Origen on God’s Uncreated Firstborn Son

Since Celsus, moreover, from a desire to depreciate the accounts which our Scriptures give of the  kingdom of God, has quoted none of them, as if they were unworthy of being recorded by him (or perhaps because he was unacquainted with them), while, on the other hand, he quotes the sayings of  Plato, both from his Epistles and the Phædrus, as if these were divinely inspired, but our Scriptures were not, let us set forth a few points, for the sake of comparison with these plausible declarations of  Plato, which did not however, dispose the  philosopher to worship in a manner worthy of him the Maker of all things. For he ought not to have adulterated or polluted this worship with what we call idolatry, but what the many would describe by the term superstition. Now, according to a Hebrew figure of speech, it is said of  God in the eighteenth Psalm, that  He made darkness His secret place, to signify that those notions which should be worthily entertained of God are invisible and unknowable, because God conceals Himself in darkness, as it were, from those who cannot endure the splendours of His  knowledge, or are incapable of looking at them, partly owing to the pollution of their understanding, which is clothed with the body of mortal lowliness, and partly owing to its feebler power of comprehending God. And in order that it may appear that the knowledge of God has rarely been vouchsafed to men, and has been found in very few individuals, Moses is related to have entered into the darkness where God was. And again, with regard to Moses it is said: Moses alone shall come near the Lord, but the rest shall not come near. And again, that the prophet may show the depth of the doctrines which relate to God, and which is unattainable by those who do not possess the Spirit which searches all things, even the deep things of God, he added: The abyss like a garment is His covering.  Nay, our Lord and Saviour, the  Logos of  God, manifesting that the greatness of the  knowledge of the Father is appropriately comprehended and  known pre-eminently by Him alone , and in the second place by those whose minds are enlightened by the  Logos Himself and  God, declares: No man knows the  Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.  For no one can worthily know  the UNCREATED and first-born (ton ageneton prototokon [“the uncreated firstborn”]) of all created nature like the Father who begot Him, nor any one the Father like the living  Logos, and His Wisdom and Truth . By sharing in Him who takes away from the Father what is called darkness, which He made His secret place, and the abyss, which is called His covering, and in this way unveiling the Father, every one knows the Father who is capable of knowing Him. (Against Celsus, BOOK VI; emphasis 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.” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5 (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series), translated by Thomas P. Scheck [The Catholic University of America Press Publication, 2009], pp. 69-70; emphasis mine)

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. (Ibid., p. 69; emphasis mine)