Then Celsus failed to see the difference
between what is ‘in the image of God’ and His image. He did not realize that
the image of God is the firstborn of all creation, the very Logos and truth,
and, further, the very wisdom Himself, being ‘the image of his goodness’,
whereas man was made ‘in the image of God’, and, furthermore, every man of whom
Christ is head is God’s image and glory. Moreover, he failed to understand to
what characteristic of man the words ‘in the image of God’ apply, and that this
exists in the soul which either has not possessed or possesses no longer ‘the
old man with his deeds’, and which, as a result of not possessing this, is said
to be in the image of the Creator. He says: Nor did he make man his image;
for God is not like that, nor does he resemble any other form at all. Is it
possible to suppose that the part in the image of God is located in the
inferior part of the composite man, I mean the body, and that, as Celsus interpreted
it, the body should be that which is in His image. If the nature that is in the
image of God is in the body alone, the superior part, the soul, is deprived of
being in the image, and this exists in the corruptible body. Not one of us
holds this view. But if the words ‘in the image of God’ apply to both together,
God must be composite and, as it were, must consist of soul and body Himself,
so that the superior part has its image in the soul, and the inferior and
corporeal part in the body. And none of us says that. The remaining possibility
is that that which is made in the image of God is to be understood of the
inward man, as we call it, which is renewed and has the power to be formed in the
image of the Creator, when a man becomes perfect as his heavenly Father is
perfect, and when he hears ‘Be holy because I the Lord your God am holy’, and
when he learns the saying ‘Become imitators of God’ and assumes into his own
virtuous soul the characteristics of God, in that part which is made in the
image of God, is a temple, since he possesses a soul of this character and has
God in his soul because of that which is in His image. (Origen, Contra Celsum 6.63,
in Origen: Contra Celsum [trans. Henry Chadwick; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1953], 378-79)
Nevertheless, Celsus says that we
reply as follows, and affirms that he makes a probable conjecture at our answer
in these words: Since God great and hard to perceive, he thrust his own
Spirit into a body like ours, and sent him down here, that we might be able to
hear and learn from him. But in our opinion the God and Father of the
universe is not the only being who is great; for He gave a share of Himself and
His greatness to the only-begotten and firstborn of all creation, that being
himself an image of the invisible God he might preserve the image of the Father
also in respect of His greatness. For it was impossible that, so to speak, a
rightly proportioned and beautiful image of the invisible God should not also
show the image of His greatness. For it was impossible that, so to speak, a
rightly proportioned and beautiful image of the invisible God should not also
show the image of His greatness.
Furthermore, in our view because God
is not corporeal He is invisible. But He may be perceived by those who can perceive
with the heart. It is not right for a heart that has been defiled to look upon
God; that which can deservedly perceive Him who is pure must be pure also. Let
us grant that God is hard to perceive. Yet He is not the only being hard
for a person to perceive. For the divine Logos is hard to perceive; and the
same is true of the wisdom in which God has made all things. For who can
perceive the wisdom in which God has made each individual thing? Therefore, it
was not because God is hard to perceive that He sent a Son who was easy to
perceive. It was because Celsus failed to understand this that he remarked, as
though it were our answer: Because he is hard to perceive he thrust his own
Spirit into a body like ours, and sent him here, that we might be able to hear
and learn from him. But, as we have observed, the Son is also hard to
perceive, seeing that he is the divine Logos through whom all things were made,
who tabernacled among us. (Contra Celsum 6.69, in ibid., 383-84)
This is significant as this is one example (of many) in Contra Celsum where Origen denies that the Father is embodied, and yet, in his works, he does not believe John 4:24 is teaching against divine embodiment. On this, see, for e.g.:
Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment