{"id":2648,"date":"2011-04-19T21:25:27","date_gmt":"2011-04-20T01:25:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=2648"},"modified":"2019-09-22T18:35:37","modified_gmt":"2019-09-22T22:35:37","slug":"origen-the-son-is-not-the-father","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/origen-the-son-is-not-the-father\/","title":{"rendered":"Origen: the Son is not the Father"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Of all the ancient catholic “fathers” I’ve read, Origen (c.185-254)\u00a0is the most impressive as a scholar<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

It’s not that I usually agree with him – any non-Platonist is going to choke on many of the dishes he’s serving, and I think that most today would take issue with some his ways of interpreting the Bible. But he has vast knowledge, he makes pretty careful distinctions, he knows how to argue, and is just a much more developed and original thinker than most. Any contemporary who was going to square off with him either did or should have considered him a formidable opponent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

He wrote, or rather dictated, a vast amount – evidently, he did little else. Some think he may have been the most prolific person in antiquity. We still have a fair number of texts from him.<\/p>\n

He’s historically important for many reasons, but for this post, what’s most important is that in the 3rd century he was considered a stalwart of mainstream (“catholic”, or “proto-orthodox”) Christianity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Lately I’ve been reading Origen’s Commentary on John<\/a><\/strong>, as translated by Ronald E. Heine<\/a><\/strong>, who by way, I have found very helpful. He too is a first-rate scholar.<\/p>\n

Evidently, passage here is directed against certain monarchians who thought (or at least, were alleged to think) that the Father = the Son<\/strong>, i.e. that the Son is the Father himself and vice versa. This passage struck a nerve with me, as it reminded me of conversations I’ve had.<\/p>\n

The references in brackets are from Heine’s footnotes.<\/p>\n

Those, however, who are confused on the subject of the Father and the Son bring together the statement, “God… raised up Christ…” [1 Cor 15:15] and words like this which show that him who raises to be different from him who has been raised, and the statement, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” [John 2:19]<\/p>\n

They think that these statements prove that the Son does not differ from the Father in number, but that both being one, not only in essence, but also in substance, they are said to be Father and Son in relation to certain differing aspects, not in relation to their reality. For this reason, we must first quote to them the texts capable of establishing definitely that the Son is other than the Father, and we must say that it is necessary that a son be the son of a father and that a father be the father of a son.<\/p>\n

After this, we must say to them that it is not strange for him, who admits that\u00a0he can do nothing except what he sees the Father doing, and who says that whatever the Father does, the Son likewise also does [Cf. Jn 5:19], to have raised the dead [cf. Jn 11:43-44] (which was the body), since the Father, who we must say emphatically has raised Christ from the dead, grants this to him. Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1-10, sections 246-7, pp. 309-10).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"Ah, modalism bashing<\/strong>. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, no? Both relaxing and fun. And there’s no chance that bullet will ricochet back.<\/p>\n

Let’s make it more interesting<\/strong>. It’s abundantly clear from all of Origen’s works that I’ve seen, that he doesn’t believe in a tripersonal God. Rather, the one true God, Yahweh of the Old Testament, is none other than the Father of Jesus. (In the present book, see pp. 41, 79, 83, 302-3.)<\/p>\n

Thus, Origen’s passage above is also an argument that Jesus isn’t God<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Yes, he thinks Jesus can be called “God”, and is in some sense “divine”. Many a latter-day reader seizes on these undisputed facts, and adopts the comforting reading<\/strong> that Origen is an almost-trinitarian, or a trinitarian with a few unseemly subordinationist elements. But he’s not a trinitarian at all – he’s a unitarian<\/strong>. The one God just is a certain self (the Father), and so is “unipersonal”, as many nowadays put it.<\/p>\n

(Did I mention that he thinks the Holy Spirit to be created by God through the pre-existent Christ? (pp. 114) This may be an eternal process, but Origen may think that about the material cosmos as well.)<\/p>\n

Back to Jesus, for Origen, he’s most certainly not the one God himself, the Almighty. (As for the differences between them – he’s very consistent – but that’s another post. In brief, only the Father is divine independently.)<\/p>\n

I’ve seen the sorts of arguments Origen refutes here many times<\/strong>.<\/p>\n