Created Sat. July 13, 2002 - Last update, Sat. Oct 4, 2003

All From: First Principles

Preface to Book 1

Book 1: Chap. 1 Chap. 2 Chap. 3 Chap. 4 Chap. 7

Book 4 Last Thoughts

Related Articles

It is my impression that Origen receives a lot of praise from Eusebius of Caesarea. Origen originally came from Alexandria but became a Christian teacher elsewhere. There are moments when the logic and reasoning of Origen are in my mind, quite insightful and brilliant. Yet, almost without explanation, there are moments where his reasoning makes no sense at all and he speaks of things Greek as if they were fact or Biblical as others do. He is well schooled in Greek philosophy as are the others near to him in time. Greek philosophy is all the rage at this time, even more than earlier in time to Jesus.

Origen is the second writer (Terteullian was first that we know) to speak of the trinity by name. But he does not give it the definition that it later obtains, not even close. So I gather that in its early use, it only referred to the fact that all 3 subjects, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, were in such common association, such as at Matthew 28:19, and they referred to the this group as a trinity as that was what Plato had popularized and it became convenient and desirable to refer to them, the trinity, as such.

And no doubt, the 3 in 1 trinitarian belief was also gaining in popularity in some measure and so a lot of discussion was no doubt generated among all the various churches as you will see. But the definition had not influenced the major churches as of yet, with no writings ever known to exist or survive indicating a preference for modern trinitarians beliefs up to this time. With that, I give you Origen to consider.

Preface to Book 1
Back to Top

2. Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points.

[{Here Origen is admitting that at this point, there is no small amount of difference in beliefs about God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, among those who profess a belief in Christ. So though it is claimed by Eusebius and others that the churches were united in their beliefs, this would appear to be contradicted here. Besides, we have the Bible telling us that corruption and error would creep in and so we would expect this division. In fact, it would be a surprise if it did not happen as the Bible said.

Of course, we know from previous writers that there were sects and heresies among them. But I suspect it was more widespread and prevalent as it can bee seen just in the writers I have collected here that there is some small variance from one to another, some saying Jesus was born and created, some saying he was always in the Father and just became separate later, though not offering a single scripture to support that. Irenaeus alond suggest that Proverbs 8 applied to the spirit where as any other who mentions that chapter applies it to Jesus. Some attributing different things to the Holy Spirit than others and some not giving it/him any attention at all.

So even in this collection, there are slight dissentions never mentioned or address by anyone directly. So let us see what Origen has to say about it all.}]

For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians to make it known) among all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn it from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.

[{Well, if it is true that all the churches who remain in the teachings of the apostles are in agreement, how do we explain various differences we have uncovered so far? It is really just hype or denial on the part of the writers and churches. Of course, we are talking about very small differences and nothing earth shattering, but differences all the same and ones that would be used by trinitarians in the years to come.}]

4. The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow:--

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--the God of all just men, of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sere, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets; and that this God in the last days, as He had announced beforehand by His prophets, sent our Lord Jesus Christ to call in the first place Israel to Himself, and in the second place the Gentiles, after the unfaithfulness of the people of Israel. 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.

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"

[{Here Origen describes Jesus just as he is in the Bible! Origen says he was born before all creatures. How else are we to understand that, that would be reasonable and obvious?}]

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.

[{Here Origen openly and candidly admits what can and what can not be said about the Holy Spirit from the Bible. It would appear that Origen takes him to be an actual person/ being/ entity here, but we will see that even this is not entirely without qualification. Origen has a good grasp of this as we will see.}]

9. We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers call <greek>aswmaton</greek>, 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.

Chap. 1
Back to Top

1. Thy word and wisdom which is Thy Son, in Himself we shall see Thee the Father.

[{Origen also identifies Jesus as not only the word, but the wisdom of Proverbs 8 as well. This is nearly unanimous among early writers. He will go on to show that the 3 in question are all spirits and not of matter.}]

2. 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. 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 killeth, but the spirit giveth life," where there can be no doubt that by "letter" are meant bodily things, and by "spirit" intellectual things, which we also term "spiritual."

3. 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.

[{Origen understands that since we are all recipients of God's Holy Spirit in one way or another, that it is not possible to argue "him" as being a body of some substance but a power, instead. An interesting illustration follows.}]

And in order that what we say may be more easily understood, let us take an illustration from things very dissimilar. There are many persons who take a part in the science or art of medicine: are we therefore to suppose that those who do so take to themselves the particles of some body called medicine, which is placed before them, and in this way participate in the same? Or must we not rather understand that all who with quick and trained minds come to understand the art and discipline itself, may be said to be partaken of the art of healing?

But these are not to be deemed altogether parallel instances in a comparison of medicine to the Holy Spirit, as they have been adduced only to establish that that is not necessarily to be considered a body, a share in which is possessed by many individuals. For the Holy Spirit differs widely from the method or science of medicine, in respect that the Holy Spirit is an intellectual existence and subsists and exists in a peculiar manner, whereas medicine is not at all of that nature.

[{Here is where Origen, doing well up to now, suddenly walks off the deep end. First he calls the Holy Spirit an intellectual existence, which could never be shown or proved from the Bible and makes no sense. God and His Son directly and apply that Spirit. It has no real mind of its own. He fails to grasp the literarty technique Jesus uses when referring to the spirit as a comforter, a helper, and as "him."

Second, Origen admits the Holy Spirit exists in a peculiar manner. It is peculiar only because of how he and others have chosen to interpret the Spirit in such a literal way when being referred to. But the Apostle Paul does not refer to the Holy Spirit in such a personified way. That is more the choice and style of Jesus or John. But if a literal interpretation causes the Spirit to exist in a peculiar manner, then maybe they ought to reconsider how it is that they interpret. They certainly understand the spiritual or figurative meaning of many prophecies and illustrations. How is it they miss this one?

All the same, Origen admitted there are things about the Spirit that can not be said and there is no way we can misconstrue his words as supporting the trinity. They absolutely do not support the Athanasian 3 in 1 trinity.}]

4. But we must pass on to the language of the Gospel itself, in which it is declared that "God is a Spirit," and where we have to show how that is to be understood agreeably to what we have stated. For let us inquire on what occasion these words were spoken by the Saviour, before whom He uttered them, and what was the subject of investigation. We find, without any doubt, that He spoke these words to the Samaritan woman, saying to her, who thought, agreeably to the Samaritan view, that God ought to be worshipped on Mount Gerizim, that "God is a Spirit." For the Samaritan woman, believing Him to be a Jew, was inquiring of Him whether God ought to be worshipped in Jerusalem or on this mountain; and her words were, "All our fathers worshipped on this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where we ought to worship." To this opinion of the Samaritan woman, therefore, who imagined that God was less rightly or duly worshipped, according to the privileges of the different localities, either by the Jews in Jerusalem or by the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, the Saviour answered that he who would follow the Lord must lay aside all preference for particular places, and thus expressed Himself: "The hour is coming when neither in Jerusalem nor on this mountain shall the true worshippers worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." And observe how logically He has joined together the spirit and the truth: He called God a Spirit, that He might distinguish Him from bodies; and He named Him the truth, to distinguish Him from a shadow or an image. For they who worshipped in Jerusalem worshipped God neither in truth nor in spirit, being in subjection to the shadow or image of heavenly things; and such also was the case with those who worshipped on Mount Gerizim.

[{This is an excellent insight into the word of Jesus to the Samaritan woman. Just had to say that.}]

5. Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured. For whatever be the knowledge which we are able to obtain of God, either by perception or reflection, we must of necessity believe that He is by many degrees far better than what we perceive Him to be. For, as if we were to see any one unable to bear a spark of light, or the flame of a very small lamp, and were desirous to acquaint such a one, whose vision could not admit a greater degree of light than what we have stated, with the brightness and splendour of the sun, would it not be necessary to tell him that the splendour of the sun was unspeakably and incalculably better and more glorious than all this light which he saw? So our understanding, when shut in by the fetters of flesh and blood, and rendered, on account of its participation in such material substances, duller and more obtuse, although, in comparison with our bodily nature, it is esteemed to be far superior, yet, in its efforts to examine and behold incorporeal things, scarcely holds the place of a spark or lamp. But among all intelligent, that is, incorporeal beings, what is so superior to all others--so unspeakably and incalculably superior--as God, whose nature cannot be grasped or seen by the power of any human understanding, even the purest and brightest?

[{Origen does such a beautiful job of clearly explaining what others only touched upon lightly and unclearly. It was best put when he describes our understanding as humans as duller and more obtuse than the real realities of the spirit realm of God. We understand basics but not the absolutes.}]

8. By which it is clearly shown, that whatever among bodily natures is called seeing and being seen, is termed, between the Father and the Son, a knowing and being known, by means of the power of knowledge, not by the frailness of the sense of sight.

Because, then, neither seeing nor being seen can be properly applied to an incorporeal and invisible nature, neither is the Father, in the Gospel, said to be seen by the Son, nor the Son by the Father, but the one is said to be known by the other.

9. Here, if any one lay before us the passage where it is said, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God," from that very passage, in my opinion, will our position derive additional strength; for what else is seeing God in heart, but, according to our exposition as above, understanding and knowing Him with the mind? For the names of the organs of sense are frequently applied to the soul, so that it may be said to see with the eyes of the heart, i.e., to perform an intellectual act by means of the power of intelligence. So also it is said to hear with the ears when it perceives the deeper meaning of a statement. So also we say that it makes use of teeth, when it chews and eats the bread of life which cometh down from heaven. In like manner, also, it is said to employ the services of other members, which are transferred from their bodily appellations, and applied to the powers of the soul, according to the words of Solomon, "You will find a divine sense." For he knew that there were within us two kinds of senses: the one mortal, corruptible, human; the other immortal and intellectual, which he now termed divine. By this divine sense, therefore, not of the eyes, but of a pure heart, which is the mind, God may be seen by those who are worthy. For you will certainly find in all the Scriptures, both old and new, the term "heart" repeatedly used instead of "mind," i.e., intellectual power. In this manner, therefore, although far below the dignity of the subject, have we spoken of the nature of God, as those who understand it under the limitation of the human understanding. In the next place, let us see what is meant by the name of Christ.

[{I'm sorry but Origen shows such depth of insight, brilliance, and clarity at times. He peers behind the obvious and perceives that "seeing" is only a figure of speech and that the heart actually refers to the mind. Yet, he can not detect a figure of speech in referring to the Holy Spirit as a person or entity. Nor is he able to grasp people also becoming spirits, which are not covered in any text here but I relate them anyway. Nor can he understand the spiritual, not fleshly return of Jesus, as all the other writers also fail to understand. I find this kind of bewildering how he can go from shades of brilliance to almost blindness but that is human nature.}]

1. In the first place, we must note that the nature of that deity which is in Christ in respect of His being the only-begotten Son of God is one thing, and that human nature which He assumed in these last times for the purposes of the dispensation (of grace) is another. And therefore we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: "The Lord created me--the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He rounded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.", He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: "who is the first-born of every creature." The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the Apostle Paul says that "Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God."

[{Origen confirms Jesus is the Wisdom of Proverbs 8, of which Solomon is the author of. And He backs it up with a quote from Paul 1 Corinthians 1:24. He also mentions that Jesus has many names, as well.}]

2. Let no one, however, imagine that we mean anything impersonal when we call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we understand Him to be, not a living being endowed with wisdom, but something which makes men wise, giving itself to, and implanting itself in, the minds of those who are made capable of receiving His virtues and intelligence. If, then, it is once rightly understood that the only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically existing, I know not whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this, or entertain any suspicion that that <greek>upostasis</greek> or substantia contains anything of a bodily nature, since everything that is corporeal is distinguished either by form, or colour, or magnitude. And who in his sound senses ever sought for form, or colour, or size, in wisdom, in respect of its being wisdom? And who that is capable of entertaining reverential thoughts or feelings regarding God, can suppose or believe that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time, without having generated this Wisdom?

[{Well, whether we want to or are capable of imagining it so, it is a stated fact that God's "word" and God's "wisdom" had a beginning in time, referring to Jesus, of course. I am sure that God always had wisdom before Jesus was born but Jesus was the expressed result of that wisdom, himself being named wisdom by God. But from this we do not need to, nor do we have the right to say that Jesus had no beginning but always was.

Maybe Origen is not saying that exactly, but he sure is headed in that direction as a couple of others did. But that is going too far and going beyond what is written in God's word, the Bible so we can not say that it is a fact. It is human speculation and nothing more. But trinitarians will be able to use this to claim that Jesus is without beginning. That is a Biblical heresy in no uncertain terms. Origen will go on to make some pathetic attempts to support his assertion but I find none of them very persuasive in view of the scriptures.}]

For in that case he must say either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He afterwards called into being her who formerly did not exist, or that He possessed the power indeed, but--what cannot be said of God without impiety--was unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is patent to all, are alike absurd and impious: for they amount to this, either that God advanced from a condition of inability to one of ability, or that, although possessed of the power, He concealed it, and delayed the generation of Wisdom. Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed. And since all the creative power of the coming creation was included in this very existence of Wisdom (whether of those things which have an original or of those which have a derived existence), having been formed beforehand and arranged by the power of foreknowledge; on account of these very creatures which had been described, as it were, and prefigured in Wisdom herself, does Wisdom say, in the words of Solomon, that she was created the beginning of the ways of God, inasmuch as she contained within herself either the beginnings, or forms, or species of all creation.

[{Well, we could also ask why God has always existed for an eternity yet only got around to creating us when He did. As far as I can tell, it is very hard to imagine anything as having existed infinitely, both with no beginning and no end. That means that god existed in an infinite past. You can imagine Him to be billions, trillions, or many trillions of trillions of years old and you would not be wrong. You can not put that number high enough for there is no limit to how far back He goes in time. That is what we can truly say is incomprehensible, impossible for us to contemplate or understand. But it is a stated Biblical fact!

So there had to be a time when God did not have the plans in His head that lead to us or even to Jesus. Because wherever it was in time that Jesus came into being, there were trillions of years before that when he did not exist. Somewhere there must have been a time when Jesus was not even in God's mind. I agree that God and all His attributes are eternal both ways in time. But Jesus and we clearly are said to have a beginning in time. So if you want an incomprehensible mystery that can not be understood, there it is.

Why did God take so long to come up with this whole scheme? We of small fleshly minds and understanding can not fathom or comprehend such things. That God has an infinite mind and infinite power with unlimited memory, and unlimited everything is not within our ability to understand. It simply is and we have to accept that as it is. But Origen is apparently lacking this understanding and supposes that in some form, Jesus always existed because he is called wisdom and wisdom was always the possession of God. One premise does not prove the other.

But while Jesus is called wisdom and many other things too, that does not mean that he is literally God's wisdom but only that he represents God's wisdom in the same sense that he is called God and yet is not the Father but certainly represents the Father. Origen is taking Jesus' names way too seriously and literally after having seen the figurative spiritual sense of so many other things. I am dumb-founded and perplexed. We could use his ridiculous logic to suggest that Jesus is mrely a word since he is indeed, called the "Word." How reasonable would that be? Origen is wrong!}]

3. Now, in the same way in which we have understood that Wisdom was the beginning of the ways of God, and is said to be created, forming beforehand and containing within herself the species and beginnings of all creatures, must we understand her to be the Word of God, because of her disclosing to all other beings, i.e., to universal creation, the nature of the mysteries and secrets which are contained within the divine wisdom; and on this account she is called the Word, because she is, as it were, the interpreter of the secrets of the mind. And therefore that language which is found in the Acts of Paul, where it is said that "here is the Word a living being," appears to me to be rightly used. John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, "And God was the Word? and this was in the beginning with God." Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God, take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or anything else that can be so entitled.

[{It is no insult to God that we give a beginning to what is named in a symbolic fashion. And God was not eternally the Father but became Father when he began to create, even as men are not called fathers until they actually have children. Origen is nearly out of his mind at this point. He is sounding like a silly misguided Greek philosopher and not a man of God, led only by God's words. Shame on him! He has unwittingly become a contributor to the growing trinity heresy with his foolish reasoning.}]

4. This Son, accordingly, is also the truth and life of all things which exist. And with reason. For how could those things which were created live, unless they derived their being from life? or how could those things which are, truly exist, unless they came down from the truth? or how could rational beings exist, unless the Word or reason had previously existed? or how could they be wise, unless there were wisdom? But since it was to come to pass that some also should fall away from life, and bring death upon themselves by their declension--for death is nothing else than a departure from life--and as it was not to follow that those beings which had once been created by God for the enjoyment of life should utterly perish, it was necessary that, before death, there should be in existence such a power as would destroy the coming death, and that there should be a resurrection, the type of which was in our Lord and Saviour, and that this resurrection should have its ground in the wisdom and word and life of God. And then, in the next place, since some of those who were created were not to be always willing to remain unchangeable and unalterable in the calm and moderate enjoyment of the blessings which they possessed, but, in consequence of the good which was in them being theirs not by nature or essence, but by accident, were to be perverted and changed, and to fall away from their position, therefore was the Word and Wisdom of God made the Way. And it was so termed because it leads to the Father those who walk along it.

Whatever, therefore, we have predicated of the wisdom of God, will be appropriately applied and understood of the Son of God, in virtue of His being the Life, and the Word, and the Truth and the Resurrection: for all these titles are derived from His power and operations, and in none of them is there the slightest ground for understanding anything of a corporeal nature which might seem to denote either size, or form, or colour; for those children of men which appear among us, or those descendants of other living beings, correspond to the seed of those by whom they were begotten, or derive from those mothers, in whose wombs they are formed and nourished, whatever that is, which they bring into this life, and carry with them when they are born. But it is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son. Because His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun. For it is not by receiving the breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward act, but by His own nature.

[{Origen here is boggled down in all sorts of quagmires and dilemmas. He realizes the clear language of the Bible making the unbegotten and almighty God a Father and Jesus a son and yet calls the whole thing can not be conceived or perceived of. If he refers to how God did it, that is not important and is indeed, unknowable. But if he is suggesting that how God was a Father when Christ, in some form, always was, then it is not because it is impossible to understand but only that Origen has painted himself into a corner that can no longer be explained or be considered rational. He made it impossible by his mistakes in his logic or lack of logic, actually. Like Plato, he shows himself to be a poor philospher.}]

5. Let us now ascertain how those statements which we have advanced are supported by the authority of holy Scripture. The Apostle Paul says, that the only-begotten Son is the "image of the invisible God," and "the first-born of every creature." And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is "the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person." Now, we find in the treatise called the Wisdom of Solomon the following description of the wisdom of God: "For she is the breath of the power of God, and the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty." Nothing that is polluted can therefore come upon her. For she is the splendour of the eternal light, and the stainless mirror of God's working, and the image of His goodness. Now we say, as before, that Wisdom has her existence nowhere else save in Him who is the beginning of all things: from whom also is derived everything that is wise, because He Himself is the only one who is by nature a Son, and is therefore termed the Only-begotten.

[{Origen calls Jesus a son and only-begotten yet elsewhere says without a real beginning. What a contradiction. Pure Greek crap! He also refers to the apocryphal book called the Wisdom of Solomon which is not accepted as a legitimate and canonical book of the Bible, so here he errs, too.}]

6. Let us now see how we are to understand the expression "invisible image," that we may in this way perceive how God is rightly called the Father of His Son; and let us, in the first place, draw our conclusions from what are customarily called images among men. That is sometimes called an image which is painted or sculptured on some material substance, such as wood or stone; and sometimes a child is called the image of his parent, when the features of the child in no respect belie their resemblance to the father. I think, therefore, that that man who was formed after the image and likeness of God may be fittingly compared to the first illustration. Respecting him, however, we shall see more precisely, God willing, when we come to expound the passage in Genesis. But the image of the Son of God, of whom we are now speaking, may be compared to the second of the above examples, even in respect of this, that He is the invisible image of the invisible God, in the same manner as we say, according to the sacred history, that the image of Adam is his son Seth. The words are, "And Adam begat Seth in his own likeness, and after his own image." Now this image contains the unity of nature and substance belonging to Father and Son. For if the Son do, in like manner, all those things which the Father doth, then, in virtue of the Son doing all things like the Father, is the image of the Father formed in the Son, who is born of Him, like an act of His will proceeding from the mind.

[{In explaining this invisible image thing, Origen unwittingly does a great job of showing why Jesus possesses all the names and titles he does without actually being God the Father and does not need to be without beginning to be God or reflect God's wisdom and so be called wisdom. Jesus is well said to be an image of the Father and not the Father, Himself.}]

And I am therefore of opinion that the will of the Father ought alone to be sufficient for the existence of that which He wishes to exist. For in the exercise of His will He employs no other way than that which is made known by the counsel of His will. And thus also the existence of the Son is generated by Him. For this point must above all others be maintained by those who allow nothing to be unbegotten, i.e., unborn, save God the Father only.

[{Origen just keeps stepping intellectual dog doo. We are dealing with semantics and the twisting of words and playing with them. Begotten as the Son is said to be, and being son, whch also denotes birth, as well as first-born, again indicating birth all seem plain and clear enough except to Origen. Now is he suggests that Jesus did not have a physical birth or that God actually possess some sort of womb, I would agree with him. But I detect that he is trying to say that Jesus was not born and always was in some fashion or manner.

Therefore, Origen concludes that God alone is not unbegotten but that Jesus is also unbegotten. He is absolutely the first to say this in such precise and distinct terms. Two others came close but would not go so far as to say Christ was unbegotten. That has only ever been applied to the father until now. Origen is clearly a heretic in his twisting of words and ideas. He is half way to being a trinitarian and worshipper of Plato, too. All we have to do now is throw in the Holy Spirit as a 3rd person, an actual entity and call him co-equal and we got it all. But Origen does not go that far, to his credit.}]

And we must be careful not to fall into the absurdities of those who picture to themselves certain emanations, so as to divide the divine nature into parts, and who divide God the Father as far as they can, since even to entertain the remotest suspicion of such a thing regarding an incorporeal being is not only the height of impiety, but a mark of the greatest folly, it being most remote from any intelligent conception that there should be any physical division of any incorporeal nature. Rather, therefore, as an act of the will proceeds from the understanding, and neither cuts off any part nor is separated or divided from it, so after some such fashion is the Father to be supposed as having begotten the Son, His own image; namely, so that, as He is Himself invisible by nature, He also begat an image that was invisible. For the Son is the Word, and therefore we are not to understand that anything in Him is cognisable by the senses. He is wisdom, and in wisdom there can be no suspicion of anything corporeal. He is the true light, which enlightens every man that cometh into this world; but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun. Our Saviour, therefore, is the image of the invisible God, inasmuch as compared with the Father Himself He is the truth: and as compared with us, to whom He reveals the Father, He is the image by which we come to the knowledge of the Father, whom no one knows save the Son, and he to whom the Son is pleased to reveal Him.

And the method of revealing Him is through the understanding. For He by whom the Son Himself is understood, understands, as a consequence, the Father also, according to His own words: "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father also."

[{And origen makes it clear that he does not understand the son or the Father because he does not listen to their words but tries to twist and distort them with Greek manipulations and philosophy.}]

7. But since we quoted the language of Paul regarding Christ, where He says of Him that He is "the brightness of the glory of God, and the express figure of His person," let us see what idea we are to form of this. According to John, "God is light." The only-begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light, proceeding inseparably from (God) Himself, as brightness does from light, and illuminating the whole of creation. For, agreeably to what we have already explained as to the manner in which He is the Way, and conducts to the Father; and in which He is the Word, interpreting the secrets of wisdom, and the mysteries of knowledge, making them known to the rational creation; and is also the Truth, and the Life, and the Resurrection,--in the same way ought we to understand also the meaning of His being the brightness: for it is by its splendour that we understand and feel what light itself is. And this splendour, presenting itself gently and softly to the frail and weak eyes of mortals, and gradually training, as it were, and accustoming them to bear the brightness of the light, when it has put away from them every hindrance and obstruction to vision, according to the Lord's own precept," Cast forth the beam out of thine eye," renders them capable of enduring the splendour of the light, being made in this respect also a sort of mediator between men and the light.

8. the Son of God, divesting Himself of His equality with the Father, and showing to us the way to the knowledge of Him, is made the express image of His person: so that we, who were unable to look upon the glory of that marvelous light when placed in the greatness of His Godhead, may, by His being made to us brightness, obtain the means of beholding the divine light by looking upon the brightness.

[{You can see the infections either of Origen or the translator as for the first time so far, we encounter the word, "Godhead." Godhead, according to Webster's dictionary, means basically divine, but then why not say divine! Godhead has no place in Christian language. It is not a proper translation of any Greek or Hebrew word or Hebrew concept. It is a distortion and a move closer to harmonizing with the trinity. I would love to know the original language here for this word, "Godhead." Origen is clearly moving in many respects toward accepting the trinity due to his love of Greek ideas and philosophying.}]

This comparison, of course, of statues, as belonging to material things, is employed for no other purpose than to show that the Son of God, though placed in the very insignificant form of a human body, in consequence of the resemblance of His works and power to the Father, showed that there was in Him an immense and invisible greatness, inasmuch as He said to His disciples, "He who sees Me, sees the Father also;" and, "I and the Father are one." And to these belong also the similar expression, "The Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

10. As no one can be a father without having a son, nor a master without possessing a servant, so even God cannot be called omnipotent unless there exist those over whom He may exercise His power; and therefore, that God may be shown to be almighty, it is necessary that all things should exist.

[{Can you believe this guy? He says what he has said about Jesus with no beginning and now he says one can not have a father without having a son! He does not have a clue. Completely contradictory ideas exist in his head. How sad but how enlightening it is to see exactly how the trinity slowly came into being, one small step at a time.}]

And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Saviour is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent. For in this way will that saying be true which He utters to the Father, "All Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine, and I am glorified in them." Now, if all things which are the Father's are also Christ's, certainly among those things which exist is the omnipotence of the Father; and doubtless the only-begotten Son ought to be omnipotent, that the Son also may have all things which the Father possesses.

[{Jesus would be omnipotent except for one thing, the Father! For though Jesus have been given all the Father's power and ability over all things, it does not mean he also has power over the Father. The Father is still pre-eminent and supreme, even over the Son. Origen seems to have missed that in his logic. Yes, in a relative sense, the son is omnipotent. In an absolute sense, he is not. Origen probably doesn't even know the difference between relative and absolute. The next line is the only accurate one.}]

God the Father is omnipotent, because He has power over all things.

He it is who exercises power over all things, and through whom all things are subject to the Father; for through wisdom, i.e., by word and reason, not by force and necessity, are all things subject.

And therefore His glory consists in this very thing, that He possesses all things, and this is the purest and most limpid glory of omnipotence, that by reason and wisdom, not by force and necessity, all things are subject. Now the purest and most limpid glory of wisdom is a convenient expression to distinguish it from that glory which cannot be called pure and sincere. But every nature which is convertible and changeable, although glorified in the works of righteousness or wisdom, yet by the fact that righteousness or wisdom are accidental qualifies, and because that which is accidental may also fall away, its glory cannot be called sincere and pure. But the Wisdom of God, which is His only-begotten Son, being in all respects incapable of change or alteration, and every good quality in Him being essential, and such as cannot be changed and converted, His glory is therefore declared to be pure and sincere.

13. It remains that we inquire what is the "image of His goodness;" and here, I think, we must understand the same thing which we expressed a little ago, in speaking of the image formed by the mirror. For He is the primal goodness, doubtless, out of which the Son is born, who, being in all respects the image of the Father, may certainly also be called with propriety the image of His goodness. For there is no other second goodness existing in the Son, save that which is in the Father. And therefore also the Saviour Himself rightly says in the Gospel, "There is none good save one only, God the Father," that by such an expression it may be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but of that only which exists in the Father, of whom He is tightly termed the image, because He proceeds from no other source but from that primal goodness, lest there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness from that which is in the Father. Nor is there any dissimilarity or difference of goodness in the Son. And therefore it is not to be imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it were, in the words, "There is none good save one only, God the Father," as if thereby it may be supposed to be denied that either Christ or the Holy Spirit was good.

[{Origen speaks well, just above. About time! But that goodness only is attributed as originating from the Father also speaks against the Son being without beginning, too, and as being in some measure, subject to the Father and dependant upon the Father, in some way or another.}]

But, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of that goodness which is in the source whence they are derived. And if there be any other things which in Scripture are called good, whether angel, or man, or servant, or treasure, or a good heart, or a good tree, all these are so termed catachrestically, having in them an accidental, not an essential goodness. But it would require both much time and labour to collect together all the titles of the Son of God, such, e.g., as the true light, or the door, or the righteousness, or the sanctification, or the redemption, and countless others; and to show if or what reasons each one of them is so given. Satisfied, therefore, with what we have already advanced, we go on with our inquiries into those other matters which follow.

1. The next point is to investigate as briefly as possible the subject of the Holy Spirit. All who perceive, in whatever manner, the existence of Providence, confess that God, who created and disposed all things, is unbegotten, and recognize Him as the parent of the universe. Now, that to Him belongs a Son, is a statement not made by us only; although it may seem a sufficiently marvelous and incredible assertion to those who have a reputation as philosophers among Greeks and Barbarians, by some of whom, however, an idea of His existence seems to have been entertained, in their acknowledging that all things were created by the word or reason of God. We, however, in conformity with our belief in that doctrine, which we assuredly hold to be divinely inspired, believe that it is possible in no other way to explain and bring within the reach of human knowledge this higher and diviner reason as the Son of God, than by means of those Scriptures alone which were inspired by the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Gospels and Epistles, and the law and the prophets, according to the declaration of Christ Himself. Of the existence of the Holy Spirit no one indeed could entertain any suspicion, save those who were familiar with the law and the prophets, or those who profess a belief in Christ. For although no one is able to speak with certainty of God the Father, it is nevertheless possible for some knowledge of Him to be gained by means of the visible creation and the natural feelings of the human mind; and it is possible, moreover, for such knowledge to be confirmed from the sacred Scriptures.

2. Now, what the Holy Spirit is, we are taught in many passages of Scripture, as by David in the fifty-first Psalm, when he says, "And take not Thy Holy Spirit from me;" and by Daniel, where it is Said, "The Holy Spirit which is in thee." And in the New Testament we have abundant testimonies, as when the Holy Spirit is described as having descended upon Christ, and when the Lord breathed upon His apostles after His resurrection, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit;" and the saying of the angel to Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon thee;" the declaration by Paul, that no one can call Jesus Lord, save by the Holy Spirit. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit was given by the imposition of the apostles' hands in baptism. From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism, was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit. Who, then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit, when he hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for forgiveness; but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has not forgiveness, either in the present world or in that which is to come!

[{What is a sin against the Holy Spirit? Glad you asked. This is the most misunderstood statement in the entire Bible. Jesus performed extraordinary miraculous works while on earth during his ministry. He would raise people from the dead who had been rotting and stinking for 3 days. These works could only come from God. As a blind man that Jesus healed had said, God does not listen to sinners and give them signs to perform. He only blesses righteous men. And the more impressive the works, the more God must approve of him.

The fact that such amazing works were taking place through Jesus was proof that he was speaking the truth and part of that truth was that he was the son of God. Jesus indicated as Origen points out, that a sin against him or because of him personally, could be forgiven but a sin against the marvelous works which were clearly from God could not be forgiven ever. To ignore those works is to ignore God without any question. That was what Jesus meant by a sin against the Holy Spirit, more precisely, the manifestations of the Holy Spirit of God. I fully discuss this in my article, Why We Can Trust the Bible linked at the end of this article.

So when Jesus says in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, what he means is in the name of the works, signs, and miracles that come from that Spirit. Those works testify to Jesus as well as he testifies to himself and God obviously testifying about him by pouring His spirit on Jesus to enable those miraculous works. All three testify to the will of God, so in the name of all 3 does the will of God proceed with directions and commands to men.

God is the author of those miraculous works by means of His spirit, that is to say, His power. Even Origen called it His power earlier. To imagine it as a literal being is to take Jesus words too literally. Jesus was not in the habit of speaking literally, too often. The Bible says he usually spoke by means of parables and illustrations. But most people do not pick up on that.}]

3. But up to the present time we have been able to find no statement in holy scripture in which the Holy Spirit could be said to be made or created.

[{This is true. If I am right about the Holy Spirit, then it had no beginning for it was and is and always will be a part of God as our arms and legs ar part of us. It is his power and His ability which he has always been in possession of and always will be in possession of since it is part of Him. If it were a separate being like Jesus was, then it would have been created and we would be reading about it. Since it is a part of God, we do not find it being created for God is not created, but is unbegotten and eternal, both in the past and present. But Origen is kind of slow to pick up on that.}]

4. Some indeed of our predecessors have observed, that in the New Testament, whenever the Spirit is named without that adjunct which denotes quality, the Holy Spirit is to be understood; as e.g., in the expression, "Now the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace;" and, "Seeing ye began in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh?" We are of opinion that this distinction may be observed in the Old Testament also, as when it is said, "He that giveth His Spirit to the people who are upon the earth, and Spirit to them who walk thereon." For, without doubt, every one who walks upon the earth (i.e., earthly and corporeal beings) is a partaker also of the Holy Spirit, receiving it from God.

[{To some degree, I consent to what Origen says, but I also reserve some distinctions. When the Bible says "fruits of the Spirit, it speaks of something holy and good, because it comes from something good, the Spirit of God. But when he refers to the Hebrew which speaks of all having God's spirit, the force of life to be specific, it refers to the animating force and power of God which also makes the whole universe run according to the laws God set for them which we call the laws of physics. This spirit is given to all but is not what Paul or Jesus refer to when they speak of the fruits of the Spirit which operate upon those who subject themselves to God's laws and commandments. Nevertheless, neither use of Spirit indicates that it is an entity of any sort.

There are actually a variety of uses of the word spirit so I would recommend my article on that subject, What is the Spirit? At the end of this article.}]

My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another, and saying, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of hosts," were to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think that that expression also which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk, "In the midst either of the two living things, or of the two lives, Thou wilt be known," ought to be understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of the Father is obtained by revelation of the Son through the Holy Spirit, so that both of these beings which, according to the prophet, are called either "living things" or "lives," exist as the ground of the knowledge of God the Father. For as it is said of the Son, that "no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him," the same also is said by the apostle of the Holy Spirit, when He declares, "God hath revealed them to us by His Holy Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God;" and again in the Gospel, when the Saviour, speaking of the divine and profounder parts of His teaching, which His disciples were not yet able to receive, thus addresses them: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; but when the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is come, He will teach you all things, and will bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He will: "For the Spirit bloweth where He listeth."

[{When something is revealed by the Holy Spirit, it means that God's power operates on us or tht we are given visions or prophecies by means of the Father or Son, which their "spirit" makes happen. Spirit as opposed to us imagining them as invisible bodies who might wisper in our ears or something of that nature. Also, works and manifestations of the Spirit also reveal things to us as they did to Peter when Spirit was poured out on Cornelius and his household so that it became clear to Peter what the spirit that was operating on him and the house of Cornelius, was trying to convey to Peter. The way was now open for the gentiles to become worshippers of God and be saved. In this way, the spirit made known the will of the Father and His Son.

The spirit came from Jesus as God had restored His Son's heavenly existence and glory and put him in charge of all things, including how the spirit got distributed and used.}]

We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives His knowledge through revelation from the Son.

[{The spirit is the knowledge of the Son, it is his power to reveal things or accomplish things, including the giving of knowledge of God to men. That knowledge is from Jesus passed along by his power, the spirit, which when it comes from Jesus, it is as if it came directly from the Father since the Father made Jesus king and lord of all things. The Holy Spirit is a revelation from the Son as was evident when John received the Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse.}]

5. Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. And in discussing these subjects, it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the special working of the Holy Spirit, and of the Father and the Son. I am of opinion, then, that the working of the Father and of the Son takes place as well in saints as in sinners, in rational beings and in dumb animals; nay, even in those things which are without life, and in all things universally which exist; but that the operation of the Holy Spirit does not take place at all in those things which are without life, or in those which, although living, are yet dumb; nay, is not found even in those who are endued indeed with reason, but are engaged in evil courses, and not at all converted to a better life. In those persons alone do I think that the operation of the Holy Spirit takes place, who are already turning to a better life, and walking along the way which leads to Jesus Christ, i.e., who are engaged in the performance of good actions, and who abide in God.

[{It is a shame that Origen was not more acquainted with philosophy. He knew just enough to get it all wrong. The laws of physics are the manifestation of God's power, His spirit. Those laws operate on all tings in the universe, even rocks, water, or whatever. They all depend on the laws that govern atoms and subatomic particles. So he is wrong when he says that the operations of God's spirit, which is certainly holy, does not take place at all in those tings which are without life. Sorry Origen; wrong again! But that is not the same degree of operation as when he blesses some and curses others.

Those blessed receive a far greater portion of God's spirit and in a different way than what the rest receive. They do not know the special parts of God's spirit reserved only for those He loves and approves of. The Holy Spirit does operate and is needed by those who are partakers of the so called trinity. But that does not mean it is a being or entity.}]

6. Moreover, that all men are not without communion with God, is taught in the Gospel thus, by the Saviour's words: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! but the kingdom of God is within you." But here we must see whether this does not bear the same meaning with the expression in Genesis: "And He breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul." For if this be understood as applying generally to all men, then all men have a share in God.

[{Well, exactly, yes, all men do have a share with God in some sense. They are not completely alienated. They contain the life force, the spirit, that He gave without condition, to do as they wish, even if it is to rebel against God. But He will not forever tolerate this rebellion among men. Bu His spirit, His breath of life, continues in all men to this day. Further, Origen, like most, misinterprets that verse he quotes from Luke 17. When the scripture say "for the kingdom of God is in your midst, that is not what Jesus is saying, he is paraphrasing what false prophets will be saying, claiming that the messiah has returned and is among them, in their midst. Jesus, a few versus later, tells his disciples not to believe anyone when they say that and not to go follow them. So Origen is totally out in left field on that one.}]

7. But if this is to be understood as spoken of the Spirit of God, since Adam also is found to have prophesied of some things, it may be taken not as of general application, but as confined to those who are saints. Finally, also, at the time of the flood, when all flesh had corrupted their way before God, it is recorded that God spoke thus, as of undeserving men and sinners: "My Spirit shall not abide with those men for ever, because they are flesh." By which, it is clearly shown that the Spirit of God is taken away from all who are unworthy. In the Psalms also it is written: "Thou wilt take away their spirit, and they will die, and return to their earth. Thou wilt send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and Thou wilt renew the face of the earth;" which is manifestly intended of the Holy Spirit, who, after sinners and unworthy persons have been taken away and destroyed, creates for Himself a new people, and renews the face of the earth, when, laying aside, through the grace of the Spirit, the old map with his deeds, they begin to walk in newness of life. And therefore the expression is competently applied to the Holy Spirit, because He will take up His dwelling, not in all men, nor in those who are flesh, but in those whose land has been renewed.

[{Well, as is made clear by the scriptural quotes, that even evil men are in possession of God's spirit, even though they eventually lose it, for good in most cases unless they have repented and accepted Jesus. So God's spirit operates to some extent in all men but in a far greater capacity and manner than it does in unholy people.}]

In this manner, then, is the working of the power of God the Father and of the Son extended without distinction to every creature;

[{It seems here like he is agreeing with me but if that is so, then he has contradicted himself. He is either a poor communicator, unable to make himself understood by us, or he is very confused.}]

Let no one indeed suppose that we, from having said that the Holy Spirit is conferred upon the saints alone, but that the benefits or operations of the Father and of the Son extend to good and bad, to just and unjust, by so doing give a preference to the Holy Spirit over the Father and the Son, or assert that His dignity is greater, which certainly would be a very illogical conclusion. For it is the peculiarity of His grace and operations that we have been describing. Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things.

[{I think Origen is just plain mixed up. In his bizarre interpretation of the Holy Spirit, he has created something that makes no sense and contradicts itself. Because he separates the Holy Spirit into another person instead of it being the power purity of God, he ends up in a quagmire of dilemmas, not really being able to explain the Holy Spirit very well.}]

There is also another grace of the Holy Spirit, which is bestowed upon the deserving, through the ministry of Christ and the working of the Father, in proportion to the merits of those who are rendered capable of receiving it. This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same, in the words, "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit: withal." From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father. "But all these work that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every one severally as He will."

[{Origen is trying to cram all three into one. Yes, they all work together without any divisions or contradictions, all working toward the same goal. But as to what the spirit is, Origen has shown us nothing to prove it/him an entity.}]

8. Seeing, then, that firstly, they derive their existence from God the Father; secondly, their rational nature from the Word; thirdly, their holiness from the Holy Spirit.

[{Maybe I am being picky, but the Holy Spirit does not give us holiness or make us holy. It is we who make ourselves holy, in a relative way and make ourselves obedient. After we do such, then we are blessed by God through His pouring His Spirit in some measure, upon us.}]

"There are diversities of operations, but one God who works all in all." Whence also the working of the Father, which confers existence upon all things, is found to be more glorious and magnificent, while each one, by participation in Christ, as being wisdom, and knowledge, and sanctification, makes progress, and advances to higher degrees of perfection; and seeing it is by partaking of the Holy Spirit.

3. For it is manifest that He, viz., who gave answers to Moses, said, "You shall not see My face, but My hinder parts." These words are, of course, to be understood in that mystical sense which is befitting divine words, those old wives' fables being rejected and despised which are invented by ignorant persons respecting the anterior and posterior parts of God. Let no one indeed suppose that we have indulged any feeling of impiety in saying that even to the Saviour the Father is not visible. Let him consider the distinction which we employ in dealing with heretics. For we have explained that it is one thing to see and to be seen, and another to know and to be known, or to understand and to be understood. To see, then, and to be seen, is a property of bodies, which certainly will not be appropriately applied either to the Father, or to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit, in their mutual relations with one another. For the nature of the Trinity surpasses the measure of vision, granting to those who are in the body, i.e., to all other creatures, the property of vision in reference to one another. But to a nature that is incorporeal and for the most part intellectual, no other attribute is appropriate save that of knowing or being known, as the Saviour Himself declares when He says, "No man knoweth the Son, save the Father; nor does any one know the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." It is clear, then, that He has not said, "No one has seen the Father, save the Son;" but, "No one knoweth the Father, save the Son."

[{Some English translations of the Bible do refer to Jesus seeing or beholding the Father, though it cold be an error of translation which I have not looked into. But we can not be sure of whether Jesus can in some way see the Father or whether he beholds the Father in a manner in fashion that is beyond our comprehension and understanding, since we do not know what it is like to be a spirit in the spirit realm. Origen speaks as if he knew and was there or something. He ought not to be speaking of what he can not be sure about as if it were a fact or in the Bible. He might be right is all he or we can say about his idea.

But the fact that Jesus speaks of knowing the Father and the Father knowing the Son, and yet the Holy Spirit is never even brought into this relationship. Most surely, if the Spirit were a 3 living partner in this relationship, how could Jesus possibly leave him out of the discussion on the continual basis that he does? The Spirit would be like a brother or another Father to Jesus, wouldn't he? But where there is no mention of him, it seems impossible to think him a real being or entity. But then the trinity was never a very well thought out idea to begin with. It has always bee said to be a mystery since it can make no sense at any time.}]

1. It is time, then, that we say a few words to the best of our ability regarding the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel according to John has named the Paraclete. For as it is the same God Himself, and the same Christ, so also is it the same Holy Spirit who was in the prophets and apostles, i.e., either in those who believed in God before the advent of Christ, or in those who by means of Christ have sought refuge in God. We have heard, indeed, that certain heretics have dared to say that there are two Gods and two Christs, but we have never known of the doctrine of two Holy Spirits being preached by any one. For how could they maintain this out of Scripture, or what distinction could they lay down between Holy Spirit and Holy Spirit, if indeed any definition or description of Holy Spirit can be discovered?

[{I imagine that part of the reason that heretics never mention two spirits is because they never conceived of it as being a living being of any sort. This is also evidence that heretics never saw or conceived of a trinity and never address God or Christ as such or in such an arrangement. Yet another blunder by Origen and trinitarians, too.}]

2. Now we are of opinion that every rational creature, without any distinction, receives a share of Him in the same way as of the Wisdom and of the Word of God. I observe, however, that the chief advent of the Holy Spirit is declared to men, after the ascension of Christ to heaven, rather than before His coming into the world. For, before that, it was upon the prophets alone, and upon a few individuals--if there happened to be any among the people deserving of it--that the gift of the Holy Spirit was conferred; but after the advent of the Saviour, it is written that the prediction of the prophet Joel was fulfilled, "In the last days it shall come to pass, and I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and they shall prophesy," which is similar to the well-known statement, "All nations shall serve Him." By the grace, then, of the Holy Spirit, along with numerous other results, this most glorious consequence is clearly demonstrated, that with regard to those things which were written in the prophets or in the law of Moses, it was only a few persons at that time, viz., the prophets themselves, and scarcely another individual out of the whole nation, who were able to look beyond the mere corporeal meaning and discover something greater, i.e., something spiritual, in the law or in the prophets; but now there are countless multitudes of believers who, although unable to unfold methodically and clearly the results of their spiritual understanding, are nevertheless most firmly persuaded that neither ought circumcision to be understood literally, nor the rest of the Sabbath, nor the pouring out of the blood of an animal, nor that answers were given by God to Moses on these points. And this method of apprehension is undoubtedly suggested to the minds of all by the power of the Holy Spirit.

[{Now Origen says all rational creatures receive a portion of the spirit, which is true since all live by means of God's spirit. But he also says that all receive a portion of Jesus, the wisdom and word of God, in the same way. How so I ask? For though all continue to be sustained by the spirit of God, even as all the physical laws are sustained by that spirit, not all receive the Son in the same manner. Most reject him. He certainly died for all but not all accept or receive that. So Origen is just a clashing cymbal in the breeze who does not deserve to be taken too seriously. He rarely seems to know what he is talking about.

Also note the scripture quoted where God pours "His" Spirit out on His believers. The spirit is a belonging and possession of God, not a separate entity.}]

3. And as there are many ways of apprehending Christ, who, although He is wisdom, does not act the part or possess the power of wisdom in all men, but only in those who give themselves to the study of wisdom in Him; and who, although called a physician, does not act as one towards all, but only towards those who understand their feeble and sickly condition, and flee to His compassion that they may obtain health; so also I think is it with the Holy Spirit, in whom is contained every kind of gifts, For on some is bestowed by the Spirit the word of wisdom, on others the word of knowledge, on others faith; and so to each individual of those who are capable of receiving Him, is the Spirit Himself made to be that quality, or understood to be that which is needed by the individual who has deserved to participate. These divisions and differences not being perceived by those who hear Him called Paraclete in the Gospel, and not duly considering in consequence of what work or act He is named the Paraclete, they have compared Him to some common spirits or other, and by this means have tried to disturb the Churches of Christ, and so excite dissensions of no small extent among brethren; whereas the Gospel shows Him to be of such power and majesty, that it says the apostles could not yet receive those things which the Saviour wished to teach them until the advent of the Holy Spirit, who, pouring Himself into their souls, might enlighten them regarding the nature and faith of the Trinity. But these persons, because of the ignorance of their understandings, are not only unable themselves logically to state the truth, but cannot even give their attention to what is advanced by us; and entertaining Unworthy ideas of His divinity, have delivered themselves over to errors and deceits, being depraved by a spirit of error, rather than instructed by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, according to the declaration of the apostle, "Following the doctrine of devils, forbidding to marry, to the destruction and ruin of many, and to abstain from meats, that by an ostentatious exhibition of stricter observance they may seduce the souls of the innocent."

[{You will not how Origen twists the scriptures when he speaks of the Holy Spirit pouring "Himself" into the Apostles. That expression can not be found anywhere in the Bible. Origen is taking liberties he has no right to take because he knows it is God who is spoken of as pouring the Spirit out. In doing that, it is hard to imagine it a person but rather a substance, a water of sorts, an anointing substance, in the spiritual sense. AS I mentioned before and will remind again, Paraclete essentially means comforter, which is how Jesus on several occasions spoke of the spirit.}]

4. We must therefore know that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, who teaches truths which cannot be uttered in words, and which are, so to speak, unutterable, and "which it is not lawful for a man to utter," i.e., which cannot be indicated by human language. The phrase "it is not lawful" is, we think, used by the apostle instead of "it is not possible;" as also is the case in the passage where he says, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me; but all things edify not." For those things which are in our power because we may have them, he says are lawful for us. But the Paraclete, who is called the Holy Spirit, is so called from His work of consolation, paraclesis being termed in Latin consolatio. For if any one has deserved to participate in the Holy Spirit by the knowledge of His ineffable mysteries, he undoubtedly obtains comfort and joy of heart. For since he comes by the teaching of the Spirit to the knowledge of the reasons of all things which happen--how or why they occur--his soul can in no respect be troubled, or admit any feeling of sorrow; nor is he alarmed by anything, since, clinging to the Word of God and His wisdom, he through the Holy Spirit calls Jesus Lord. And since we have made mention of the Paraclete, and have explained as we were able what sentiments ought to be entertained regarding Him; and since our Saviour also is called the Paraclete in the Epistle of John, when he says, "If any of us sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins;" let us consider whether this term Paraclete should happen to have one meaning when applied to the Saviour, and another when applied to the Holy Spirit.

Now Paraclete, when spoken of the Saviour, seems to mean intercessor. For in Greek, Paraclete has both significations--that of intercessor and comforter.

[{ He refers to the Greek word, parakletos, which can mean an intercessor, consoler, advocate, assistant, or comforter. It is interpreted and applied differently by translators to Christ than it is to the spirit, but correctly as best as I can tell. Origen is looking for some significance here but there is none as has been the case for some time. the Spirit was promised as a helper and comforter to the Apostles in place of Jesus. Further, because of receiving the same spirit which had descended upon Jesus at his baptism, they would then become capable of doing the same great works and according to Jesus, even greater works than he had done in going out to the nations, the Gentiles.

Were Jesus not to be offered in sacrifice, they would not be entitled to that Spirit since it was the sacrifice that bought them and erased their sin, giving them the right to receive the Spirit of God. They had received a measure of authority when Jesus was alive but only Jesus could do miracles. He would have to die and ascend to heaven to enable this followers to also receive those extraordinary powers. But to see the Spirit as being a living being because it is referred to as to comforter, I will only point out that even a type of blanket is referred to as a comforter. Shall we imagine a blanket to be living and intelligent?}]

On account, then, of the phrase which follows, when he says, "And He is the propitiation for our sins," the name Paraclete seems to be understood in the case of our Saviour as meaning intercessor; for He is said to intercede with the Father because of our sins. In the case of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete must be understood in the sense of comforter, inasmuch as He bestows consolation upon the souls to whom He openly reveals the apprehension of spiritual knowledge.

[{Agreed. That does not make it a living being, though!}]

SUMMARY (OF DOCTRINE) REGARDING THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THE OTHER TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PAGES.

28. It is now time, after the rapid consideration which to the best of our ability we have given to the topics discussed, to recapitulate, by way of summing up what we have said in different places, the individual points, and first of all to restate our conclusions regarding the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son,

[{If they were not inseparable, then how was it the Jesus emptied himself of his heavenly form and existence and came down to earth as a man? They are separable in some senses. They are inseparable and indivisible if we are referring to their unity. Origen does not make any distinction, leaving the way open for someone to twist the Bible meaning all our of proportion, which is what happens.}]

the Son is not generated from Him by "prolation," as some suppose. For if the Son be a "prolation" of the Father (the term "prolation" being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who "prolated" and He who was "prolated" are corporeal.

[{He makes a big deal out of the fact that God did not give birth to Jesus in any physical way. Big deal. We know they are incorporeal spirits. We get it already!}]

For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist; but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the understanding.

[{Again, Origen pretends to know far more about what went on in heaven than could ever possibly be demonstrated. Whether Jesus was created out of the Father's own being or out of nothing as we might imagine matter to be, is not for us to say. The Bible said nothing about it. But far be it for Origen to be content with letting the Bible give us the only fact on the matter. Origen knows better than God, apparently!}]

How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence.

[{To be a bit fair to Origen, though he seems to be jumping off into things which have no mention in the Bible, they are sometimes brought up by heretics of the times. So Jesus was imagined to be of one form at one time and another manifestation at another, according to heretics, which is not true. But Jesus was only a son when he was created. Before that, he was non-exsistent. Origen gets drawn off course by their clever little word games and twisting. He should have done as the Apostles suggested, and have nothing to do with such sick and twisted foolish questionings as they were called by Paul. They are hardly worth addressing.}]

And although these qualities are said to be many in understanding, yet in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fullness of divinity. Now this expression which we employ--"that there never was a time when He did not exist"--is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words "when" or "never" have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. This Son of God, then, in respect of the Word being God, which was in the beginning with God, no one will logically suppose to be contained in any place; nor yet in respect of His being "Wisdom," or "Truth," or the "Life," or "Righteousness," or "Sanctification," or "Redemption:" for all these properties do not require space to be able to act or to operate, but each one of them is to be understood as meaning those individuals who participate in His virtue and working.

[{Though our concept of time revolves around the rising and setting of the sun, moon, and stars, it does not mean there was no time before God's Son created the universe and us. We do not know what that time was or for how long Jesus existed as God's Son before he began to create all things. But it was Godly time all the same. As said by Peter, a thousand years are as a day with God, not that a day was precisely a thousand years in all instances, but it gives us the idea that time is quite relative with God and that for Him, time can be much faster. He probably can see it both faster and slower, having both perceptions of time and many more besides. We can not know for sure, for God far surpasses what we can understand about time and perception. But it should not be forgotten that Jesus did have a beginning in God's concept of time, whatever that was and is.}]

. . . was either rent asunder from the Father, or restrained and confined within the narrowness of His bodily person, and is not to be considered to have operated anywhere besides; but the cautious acknowledgment of a religious man ought to be between the two, so that it ought neither to be believed that anything of divinity was wanting in Christ, nor that any separation at all was made from the essence of the Father, which is everywhere. For some such meaning seems to be indicated by John the Baptist, when he said to the multitude in the bodily absence of Jesus, "There stands one among you whom you know not: He it is who come after me, the latch of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose." For it certainly could not be said of Him, who was absent, so far as His bodily presence is concerned, that He was standing in the midst of those among whom the Son of God was not bodily present.

[{First of all, though Christ was anointed with the Holy Spirit and had been given all power from heaven, he was not fully divine, or it would not have been possible to see him or kill him. He was a man with the Holy Spirit. So there was plenty of divinity missing from him. The Bible says in Philippians 2:7, that Jesus emptied himself of that heavenly glory and being and became a man. But now Origen and trinitarians tell us that he did not empty himself of that form and glory, but retained his divinity, in addition to becoming a man. So as it becomes perfectly and blatantly clear, that since the Bible, the word of God, can not lie, that it must be the trinitarians and Origen who are the liars, teaching something contrary to the word of God.

Further, it is not clear what exactly is meant when Origen says there is no separation of essence from the Father in regards to the Son. But it is clearly a sort of Greek idea of which nothing can be said for sure from the scriptures, therefore, Mr. Origen has no business putting it off on us as established fact from the word of God. Neither can I discern what he is suggesting in talking about what John said about Jesus and what it signifies. I am not sure if he, Origen, even really knows what he is babbling about.}]

31. Let no one, however, suppose that by this we affirm that some portion of the divinity of the Son of God was in Christ, and that the remaining portion was elsewhere or everywhere, which may be the opinion of those who are ignorant of the nature of an incorporeal and invisible essence.

[{I am not sure of what Origen or the heretics were saying. Christ had received the blessing, power, and authority of God, while being a man. On this the Bible is clear. What they suggest by divinity is not clear. They are speaking in unclear, ambiguous terms, which enable them to twist and distort as they please. Both sides are wrong. If either party suggests that Jesus was somewhat divine in anything other than power and authority, then they are wrong. You can not kill divine beings. They do not depend on a physical existence or physical sustenance such as food or water.

Since it was most clear to Origen that divine beings are incorporeal, he should have known and understood this, even as I or we do. That he misses it is not easy to overlook. It seems to me he prefers the concept of a trinity instead of logic and consistency in his reasoning and understanding. How sad that a man can have some good sound reasoning and insight at times and yet forsake it when he feels a preference for another concept, without supporting reason.}]

For it is impossible to speak of the parts of an incorporeal being, or to make any division of them; but He is in all things, and through all things, and . . .

[{Can you seek the ridiculous contradictions he makes? He makes a fool of himself.}]

32. Some, indeed, would have the following language of the apostle applied to the soul itself, as soon as it had assumed flesh from Mary, viz., "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but divested Himself (of His glory) taking upon Himself the form of a servant;" since He undoubtedly restored it to the form of God by means of better examples and training, and recalled it to that fullness of which He had divested Himself.

[{Now he is quoting Philippians 2:7, knowing that people like me would gladly point it out to show his error. His way of reasoning out of it is to suggest that he restored that great divinity he had in heaven by making himself better while on earth, if I understand it correctly. That just doesn't do it, though. Jesus could be and was killed so divine he could not be. Sorry Origen, but you are wrong again with your sad pathetic attempts to rationalize yourself out of the ridiculous and unscriptural!}]

As now by participation in the Son of God one is adopted as a son,' and by participating in that wisdom which is in God is rendered wise, so also by participation in the Holy Spirit is a man rendered holy and spiritual. For it is one and the same thing to have a share in the Holy Spirit, which is (the Spirit) of the Father and the Son, since the nature of the Trinity is one and incorporeal.

[{Notice here that he says that the spirit is of the Father and Son. He can not make up his mind or really give us a distinct trumpet call, a clear definition of what the spirit really is. It is one thing, it is another, it is and it isn't. No wonder they call the trinity a mystery. It is a mystery as to how it can be thought to make any sense at all.}]

33. And, in the first place, it is to be noted that we have nowhere found in the canonical Scriptures, up to the present time, the word "matter" used for that substance which is said to underlie bodies.

[{Well, look at this! Now he is pointing out that something of a Greek definition and idea is not in the Bible. Too bad he would not use this requirement when making his own absurd arguments, which are also not found in scripture. He is right. But he will not apply this rule to himself. This is what you call bad or impure mental hygiene, what we might call an unclean or impure spirit. So in a figurative way, we could say he is possessed of an unclean spirit, right? And that would seem to be the case.}]

For those who posited "atoms"--either those particles which are incapable of subdivision, or those which are subdivided into equal parts--or any one element, as the principles of bodily things, could not posit the word "matter" in the proper sense of the term among the first principles of things. For if they will have it that matter underlies every body--a substance convertible or changeable, or divisible in all its parts--they will not, as is proper, assert that it exists without qualities. And with them we agree, for we altogether deny that matter ought to be spoken of as "unbegotten" or "uncreated,"

[{I find it so ironic that the one thing which he chose to disagree with the Greeks on, is the one thing they had right and he had wrong, as we can see today. The Greeks, through general observation and application of logic, had discerned that there were atoms, though they could not prove such at the time. We later did prove it in recent times. Indeed, the universe is made up of what we call matter.

Whether it is uncreated can not be said for sure. Modern physics seems to suggest it could have came form nothing. But it would remain for God to answer for sure and He has not spoken about the details of the creation of the universe other than to say it was created. How or in what precise way has never been recorded in the Bible. But Origen seems to know. My guess is he is right about matter being created as physicists seem to suggest in their Big Bang theory. But whether God meant that He assembled things when He created all things, or whether He meant He brought them into existence and assembled them is not absolutely certain.}]

36. , so also a diversity is to be noted in the participation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, varying with the degree of zeal or capacity of mind.

[{Yes, and diversity could indicate a separateness that he would prefer to deny.
This is the end of all the early writers so I will be the only writer beyond this point.]}

What I want to point out and make clear here is that the spirit is given much attention at times because it was by means of the manifestation of the works of the spirit as they took place through Jesus and the Apostles after Jesus' ascension to heaven, that indicated that these men were from God. Even if the people were not impressed by these men, they should have been impressed by the works. They could only be from God. So when people were not moved by the marvelous works that took place, they were denying the spirit, oblivious to its manifestations and what they indicated.

Due to their ignoring the spirit and rebelling against it, they were sinning against the manifestations taking place before them, said to be sinning against the spirit. It could also be said to be a sin against God since the spirit was from Him and through His Son or His other bought, ransomed, and adopted sons, particularly the Apostles.

For this reason, the spirit receives plenty of attention, even as the Father and Son do. That they are a trinity requires us to see the spirit as more than just geat works and the power of God. We need to make it into a living being. But to do that, we need to twist the scriptures, making more out of a few misunderstood references from Jesus or John.

Origen does his best to do this, but fails miserably as you might be able to accept and see or maybe not. But as far as I am concerned, we need to let the scriptures speak plainly for themselves, in the most logical and forthright way possible.

Part of the problem is that Origen, like modern day Christians, does not acknowledge and recognize that there is an absolute way of viewing or describing things, and also a relative way of speaking of or viewing things. In a relative way, Jesus is God, and almighty, since the Father appointed him as such. But that does not mean we can argue that the Son is the Father in every way, being the same person. And we can say co-eternal in a relative sense since Jesus is now eternal, since being created by the Father. But that does not mean we can deny the scriptures which clearly say Jesus had a beginning, a birth, a creation. Nor can we say that Jesus is the ultimate boss since he, himself, says the Father is greater and is the only one how knows the day and the hour of the end. So in an absolute sense, Jesus is not co-equal. He is subordinate and subject to the Father, by his own admission.

But I have spoke of these things in my preliminary article dealing with what the scriptures say about the trinity. What I want to be the main thing you take away from reading what the early writers had to say was that the trinity did not exist in name or idea by the early writers until Origen. It then makes an appearance in both name and though not precisely in meaning, nevertheless, quite close to it. There were two other writers before him who started to suggest that Jesus was always with the Father in some manner. But they did not go anywhere near as far as Origen did, nor did they make anywhere near as much a fool of themselves in attempting to argue the ridiculous and impossible as Origen did.

Back to Top