love justice in such a way that justice was rooted unchangeably and inseparably within it, in proportion to its immeasurable love…. Thus it is true both that we must believe Christ to have had a human and rational soul and that we must judge him to have had neither sense nor possibility of sin (2.6.5).

Origen states that although the Savior is both God and man, “the Logos of God is more truly ‘in one flesh’ with the soul (of Jesus) than a man is with his wife” (2.6.3). Yet, in consistency with his emphasis on free will and God’s impartiality Origen says that, “God’s assumption of that soul was not a chance affair nor a case of favoritism. Rather, it was accorded to that soul by reason of the merit of its virtues” (2.6.4).

This argument of Origen however, focuses solely on the issue of reconciling the two natures of Christ. The question remains, why did Christ not take on more natures if he was truly meant to be a Savior for all souls. As he only took on the nature of man he must not be the Savior of all souls, but that statement does not align with Origen’s emphasis on the ultimate reconciliation of all souls with God. Thus there is an apparent discrepancy between Origen’s cosmology and the Savior that plays an integral part in it.

Are there possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy? One possibility is that although all sinned and are in need of a Savior, due to the different levels of sin and hence levels of the fall, a different kind of Savior is needed for different souls. For instance, the angels, as they did not fall as far are still able to stand before God and are given by God the right to rule and instruct those who fell below them (1.8.1-2). Therefore they may not need a Savior who identifies with them and pays the penalty for their sin as Christ does for men. This seems especially possible as the angels already desire to serve and stand before God (1.8.1) even without a Savior. Scripture also lends support to this idea in I Peter 1:12, which indicates that the angles have not experienced or fully comprehend the salvation of men through Christ. Therefore this shows that this Savior was probably not intended for them. This theory would hold for the souls in the heavenly and daemonic bodies as well. Another possible explanation is that the Savior is only interested in the bodily (in addition to spiritual) salvation of humanity and that when it comes to the rest of creation God is content to save only the soul. There is not much evidence to support this theory, except for the fact that Origen only specifically emphasizes the fact that the bodily salvation of men is necessary. Yet, in contrast, it may be inferred that God cares about the bodily salvation of all souls if He cares about it in regards to humanity and is a God that does not show partiality (1.8.1).

There is indeed a tension between Origen’s cosmological view of salvation and his “earthly” view of it. The surviving texts of Origen’s works do not seem to specifically address this discrepancy and so we are left pondering the question of how salvation, particularly the salvation of men through Jesus Christ, reconciles with Origen’s cosmology. Origen himself recognized that some of his beliefs would be difficult to understand reconcile for he said,

These are the ideas that were able to make their way into our minds as we took up these very difficult questions about the incarnation and the deity of Christ. If someone comes up with better ideas and can confirm what he says with plainer assertions from the Holy Scriptures, let them be accepted instead of what we have written (2.6.7).