Is Origen’s Christology innately “subordinationist”, as
we have defined the term in the introduction? This question is actually much
more difficult to answer than it may seem. On the one hand, Origen’s use of the
language of “created”, “older”, and “beginning” reveal the Son’s innate
dependence on and derivation from the Father. We might say that the Son is
“proper to” the Father for Origen. But on the other hand, the Son is clearly
similar to the Father, sharing in the wellspring of divinity and goodness, the
mediator by which people can truly know the Father. It is impossible to speak
of the Son without pointing to the Father; Origen’s first instinct when
discussing his doctrine of Christ is to turn to the verses which testify of
this: Col 1.15, Heb 1.3, and Wis 7.25–26. For Origen, we might say that the key
feature of the Son’s “personal existence” or particular nature (e.g. hypostasis)
or what is “proper to” him might be this act of coming forth from and revealing
the Father. This is why it is seemingly impossible to separate the Son’s
ontological existence from his functional or economic existence; there is no
Father without his Word, yet the Word comes from the Father who is the source.
A couple more points might help to further clarify the
issue. Origen’s doctrine of the Son as the epinoiai or titles of the
Father is important because it marks a significant difference between the two
persons. It is also an understudied and underappreciated topic – Origen’s
understanding of the divine virtues is often assumed to correspond to that of
later writers, which, as we have seen, it does not. Origen’s conception of the
Father is one that is ultimately ineffable and static; in this way we see the
influence of Platonism. The Son, therefore, must be the one who “becomes” in
order to reveal the Father. Thus, being and becoming might be viewed as how
Origen distinguishes between the two. This concept is also reflected strongly
in the aforementioned image and reflection verses; the Father is the static
source from whom the Son proceeds. We see in all these cases that being and
becoming are essentially inseparable; God’s Word is eternal, like God the
Father himself. Ontologically, then, there may in actuality be a logical sense
of subordination; there definitely is a sense of cause / effect. But Origen does
not go out of his way to relegate this to the persons themselves and he
definitely does not use the language – his emphasis is on the roles or
distinctions that are proper to each. To make hard categorizations of
subordinationist / not is, again, to put words in Origen’s mouth (see Jerome /
Justinian) or to evaluate him by categories in which he himself is not
operating.
How, then, should we interpret statements that use the
language of “less / greater than” or “inferior”? Let us put aside for now
Justinian’s statement (in Ep. ad Menam) that the Father is “greater” (φθάνει)
and the Son is “less than” (ἐλαττόνως) the Father or Jerome’s statement (Ep.
124.2.3) that the Son is “inferior” (minorem) to the Father and “second”
(secundus) to him. In Origen’s discussion of the Holy Spirit in Jo.
2.73–88, this language appears twice: once in 2.81 with reference to the
incarnation, and once in 2.86 with reference to the Spirit’s relationship to
the Son. In the first instance, “made less than” (ἐλαττωθέντος) has been
interpreted by many as purely economic, referring only to the incarnation.
Origen’s subsequent reference to Christ’s being made lower than the angels in
Heb 2.9 in 2.82 seems to confirm this. But if they are equals, why does Origen
need to mention this? And why not also the Father? Implicit in Origen’s thought
is that there is a hierarchy present in how the three persons work in the
divine economy. Origen is eager to prove that the Son is not less than the
Spirit because he takes on inferior human form; it is difficult to limit
Origen’s concern only to economy, as we will see. Again, the person cannot be
separated from the work. In the second instance, citing John 1.3, Origen notes
that the Spirit is one of all things “made” (ἐγένετο) through the Word and is
thus “is inferior to” (ὑποδεέστερον) him (Jo. 2.86). The “made” language
(lit. “became”) should look familiar, given that Origen also uses it to speak
of the Son’s relationship to the Father, i. e. in the sense noted above. It
seems, therefore, that Origen’s understanding of the Son-Spirit relationship
mirrors that of the Father-Son relationship with regard to source and
“creation”. It is also significant that Origen notes an opposing view to his
statement (i. e. that the Son is “made” through the Spirit), following which he
makes a cryptic reference to the Holy Spirit as mother. All of this will be
revisited in the next chapter, in which we will gain more insight on the divine
relationships. For now we will say that Origen seems to assume a hierarchy
amongst the divine persons that undoubtedly has to do with economy and may also
apply to their individual existences. With this considered, even the label
“binitarian” for Origen’s theology is misleading in that it seems to suggest
two equal divine persons with a non-existent or lesser third.Origen seems to
conceive of the Son as the Word which comes forth eternally from the Father,
and the Holy Spirit as that which is sent by the Word, the hierarchy present in
these relations does not seem to be best characterized as a “binitarianism” but
something more like a “triadic hierarchy”, which tends to favor the Son. (Justin
J. Lee, Origen and the Holy Spirit [Forschungen zur Kirchen- und
Dogmengeschichte 124; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2023], 108-110)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
