{"id":4521,"date":"2013-03-25T04:13:54","date_gmt":"2013-03-25T08:13:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=4521"},"modified":"2015-08-19T16:17:29","modified_gmt":"2015-08-19T20:17:29","slug":"trinitarian-or-unitarian-8-origen-on-god-vs-a-god","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/trinitarian-or-unitarian-8-origen-on-god-vs-a-god\/","title":{"rendered":"trinitarian or unitarian? 8 \u2013 Origen on “God” vs. “a god”"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"word\"<\/a>Origen, many other ancient catholics, takes the Word (logos) of John 1<\/strong> to be the pre-human Jesus.<\/p>\n

For the record, I don’t think that is correct. But I won’t contest it here.<\/p>\n

In the quotes here, he’s commenting on “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.<\/strong>” This is from an long commentary on John, this portion of which was probably written in 231-2 AD.<\/p>\n

Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods<\/strong> and, for this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing him to be God<\/strong> whom they refer to as “Son” in name at least, or they deny the divinity<\/strong> of the Son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual to be different from the Father.\u00a0(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel According to God<\/em><\/a>, trans. Robert E. Heine, p. 98, bold added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Permit me to paraphrase<\/strong>: people think that this Word who is with God and yes is God must be another God, a second God. But that seems wrong – isn’t monotheism true? Thus, they either think Father and Son to be numerically one (the same God) or they deny that the Word, that is, the pre-human Jesus to be divine – to be such that the word “God” applies to him.<\/p>\n

Immediately following the passage above, Origen gives his solution.<\/p>\n

Their problem can be resolved in this way. We must say to them that at one time God<\/strong>, with the article [Greek: ho theos<\/em>], is very God, wherefore also the Savior says in his prayer to the Father, “That they may know you, the only true God.” [John 17:3<\/a>] On the other hand, everything besides the very God, which is made God by participation in his divinity<\/strong>, would more properly not be said to be “the<\/em> God,” but “God” [i.e. not ho theos<\/em>, but theos<\/em>, also translatable as “a god”]. To be sure, his “firstborn of every creature” [Col. 1:15], inasmuch as he was the first to be with God and has drawn divinity into himself, is more honored than the other gods<\/strong> beside him [i.e. Christians – see below] (of whom God is God as it is said, “The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and he has called the earth.” [Ps. 49:1] It was by his [i.e. the Son’s, the firstborn’s] ministry that they became gods, for he drew from God that they might be deified, sharing ungrudgingly also with them according to his goodness.<\/p>\n

The<\/em> God [i.e. the Father], therefore, is the true God<\/strong>. The others are gods formed according to him as images of the prototype. But again, the archetypal image of the many images is\u00a0the<\/em> Word with\u00a0the\u00a0<\/em>God, who was “in the beginning.” By being “with<\/strong>\u00a0the<\/em> God” he continues always to be “God.” But he would not have this if he were not with God, and he would not remain God if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation of the depth of the Father. (pp. 98-9, original italics, bold type and material in brackets added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again, to paraphrase.\u00a0The<\/em> God is the Father. He is unique in that his deity isn’t derived from another. Jesus is divine because of him, and so is a god. So are Christians – they too are gods, ultimately<\/em> because of the one God. Back to the problem mentioned before, then. Origen is assuming that it is wrong to identify Father and Son; they differ, and so can’t be the same God. There are two to whom “God” applies. But there is just one who is the<\/em> God. It’s the one who is the source and explanation of all the other gods.<\/p>\n

He goes on to argue that “God” is used in four senses<\/strong>, to refer to (1) “the God of the universe”, (2) “the Son of God, his anointed”, (3) angels (assumed to be heavenly bodies, servants of God administering the nations), and (4) idols. These last are not at all gods, properly speaking. (p. 101) He is clear that these exist in a descending hierarchy. Referring back to these four,<\/p>\n

There was\u00a0the\u00a0<\/em>God [the Father] and “God,” [the Son] then “gods” in two senses [angels and idols]. “God the Word” transcends<\/strong> the higher order of these gods [i.e. the angels], himself being transcended by “the<\/em> God”<\/strong> of the universe. (p. 102, bold and brackets added, original italics)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Back to the verse in question – gallons of ink have been spilled over whether the second clause should be translated<\/strong> “and the Word was divine” or “and the Word was a god.” For what it’s worth, it seems that the greatest Christian scholar in antiquity would have no objection to either.<\/p>\n

As in every post in this series<\/a>, I ask what you see<\/strong> here:<\/p>\n