Volume 23, Issue 1

This article focuses on the theological use of the eating and drinking metaphors in Origen’s De principiis . The work is organized in three parts: 1. Physiological convictions regarding eating and drinking, where it is briefly shown how Origen understands this process in a biological approach; this is important because these convictions operate as assumptions within which the Alexandrian constructs his theology. 2. Methodological remarks about the semantic field of eating or drinking , at a level both biblical and cultural; this is important in order to justify the use of these metaphors in theological contexts. Finally, 3. Theological uses of the metaphors, which demonstrate how Origen uses these metaphors to explain and/or clarify important theological issues.

This article analyses and discusses the Origenian terminology concerning the creation, existence and resurrection of the body. Starting from a close analysis of the textual evidence, it proposes the working definitions of those terms – such as εἶδος, σῶμα πνευματικὸν, χιτῶνες δερμάτινοι, ὑλικὸν ὑποκείμενον – which constitute the intricate vocabulary of Origen’s doctrine of the body. In particular, it stresses the difference between the εἶδος (corporeal form) and the ὑλικὸν ὑποκείμενον (material substratum). On the one hand, the εἶδος is the corporeal form of the body, which is strictly intertwined with the λογικός and represents the individuality of each intelligence. On the other hand, the ὑλικὸν ὑποκείμενον represents the materiality of the body, which changes according to different qualities and is destined to be eschatologically destroyed. In summary, this article suggests that Origen distinguishes corporeality from materiality, thus envisioning both the destruction of the flesh and the resurrection of the body.

In this article, I will investigate Origen’s use of two metaphors: The seed metaphor and the clothing metaphor. Both metaphors are found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, which Origen uses as his biblical foundation in the passage from On First Principles that will be analyzed in this article. My focus will be on how Origen understands the nature, the function, and the destiny of human beings and especially of human bodies. According to Origen, the nature of the human body is changeable and unstable. This is because the bodily matter has merely been added to the rational beings at a certain time and will disappear again when its function is fulfilled. The function of the human body is to clothe the rational being on its way through fall and spiritual progress towards perfection. Thus, the body allows the rational being to be punished and educated. The destiny of the human body is eventually to disappear, but this will only happen when the body has gone through many stages of fall and progress in its service of the rational being.

One of the most important theological questions in the first Origenist controversy was that of the resurrection of the dead. Jerome accused both Origen and contemporary “Origenists” of speaking only of the resurrection of the body, and not of the flesh, and he claimed that an idea of resurrection without the flesh could not guarantee the identity between the body living on earth and the resurrected body. I argue that although Jerome attempted to maximize the difference between himself and Origen by speaking of flesh instead of body, and by emphasizing the sameness of the body, it is clear that he, too, thought that the resurrection would imply a profound change. At closer scrutiny, Jerome’s way of understanding this change, namely as the nature remaining the same while the glory increases, shows striking similarities to Origen’s explanation of change. I argue that Jerome was dependent on Origen’s ideas about the resurrection, even in his polemics against him. Jerome’s heresiological strategies, I argue, have had consequences for modern historical reconstructions of his eschatological thought, which is often presented in opposition to Origen’s more spiritual understanding. Awareness of the rhetorical strategies used by Jerome in the context of controversy is crucial, I claim, in assessing a continuing reception of Origen in his theology.

The paper addresses Erasmus’ doctrine of the resurrection of the body in relationship with its Origenian inheritance, its polemical context and the general hermeneutical attitude of Erasmus. The mind-body dualism and the Platonism of Erasmus’ doctrine are better understood in relation to Origen’s Pauline doctrine of the resurrected body. A passage particularly revealing of this Origenian reception, in a mystical direction, is the conclusion of Erasmus’ masterpiece, the Praise of Folly. Through this text, the paper aims to clarify Erasmus’ concept of resurrection as transfiguration, from the letter to the spirit.

The Mυστήριον raises interest through the tension between revealing and concealing. This is observable in the pagan myths as well as in biblical texts and in the works of theologians of the Alexandrine tradition. Paradigmatically Tobit 12:7 contains both elements—concealing and revealing: “It is right to keep the secret of a king, yet right to reveal and publish the works of God as they deserve” (Tob 12:7). Origen of Alexandria cites this verse in the context of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and his apology Against Celsus . In spite of its bipolarity he focusses mainly on the first part of the verse as an argument for concealing the mystery from the less advanced readers. Concealing as well as revealing is part of a divine pedagogy, in Origen, however, always for the sake of human beings.

Origen proposes a new metaphysics of motion which, based on Plato’s “greatest kinds” from the Sophist, views God as both contemplative rest and active motion. As goodness itself, God cannot but create moral beings endowed with self-motion themselves. It is up to them to embrace or reject his gift of self-diffusive goodness. Once they fall way from him, God orders their agency in such a fashion as will eventually bring about the restitution of all things. Being as being is, thus, shown to be active motion.

The term of natural law plays an important role in the anthropology of the great theologian and philosopher Origen of Alexandria. By distinguishing a great variety of notions of law in the scripture, Origen locates the specific notion of natural law in the guiding part of the soul called the heart and the ἡγεμονικόν or νοῦς in the Bible and philosophy, respectively. The natural law enables man with this location and in interaction with λόγος to distinguish between good and evil and to act ethically. Natural law therefore is the foundation of responsibility and the imputation of sin.