Origen's interesting ideas

[Peter Kirby]

This thread is started as a place to put down some of Origen's "interesting ideas."

Mainly because otherwise I'd forget them.

The main heuristic is that I wonder if they were known before Origen wrote, e.g. to the 'heterodox', but I don't know.

Homilies on the Psalms 77.8.3, p. 382

The Jews have been manipulated by God on the pretext of the Sabbath and on the pretext of rest, to gather continually, so that they might hear God’s logoi, so that they might be reminded and not use work as an excuse; but you, since the heavy yoke has not been placed on you but you are allowed to exercise discretion, are contemptuous on that account.

The footnote here:

The Jews were “manipulated” (ōikonomēthēsan) by God on the “pretext” (prophasei) of rest to gather weekly to hear Scripture. Origen did not believe that God was punitive, but he did believe that God could be sneaky.

[Peter Kirby]

Origen, Homilies on Luke 6.4-6, pp. 24-26.

4.1 found an elegant statement in the letter of a martyr—I mean Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch after Peter. During a persecution, he fought against wild animals at Rome. He stated, “Mary’s virginity escaped the notice of the ruler of this age.”9 It escaped his notice because of Joseph, and because of their wedding, and because Mary was thought to have a husband. If she had not been betrothed or not had (as people thought) a husband, her virginity could never have been concealed from the “ruler of this age.”10 Immediately, a silent thought would have occurred to the devil: “How can this woman, who has not slept with a man, be pregnant? This conception must be divine. It must be something more sublime than human nature.” But the Savior had so arranged his plan that the devil did not know that he had taken on a body. When he was conceived, he escaped the devil’s notice. Later he commanded his disciples “not to make him known.”11

5. When the Savior was tempted by the devil himself, he never admitted that he was the Son of God. He merely said, “It is not right for me to adore you or to turn these stones into loaves of bread or to throw myself down from a high place.”12 He said that, but never said he was the Son of God. Look in other books of Scripture, too. You will find that it was Christ’s will that the devil should be ignorant of the coming of God’s Son. For, the Apostle maintains that the opposing powers13 were ignorant of his Passion. He writes, “We speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age or the wisdom of the rulers of this age. They are being destroyed. We speak God’s wisdom, hidden in a mystery. None of the rulers of this age knows it. If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.”14 Thus the mystery of the Savior was hidden from the rulers of this age.

6. An objection to this explanation can be raised, and I think I should resolve it before someone else raises it. The problem is why something that was hidden from the rulers of this age was not hidden from the demon who said in the Gospel, “Have you come here to torture us before the assigned time? We know who you are—the Son of God.”15 Bear this in mind. The demon, who is less evil, knew the Savior. But the devil’s wickedness is greater; he is fickle and depraved. The fact that his wickedness is greater prevents him from knowing the Son of God. We ourselves can advance to virtue more easily if we are less sinful. But, if we are more sinful, then we need sweat and hard labor to be freed from our greater evil. This is my explanation of why Mary was betrothed.

The quote is from the epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 19.1.

[Peter Kirby]

Celsus makes a remark, according to Platonist philosophy (objecting to the immortal divine Logos being "subject to change and reshaping"), to which Origen replies that what "appears to Celsus" is in error, and that he should learn that "while the Logos remains Logos in essence, he suffers nothing of the suffering of the body or of the soul."

Against Celsus 4.15-16

If the immortal divine Logos assumes both a human body and a human soul, and by so doing appears to Celsus to be subject to change and reshaping, let him learn that, while the Logos remains Logos in essence, he suffers nothing of the suffering of the body or of the soul. Nevertheless, sometimes he comes down to the level of him who is unable to look upon the radiance and brilliance of the Deity, and, as it were, becomes flesh by being spoken of in physical terms, until he who has accepted him in this form is able to look also upon, so to speak, his most sublime form by being gradually elevated by the Logos. There are, so to speak, different forms of the Logos corresponding to how the Logos appears to each of those who are led to know him, which is analogous to the acquired habit of either one who is a beginner, or one that has made a little progress, or is more advanced, or has nearly attained to virtue already, or has in fact attained it.

[Peter Kirby]

There are a couple analogies here, including:

The prophets and Moses had the function of "a tutor and stewards and guardians." (Galatians 3:24)

In comparison to Christ, the scriptures appear as dung (Philippians 3:8), fertilizing a tree that bears fruit (Luke 13:8).

Commentary on Matthew 10.9

Now you will connect with the man seeking goodly pearls the saying, Seek and you shall find, [Matthew 7:7] and this — Every one that seeks finds. [Matthew 7:8] For what seek ye? Or what does every one that seeks find? I venture to answer, pearls and the pearl which he possesses, who has given up all things, and counted them as loss; for which, says Paul, I have counted all things but loss that I may win Christ; [Philippians 3:8] by all things meaning the goodly pearls, that I may win Christ, the one very precious pearl. Precious, then, is a lamp to men in darkness, and there is need of a lamp until the sun rise; and precious also is the glory in the face of Moses, and of the prophets also, I think, and a beautiful sight, by which we are introduced so as to be able to see the glory of Christ, to which the Father bears witness, saying, This is My beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased. [Matthew 3:17] But that which has been made glorious has not been made glorious in this respect by reason of the glory that surpasses; [2 Corinthians 3:10] and there is need to us first of the glory which admits of being done away, for the sake of the glory which surpasses; as there is need of the knowledge which is in part, which will be done away when that which is perfect comes. [1 Corinthians 13:9-10] Every soul, therefore, which comes to childhood, and is on the way to full growth, until the fullness of time is at hand, needs a tutor and stewards and guardians, in order that, after all these things, he who formerly differed nothing from a bond-servant, though he is lord of all, may receive, when freed from a tutor and stewards and guardians, the patrimony corresponding to the very costly pearl, and to that which is perfect, which on its coming does away with that which is in part, when one is able to receive the excellency of the knowledge of Christ, [Philippians 3:8] having been previously exercised, so to speak, in those forms of knowledge which are surpassed by the knowledge of Christ. But the multitude, not perceiving the beauty of the many pearls of the law, and all the knowledge, in part, though it be, of the prophets, suppose that they can, without a clear exposition and apprehension of these, find in whole the one precious pearl, and behold the excellency of the knowledge of Christ, in comparison with which all things that came before such and so great knowledge, although they were not refuse in their own nature, appear to be refuse. This refuse is perhaps the dung thrown down beside the fig tree by the keeper of the vineyard, which is the cause of its bearing fruit. [Luke 13:8]

see also:

Origen writes (Commentary on John 1.37):

(37) We must not fail to remark, however, that Christ came spiritually even before he came in a body. He came to the more perfect and to those who were not still infants or under pedagogues and tutors, [Gal 3.25; 4.2.] in whom the spiritual "fullness of the time" [Gal 4.4] was present, as, for example, the patriarchs, and Moses the servant, and the prophets who contemplated the glory of Christ.

[Peter Kirby]

May have relevance for how some could have interpreted Mark 6:4 // Luke 4:24 // John 4:44 also.

Commentary on Matthew 10.18

But Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country. [Matthew 13:57] We must inquire whether the expression has the same force when applied universally to every prophet (as if each one of the prophets was dishonoured in his own country only, but not as if every one who was dishonoured was dishonoured in his country); or, because of the expression being singular, these things were said about one. If, then, these words are spoken about one, these things which have been said suffice, if we refer that which is written to the Saviour. But if it is general, it is not historically true; for Elijah did not suffer dishonour in Tishbeth of Gilead, nor Elisha in Abelmeholah, nor Samuel in Ramathaim, nor Jeremiah in Anathoth. But, figuratively interpreted, it is absolutely true; for we must think of Judæa as their country, and that famous Israel as their kindred, and perhaps of the body as the house. For all suffered dishonour in Judæa from the Israel which is according to the flesh, while they were yet in the body, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, as having been spoken in censure to the people, Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute, who showed before of the coming of the Righteous one? [Acts 7:52] And by Paul in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians like things are said: For you brethren became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judæa in Christ Jesus, for you also suffered the same things of your own countrymen even as they did of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men. [1 Thessalonians 2:14-15] A prophet, then, is not without honour among the Gentiles; for either they do not know him at all, or, having learned and received him as a prophet, they honour him. And such are those who are of the Church.

[Peter Kirby]

Origen comments that John was the "last of the prophets" (citing Luke 16:16), whose arrest and eventual death (when followed by Jesus) fulfilled Genesis 49:10: "A ruler shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from Israel, until that come which is laid up in store, and he is the expectation of the Gentiles."

Commentary on Matthew 10.21

In reference to these things, it seems to me, that as the law and the prophets were until John, [Luke 16:16] after whom the grace of prophecy ceased from among the Jews; so the authority of those who had rule among the people, which included the power to kill those whom they thought worthy of death, existed until John; and when the last of the prophets was unlawfully killed by Herod, the king of the Jews was deprived of the power of putting to death; for, if Herod had not been deprived of it, Pilate would not have condemned Jesus to death; but for this Herod would have sufficed along with the council of the chief priests and elders of the people, met for the purpose. And then I think was fulfilled that which was spoken as follows by Jacob to Judah: "A ruler shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from Israel, until that come which is laid up in store, and he is the expectation of the Gentiles." [Genesis 49:10]

[Peter Kirby]

Origen writes that Jesus is first delivered up by God, to "the prince of this age" and the rest, and "then by them delivered into the hands of men who would slay Him."

Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 13.8

As for these matters let us inquire by what person or persons He will be delivered up into the hands of men; for there we are taught of whom He will suffer, and in what place He will suffer; but here, in addition, we learn that while His suffering many things takes place at the hands of the aforesaid, they are not the prime causes of His suffering many things, but the one or ones who delivered Him up into the hands of men. For some one will say that the Apostle, interpreting this, says with reference to God, He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; [Romans 8:32] but the Son also gave Himself to death for us, so that He was delivered up, not only by the Father but also by Himself. But another will say not merely that, but also collecting the passages together, will say that the Son is first delivered up by God — then about to be tempted, then to be in conflict, then to suffer for men, or even for the whole world that He might take away its sin, [John 1:29] — to the prince of this age, and to the rest of its princes, and then by them delivered into the hands of men who would slay Him.

[Peter Kirby]

According to Origen in the Commentary on Matthew, the prince of this age, however, acted out of ignorance, "since none of them knew the wisdom of God which was hidden in a mystery." [1 Corinthians 2:7-8]

Let it be granted, then, that, as in the case of Job, the Father first delivered up the Son to the opposing powers, and that then they delivered Him up into the hands of men, among which men Judas also was, into whom after the sop [John 13:27] Satan entered, who delivered Him up in a more authoritative manner than Judas. But take care lest on comparing together the delivering up of the Son by the Father to the opposing powers, with the delivering up of the Saviour by them into the hands of men, you should think that what is called the delivering up is the same in the case of both. For understand that the Father in His love of men delivered Him up for us all; but the opposing powers, when they delivered up the Saviour into the hands of men, did not intend to deliver Him up for the salvation of some, but, as far as in them lay, since none of them knew the wisdom of God which was hidden in a mystery, [1 Corinthians 2:7-8] they gave Him up to be put to death, that His enemy death might receive Him under its subjection, like those who die in Adam; [1 Corinthians 15:22] and also the men who slew Him did so, as they were moulded after the will of those who wished indeed that Jesus should become subject to death. I have deemed it necessary also to examine into these things, because that when Jesus was delivered up into the hands of men, He was not delivered up by men into the hands of men, but by powers to whom the Father delivered up His Son for us all, and in the very act of His being delivered up, and coming under the power of those to whom He was delivered up, destroying him that has the power of death; for through death He brought to nought him that has the power of death, that is, the devil, and delivered all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. [Hebrews 2:14-15]

[Peter Kirby]

Origen: "if any one who is a man mortifies the lusts of manhood ... he the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Commentary on Matthew 13.16

"For Jesus called a little child," [Matthew 18:2] etc. But first we may expound it in simple fashion. One, expounding the word of the Saviour here after the simple method, might say that, if any one who is a man mortifies the lusts of manhood, putting to death by the spirit the deeds of the body, and always bearing about in the body the putting to death of Jesus, [2 Corinthians 4:10] to such a degree that he has the condition of the little child who has not tasted sensual pleasures, and has had no conception of the impulses of manhood, then such an one is converted, and has become as the little children. And the greater the advance he has made towards the condition of the little children in regard to such emotions, by so much the more as compared with those who are in training and have not advanced to so great a height of self-control, is he the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

But that which has been said about little children in respect of lustful pleasures, the same might also be said in regard to the rest of the affections and infirmities and sicknesses of the soul, into which it is not the nature of little children to fall, who have not yet fully attained to the possession of reason ...

[Peter Kirby]

According to Heine's translation: "But someone will object that we act impiously when, because of the secret and mystical nature of some texts, we wish these to be indicative of the above writings and attempt to clarify them, even if it appears in theory that we know their intention precisely."

ἀλλ' ἐρεῖ τις ὅτι μήποτε ἀσεβοῦμεν οἱ θέλοντες (διὰ τὸ ἀπόρρητόν τινων καὶ μυστικὸν) τῶν ὑπεράνω γραμμάτων εἶναι δηλωτικὰ ταῦτα <καὶ> πειρώμενοι ταῦτα σαφηνίσαι, κἂν δοκῇ καθ' ὑπόθεσιν, ὅτι ἔγνωμεν ἐπιμελῶς αὐτῶν τὸ βούλημα.

Commentary on Matthew 14.12

But we ought to think in a general way about every parable, the interpretation of which has not been recorded by the evangelists, even though Jesus explained all things to His own disciples privately; [Mark 4:34] and for this reason the writers of the Gospels have concealed the clear exposition of the parables, because the things signified by them were beyond the power of the nature of words to express, and every solution and exposition of such parables was of such a kind that not even the whole world itself could contain the books that should be written [John 21:25] in relation to such parables. But it may happen that a fitting heart be found, and, because of its purity, able to receive the letters of the exposition of the parable, so that they could be written in it by the Spirit of the living God. But some one will say that, perhaps, we act with impiety, who, because of the secret and mystical import of some of the Scriptures which are of heavenly origin, wish them to be symbolic, and endeavour to expound them, even though it might seem ex hypothesi that we had an accurate knowledge of their meaning. But to this we must say that, if there be those who have obtained the gift of accurate apprehension of these things, they know what they ought to do; but as for us, who acknowledge that we fall short of the ability to see into the depth of the things here signified, even though we obtain a somewhat crass perception of the things in the passage, we will say, that some of the things which we seem to find after much examination and inquiry, whether by the grace of God, or by the power of our own mind, we do not venture to commit to writing; but some things, for the sake of our own intellectual discipline, and that of those who may chance to read them, we will to some extent set forth.

in context: discussing The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew 18