Gary Pollard
[This is a continuing translation of Origen’s systematic theology in modern language]
First of all, they should be required—by their own definitions—to show, if they can, that the Creator is just in punishing people strictly according to what they deserve: those who perished in the flood, the inhabitants of Sodom, or those who left Egypt. We often see crimes committed today that are more wicked and horrible than those attributed to these earlier people, but we don’t see every sinner immediately punished.
Will they say, then, that the Creator, who was once just, later became good? Or will they claim instead that he’s still justice-oriented now, but is patient with human sinfulness. At that earlier time, though, was he was not even justice-oriented, since he killed innocent infants along with the violent and ungodly adults? Such conclusions arise because they do not know how to understand scripture beyond the literal level. Otherwise they would be able to explain how it is literally morally right for punishments to be “inflicted on your children to the third and fourth generation.” We do not understand such statements in a crude, literal way. Following the example of Ezekiel and his parables, we seek the deeper meaning contained within them.
They must also explain how God can be justice-oriented (rewarding each according to what they deserve) if he punishes earthly-minded people or even the devil himself, when (according to their theory) these beings weren’t capable of any action other than evil. For if they were created with a corrupt and ruined nature, as they claim, then they were incapable of doing good. In that case, God would appear to judge natures, not actions. But if a bad nature cannot do good, and a good nature cannot do evil, then reward and punishment become meaningless.
Next, if the God whom they call good is truly good to everyone, then he must also be good to those who are said to perish. Why, then, does he not save them? If he has no desire to save them, he is no longer good. If he wants to save them but cannot, then he’s not all-powerful. Why don’t they listen instead to the Father of our master Jesus Christ in the Gospels, who prepares fire for the devil and his angels? How, according to their view, can such a severe and sorrowful judgment be attributed to the good God?
Even the savior Himself—the Son of this so-called good God—declares that if miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But when he comes near their territory, he deliberately does not enter those cities or perform those signs for them. Why not, if it were certain that they would repent? By refraining from doing so, he leaves them to destruction—even though the Gospel itself testifies that they were capable of repentance, and therefore not irredeemably corrupt by nature. Consider also the parable in which the king enters to inspect the guests at the wedding feast and finds one man without proper wedding garments. He says to him, “Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?” and then orders his servants, “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Let them tell us: who is this king? Is he the same God whom they call just? If so, why did he first command that both good and bad alike be invited, without having the servants examine their worthiness? Such behavior reflects not a God who judges strictly according to deserts, but one who extends generosity indiscriminately. If this parable must be understood as referring to the good God—whether Christ himself or the Father of Christ—what further objection can they raise against divine justice? Indeed, what judgment do they accuse the God of the law of rendering that is more severe than ordering a man—invited freely along with others—to be bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness because he was found unprepared?
The Preacher Pollard Blog 