Episode 8: "Origen", Part 2, in "Mystical Theology", with Dr. Christopher Veniamin

Series: Mystical Theology
Episode 8: Origen, Part 2

Introducing the theology and spiritual life of the Orthodox Church, with particular reference to the Holy Bible and the witness of the Church Fathers, past and present.

Origen, who flourished in the 3rd Century, is one of the most difficult and important chapters in the history of early Christian doctrine. An Orthodox appreciation of Origen is crucial for the understanding of the Biblical and Patristic tradition of the Church.

This Episode, "Origen”, Part 2, delves a little more deeply into the presuppositions that undergird Origen’s intellectualistic theology. Special reference is made to Origen’s definition of God as “Simple Intellectual Nature”, and his understanding of the Transfiguration of Christ.

It is hoped that these presentations will help the enquirer discern the interwoven character of theology and Christian living, and to identify the ascetic and pastoral significance of the Orthodox ethos. 

Q&As related to Episode 8 available in The Professor’s Blog.

Recommended background reading: Christopher Veniamin, ed., Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Dalton PA: 2022).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I wish to express my indebtedness to the spoken and written traditions of Sts Silouan and Sophrony the Athonites, Fr. Zacharias Zacharou, Fr. Kyrill Akon, Fr. Raphael Noica, Fr. Symeon Brüschweiler; Fr. John Romanides, Fr. Pavlos Englezakis, Fr. Georges Florovsky, Prof. Constantine Scouteris, Prof. George Mantzarides, Prof. John Fountoulis, and particularly to Mtp Kallistos Ware and Prof. Panayiotes Chrestou: certain sentences and phrases utilized in these presentations are taken directly from my notes of some of their lectures. My presentations have been enriched by all of the above sources, owing to the adoption of certain structures, lists, schemata, and the paraphrasing of themes taken from them. Responsibility for the content of my presentations is of course mine alone. ©Christopher Veniamin 2023

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

So another aspect or feature of Origen's interpretation of the Song of Songs is that he's fond of the idea of the wound of love. In his first homily, again on the Song of Songs, paragraph five, we find strongly a language of feeling of which Origen is really the pioneer, and perhaps together with this we can mention his idea of divine intoxication. It's already there in Philo and Origen uses it in the homily on the Song of Songs, the first homily, paragraph four, and also homily one five. Origen is not a Puritan. He doesn't hesitate to refer to such lines as Thy breasts are above wine. We will love thy breasts more than wine. Lead me into the house of wine. He brought me to the banqueting house.

Speaker 1: 1:16

The commentary in the Song of Songs one two, the first homily of Origen or Song of Songs so the saints are intoxicated with God. Origen develops this theme, which was found first in Philo and the Logos, causes us to transcend things human, fills us with God and makes us drunk. Now, another important feature of Origen's understanding of the spiritual life is that sometimes the soul may undergo a withdrawal of the conscious presence of God. And this is interesting because it speaks to Origen the ascetic and his profound understanding of the spiritual life. In the first homily on the Song of Songs, paragraph seven, he speaks of the soul's experience of desertion by the bridegroom. Here we see Origen drawing on his own personal experience, which is, in an explicit way, rather rare in early patristic literature. It becomes more common later, with St Simeon the new theologian, for example, and with Gregory the theologian not long after Origen, who refers to his own spiritual experience, and Origen, again, with the possible exception of the apostolic fathers, especially St Ignatius of Antioch the godbearer, it seems to be the pioneer of this language, at least outside of the holy scriptures, in early patristic literature.

Speaker 1: 3:21

What is the purpose of this desertion by God? Origen is very perceptive. He says that God deserts us, or appears to desert us, in order to allow us to grow, and, fascinatingly, this is a theme that we find in the writings of Elder Sophrony, running throughout his writings. Now, as I've mentioned, the purpose of this desertion by God, as Origen understands it, is to allow us to grow spiritually. We're given a grace to experience the presence of God initially, but then God seemingly withdraws in order to allow us to see what it's like to be with Him and what it's like when we're not with Him, and then we have a concrete experience on the basis of which we make our choice. What do we want? Do we want to be with God or do we prefer our own way? Some say that this anticipates John of the Cross's dark night of the soul. I doubt that, although in some ways Origen may be closer to John of the Cross than others.

Speaker 1: 4:49

And about the language of feeling, it's interesting that it's those who really come from the post-Orgustinian western theological tradition who appreciate this language of feeling most, because they see in it echoes of what they find later in Augustin's Confessions and so on and so forth. Metropolitan Callistos used to say well, feeling. But why should we expect the fathers to have this language of feeling? What they mean is emotional language. There's a difference between spiritual language and emotional language or psychological language, and I think that that's where the problem arises, and not to go into it in too much detail at this point. But if you approach the mystery of Christ first from his human aspect, from the human perspective, in other words, if you approach Christ from his humanity first, you will end up with a psychological understanding of theology. It's inevitable, or almost inevitable, that you will fall into error if you approach the God-man first as man, and we'll see when we look at the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria and the rival theories at the time of Theodos of Mobsvestia and Nestorius. That will be an opportunity for us to unpack and analyze what I've just said. For now, yes, sometimes the soul may undergo a withdrawal of the conscious presence of God because, as Origen explains, this is in order to allow us to grow spiritually.

Speaker 1: 7:17

How far is Origen an apophatic theologian? That's a good question, because you don't find in Origen the clear, fundamental demarcation between the created and the uncreated. He has the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul and his cosmology was problematic up to the time of Athanasius. Well, athanasius introduced the distinction between theology and economy and thereby clarified what belongs to the realm of the divine economy and what belongs to the realm of God in himself theology, properly speaking. But Origen believed in the pre-existence of the cosmos. So you don't have a clear or clear enough distinction between the created and the uncreated.

Speaker 1: 8:28

Origen's understanding of the noose is always key to look at the understanding of the human noose in any writer. If you look at the day Principius on first principles, book 1, section 1, paragraphs 1 to 9, and especially paragraphs 6 to 7, where we find Origen displaying Platonist tendencies with regard to the affinity between the noose and God, the kinship between the noose, the human noose, and God. So in this important passage, in the first principles, in paragraphs 1 to 4, origen explains why God is said to be incorporeal. Then, in paragraphs 5 to 6, he explains why God is therefore incomprehensible, yet known by his works, all very good on one level. And then in the second half of paragraph 6, continuing into paragraph 7, this is where Origen describes God as a simple intellectual nature and he talks about what is intelligence. This is where we find that phrase, because it survives in Latin translation Intellectualis natura simplex, that God is a simple intellectual nature. God is invisible, he goes on to say. And so, yes, this is where I was going to say a little bit more about how God is understood by Origen and how that fits into his understanding of the spiritual senses. So we said that, for Origen, everything physical, materiality, history, the visible world is a sacrament, and I'm using Daniel Lou's word here sacrament is a sacrament that leads to the spiritual world. So it is an initiation, if you will, that leads to the spiritual Christ, or, more correctly, the bare Logos.

Speaker 1: 11:18

Christ is the Logos for origin who assumed a human soul, human soul, a human body. Remember that for origin all souls are pre-existent. So implied in that seems to be although with origin it's not always clear that you have a second subject. In Christ you have the naked Logos who, for the purposes of salvation, unites himself to a pre-existent human soul and body. Though ultimately origin is unsure as to what to do with the body, he nevertheless acknowledges, because he's a great lover of Scripture and wants to be faithful to the teachings of the church. He nevertheless acknowledges that the physicality, the corporeality of Christ is real and significant. But it's significant up to that point where it introduces us to the pure Logos, that is to say to the spiritual, bodiless Logos. That needs to be emphasized because there's so much confusion on the question of origin from every angle, including his understanding of person, of Christ.

Speaker 1: 12:58

For origin, god is a intellectualist, natura simplex, simple, intellectual nature, and origin is influenced here by the Platonic understanding of the spirit versus matter. Distinction that which is good, that which is pure, we mentioned in corporeal, in comprehensible, invisible, and so on. The list goes on has to be freed from materiality, has to rise above the physical, the historical to the spiritual realm where the soul alone is united with that intellectualist natura simplex. This has tremendous repercussions when you begin to look more closely at how origin understands the saving work of Christ. In my case, I had the opportunity to examine origin's understanding of the transfiguration, and the transfiguration proved to be a real litmus test on the question of origin's orthodoxy.

Speaker 1: 14:28

If you would like to learn more about this, take a look at my book on the transfiguration of Christ in Greek patristic literature, because what I found was that, for origin, the transfiguration is an imperfect theophany. Not only were the three disciples on table imperfect, according to origin and others describe them as imperfect in certain ways, but the way that origin describes them is because of their knowledge of God, their gnosis. Their knowledge of God was not sufficient. They had a better knowledge than the others, which is why those three were chosen, but their knowledge was still imperfect. And yet, switching from the question of the three disciples to the vision of Christ himself, the curious thing is that the appearance of Moses and Elias at the transfiguration is more perfect than Christ's appearance. Why? Because they did not appear in their embodied state, they appeared as pure spirits. That begs all kinds of questions, but focusing on Christ. The reason why Christ's appearance is not perfect, why that theophany is not a perfect theophany of Christ, is because Christ is still in his body. Origin looks to the ascension as the point when the body will no longer be needed.

Speaker 1: 16:28

Now let's focus our attention again on Origin's understanding of God as simple intellectual nature. We were saying that in Origin's famous work on First Principles, the Dei Pran Kippis Origin talks about God as incorporeal. It says interestingly, in the introduction to Dei Pran Kippis we believe and we follow the Holy Scriptures and what the apostles have passed down to us, but there are aspects of the Christian life that the apostles did not address, and so we have a certain freedom to ask questions and to propose solutions to those aspects of the Christian faith that the apostles didn't cover. So he goes back to first principles and he begins his treatise going through how it must be that God is incorporeal, how it must be that God, being incorporeal must also be incomprehensible, though he is known by his works. And then, as incorporeal, incomprehensible, he must also be invisible. And in the process of presenting this compelling argumentation he describes God as intellectualis natura simplex, a simple intellectual nature. So you see that for origin.

Speaker 1: 18:09

God is pure spirit, free of corporeality, incomprehensible, known by his works though that is qualified, by the way, we might mention that later if we have time so also invisible, and he builds on those points and as he does so, it becomes evident that origin is ambivalent on several points. But first of all we should mention that although God is incomprehensible, he is nevertheless limited. That the divine power he says in the Day-Principus 2.9.1, the divine power is limited. God, since he is good and rational, is completely knowable. That seems to contradict him.

Speaker 1: 19:13

Saying that God is incomprehensible, that he is incomprehensible, does not preclude him from being knowable, and those of you who have studied Thomas Aquinas will remember that that's a distinction that is made by Thomas Aquinas as well. That God is incomprehensible is one thing, but that does not mean that he is not knowable. And when they say knowable, aquinas and in this case we're focusing on origin, of course, when they say knowable, it's not that origin means knowable by experience, he means knowable in the philosophical sense, he means knowable in the sense of intellectual, what is intellectual by apprehension, conceptually. You see, the highest revelation for origin is that idea of God which is transmitted from God into the mind of the believer. It's a concept, it's an idea. Remember Plato's supreme ideas, especially the ideas of beauty and goodness. That's the supreme power, that's the ultimate supra-personal absolute of the Platonic tradition. That's an idea, it's a concept, and origin is influenced by this line of thinking.

Speaker 1: 21:12

And we see this ambivalent attitude towards God's incomprehensibility, knowability, that he is limited in some ways, that he is completely knowable. At other times origin will say God is unknowable. He will say, for example, let's take a look at his other very philosophical work, the Contrakelsum against Kelsus 65,. In paragraph 65, for example, of book 6, origin says that while God the Father is inaccessible to us directly, he is directly accessible to the divine Logos who reveals him to us. So you see, the Logos is placed in this role of mediator. And on the names ascribed to God, origin also says that while no name or expression can express the divine attributes thus Idiotitas to Theu, the divine attributes, characteristics, the idiomata in Latin it is nevertheless true that names can be used to indicate, as far as it is possible for human nature to do so, certain things about God in order for us to apprehend something about God. So, at times apophatic, at times not apophatic at all, at times somewhat apophatic. In book 6, again of the Contrakelsum, this time in paragraph 69, origin says that God, the Son, the divine Logos, is also difficult to contemplate, geoios, vistheoridos, difficult to contemplate. He says ade on Logos, theos, since the Logos, he says, is God. And there's this question still debated among scholars today Is origin a subordinationist when it comes to the question of the divine status of the Logos or not?

Speaker 1: 24:07

In Contrakelson, book 7, paragraph 32, he talks about the resurrection of the body. Unfortunately we've lost treatise that he wrote on the resurrection, which would have given much more clarity to the question of the resurrection, according to Origen. But Origen is aware, he's very much a man of his times and he's well informed. He knows that even in terms of science, molecular science, our body is not the same from one day to the next. And in fact he says you know, after three days we have a different body, molecules die, they're replenished, they're changed and you know, we have the cells in us dying and being created anew, and so on and so forth. And he's aware of this. So he says what kind of body do you think then? What physical body are we going to have in the age to come? He's not convinced about the physicality of the resurrection. And in fact Pamphylus, one of his disciples, who was martyred in Palestine and we celebrate as a saint, a martyr, pamphylus of Caesarea in Palestine, following Origen, says well, in the spiritual world we'll need a spiritual body. So he attempts to defend his teacher against Methodius of Olympus, who calls Origen's views on the resurrection into question.

Speaker 1: 26:05

In paragraph 38 we have references to the knowledge of God and 42 on ancient and Platonic theology. Origen says, for example, that God cannot be comprehended by anything save that which was created in his own image. He seems to be forgetting that Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was, and I suspect he does know what Clemens of Alexandria said about this passage, but he's ignoring it. Clemens of Alexandria, if you recall, said that the thick darkness represented the ignorance of the men, which is dispelled by the coming of the light, which is Christ. So this must be deliberate, I think, on Origen's part.

Speaker 1: 27:08

But if you take a look at the Contra-Kelson book 6, paragraph 17, which is referring to the Kingdom of God, origen applies the concept of darkness where God is said to hide himself. Note the body of humiliation he refers to. So the symbol of darkness plays a limited role, but nevertheless it's there in Origen, although a greater role is played by the symbol of light. But we must remember that when Origen refers to the symbol of light, it is rather the light of the enlightenment of the mind. He's not referring to the vision of light, he's not referring to the vision of the glory of Christ as light. He's referring to the vision or the enlightenment of the mind, meaning the enlightenment of the noose. And this, I think, is touching on the crux of the matter, that Origen appears to have a philosophical understanding of the noose, not a theological one.

Speaker 1: 28:42

But Origen is never simple, he's always complex. Sometimes he appears to be thinking in a circular way. When he refers to the divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the Dei Pring, kippus, 4.1.2, he says that the end is always like the beginning. But he also speaks of the image and likeness of God in a way that is reminiscent of Irenaeus, where we move progressively from the image to the likeness of Christ. And so there he's thinking in linear terms, terms of a straight line, a line of progress. So he uses the image of progress and you can't say that Origen's thought is always circular.

Speaker 1: 29:47

He's been seen, of course correctly, as a complex, many-sided figure. Sometimes he seems to be thinking in terms of infinite progress, as with the image, likeness, distinction. And also there's a passage, as an example, in his homilies on Numbers, chapter 17.5, where he refers to the images of tents. He prefers tents, he says tents denote movement, whereas houses signify stasis, stability. Travelers then have tents, and the further they go, the more the road opens out before them, until it stretches to infinity. So progress seems to be eternal, dynamic and linear in Origen's approach. So there is a certain circular approach in Origen, but let's not forget the dynamic and linear approach also present.