Origen of Alexandria evidently believed: “God was however always Father; he could not change from one condition (not-Father) to another (Father). So the Son exists in God’s timeless eternity.”[1] Therefore, in Origen's writings, the term Father “does not as for Justin imply an act or event. For Origen the Father constantly begets the Son by what modern theologians call ‘eternal generation’” (ibid. 105).[2]
In harmony with the dominical proclamation of John’s Gospel, the ancient Alexandrian insists that the Father and Son are one (John 10:30). Origen also illustrates the oneness of Father and Son with analogies involving wife-husband and church-Christ.
The Son is not intrinsically God, but God by derivation. That is, he is not “self-sufficiently” God (Hall 106). Only the Father is autotheos (ibid). The Son is God in a predicative manner (ibid). “In this and other respects the Son is less than the Father” (106). Hall, however, indicates that Origen’s “subordinationism” may have been balanced by his doctrine of the eternal generation (106). See Contra Celsum 8.15.
Nevertheless, one must qualify talk of eternal generation in Origen. For instance, Hill observes: “Still, eternal generation does not of itself give divine status because Origen views all spiritual beings, both what he calls theoi and human souls, as eternal” (W. J. Hill, Three-Personed God, 39). If what Hill states is valid, however, in what sense does Origen view the Son as divine? Evidently, the "immediacy of the generation" and the fact that God wills that unity obtain between the Son and Father make the Son divine (ibid).
As readers of Origen also know, Origen refers to the Son as a creature. He evidently derives this use of ktisma from Prov 8:22.[3] This particular application of the Greek signifier may also be Neoplatonic in nature (Frend, Rise of Christianity).
Didnt Origen also say somewhere that the earth is eternally "begotten"?
ReplyDeleteI don't think Origen made this claim. He writes:
ReplyDeleteAnd therefore we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: The Lord created me — the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth. He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: who is the first-born of every creature. The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the Apostle Paul says that Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God.
That quote is from De Principiis.
in fact Origen apparently even considered all creation as ‘eternally generated.’ At least he thought that Logos and the world, were coeval {‘of the same age or duration’} with God. Furthermore he did not believe anything that was “eternally generated” could actually be God!
ReplyDelete“The ‘eternal generation’ of the Logos did not for {Origen} imply that the Logos is God’s equal; being ‘generated’ or ‘begotten’ entailed being secondary - i.e., subordinate.” - p. 93, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribners, 4th ed.
(https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/creeds.html)
similar to this statement, cant find the original source
Origen wrote quite a bit and it's been a long time since I read Origen in earnest. However, I would be very surprised if he thought creation was eternally generated; of course, this all depends on what eternal generation means. Secondly, there is a controversy in Origen scholarship as to whether he thought the Son was eternally generated or not. Origen also makes a distinction between the Father being autotheos (God himself) and the Son being just theos. Furthermore, he calls the Son a creature but there is debate about that terminology as well.
ReplyDeleteIn my blog post about Origen, notice above what Hill states about Origen and the Son's supposed eternal generation.
ReplyDeleteThanks for brining up that question: I did a little more digging and found this entry: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/origen/
ReplyDeleteI'm going to read the whole piece but it offers a good explanation for what Origen believed. It's complicated but one has to understand Platonism somewhat to get what he's suggesting. He believes God created the world but God did so in eternity, not temporally. Plus Origen brings the Platonic Forms into play. Interesting read if you like this kind of stuff.
Thanks Ill have a look shortly
ReplyDeleteOrigen sometimes goes with the bible and sometimes against what the bible says and sometimes sticks very close to it.
"In the beginning" clearly refers to a point in time, not eternity.
unless he means "before time" but the bible doesn't comment on such, nor the creation of said time (days in Gen? hardly).
All I know is "aions" had a use for the created world that was independent of the "time" meaning.
This sounds very similar to the statement here:
(Ecclesiastes 3:11)
“. . .He has even put eternity in their heart;. . .”
unrelated: What viewpoint is genesis written from God or a human standpoint, I would think the latter
You ask about Genesis: written from a human standpoint, but the human writer who portrayed the events was moved by God's ruach.
ReplyDeleteI was about to say, if it was from God's (as some claim) then surely it would be more detailed - like in Job.
ReplyDeletereading my comment I can see that it seems unrelated
"but God did so in eternity" - does that mean Origen interprets beginning as eternity? because that's not how Mark or any other gosphel interprets it
The more I study this matter, the more I find it hard to say conclusively what Origen is doing. Furthermore, it seems that translations of his work throw us off. John Behr says they need to be improved and he has written an updated version of Origen's work. Another thing is that "eternity" can mean timelessness, so is that what Origen means? At any rate, here is a passage I found in De Principiis I.3.3 (written by Origen):
ReplyDeleteThat all things were created by God, and that there is no creature which exists but has derived from Him its being, is established from many declarations of Scripture; those assertions being refuted and rejected which are falsely alleged by some respecting the existence either of a matter co-eternal with God, or of unbegotten souls, in which they would have it that God implanted not so much the power of existence, as equality and order. For even in that little treatise called The Pastor or Angel of Repentance, composed by Hermas, we have the following: First of all, believe that there is one God who created and arranged all things; who, when nothing formerly existed, caused all things to be; who Himself contains all things, but Himself is contained by none. And in the Book of Enoch also we have similar descriptions.
He also speaks of eternity/being everlasting as having no beginning or end. Keep in mind that Origen is a Platonist: this shapes his theology.
ReplyDeletepoint you may not have considered: I know in Hebrew (and possibly Greek) the word (or idiom in Greek) for "everlasting" can just mean an unspecified amount of time. rather than literal "eternity" rather antiquity.
ReplyDelete(This is also possibly what you mean by "timelessness" I apologise if this is the case)
"it seems that translations of his work throw us off."
- Ill provide a source if you like, but it seems to me that a lot of the Church Fathers work has been tampered with - Justin Martyr for instance seems to go against the eternal generation doctrine, because he defines being Begotten as having a beginning and calls Jesus "Another God"
If you note the article I linked written by "Examining the trinity" - Iv looked at other sources, Origen seems to have been well trusted among theologians (of his time).
This language (as I think I have proved to Ninc) developed after (maybe even in) the time of Origen, not before as writers seem to use these words pretty much synonymously, under certain conditions (Like in English where we switch words that are synonomous when they "fit" or sound better in English)
But like John, I think Origen was influenced (as you say) - Iv worked a little more on my theory and def think John "borrowed" (to bridge the gap between Christianity & Philosophy) the logos concept to be more relatable to ones who perhaps didn't know who the pre-existent Messiah was.
(paraphrasing a source, avail on request)
By "timelessness," I mean that temporal categories don't apply (i.e., past, future or a moving present). And I'm familiar with how Hebrew and Greek treat "eternity" or the the concept of something being "everlasting." Hebrew has olam and Greek uses different words but aionos is one. But it's uncertain as to what Origen means by eternal generation, if that is even what he meant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about Justin Martyr: he does not teach the eternal generation idea and we know that ancient editors tampered with the writings of Origen and other fathers.
John certainly used a word/concept that was well known to Greeks and to Hellenized Jews: Romans also were acquainted with the Logos concept.
"we know that ancient editors tampered with the writings of Origen and other fathers." - you wouldn't happen to have a few points of beginning for researching this do you?
ReplyDelete(after everything is settled with my parents, I want to start researching more deeply- despite limited access to litrature)
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2010/11/trinitarian-redactors-novatian-and.html
ReplyDeletehttps://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/church-fathers-origens-works/
Another thing I find interesting on Origen is his statement which I cant find for the life of me Where he makes it evident that "hupo" and "dia" do not mean the same thing (similar said by AT Robertson) compare Matthew 1:22
ReplyDeleteshowing Origen understood the Father to be the "original cause" of creation or the "aitia" (another Greek word for "source")
Well, you're correct that hupo and dia don't mean the same thing. Emil Brunner likewise pointed this out and a good book about prepositions (despite his Trinitarian bias) is M.J. Harris' work that details the Greek prepositions. BDAG has entries for dia and hupo as well. And I'm going to post something about dia soon.
ReplyDeleteAitia is an important term in Aristotle by means of which he denotes his four causes (material, formal, efficient, and final cause).
For Origen's thoughts, see his Commentary on the Gospel of John II.6. Here's part of what he writes:
ReplyDeleteThus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Now if, as we have seen, all things were made through Him, we have to enquire if the Holy Spirit also was made through Him.
" through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father?" - so even Origen holds that the Father is the creator and not Christ. (prepositions make this self evident, but some refuse to believe this..)
ReplyDeletefrom my observation dia is agency when we have a genitive construction and 2 "subjects" i.e Matthew 1:22
where "the Lord" (as in most Bibles) did something via the prophets (or an angel) - 2 "subjects" not 1
Bowman's assertation on Hebrews 2:10 is slightly misleading as there is not 2 "subjects" to dia, but only one. (+ ek is never used of Christ) and Hebrews 2:10 would naturally be understood as source not only due to other texts but also a similar expression used: through [inventor] the [invention] came to be.
"Aitia is an important term in Aristotle" - is it possible that the writers could have used this word to show Jesus is the creator (or whatever other term has been historically used)? I know its used in Hebrews and applied to Jesus (for salvation).
"The Son is not intrinsically God, but God by derivation. That is, he is not “self-sufficiently” God (Hall 106). Only the Father is autotheos (ibid). The Son is God in a predicative manner (ibid). “In this and other respects the Son is less than the Father” (106). Hall, however, indicates that Origen’s “subordinationism” may have been balanced by his doctrine of the eternal generation (106). See Contra Celsum 8.15." - this calls to mind Justin's "Another God" - Origen (I believe )also speaks of humans being "God" (better translation is "a god")
("gods" also not always implying "divinity" or "nature" sometimes just "higher position" or "divinely appointed")
Would I be right in saying: being begotten is more "intimate" than being created? (similar to that of Barclays commentary on agape and other words that mean Love)
ReplyDeleteeither way they mean something similar... begotten and created - as Im pretty sure they are both used for the "New man"
To beget and to create can certainly have different meanings, given certain contexts, as when the Bible speaks of men begetting children instead of creating them. However, it is common to use "procreate" as a synonym for beget or reproduce. However, in the Bible, we also read about God begetting things that he really created but some would argue this is a poetic way of speaking.
ReplyDeleteLater, Nicea would claim that the Logos was begotten (generated) but not created.
I believe this was discussed on another thread, but dia + genitive can mean agency even when there is only one subject and there can be distinct types of agency.
ReplyDeleteFrom LSJ:
III. causal, through, by,
a. of the Agent, δι᾽ ἀλλέλων or -ου ἐπικηρυκεύεσθαι, ποιεῖσθαι, by the mouth of . ., Id.1.69,6.4, cf. 1.113; “δι᾽ ἑρμηνέως λέγειν” X.An.2.3.17, etc.; “τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Κυρίου δ. τοῦ προφήτου” Ev.Matt.1.22; “δι᾽ ἑκόντων ἀλλ᾽ οὐ δ. βίας ποιεῖσθαι” Pl.Phlb.58b; πεσόντ᾽ ἀλλοτρίας διαὶ γυναικός by her doing, A.Ag.448 (lyr.); “ἐκ θεῶν γεγονὼς δ. βασιλέων πεφυκώς” X.Cyr.7.2.24; δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν τι of oneself, not by another's agency, ib.1.1.4, etc.; but also, by oneself alone, unassisted, D.15.14, cf. 22.38.
While I admit they can have different meanings in different contexts - they would be related ideas wouldn't they? and pretty much used synonymously for different things - I fail to see the nicean distinction between the two in any writings, Whether one admits it or not, I think the witnesses have the answer in this case.
ReplyDeleteall we really need is an instance of personified Wisdom being said to be "begotten" or "born" - then case closed, though I think it mostly is anyway
"we also read about God begetting things that he really created but some would argue this is a poetic way of speaking."
- Iv made the point over and over, all one has to do is look at psalms 90:2 - Where "born" is used synonymously with "create" it is a poetic way of saying it, but the basic idea is "come into existence" or "something that wasn't there, is now there" (same with generated)
1 John 5:18 implies people can be "born" (or begotten) of God. (actually multiple places do, I'm only citing one example, I know of at least 2 more off the top of my head)
Clement also uses "born" and "created" with no apparent difference. (tho some deny this)
rhetorical:
What about the logos was generated? I'm am yet to get a straight answer from anyone on this - apparently not his being God, nor his existence - so what then?
sounds more philosophical and unsupported by scripture, rather than an actual teaching (I doubt even people like Ninc know, its just repeating things said by others)
and Where is this expressed in the Bible? (I am just putting the same "force" on them as they put on Witnesses)
-- End--
Interesting, this [LSJ] supports Origen's statement. yet another thing Bowman and Allin omit to mention.
your brains are really fun to pick, everything I can find (on limited knowledge and resources) is all trinitarian leaning, really hard to get a balanced perspective
Apologies Edgar you will have to elaborate on different types of agency.. (note: I said nothing about "inferior" as some assume that's what Witnesses mean - I can find no example of inferior agency really, all could be taken under the shiliach principle)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteHere is what I mean by different types of agency.
This is from the book "Greek for Everyone" by A. Chadwick Thornhill:
Often when a passive-voice verb occurs, an “agent” who performs the
action of the verb is specified. Three different kinds of agency are commonly found with Greek passive verbs: direct, intermediate, and impersonal. Direct agency, which indicates the ultimate agent of an action (e.g., “by God”), usually occurs with the preposition ὑπό + a genitive-case noun (more on that in chap. 7). We find intermediate agency, when a secondary agent performs an action (e.g., “through the church”), present when we have the preposition διά + a genitive-case noun. Finally, Greek also expresses impersonal agency, which usually occurs when an object acts as the agent (e.g., “by fire”), through a dative-case noun with or without the preposition ἐν.
ReplyDeleteAnother function of the passive verb is apparently is keep the last subject in focus (paraphrase)
Its interesting, I think at one point I linked you a website where the WT apparently misquoted the Catholic encyclopedia (omitting an opinion, I don't think is misquoting, but anyway) - From my very limited research (Thank for the resources) Origen's writings were tampered with. - Have you noticed that people like Tertullian switch rhetoric's like mad? almost like doctrinally important places have been tampered with..
IF you compare what he says about John 10:30 vs Wisdom - its like his rhetoric changes, like someone forgot to alter all of the text. (I promise these relate)
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFYI:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext
"Such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author,[2] and a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not support the proposition for which it was cited."
full quote for my paraphrase (did not have it on hand at the time): see Wallace GGBTB pg 436 n88
ReplyDeleteNinc, I am aware - I personally am careful not too cherry-pick, you will notice that my paraphrases are often accurate to the source, though I may get the author of it wrong. I also label it as a paraphrase noting that I am not wording it exactly like the author.
quoting others is common on this blog, whether you call it quote-mining or whatever is up too you, it happens all over the internet, trying to "dis-arm" people as such, saying certain things dont work or cant be used, is no way to have a conversation about these topics, no one knows everything - every opinion, scholar, translation should be looked at for its merits
As regards to the WT, I don't think omitting someone's opinion is misquoting. - Iv done the research, most of those sources are highly dishonest in their methods (The citation does exist and is used in context, only omitting an opinion - which frankly is not valid to the argument they are making anyway) you'll find they omit certain context around how the quote is being used, such as the usage of Harner's thesis. The "opposers" "forgot"/ ommited to mention the context in which the quote was cited, simply to express that "theos" in 1:1c could not be considered definite. NOT that it should be rendered a god - while that is a possible rendering it certainly isn't the only.
The use of the catholic encyclopedia is simply saying that the trinity is not explicitly described in the OT (again understanding what people mean is important, you have said it can only mean one thing - truth is it could mean multiple.) Which it isn't (i.e it doesn't exist there.) - its read back into the text, via the NT.
but that's all Ill say on this subject to you - the original idea was a comparison (flawed or not) to other writings and that's the subject I will stick too.
(thinking outloud) I also wonder if Origen held to the fact that there was wisdom and "Wisdom" (personified) - is it possible for eternal wisdom he means, just wisdom (not, personified)?
ReplyDeleteIm also aware when he says "eternal" Wisdom he could mean (personified) but in the sense of after his ransom, I know that was a big thing aswell. "raised to life never to die again"
Origen is not the most clear, However there is something he has in common with others, "Eternal" doesn't always mean what some would like.
"both what he calls theoi and human souls, as eternal” - OT relevance for the "Theoi" part? human souls didn't always exist (backwards from the beginning) While I disagree they are eternal in the stricter sense, it could also be considered he means in God's mind. God "blew into" Human's to give them life after all, and he doesn't forget those who have passed.
another interesting question: is it possible when the church fathers say "Christ has no beginning" they mean he didn't "make" something first to be his agent like I notice constantly "a beginning" means a start or first thing - just a theory
ReplyDeleteHey Edgar was wondering if you have much information on Rufus and altering Orogens and other church fathers writings
ReplyDeleteAlso are you aware Origen calls Christ a creature, a highly exalted creature but a creature non the less.
Anonymous. See above where I do talk about Origen calling the Son a creature.
ReplyDeleteSee also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2008/09/trinitarian-redactors-and-novatian-of.html?m=1
ReplyDeleteNot sure of the quote is it this one by some chance?
ReplyDelete“there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. - ANF 10:321-322.
I see now why Ninc refuses to associate Christ or son with wisdom… tho I find alot of his argument illogical ( and sometimes straight up dishonest) this blows the trinity out the water considering ALL the church fathers associated Wisdom as a “creature”