Excerpts from Origen’s Romans Commentary
The quotations are taken from Origen’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5 (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series), translated by Thomas P. Scheck, published by The Catholic University of America Press Publication, 2009. All emphasis will be mine.
5. Concerning his Son.83
He who was a son according to the flesh came indeed from the seed of David. Undoubtedly, he became that which previously was not, according to the flesh.
According to the Spirit, however, he existed first, AND THERE WAS NEVER A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT.84
It should be noted that [M849] he did not say,
“who has been predestined Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness,”
but,
“who has been destined the Son of God.”85
Let no one think that we are scrutinizing the words used here more carefully than the matter allows. For even though it is customary to find “predestined” in the Latin copies,86 the correct translation here is “destined” and not “predestined.” For only a person who is in existence can be destined; but to be predestined applies to someone who is not yet in existence, such as those, concerning whom the Apostle says, “Those whom he foreknew these he also predestined.”87 Accordingly those who do not yet exist can be foreknown and predestined, BUT HE WHO IS AND WHO ALWAYS IS, is not predestined but destined.88
We should mention this on account of those who utter blasphemies against the only begotten Son of God and, ignorant of the distinction between “destined” and “predestined,” they imagine that he ought to be counted among those who were predestined to exist when they previously did not exist. But he was never predestined to be the Son, BUT HE ALWAYS WAS, JUST AS ALSO THE FATHER. So then, HE WHO ALWAYS IS, is destined, as we have said, not predestined.
But one who is predestined did not yet exist at the time he was predestined, but he began at some point in time.89 The Apostle is therefore making a critical distinction when he refers to him as “made of the seed of David according to the flesh,” but calls him destined “the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness.”
(2) Furthermore when he said “Son of God” he did not add the words, “in power,” superfluously,90 by this indicating that he is the Son substantially according to the Spirit of holiness.
For Christ is called “the power of God and the wisdom of God,”91 which is also named “the breath of the power of God, and the purest emanation of the glory of the Almighty” and “the splendor of eternal light and the image of God’s goodness.”92
Now the next question is: If that which is born from David’s seed is according to the flesh, but that which is destined in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, is the Son of God and substantially God, how ought we to understand the soul of Jesus, which is by no means named with the flesh and [M850] the Spirit of holiness, or even with the substance of the divine power?
Elsewhere the Savior himself says of his soul,
“My soul is grieved unto the point of death,”93
“now is my soul troubled.”94
This is the soul he lays down of his own accord;95 and yes, in fact it even descended to the underworld, concerning which it is also said,
“You will not abandon my soul in the underworld.”96
For it is beyond any doubt that this soul was not generated from the seed of David. For it says that what was made from the seed of David is according to the flesh.
(3) Since therefore the soul is evidently included neither in that which is according to the flesh nor in that which is destined to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness, it is my belief that the Apostle is using his customary habit in this passage,97 knowing that the soul is always midway between the spirit and the flesh and that it joins itself either to the flesh, thus becoming one with the flesh, or it associates itself with the spirit and becomes one with the spirit.98
Consequently if it is joined with the flesh men become fleshly; but if it unites with the spirit they become spiritual. And for that reason he does not explicitly designate the soul but only the flesh and the spirit.
For he knows that the soul inevitably attaches itself to one of these two aspects, as in those to whom he writes,
“But you are not in the flesh but in the spirit,”99
“Whoever unites himself with a prostitute is one body,”100
here calling “prostitute” the flesh or body.
“But whoever unites himself with the Lord is one Spirit.”101
So then Paul, now aware that the soul of Jesus, united with the Lord and attaching to him, was one Spirit of holiness with him, thus does not designate it explicitly lest he should break apart the unity of Jesus.102
For “what God has joined together let man not separate.”103 He is in truth called the “Spirit of holiness” according to the fact that he makes holiness available to all, just as it is written elsewhere about him,
“who has become wisdom for us from God, and righteousness and holiness and redemption.”104
(4) Still, some people105 attack us by raising the most aggravating questions. For example: How can Christ be descended from the seed of David when it is an established fact that he was not born of Joseph, in whom Joseph’s lineage as a descendant of David [M851] is adduced?106
Although it is vexing to respond to these people in the manner of a treatise, the following shall nevertheless be answered from our side:
“Before Mary, who was betrothed, and Joseph came together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.”107
Now according to the law she was united to her own fellow tribe member and kinsman.108 And although it was told to her by the angel,
“For behold Elizabeth your kinswoman shall herself give birth to a son in her old age”;
109 yet Elizabeth is said to be descended from the daughters of Aaron,110 nevertheless it will be affirmed on our side that the term “kinsman” may be appropriately and interchangeably applied not only to fellow tribe-members but also to everyone who are of the race of Israel.
In this way the Apostle himself speaks likewise of all Israelites,
“who are my kinsmen according to the flesh.”111
These types of responses and others similar to them may be given. To what extent they may actually be effective against the assertions of those who press us concerning the testimonies from the Scriptures, the reader shall have to test.
(5) All the same, in our view these matters should instead be understood by using the spiritual or allegorical method of interpretation. According to this method there is no problem in Joseph being called the father of Christ even though he is not at all his actual father.112
For it is also recorded by Matthew in the genealogy that Jehoshaphat begat Joram, and Joram begat Uzziah.113 Yet in the fourth book of Kingdoms it is written that Joram begat Ahaziah, and Ahaziah begat Joash, and Joash begat Amaziah. Amaziah in fact begat Azariah, who is sometimes called Uzziah, and Azariah begat Jotham.114
Hence Uzziah, who is also called Azariah, is said to be a son of Amaziah in the third115 book of Kingdoms,116 and yet in Matthew’s account he is recorded as a son of Joram.117 Three generations in between have been skipped.
The explanation of this matter is certainly not established by the historical but by the spiritual understanding. It is not the time for us to deal with these matters in passing. Instead they will be investigated in their proper place.118
It suffices us for the moment to respond to those who oppose us that, just as Jesus is said to be a son of Joseph, from whom he was not generated, and Uzziah is said to be generated from Joram, from whom he was not generated, so also is it possible to understand that Christ was of David’s seed according to the flesh. We would say that whatever defense and proof they produce in the case of Joram and Joseph should be accepted as well in the case of David.
6. From the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.119
For the person who reads the following Scripture,
“It was fitting that he, through whom and in whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings,”120
it is not difficult to perceive how he who is said to have been made from David’s seed according to the flesh is, from the resurrection from the dead, [M852] the Son of God.121
The resurrection is indeed the end of Christ’s sufferings, and because after the resurrection “he dies not again and death will no longer have dominion over him”;122 and it also says, “even though we knew Christ according to the flesh, now we know him no longer in that way”;123 therefore everything that is in Christ is now the Son of God.124
(2) But how this relates to him who has been destined the Son of God in power is something that constrains our comprehension; unless it be that because of the inseparable unity of the Word and flesh, everything that is of the flesh is attributed to the Word also, since also the things which belong to the Word are foretold in the flesh.
For we often find the designations “Jesus” and “Christ” and “Lord” referred to both natures. For example,
“Our one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things”;125
and again,
“For if they would have known they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty”.126
(3) Christ is called the first or “firstborn from the dead.”127 We need to investigate whether he alone is the firstborn or first from the dead and has no other sharers with him in this status of firstness.
The Apostle says about this,
“For he raised us up with Christ and, at the same time, made us sit with him in the heavenly places.”128
It may be the case that those who are said to be raised up with Christ and seated with him in heavenly places are the firstborn or first from the dead, like those individuals who are said to have been raised with him when “the tombs were opened and the bodies of many saints appeared and entered into the holy city.”129
Possibly the Apostle is speaking about such persons when he calls that city “the church of the firstborn ones”130 which, he mentions, is written in heaven.131 (Pp. 69-74)
84. This formulation also occurs in Fr in Heb 1.8 (= von Balthasar, Origen: Spirit and Fire, p. 77). The Greek formula is attributed to Origen by Pamphilus, Apology 1.3. Arius, whose teaching was condemned by the Council of Nicaea, 325, became infamous for his slogan, en pote hote ouk en, “There was a time when he was not,” referring to the time before the Son was created. Origen’s expression clearly anticipates the Nicene and Athanasian definitions. Cf. Bigg, Christian Platonists, p. 167,
“There is NO SHADOW OF A DOUBT for Origen the Son IS CO-ETERNAL AND CO-EQUAL WITH THE FATHER”.
Cf. 10.8.5; Princ 1.1.2; 1.2.9; 4.4.1. (P. 69; emphasis mine)
(2) Let us now see why it is that he says, “whom I serve in my spirit.”
“whom I serve in my spirit.”
To serve in the spirit seems to me to be similar to, yes and even something more than, to worship in the spirit.184 As [M856] the Lord himself said to the Samaritan,
“Woman, the hour will come, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.”185
But Paul not only worships in the spirit, but he also serves in the spirit. For who can worship without affection? But to serve pertains to one who is constrained by affection.
Accordingly the Apostle serves God not in the body or in the soul but in his best part, in the spirit. For when he writes to the Thessalonians he makes known that these three aspects are in man when he says, “May your whole body, soul, and spirit be preserved on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”186
And Daniel says, “Praise the Lord you spirits and souls of the righteous.”187
In accordance with this the Apostle everywhere prefers the spirit and repudiates the flesh or that which belongs to the flesh. After all, he himself praises the spirit of the law but spurns the letter as if flesh when he says,
“The letter kills but the spirit gives life.”188
But also when he says,
“For where the law was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,”189
doubtless he is calling the “flesh of the law” the “letter of the law.” For through the letter the law is weak so that it may not be fulfilled.190
For who could fulfill what is written about the Sabbath,
“You shall not move from your place on the Sabbath”?
191For how was it possible for someone, deep down inside, not to move from his place? Or what about the laws concerning leprous diseases that break out on thread or on a wall or on a hide or the thousands of other laws?192
It is on account of these laws that the law is weak according to the letter, that is, according to the flesh. For that reason, the Apostle says, “For the law is spiritual.”193 Consequently he who understands that the law is spiritual serves God in the spirit. Whence also he says to others,
“For if you live according to the flesh, you will die,”
that is to say, according to the letter which kills;
“but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live.”194
(3) It must now of course be asked whether we are also to believe that the fathers of old, the patriarchs and prophets, since they likewise attained perfection, served God in the spirit.195 Since also “Abraham longed to see the day” of Christ; “and he saw it and was glad.”196 And Moses and Elijah appeared in glory, speaking with Jesus on the mountain.197 In this the law and the prophets are shown to harmonize with the Gospels and to shine forth with the same glory when viewed and interpreted spiritually.198(Pp. 79-80)
187. Dn 3:86 LXX. (P. 79)
(3) Indeed, it is worth the trouble to investigate the manner in which that object, described in Exodus as having been made of pure gold, has become the form and figure of the true propitiatory.259 First of all, one must consider in which places the gold which is employed in the work is called “pure gold” and in which places it is recorded merely as “gold” without any adjective.
After observing many passages, what I think I have detected is this: wherever it is called “gold” with the addition of the word “pure,” he indicates that holy and pure soul of Jesus which “committed no sin nor was deceit found in his mouth.”260 This is congruent also with the measure of length and width of the propitiatory, though it may be hard to explain these matters and to fit all the details which are recorded about the propitiatory to that holy soul.
(4) Let us first observe that it says that the length of the propitiatory was neither merely two cubits, which is the number customarily applied to bodies which must be united and created, nor a full three cubits, a number that customarily exceeds the title of “creature” and which is reserved for incorporeal nature.
It says therefore that the length of the propitiatory is two cubits and a half and it is one and a half in width. But if it is proper to be bold in such matters, in view of the fact that the same Apostle says about Christ that, “he is the mediator between God and men,”261 it seems to me that this soul is intermediate between God and men.262
It may be indeed less than the nature of the Trinity, since it measures somewhat less [than three]; but nevertheless, though it may be lower, it is not on that account mingled with the number two, which is reserved for things consigned to bodies, without the exceptional and preeminent excellence of its own powers.
For this is shown in that it designates its measure [M948] as being somewhat more than two but less than three [cubits]. Yet also its increased width is said to be one and a half cubits, departing indeed from its single and unique status,263 yet not completely sinking down to the number two, which is sometimes appointed even for unclean things. For although he had taken on the flesh of our nature, it was nevertheless conceived by an undefiled virgin and formed by the chaste operation of the Holy Spirit.264
For that reason then the Apostle, when discussing the mediator, indicated this by a plain distinction by saying, “the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”;265 by which he was obviously teaching that “mediator” must be referred not to Christ’s deity but to his humanity, i.e., his soul.266
Both its length and width are therefore recorded. The length signifies that which pertains to God and is associated with the Trinity; the width signifies that he abides among men who customarily go along the wide and spacious road;267 and therefore he is rightly called by the name of “mediator,” since, as we have said, this holy soul was a certain mid-point between the divinity of the Trinity and the frailty of humanity.268
(5) It can therefore be understood as the propitiatory in accordance with what we have said above. Over it two cherubim are said to have been placed, one on one end and one on the other end.269
What figure then should be understood to be contained in the two cherubim? For “cherubim,” when translated into our language, means “the fullness of knowledge.”270 Where then would we say there is a fullness of knowledge if not in him of whom the Apostle says, “In whom are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”?271 Surely the Apostle is saying these things about the Word of God.
Moreover, he writes similar things about the Holy Spirit when he says, “But God has revealed it to us through his Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.”272 Therefore he signifies, as I think, that the Word of God, who is the only begotten Son, and his Holy Spirit always dwell in the propitiatory, that is, in the soul of Jesus, and that is what the two cherubim placed over the propitiatory indicate
.273 Moreover, notice that he has not said “one cherub at the right end and the other cherub at the left end,” but it says, “one cherub at one end and the other cherub at the other end” 274 in order to show that in the propitiatory, that is in the soul of Jesus, there was nothing evil.275
(6) But these two cherubim are winged creatures; and not only are they furnished with wings but they even have their wings spread out. If one of the saints has merited the right to possess the supreme attestation from God, it is said that God is with him, as is said to Joshua276 son of Nun, “And God was with him just as he was [M949] with his servant Moses.”277
But if anywhere God promises an even greater reward, it is when God says, “I shall be among them and I shall walk among them.”278 Now among men you will find no soul this blessed and this exalted except that one alone in which the Word of God and the Holy Spirit find such a great breadth and such a great volume that they are said not only to indwell [that soul] but to spread forth their wings and sometimes even fly about,279 according to a new institution of the mystery.280
Both cherubim are also said to be facing each other over this blessed soul, by which fact an understanding of divinity, united and harmonious with [the soul], is infused by the Son of God and the Holy Spirit.
(7) Now, where is this soul placed which has been filled with God and in which all the fullness of deity has been pleased to dwell?281 It says, “over the ark of the covenant.”282 The ark of the covenant can be understood of his holy flesh in which this blessed soul is placed, possessing within itself the testimonies283 of God which are understood as matters of Christ prophesied in times past by the divine testimonies as to what sufferings he would endure in the flesh.
The heavenly powers can also be understood as the ark. They too are capable of containing the Word of God and the Holy Spirit; but the soul of Jesus is placed before them, and by his mediation, as it were, they receive the divinely bestowed grace.284
(8) After these things he says, “And I shall become known to you from that place, and I shall speak to you from above the propitiatory.”285 This applies not only to Moses but to any saint who is a servant of God.
God does not become known from another place nor is he known from any other location except from that propitiatory, which we have expounded above, and from the midst of the cherubim. For Habakkuk the prophet indicates this as well when he says,
“In the midst of the two living creatures you will be known; when the years draw near, you will be known, when the time has come you will be manifested.”286
“For no one knows the Father except the Son, and him to whom the Son wants to reveal him.”287 Moreover Paul says, “God revealed it to us through his Spirit.”288 For that reason, then, he says, “I shall become known to you from that place and I shall speak to you from above the propitiatory between the two cherubim which are above the ark of the covenant.”289
(9) Now I think that these matters which we have taken from Exodus have been appropriately explained so that the sense might become clearer of how the Apostle adopts the term “propitiatory” in the passage presently under discussion, when he says, “Whom God pre-determined as a propitiatory through faith.” His expression, “pre-determined” is better understood as said of the soul of Jesus than about his deity. For “pre-determine” means “previously to determine,” which means that it was prior. For what is, is “determined”; what not yet is, is “predetermined.”290
It was therefore not fitting to say of him WHO ALWAYS WAS, i.e., the Word of God, that he has been pre-determined. [M950] It does not seem unsuitable, however, to say this of his soul which is, to be sure, inseparable from the Word of God, but nevertheless has been created and is posterior to his uniquely begotten deity.291 It will not seem inappropriate to be said of this soul that before it was, it was pre-determined and preordained that it would be a propitiatory.
(10) Therefore since, in accordance with what we have explained above, God “pre-determined” Jesus Christ “as a propitiatory through faith in his blood,” it seems necessary to inquire from the divine laws which propitiation is accomplished by means of blood so that from this we might be able to deduce how a propitiation has also been accomplished through the blood of Jesus.
It is written in Leviticus, after [regulations concerning] the priestly sacrifice,
“If the whole congregation of Israel errs unintentionally and the word escapes the notice of the assembly, and they do any one of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, and they transgress and the sin they have committed becomes known to them, the assembly shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering”;
292 and a few words later,
“The anointed priest shall bring some of the blood of the bull into the tabernacle of testimony”;
293and again after a few words,
“He shall do with the bull just as is done with the bull of sin offering; and the priest shall make propitiation for them, and they shall be forgiven.”294
So then, it is by means of blood that the priest makes re-propitiation for the entire assembly so that they may be forgiven.
(11) Let us now examine each of the designations recorded of the Savior, and let us carefully ponder what it is that is being depicted in his individual titles. You will thus find that indeed in him all the fullness of deity was pleased to dwell in bodily form.295 He is also the propitiatory and priest and sacrifice which is offered for the people.296
Now of the propitiatory enough has already been said. But of the priesthood both David, in the Psalms, and the Apostle Paul, in Hebrews, plainly write.297
That he would also be a sacrifice John testifies when he says,
“This is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”298
In accordance with this, then, that he is a sacrifice, propitiation is effected by the shedding of his own blood for the forgiveness of past sins. And this propitiation comes to every believer by way of faith. For unless he were to grant the forgiveness of past sins, the propitiation could not be proven to have been accomplished.
But since forgiveness of sins is being bestowed, it is certain that a propitiation has been performed by the shedding of his sacred blood. “For without the shedding of blood,” as the Apostle says, “there is no forgiveness” of sins.299
(12) But lest it appear to you that Paul alone has dared to use the term “propitiation” in reference to Christ, listen to how John speaks with an understanding concordant to this when he says,
“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin, [M951] and if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins, not for ours only but also for the whole world.”300
With one and the same understanding, then, the apostles designate Christ as the propitiatory, or propitiation, or, as is frequently found in the Latin manuscripts, propitiator. There is however no difference whether “propitiator” or “propitiation” or even “appeasement” is recorded, since in Greek it is always expressed by one and the same word. Unless it should seem to some that “propitiation” is understood of his divine substance whereas “propitiator” is understood when he fulfills his services among men.
(13) But what John has said, namely that he is “the appeasement” or propitiation “for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the whole world,”301 appears to have introduced even greater mysteries for us. For he is making known that Jesus is the propitiator not only of believers and the faithful but also of the whole world; yet not first of the world and then of us, but first of us and only then of the whole world. For although the entire creation is awaiting the grace of the redeemer,302 nevertheless each one shall come to salvation in its own order.303
This, I think, is indicated as well in Leviticus when sacrifices of re-propitiation are commanded to be offered through the high priest.304 Yet in these instructions the order of the sacrifices is not set forth in a confused manner.
Rather it is certainly said in the first place which propitiation and what sort of sacrifice should be offered when the priest has sinned;305 second, it tells us what sort of sacrificial victims are pleasing to God when the entire congregation transgresses out of ignorance;306 third, it is recorded by which ordinance the ruler must be cleansed when he has sinned;307 fourth, it is explained what rite exists for the expiation of the individual soul who sins.308
By a mystical understanding, each of these things, through certain specific ordinances, modes, and reasons, depict the future propitiation of Christ, which was not only for our sins but also for the whole world.309 But whoever has been illuminated by the Holy Spirit must consider these things in accordance with that revelation which is said to have been made known to Moses on the mountain.310
(14) Through the re-propitiation by Christ’s blood, then, comes the forgiveness of past sins, in God’s forbearance, as a manifestation of his own righteousness. It is “God’s forbearance” when a sinner is not at once punished when he sins, but instead, in accordance with what the same Apostle has said, is led by God’s patience to repentance;311 and in this God is said to manifest his own righteousness.
However it says well in addition, “at this time”; for in the present age God’s righteousness comes with forbearance, but in the future age it will come with retribution. For God has deemed it just to commit the present age to forbearance and patience, since the future age [M952] has been appointed for judgment.
For if he were to punish the sinner in this present time, he would not seem just to call forth again to judgment the one whom he had already punished. But if he shows forbearance and exercises patience in the present age he will rightly be a just judge in the future.312 So then he justifies him who is of faith; just as has also been written about Abraham, that “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.”313 Now if Abraham believed and was justified by faith, doubtless it will be logical that even now whoever believes in God through faith in Jesus Christ would be justified with the believer Abraham.314 (Pp. 218-225)
270. Cf. Hom in Nm 5.3; 10.3; Hom in Ezek 1.15; Comm in Cant 2; Origen’s allegorical exegesis in this section draws heavily on Philo, (On Moses 2; Questions and Answers on Exodus 2.62). In effect, Origen has applied Philo’s allegories to the subject of the Trinity. Cf. Clement, Stromateis 5.6.35.6…
276. Jesus. (P. 220)
(2) Now we say that faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is complete, full, and perfect. It acknowledges nothing inconsistent, discordant, or foreign in the Trinity. For Marcion, who claims that there is one God of the law and another who is the Father of Christ, neither establishes nor confirms the law through his own faith,365 but he sets it aside.
Ebion does this too.366 In fact all who introduce any corruption into the catholic faith do this. I might appropriately add that everyone who, while believing in Christ, behaves well and keeps himself from every stain of sin confirms the law of God by living uprightly; but the one who plunges headfirst into sinful vices and without any restraining halter of repentance is stained by the constant repetition of evil deeds, this man, even if he may seem to believe in Christ, does not establish the law through his own faith but instead sets aside [M958] the law. (Pp. 233-234)
(33) But because his power of domination was so great, greater even than the strength of the law, prophets are sent as reinforcements to the law. But even they, realizing that the tyrant’s power exceeded their strength, pray for the coming and presence of the king, calling out to God,
“Send your light and your truth!”158
“Bow the heavens and come down!”159
“Arise, O Lord, bring help to us!”160
Therefore Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came and “in that the law was weak [M1018] through the flesh, God, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh on account of sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”161
Indeed he also reconciled the world to God162 and disarmed the principalities and powers of the tyrant, triumphing over them in himself.163 However in these matters we seem to have slipped into a bit of a digression.164 But let us return to the main argument.
(34) Therefore the “death” of sin “exercised dominion from Adam until Moses,” that is, until the coming of Christ.165 For it is called the law of Moses and the law, as is written, held its place until John the Baptist, from which time Jesus began to proclaim the kingdom of God.166 But the fact that [Paul] has made particular mention of certain ones in whom death exercised dominion when he says, “Death exercised dominion in those who sinned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression,” does not seem to me to be said without reference to a certain mystery.
(35) Perhaps there were some, up to that time when men were living under law as under a pedagogue,167 who performed something similar to what Adam is said to have performed in Paradise, to touch the tree of knowledge of good and evil and to be ashamed of his own nakedness and to fall away from the dwelling in Paradise.168 Or perhaps it seems this ought to be interpreted in a simpler way and the likeness of Adam’s transgression is to be received without any further discussion.
This would mean that everyone who is born from Adam, the transgressor, seems to be indicated and retain in themselves the likeness of his transgression, taken not only by descent from him but also by instruction. For all who are born in this world are not only raised by their parents but instructed as well;169 and not only are they sins’ children but also sins’ pupils.
But when a person matures and the freedom of doing what one likes comes around, a person either goes the way of his fathers, as is written of several kings,170 or he advances along the road of his Lord God. After all, it seems to me that something like this is also indicated concerning Abel in that which is written, “But after days Abel offered a sacrifice to God from the first-born of his sheep and from their fat portions.”171 Thus, what he says, “after days,” shows that in the early days of his life he was being held fast by the lessons he learned from his father’s transgression. But after those days he came to his senses and looked to God, having been admonished by the law of nature, and then he offered a sacrifice to God. (Pp. 322-324)
168. Cf. Gn 3.6–7, 23. Of the several interpretations offered in this section, this first one appears to be a reference to Origen’s belief in the pre-existence of souls, some of whom may have literally copied Adam’s sin in a manner left unexplained. (P. 323)
(7) You may perhaps also be asking this: Since the Lord himself told the disciples to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,428 why does the Apostle employ here the name of Christ alone in baptism? For he says, “We have been baptized into Christ,” although surely it should not be deemed a legitimate baptism unless it is in the name of the Trinity. But look at Paul’s good sense since, indeed, in the present passage he was not interested in discussing the subject of baptism as much as the death of Christ, in whose likeness he argues that we should die to sin and be buried with Christ.
Obviously it was not appropriate to name either the Father or the Holy Spirit in a passage in which he was speaking about death. [M1040] For “the Word became flesh”;429 and where there is flesh, it is fitting to treat the subject of death. But it was not fitting for him to say, “We who have been baptized in the name of the Father or in the name of the Holy Spirit, have been baptized into his death.” Consequently, in this passage one should keep in mind the Apostle’s custom in other places, that when he cites the Scriptures, he does not always cite the complete wording of the text as it is found in the original passage, but he takes only as much as is called for by his current argument.430 Thus in the expression we have mentioned here, because he desired to teach about the death of Christ, it is sufficient for him to say, “We who have been baptized into Christ were baptized into his death.”…
(9) Yet it may still perhaps be investigated in this current section: If we died to sin and were buried together with Christ and were resurrected with him, it will seem necessary to show the manner in which we also became buried with him for three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.431 Consider whether we can spend three days buried together with Christ when we receive complete knowledge of the Trinity. For the Father is light432 and in his light, which is the Son, we see the light of the Holy Spirit.433
And we spend three nights when we destroy the father of darkness and ignorance together with the lie which is born from him—“For he is a liar as also his father,” and, “when he tells a lie he speaks from what is his own”434—and, in the third place, the spirit of error,435 who inspires false prophets to say, “‘Thus says the Lord,’ though the Lord has not sent them.”436
For we destroy these things and trample upon them if we have been buried with Christ according, as well, to what he himself says, “Behold I have given you authority for trampling upon serpents and scorpions and upon every power of the enemy.”437 Each of these things is as contrary to the Trinity as the night is to the day, as darkness is to light, [M1041] as lying is to truth. For the moment, these thoughts for the present passage have occurred to us. If, however, someone discerns something better, let the reader not feel reluctant to receive those things, leaving behind the things [I have said].438 (Pp. 356-358)
438. The writer’s humility is evident in these addresses to the reader. Cf. 2.13.33; Princ 2.6.7. (P. 358)
(16) He who was Lucifer and who arose into heaven,602 he who was without stain from the day of his birth and who was among the cherubim,603 was able to fall with respect to the kindness of the Son of God before he could be bound by chains of love.
But after the love of God shall have begun to be shed abroad in the hearts of everyone through the Holy Spirit,604 what the Apostle has declared will become settled,
“Love never falls away.”1 Cor 13.8
We have said these things to the best of our ability in response to questions generated by the passage, so that it might become more plainly clarified in what manner Christ has died to sin once and for all and how he dies no longer, and why it is the life he lives, he lives to God.
(17) To live to God should be understood by this being fulfilled, that he who was in the form of God emptied himself and took the form of a slave and became obedient unto death,606 as if he must again continue in the form of God, equal to the Father. Thus it is fitting that he records in what follows, “So you also must consider yourselves to be dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”607
This means of course that we should die to sin in imitation of Christ, having become estranged from it; and we should live to God by being yoked together with him and by becoming one spirit with him.608 But it was not without reason that he said, “Consider yourselves to be dead to sin,”609 which is rendered better in Greek, “Think yourselves to be dead to sin.”
For the essence of this expression consists more in thinking and reason, because a death of this sort will be experienced not in fact but in thought. For whoever thinks and considers within himself that he is dead does not sin.
For example, if lust after a woman entangles me [M1055] or greed for silver or gold or possessions agitates me, and if I should put it into my heart that I have died with Christ and I should think about death, immediately the desire is extinguished and sin flees. Or if I am provoked to kill my enemy while inflamed with hatred and anger, if I should consider myself to be dead with Christ and I put thoughts of death into my mind, doubtless the rage is extinguished, the anger ceases, the hatred dies down, and no room is given to sin. And whoever in this way is found to be dead to sin is alive to God.610 (Pp. 377-378)
605. 1 Cor 13.8. It is difficult to read this passage without recalling Koch’s characterization of Origen as an “eternal optimist”; Pronoia und Paedeusis, p. 32. Some scholars take the present passage as Origen’s final opinion on the subject of restoration and have concluded that the Alexandrian believed that there would be a final end of history, evil would never rise again and God’s love will ultimately prevail in restoring all creatures; for example, Bigg, Christian Platonists, pp. 233; 300 n. 2; Molland, Alexandrian Theology, p. 164; Teichtweier, Sündenlehre, p. 81; Vogt, Kirchenverständnis, pp. 343–46. (P. 377)
Further Reading
Origen on God’s Uncreated Firstborn Son
Origen, Hippolytus on Infant Baptism
Origen, Matthew & the Resurrection of Saints