Category: Early Church Fathers

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Ch. 3.3-5)

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Note: For this article, it is possible (if not likely) that Tyrannius Rufinus — the fourth century monk responsible for preserving the bulk of this writing by translating it from Greek to Latin — made changes to keep it compliant with the theology of the day. He admitted to “smoothing and correcting the stumbling blocks” in The Prologue of Rufinus, but did not specify where he made such changes. Since Theodosius I’s Edict of Thessalonica (AD 380, almost 20 years before Rufinus likely translated On First Principles) made it illegal — with severe criminal and civil penalties — to practice anything other than Nicene/Catholic Christianity, Origen’s teachings had to be redacted where they conflicted with the Nicene Creed. Since it is impossible for me to determine where these changes were made, I will leave the text as-is and include footnotes where a statement seems to reflect more Nicene theology than is typical of Origen’s writing. Recreating the original theology of early Christians is made easier by the fact that one group of “Christians” severely persecuted believers who didn’t accept the dogmatism of Nicene Creed. “You will know a tree by the fruit it produces.” 

That all things were created by God—and that no creature exists apart from Him as its source—is clearly established by many statements in Scripture. This truth refutes and rejects the claims made by some, who wrongly suggest that there exists a kind of matter that is co-eternal with God, or that souls existed without beginning. According to them, God did not give these souls their being, but merely ordered and organized what was already there, granting them structure and balance rather than existence itself.

However, even in the brief work known as The Shepherd, or The Angel of Repentance, written by Hermas, we find this declaration: “Before all else, believe that there is one God who created and arranged all things; who, when nothing previously existed, brought all things into being; who contains all things, yet is Himself contained by none.” We find similar statements in the book of Enoch as well.

To this day, however, we have not found any passage in holy Scripture where the Holy Spirit is said to have been made or created—not even in the way Solomon speaks of divine Wisdom, or in the expressions we discussed earlier that refer to the life, or the Word, or other titles of the Son of God. Therefore, the Spirit of God who is described as moving over the waters at the beginning of creation is, in my view, none other than the Holy Spirit—at least as far as I can discern. This, indeed, we have demonstrated in our interpretation of those passages, not by relying on a purely historical reading, but by following a spiritual understanding of the text.1

Some of our predecessors have noted that in the New Testament, whenever the word “Spirit” appears without any qualifying descriptor, it should be understood as referring to the Holy Spirit. For example: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace,” and, “Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” We believe that this distinction also applies in the Old Testament. Consider the passage, “He who gives His Spirit to the people on the earth, and Spirit to those who walk upon it.”2 Surely everyone who walks the earth—that is, all earthly and physical beings—also receives the Holy Spirit from God.3

My Hebrew teacher also used to say that the two seraphim in Isaiah, each with six wings, who call out to one another, saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of hosts,” should be understood as representing the only-begotten Son of God and the Holy Spirit. We also believe that the line in Habakkuk’s hymn—“In the midst of the two living beings” (or “two lives”)—refers to Christ and the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of the Father comes through revelation by the Son, and that revelation is made through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, both of these beings—whom the prophet calls “living beings” or “lives”—are the basis of the knowledge of God the Father.

Just as it is said of the Son, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him,” so it is also said of the Holy Spirit by the apostle: “God has revealed them to us through His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.” And again in the Gospel, when Jesus speaks of the deeper truths He could not yet reveal to His disciples, He says: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, comes, He will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said to you.”4

We must understand, then, that just as the Son—who alone knows the Father—reveals Him to whomever He chooses, so also the Holy Spirit—who alone searches the depths of God—reveals God to whomever He wills. “For the Spirit blows where He wills.”5

However, we must not imagine that the Holy Spirit receives His knowledge of the Father through revelation by the Son. If the Holy Spirit only comes to know the Father through the Son’s revelation, that would mean He was once ignorant and then came into knowledge. But to say the Holy Spirit is, or ever was, ignorant is both impious and irrational. Even if something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it is not by gradual development that He became the Holy Spirit—as if He had once been something else, lacking knowledge, and only later gained understanding and was thereby made the Holy Spirit. If that were the case, then He could not be considered part of the Trinity6—united with the unchanging Father and the Son—unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.

When we use words like “always” or “was” or other time-related terms, we must not take them in a strictly temporal sense. These terms are, by necessity, borrowed from our limited human perspective, since the realities we speak of ultimately transcend all concepts of time and all finite understanding.

Now, it is important to ask: why is it that someone who is regenerated by God for salvation must relate to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and cannot be saved without the cooperation of the whole Trinity?7 And why is it impossible to share in the life of the Father or the Son apart from the Holy Spirit? In exploring these questions, we will need to describe the distinct roles of the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son. I believe that the activity of the Father and the Son is present not only in saints but also in sinners, in rational beings and in animals without reason, even in lifeless objects—in short, in all created things. But the work of the Holy Spirit is not present in lifeless things, nor in living creatures that lack reason. It is also absent in rational beings who persist in evil and have not turned to a better way of life.

I believe the Holy Spirit is active only in those who are beginning to turn toward goodness, who are walking the path that leads to Jesus Christ—that is, those who are doing good works and remaining in God.

 1This reading of Gen 1 is found in the LXX. The Hebrew text also includes the reading, “And a powerful wind was blowing over the face of the waters.” 

 2While this is certainly true, Is 42.5 is talking about the breath of life. 

 3If this is Origen speaking, he contradicts himself in the next-to-last paragraph of this article. “The Holy Spirit is absent in rational beings who persist in evil…” and, in the last paragraph, … “is active only in those who are beginning to turn toward goodness.”  

4John further clarifies this statement about the Παρακλητος (Jn 14.26) in I Jn 2.1 where he explicitly identifies this Comforter as “Jesus Christ, the righteous.” 

5 Jn 3.8 says το πνευμα όπου θελει πνει (“the wind blows where it wants”), possibly a play on words given the context. 

 6 See footnote 7

 7While it is certainly possible that Origen used this word, it seems unlikely. Theophilus of Antioch (AD 170) used Τριας to describe God, the Word, and his Wisdom as a “set of three”. But the word “trinity” (from trinitas — a Latin word, and Origen wrote in Greek) is generally credited to Tertullian (c. AD 210). This would’ve been around the same time that Origen wrote On First Principles, but he was distinctly Greek in his thinking, not Latin. Perhaps Τριας is what Origen originally used, which fits his earlier section on God’s Wisdom more appropriately than the distinctly Latin trinitas.  

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Ch. 3.1-2)

Who isn’t amazed by the immense importance of the Holy Spirit when we hear that one who speaks against Christ may be forgiven, but one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven―not in this world nor in the world to come?

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

  1. Let us now briefly examine the subject of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who acknowledges the existence of Providence (however they think of it) agrees that God―the one who created and ordered all things―is no one’s creation, and recognizes Him as the Father of the universe. The claim that He has a Son is not something unique to believers; even though it may seem astonishing or unbelievable to the kinds of people that the Greeks and other foreigners call “philosophers”, some of them seem to at least partially get it. They admit that all things were created through the word or reason (logos) of God. Because we think this is a teaching that came from God Himself, we believe there is no better way to understand or explain this higher, divine Reason―we call Him the Son of God―than through the Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit: that is, the Gospels, the Epistles, the Law, and the Prophets, as Christ Himself declared. It’s basically impossible to know about this Holy Spirit without reading the Law or believing in Christ. Even though no one can speak with perfect confidence about the nature of God the Father, some understanding of Him can be attained through creation itself and the natural insights of the human mind. This knowledge can be reinforced by reading the inspired texts. As for the Son of God, even though “no one knows the Son except the Father,” the Scriptures teach us how to think about Him. This is made known not only by explicit teachings but also through the lives of Christians, whose actions are understood as preparing the world for Christ’s return. Between these two things, we can start to understand both his transcendent nature and the human nature he voluntarily assumed. 
  2. As for what the Holy Spirit is, Scripture teaches us in many places. Somewhere in the first fifty Psalms, David says, “Do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.” Daniel speaks of “the Holy Spirit that is in You.” The New Testament has plenty on this, too: the Spirit is described as descending on Christ; after His resurrection, the Lord breathed on His apostles and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”; an angel told Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you”; and Paul says that no one can call Jesus “master” except through the Holy Spirit. In the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit was given when the apostles laid hands on people at baptism. From all of this, we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit is so important that baptism is not complete without naming all three: that is, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This joins the name of the Holy Spirit to the uncreated God the Father and His only Son. Who isn’t amazed by the immense importance of the Holy Spirit when we hear that one who speaks against Christ may be forgiven, but one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven―not in this world nor in the world to come?

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Ch. 2.11-13)

“The Son and the Spirit share in that same nature of divine goodness, because they come from the Father Himself. So, when anything else is called “good” in Scripture―whether angels, people, hearts, trees, or treasures―it’s called good only in a borrowed or figurative sense, not in the essential sense that belongs to God alone….”

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Thirdly, wisdom is called the radiance of eternal light. We already discussed the meaning of this phrase earlier, using the analogy of the sun and its rays to help explain it. Here, we’ll add just one further thought. Something is truly eternal if it never began to exist and never ceases to be what it is. This is what John means when he says, “God is light.” God’s wisdom is the radiance of that light―not just because it is light, but because it is eternal light. So, wisdom is the eternal and everlasting radiance of God. If we grasp this properly, we see clearly that the Son’s existence comes from the Father―but not in terms of time or from any origin other than God Himself.

Wisdom is also called the flawless mirror of God’s energy (or activity). So, we should first consider what the activity or working of God’s power is. It is a kind of living force through which God acts―whether in creating, governing the world, judging, or arranging all things in their proper time and place. Just as a mirror perfectly reflects everything a person does in front of it, wisdom should be understood as the flawless mirror of the Father’s power and actions. This is why Jesus Christ, who is the Wisdom of God, says, “The works that the Father does, the Son also does.” And again, “The Son can do nothing by Himself, but only what He sees the Father doing.”

The Son does not differ from the Father in power or action. The work of the Son is not separate from the work of the Father. Rather, both act in perfect unity―as if by one and the same motion. That’s why the Son is called a flawless mirror―to show that there is no difference at all between the Son and the Father. How then can it be right to say, as some do, that the Son imitates the Father like a student copies a teacher? Or that the Son creates material things based on spiritual patterns first made by the Father? These ideas don’t match what Scripture teaches. The gospel doesn’t say the Son does similar works to the Father―it says He does the same works, in the same way.

Now we turn to what it means that the Son is the image of His goodness. This, I believe, is similar to what we just said about the image in a mirror. God the Father is the original source of goodness, and the Son is born from that goodness. Because the Son fully reflects the Father, He can rightly be called the image of His goodness. The Son doesn’t possess some separate kind of goodness; His goodness is exactly the same as the Father’s. This is why the Rescuer says in the Gospel, “No one is good except God alone, the Father.” This statement shouldn’t be taken to mean that Christ is not good―but rather that his goodness comes entirely from the same source: the primal goodness of the Father.

The Son and the Spirit share in that same nature of divine goodness, because they come from the Father Himself. So, when anything else is called “good” in Scripture―whether angels, people, hearts, trees, or treasures―it’s called good only in a borrowed or figurative sense, not in the essential sense that belongs to God alone. To talk about all the titles of the Son of God―like true light, door, righteousness, sanctification, redemption, and many others―and to explain the reasons behind each one would take too long here. Since we’re content with what we’ve already said, we will continue on to the next part of our discussion.

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Ch. 2.10)

Here’s the key: some might think God was all-powerful before Wisdom (the Son of God) came into the picture, making God a Father. But Scripture is clear: “In wisdom, you made everything,” and the Gospel says, “Through Him all things were made, and nothing was made without him.” This means God’s title as all-powerful is tied to being a Father through Wisdom, who is the Son. The Son, Jesus, is the purest expression of God’s infinite power.

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Let’s consider the phrase, “Wisdom is the ultimate expression of God’s infinite power.” To understand this, we first need to examine what God’s “infinite power” means, and then we’ll see how Wisdom flows from it. Just like you can’t be a parent without a child or a leader without a team, God can’t be called all-powerful without something or someone to exercise that power over. For God to truly be all-powerful, everything must exist—otherwise, there’d be a time when God wasn’t fully in charge, which doesn’t add up.

Imagine someone saying there was a time when nothing existed, and God only later became all-powerful when everything came into being. That would imply God somehow leveled up, going from “less powerful” to “all-powerful”, which is a better state. But that’s a flawed and inaccurate way to think about God, right? It suggests God was incomplete and then gained something later. Instead, if God is always all-powerful, then the things that make God all-powerful—creation, beings to govern—must always have been there. God has always had authority over everything, ruling as a king or leader. We’ll dig deeper into creation later, but for now, let’s focus on the main point: Wisdom is described as the purest expression of God’s infinite power.

Here’s the key: some might think God was all-powerful before Wisdom (the Son of God) came into the picture, making God a Father. But Scripture is clear: “In wisdom, you made everything,” and the Gospel says, “Through Him all things were made, and nothing was made without him.” This means God’s title as all-powerful is tied to being a Father through Wisdom, who is the Son. The Son, Jesus, is the purest expression of God’s infinite power.

So what is the “glory of the Almighty” that Wisdom flows from? It’s the brilliance of God’s total authority, and Wisdom—Jesus—shares in that brilliance. Through Wisdom, God doesn’t just rule like a dictator; God’s power is expressed through the willing loyalty of creation. To make it perfectly clear, the Father and the Son share the same power. John in Revelation says, “This is what the Lord God says, the One who is, was, and is to come, the Almighty.” Who’s the “One to come”? That’s Jesus. So, just as we’re not shocked that Jesus is God alongside the Father, we shouldn’t be surprised that Jesus, the Son, is also all-powerful. Jesus Himself says to the Father, “Everything You have is Mine, and everything I have is Yours, and I’m glorified through them.” If everything the Father has belongs to Jesus, that includes God’s infinite power. The Son, being all-powerful too, shares everything the Father has.

Jesus says, “I’m glorified in them,” meaning His glory shines through creation. Scripture backs this up: “At the name of Jesus, every knee will bow—in the heavens, on earth, and below—and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” So, Jesus is the ultimate expression of God’s power, the pure and radiant Wisdom, glorified as the embodiment of that power.

To break it down further: God the Father is all-powerful because He has authority over everything—sky, earth, sun, moon, stars, you name it. He exercises this power through His Word, Jesus, because “at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow.” If everything bows to Jesus, then Jesus is the one with authority over all things, channeling that power back to the Father. This happens through Wisdom—through reason and truth, not force or obligation. That’s why Jesus’ glory is so pure: He holds all things together through wisdom, not despotic control. This is the clearest, most authentic kind of glory because it’s not forced—it’s freely given.

Now, let’s contrast this. Anything that can change or shift—like human nature or created things—might have moments of glory through good deeds or wisdom, but that glory isn’t permanent because it’s not part of their core. It can fade. But God’s Wisdom, the Son, is unchanging. Every good quality in Him is permanent, not temporary. That’s why His glory is described as pure and authentic—because it’s part of who He is, forever. 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 2, Numbers 8-9)

The apostle calls Christ not only “the radiance of God’s glory” but also “the exact representation of His being” (or “substance”). That raises a meaningful question: How can there be a distinct image or representation of God’s being that is not simply God Himself? What do we really mean by “person” or “substance” in this context?

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

8. The apostle calls Christ not only “the radiance of God’s glory” but also “the exact representation of His being” (or “substance”). That raises a meaningful question: How can there be a distinct image or representation of God’s being that is not simply God Himself? What do we really mean by “person” or “substance” in this context?

Now, consider this: The Son of God is the Word and Wisdom of God. He alone fully knows the Father and reveals Him to those who are capable of receiving that revelation. In that sense, the Son—through His divine wisdom and self-disclosure—can be said to be the very image of God’s being. That is, when Wisdom reveals itself as the means through which others come to understand God, it becomes the visible expression, or “exact image,” of God’s invisible reality.

To help us grasp this idea more fully, think of this analogy (even if it’s imperfect): Suppose there were a statue so vast that it filled the whole world and could not be seen or comprehended by anyone because of its sheer immensity. Now imagine a second statue—identical in every detail, in shape, form, and substance—but scaled down so that people could actually see and understand it. Those who saw the smaller statue would know what the great, original one was like, because it perfectly reflected all its features.

In the same way, the Son of God, although equal with the Father, “emptied Himself” (as Paul writes) and took on a form we could perceive. In doing so, He showed us what God is like. Because of this, He is rightly called the exact image of God’s being. Through Him—through the light of Christ—we are able to behold divine light. The comparison to statues is only meant to illustrate this one point: though the Son appeared in human form (which seems lowly), the power and works He displayed revealed a greatness and glory identical to the Father’s. As Jesus Himself said, “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father,”  and “I and the Father are one.” He also said, “The Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

9. Now let’s consider a related passage from the Wisdom of Solomon, where Wisdom is described like this: “It is like a breath from the power of God, the purest outflow of the Almighty’s glory, the radiance of eternal light, the flawless mirror of God’s activity and power, and the perfect image of his goodness” (7.25-26). A

Each of these expressions identifies specific divine qualities found in Wisdom. The author calls Wisdom the power, the glory, the eternal light, the activity, and the goodness of God. But he doesn’t say, for example, that Wisdom is the breath of God’s glory or His light—only of His power. That’s important, because it wouldn’t make sense to speak of “breath” coming from abstract things like glory or light. But power is different: it refers to God’s active, governing presence in creation—by which He orders, restrains, and sustains all things, both visible and invisible. It’s that strength by which God acts, like a mind exercising its will.

The “breath” mentioned here is a way of describing something that proceeds from this divine power—just as a decision comes from the will, or the will proceeds from the mind. This breath is not a created force or something that came into being later; rather, it shares the same nature as the power from which it comes. It is, in effect, power flowing out of power.

This “breath” (Wisdom, or the Son) has its own distinct existence, yet it derives entirely from God’s eternal power. It has always existed. If anyone claims it came into existence later, we would have to ask why the Father—who could have brought it forth—didn’t do so earlier. And if we keep pressing that logic backward—asking why not before any supposed beginning—we’re left with only one reasonable conclusion: since God has always had power and will, there’s no reason He would ever have lacked the Wisdom that flows from them. Therefore, this divine Wisdom—the breath of God’s power—has no beginning apart from God Himself. It comes from Him and has always existed with Him.

So when Paul says Christ “is the power of God,” we can rightly say that He is not only the breath of that power, but power born of power itself.

Apologia I (Why Origen?)

One of the fastest-growing threats to Christian faith today is deconstructionism. It’s not a tightly organized movement, which makes it hard to confront directly. It’s multifaceted, and some of the questions it raises are valid. I believe our enemy, the devil, has taken advantage of real, unresolved questions within modern Christianity and used them—combined with some Christians’ dismissive or defensive posture— to undermine the faith of millions.

Gary Pollard

Now that we’re several sections into Origen’s On first principles, I want to explain why I’m taking on this project. Why Origen? Why devote time to a writer who isn’t considered “inspired”? Aren’t there enough lost and dying souls as it is? Why focus on something like this? Shouldn’t I be spending my energy elsewhere? And if Origen sometimes says things that seem strange or uncomfortable to modern Christian ears, why publish them at all?

One of the fastest-growing threats to Christian faith today is deconstructionism. It’s not a tightly organized movement, which makes it hard to confront directly. It’s multifaceted, and some of the questions it raises are valid. I believe our enemy, the devil, has taken advantage of real, unresolved questions within modern Christianity and used them—combined with some Christians’ dismissive or defensive posture— to undermine the faith of millions. I won’t go into specific details here, but this movement deserves serious attention.

We’ve inherited a bit of theological and traditional baggage over the centuries—not enough to undermine the legitimacy of our faith, but enough to create some distance between us and the beliefs of first-century Christians. Much of this divergence can be traced to the fourth-century ecumenical councils. These councils took unsettled questions—once considered open for discussion and not barriers to fellowship—and hardened them into dogma. Today there are over 45,000 Christian denominations worldwide. Deconstruction is one of Satan’s most effective weapons in this decade.

I’ve spent the past couple of years “behind the lines” of this movement—reading their writings, listening to their podcasts, joining their forums and servers. Here’s what I’ve noticed:

  • A widespread rejection of materialism and the wealth-driven mindset of previous generations. While not universal, this pattern appears frequently.
  • A growing disdain for shallow, mindless entertainment. Most are searching for deeper meaning, esoteric knowledge, and truth. They seek intellectual stimulation, not dilute copium. Jordan Peterson may have played a key role— his unabridged deep dives into philosophy, psychology, and biblical themes deepen hunger for significance and intellectual engagement. Not a bad thing! But as we’ll see, many (especially our own) are looking for depth, meaning, and truth elsewhere. 
  • This hunger often leads to other similar podcasts, YouTube channels, and alternative history theories. Again, not bad things. These sources rarely align with the mainstream historical or scientific views, but they seem to resonate with reality far better. The problem is that this skepticism extends to religion. Many consider themselves spiritual, so they reject Christianity for universalism, neo-paganism, or other alternatives. The consistent thread is that they don’t trust religious leaders to be honest or unbiased. Many cited the church’s inability—or unwillingness—to address difficult questions as being what drove them away.

The outcome is usually one or more of the following: pantheism, paganism, gnosticism, universalism, agnosticism, Epicureanism, occultism, even nihilism. I know this reads like something from an 80s church pamphlet warning about Led Zeppelin and pinball machines— but this is actually real, and it’s happening by the millions. You can see its symptoms for yourself: search YouTube for “Gnosticism,” “esotericism,” or “alternative history.” Most of the top videos have millions of views. Even obscure channels discussing niche topics may have hundreds of thousands of views. Do some research on the growth of all of the groups listed above. 

So, why am I dragging both of my readers through Origen’s writings? Because millions of people (again, many of our own) are searching for truth—and they don’t trust the modern Christian’s interpretation of ancient texts. Origen was probably the first Christian to organize the church’s teachings into a coherent theological system. He did this before the government-sponsored councils of the fourth century began enforcing orthodoxy. His work offers powerful responses to many of the questions fueling deconstructionism. It also gives us a glimpse of what Christians believed before AD 325—and that’s exactly what many of these seekers are hungry for. 

My goal is simple: to make On first principles accessible to the average truth-seeker or questioner. Origen provides the most complete early summary of Christian theology. He’s not considered canonical by any denomination, and his work may irritate some Christians. That’s why I think these seekers and questioning believers will be willing to read it. If it also encourages the faithful, even better. But I’m doing this primarily for the seekers and questioners, not the saved.

This project is my attempt to patch a breach in the dam and help pull at least some of these wandering souls back toward the light. Many of us have watched friends or loved ones fall victim to this movement. Origen’s work—especially when stripped of later editorial influence—may be one of the most effective tools we have right now. 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 2, Numbers 5-7)

We must not believe what some people say―that God sent out pieces of Himself like parts being cut off. God cannot be split up. He is spirit, not a body, and spirit can’t be divided. Instead, we should think about it like this: when a person has a thought, that thought comes from the mind without taking anything away from it.

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Let’s look at how the Bible supports what we’ve been saying. The Apostle Paul says that Jesus, God’s only Son, is “the image of the invisible God” and “the firstborn of all creation.” In another letter, Paul writes that Jesus is “the brightness of God’s glory and the exact image of who God is.”

In the book called Wisdom of Solomon, it says that God’s wisdom is “the breath of God’s power” and a clear and pure light from God. Nothing dirty or wrong can touch her. She is like a bright light that comes from God forever, a perfect mirror showing God’s work, and the image of God’s goodness. We say again: this wisdom only exists in the One who began everything. Everything that is truly wise comes from Him. He is the only one who is truly God’s Son, so He is called the Only-Begotten.

Now let’s try to understand what it means that Jesus is an “invisible image.” First, think about how we use the word “image.” Sometimes an image is a picture or a statue made out of something like wood or stone. Other times, we call a child the image of their parent because they look alike. A human, who was made in God’s image, is more like the first kind of image―a shape made out of something. We’ll talk more about that when we study Genesis. But Jesus is more like the second kind of image. He is the invisible image of the invisible God, just like Adam’s son Seth looked like Adam. The Bible says, “Adam had a son in his own image, named Seth.”

This shows that the Father and Son share the same nature. If the Son does all the same things the Father does, then He shows what the Father is like. He comes from the Father, like a thought or a choice comes from a person’s mind. So, I believe that when God wants something to exist, He only needs to will it. He doesn’t need tools or outside help. In the same way, the Son came from the Father’s will. This is important, because we believe that only God the Father was never born o made by anyone else.

We must not believe what some people say―that God sent out pieces of Himself like parts being cut off. God cannot be split up. He is spirit, not a body, and spirit can’t be divided. Instead, we should think about it like this: when a person has a thought, that thought comes from the mind without taking anything away from it. In the same way, God the Father gave life to His Son. The Father is invisible, and He gave birth to an invisible image―His Son. The Son is the Word, not something you can see or touch. He is Wisdom, and wisdom isn’t made of physical stuff. He is the true Light who shines on every person in the world―but not like sunlight.

Jesus is the image of the invisible God. To the Father, He is truth itself. To us, He is the way we can see and know the Father. No one knows the Father unless the Son shows Him to them. And the Son shows the Father to us by helping us understand. If someone understands the Son, they also understand the Father. Jesus said, “Whoever has seen Me has seen the Father.” Earlier, we quoted Paul saying Jesus is “the brightness of God’s glory and the exact image of Him.” So what does that mean? The Gospel of John says, “God is light.” Jesus, the only Son, is like the brightness that comes from that light. He shines out from God and lights up all creation.

We’ve already said Jesus is the Way who brings us to God, the Word who teaches us wisdom, and the Truth, the Life, and the Resurrection. He is also the Brightness. We understand light by seeing its brightness. And Jesus helps our weak human eyes slowly get used to the light of God, just like someone helping us see better by taking away anything that blocks our view. Jesus said, “Take the beam out of your eye.” In this way, He helps us see God’s light and acts as a go-between for us and God.

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 2, Numbers 1-4)

So everything we say about God’s Wisdom applies to the Son: He is the Life, the Word, the Truth, and the Resurrection. These titles describe what He does and who He is. None of them imply anything physical―no size, shape, or color.

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

1. First, we need to understand that Christ has two distinct natures: His divine nature as the only Son of God, and the human nature He took on in this final age as part of God’s plan to save us. These are not the same.

So we start by asking: who is the only-begotten Son of God? He’s called by many names, depending on the context and viewpoints of different people. For example, He is called “Wisdom” in Solomon’s words: “The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways, before anything else existed―before the earth, before the springs, before the mountains and hills―I was brought forth.”

He’s also called “Firstborn,” as Paul says: “He is the firstborn of all creation.” But “Firstborn” and “Wisdom” refer to the same person―not two different beings. Paul even says that “Christ is the power and wisdom of God.”

2. But when we say He is God’s Wisdom, we don’t mean He’s just a concept or a force that makes people wise. He is a living being who is wisdom in Himself. Once we understand that the Son is God’s Wisdom in real, personal existence, we shouldn’t imagine that He has any physical traits like form, size, or color. Wisdom, by its nature, doesn’t have those things.

And no one who reveres God should believe that the Father ever existed without His Wisdom. To say that would mean either God couldn’t produce Wisdom before He did, or that He didn’t want to―which is impossible for a perfect and eternal God.

We believe that the Son, who is God’s Wisdom, comes from the Father―but not in time. His existence has no beginning, not even one that we can imagine in thought. So Wisdom was brought forth before anything that could be called a “beginning.”

Everything that would later be created was already held within Wisdom―its design, purpose, and shape―arranged by God’s foreknowledge. That’s why Wisdom (in Solomon’s words) says she was “created as the beginning of God’s ways”―not because she was made in time, but because all things were prefigured in her.

3. In the same way, we can say Wisdom is the “Word” of God, because she reveals God’s hidden truths to all creation. She is called the Word because she expresses what is in God’s mind.

So when the Acts of Paul1 says, “The Word is a living being,” it’s speaking rightly. But John expresses it most clearly in his Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Anyone who says the Word or Wisdom had a beginning must be careful not to dishonor the Father. If God didn’t always have Wisdom or a Word, then He wasn’t always the Father―and that idea contradicts God’s eternal nature.

4. This Son is also the truth and life of everything that exists―and rightly so. Nothing could live without receiving life from Him. Nothing could exist unless it came from the truth. Rational beings couldn’t exist without the Word. There could be no wisdom without Wisdom.

But since some creatures would fall away from life and bring death upon themselves―because death is just separation from life―it was necessary for there to be a power that could overcome death. That power is the resurrection, first seen in our Lord and Savior. The resurrection is rooted in God’s wisdom, word, and life.

Also, since some created beings would choose not to remain in the good they were given―because that good was not part of their nature, but something they received―they could fall away. For their sake, the Word and Wisdom of God became the “Way,” the path that leads back to the Father.

So everything we say about God’s Wisdom applies to the Son: He is the Life, the Word, the Truth, and the Resurrection. These titles describe what He does and who He is. None of them imply anything physical―no size, shape, or color.

Human beings pass on physical traits through reproduction. But we must not compare that to how the Father brings forth the Son. God’s act is completely unique―beyond comparison, imagination, or explanation.

The generation of the Son is eternal―like light from the sun. He didn’t become the Son through some external act. He is the Son by His very nature.

1 He probably means “Hebrews” here.

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Numbers 8-9)

Scripture often uses the names of physical senses to describe the soul’s activities―for example, it talks about seeing with the eyes of the heart, meaning an act of understanding through the mind’s power.

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Some people might not be convinced by these ideas unless they come straight from the bible. They want to see proof from scripture that God’s nature is greater than anything physical. So let’s look at what the apostle says about Christ. He writes that Christ is “the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.”

This doesn’t mean that God is visible to some people and invisible to others. The apostle doesn’t say, “the image of a God who is invisible to humans” or “invisible only to sinners.” He says clearly, “the image of the invisible God.” This means God’s nature, by definition, cannot be seen.

John says the same thing in his account: “No one has seen God at any time.” He means this for everyone―no created being can see God. Not because God is hiding or hard to spot, but because, in his very nature, God cannot be seen. You might ask: “What about the Son―can he see the Father?” Don’t be too quick to think that’s a strange or disrespectful question. We can think it through clearly.

Seeing and being seen is something physical―it belongs to bodies. Knowing and being known belongs to the mind, to understanding. Since God is not a body, we shouldn’t say he is “seen” or “looks” at anything the way we do. What is true of God’s divine nature applies to both the Father and the Son.

Even Jesus himself didn’t say, “No one sees the Father except the Son,” or “No one sees the Son except the Father.” He said, “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son.” This shows us that, when it comes to God, “knowing” is not about physical sight―it’s about deep understanding.

So, since God’s nature is invisible and not made of anything physical, we shouldn’t speak of the Father and the Son “seeing” each other like people do. Instead, Scripture teaches that they know each other perfectly.

Now, if someone brings up the verse, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,” I believe it actually supports our point even more strongly. What else does it mean to see God with the heart, if not to understand and know him with the mind, just as we’ve explained? Scripture often uses the names of physical senses to describe the soul’s activities―for example, it talks about seeing with the eyes of the heart, meaning an act of understanding through the mind’s power. In the same way, it says the soul hears when it grasps the deeper meaning of a message. We even say it uses teeth when it chews and eats the bread of life that comes down from heaven. Other bodily terms are used in the same way―to refer to the soul’s powers.

As Solomon says, “You will find a divine sense,” showing he understood that within us are two types of senses: one mortal, corruptible, and human; the other immortal and intellectual, which he calls divine. It’s through this divine sense―not through physical eyes, but through a pure heart (that is, a pure mind)―that those who are worthy can see God. And you’ll find throughout all of scripture, both Old and New Testaments, that the word heart is often used in place of mind, meaning the power of understanding.

So, although our explanation is far beneath the dignity of the subject, we have tried to speak of God’s nature as best we can within the limits of human understanding. Now, let us consider what is meant by the name of Christ.

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Number 7)

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

If anyone still believes that the mind or soul is just a part of the body, I’d like them to explain something: How does it understand deep and complex ideas? Where does memory come from? How can we think about or study things we can’t see? How can something made of matter understand things that aren’t made of matter?

Can a body, which is physical, really explore skills and ideas, or understand things that are invisible and spiritual? Some people might say that, just like God shaped our ears and eyes in a certain way to help us hear and see, the soul or mind might also have a shape that helps it think, feel, and understand. But if that’s true, then what color or shape is the mind? No one can really say, because the mind isn’t like a body part―it’s something more.

To help show that the mind or soul is better than the body, think about this: Each of our senses―like sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch―needs something physical to work. Sight needs colors and shapes. Hearing needs sound. Smell needs odors. Taste needs flavors. Touch needs things like heat, cold, or texture.

But the mind, which is the greatest of all our senses, doesn’t need anything physical like that. So isn’t it strange to say that all the other, lesser senses have something real to work with, but the mind doesn’t? That the power of thinking just happens by accident because of the body?

People who believe that are actually insulting the best part of themselves. They even dishonor God by thinking He is just a body, something you can see or touch. They don’t want to believe that the mind is like a small image of God―that it is through our minds we can begin to understand who God is, especially when the mind is clean and free from bodily distractions.

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Number 6)

How do you explain the mind and intelligence of God. Origen masterfully illustrates such from nature itself in a powerful explanation….

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Note: I am now using an LLM to modernize the language of the text. This allows me to focus solely on editing and restoring as much of the original narrative as possible. The LLM’s accuracy so far has been astounding — I was on the fence about AI before, but at least for these kinds of projects they are extremely useful. I will still edit the material and compare the modernized text to primary sources. Using this tool, however, frees up a huge amount of time and mental energy. Modernization alone accounts for the bulk of my work, which leaves a lot less time and energy for restoring an original narrative. Now I can un-Rufinus Peri archon in less time and with less potential for human error. 

It might help to use another example to explain this idea more clearly. Our eyes can’t always look directly at the sun itself because its light is too intense. But when we see its rays shining through a window or a small opening, we can understand how powerful and vast the sun’s light really is.

In the same way, the things we see in the world—nature, the universe, and everything around us—are like rays of God’s presence. They give us a glimpse of his greatness, even though we can’t fully comprehend his true nature. Just as our eyes can’t directly see the sun, our minds can’t fully grasp God as he truly is. However, we can understand something about him by looking at the beauty and order of his creation.

God is not a physical being; He doesn’t exist within a body or have any physical form. He is pure intellect1, without any parts or divisions. He doesn’t have a “greater” or “lesser” side—he is completely unified2, the ultimate source of all intelligence. Unlike physical things, which need space and shape to exist, the mind doesn’t require size, color, or form to function.

Because of this, God’s nature is not limited or slowed down by anything. If he were made of multiple parts, that would mean something existed before him, which contradicts the idea of him being the absolute beginning of everything. His mind isn’t like a human mind, which depends on the body.

We can see proof of this by looking at our own thoughts. Our minds don’t need to move from place to place in order to think. For example, if someone is at sea, tossed by waves, they might have trouble thinking clearly—not because their mind needs land to function, but because their body is unsettled. The same thing happens when someone is sick; their mind struggles not because of where they are, but because their body is weakened. Since we are made of both body and intellect3, our mental abilities are affected by our physical state.

However, God, as the source of everything, is not made of different parts like we are. If he were, that would mean something else came before Him to create those parts, which isn’t possible. Unlike our physical bodies, which grow in size, the mind grows through learning and experience. A person doesn’t become wiser just because their body gets older; instead, their intellect develops through study and practice. But this growth doesn’t happen immediately. A child’s mind can’t handle complex thoughts right away because their body—specifically, their brain—is still developing. Over time, as they learn and strengthen their abilities, they can take on more complex ideas.

 1 Translator’s footnote: simplex intellectualis natura
 2 Originally μονας and ένας
 3 Originally “soul”, but context suggests “intellect” or “consciousness” is more appropriate. 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Number 5)

What is God like? Origen explores false ideas in his day, ideas that often exist in some form in our day…

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

We’ve done our best to refute any idea that God is physical and has some kind of body. The uncompromising truth is that God cannot be fully understood. He cannot be measured by any human metric or tool. We might be able to understand some small aspect of him through our primary senses or through deep thought. In light of everything we’ve said, though, it only makes sense that he’s orders of magnitude more than anything our limited senses can understand. Here’s an illustration of what we’re trying to communicate: Let’s say someone can barely tolerate the light from a candle. Anything brighter than that would be too much for them to handle. If we wanted to tell them all about the sun, we’d have to warn them about how much brighter it is than a little candle. How do you even explain the difference in brightness between the two to someone like that? Humanity is no different. Because of the limitations of our bodies, it’s nearly impossible to comprehend God’s nature (which is a comparison even greater than the candle vs. sun illustration). 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Number 4)

Gary continues to put the words of the Early Church Fathers in words we can understand. Those men lived near the time of the New Testament and apostles and give us insight into how Christians thought and believed in ancient times.

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Now we should look at this issue from the standpoint of language — specifically the language used in the Message itself. It says that “God is a spirit” and we should now prove our beliefs on this statement. The relevant questions: When did Jesus say this? Who was he talking to? What was he talking about? The answers are easy to find. He was talking to the Samaritan woman. She thought that God could only be properly worshipped on Mt. Gerazim (this was what all Samaritans believed). This was her context when Jesus spoke those words. The Samaritan woman saw that Jesus was Jewish and asked him if she was supposed to worship in Jerusalem instead (which is what all Jews believed). Her exact words were, “All of our ancestors worshipped on this mountain, but you say that we’re only supposed to worship in Jerusalem.” The Samaritan woman believed that it was possible to worship God more or less correctly depending on location. As in, the Jews thought they were “more correct” by worshipping in Jerusalem and the Samaritans felt the same way about their worship on Gerazim. Because this was her understanding of worship, Jesus replied with, “Believe me, the time is coming when you won’t have to be in Jerusalem or on this mountain to worship. God is spirit, so the people who worship him have to do it in spirit and truth.” Look at how logical his answer was! He made the connection between “spirit” and “truth”: He called God a “spirit” to distinguish him from something confined to a body or form. He also called him “truth” to distinguish him from an inadequate shadow or pattern.

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Number 3)

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Since quite a few people interact in some way with God’s divine spirit, it cannot be considered a body. It can’t be divided into physical parts that all believers dip into. It’s obvious that he is a power that makes us pure. We all have access to him if we’re one of the ones who’ve been made pure. Let’s make this easier to understand by using an example that might seem totally unrelated: A lot of people are involved in the art and science of medicine. Do we think doctors are taking a physical piece of “medical science” when they practice? Doesn’t it make far more sense to say that highly intelligent people are more capable of wrapping their minds around the complexities of the art of healing? This isn’t a perfect comparison when it comes to the holy spirit, but it’s there to prove that it doesn’t necessarily have a body and is shared and experienced by a lot of people. The holy spirit is very different from medical practice in that it has an intellectual existence only. It exists and operates very differently from the science of medicine. 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book 1, Number 2)

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

So if those people agree with the reasoning behind our argument (that just because God is called “light” doesn’t mean that his body is “light”), then the same logic applies to the expression “a fire that destroys”. If God’s body is fire, what is fueling it? Do you really think he runs on wood, hay, or sticks? God is far too powerful to be fueled by these common things, if his body really is made of fire. He does burn up some things, though. He does completely destroy. What kind of stuff does he destroy? Evil thoughts, bad actions, and anything else that makes its way into the minds of people who believe. God and his son live within the minds of people who’ve been made capable of understanding his word and intelligence. He once said, “My father and I will come to them and live with them.” After God destroys and burns up the believer’s weaknesses and sinful desires, he makes them a temple worthy of him. Here’s how we answer people who say that because “God is spirit” he has a body of some kind: it’s very common for scripture to call anything that transcends our physical, solid bodies “spirit”. There’s the expression, “the written law brings death, but the spirit gives life.” It is obvious that “letter” means “physical” and “spirit” means “intellectual”. The same apostle also said, “Yes, even today, when they read the law of Moses, there is a covering over their minds. But when someone changes and follows the Master, that covering is taken away. The Master is the spirit, and there is freedom where his spirit is.” Anyone who hasn’t developed a deep, intellectual understanding has a covering over their heart. That covering is the same thing as a shallow understanding. Most people think that the sacred writings themselves are “covered” (their deeper meaning is hard to understand). This is why Moses covered his face when he read the law out loud to the people. That covering is removed from our understanding if and when we decide to follow the master. He is also the Logos of God, and his spirit allows us to understanding deeper meaning. When we decide to follow him that covering is removed from our understanding, and we’ll be able to see the true deeper meaning in the sacred writings. 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Book I, 1)

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

I know that some people will try to say that God is physical somehow. This is because Moses said “Our God is a fire that destroys.” And in John’s gospel, “God is spirit, so the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” According to those people, these are clear proofs that God has a body. Fire and spirit are tangible things, and those passages say that God is those things. But I have to ask those people: what do you do with the verse that says “God is light”? The same John also wrote “God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all.” It’s true! God is the light that gives us an understanding of truth, at least to people who are capable of taking it in. One of the Psalms says, “Your light lets us see light.” Is there any other kind of light that can bring enlightenment? Only God’s influence can give us an understanding of what is true. His influence is what leads us to him, because he is truth itself. That’s what the expression “your light allows us to see light” means — his light is Jesus, who makes it possible for us to see the father. Just because God is called “light” doesn’t mean that it’s like the light of the sun. It would be absurd for anyone to think that sunlight gives them access to the primal source of knowledge. It would be absurd to think that sunlight could lead someone to understand truth. 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Preface 9)

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

Another thing the church teaches: God helps people do the right thing so they can be saved. He does this through angels and certain kinds of positive influences. They work for him, and their job is help people live right so they can be saved. That’s all we know about them, though. When were they created? What kind of bodies do they have? What is their existence like? We have no clear information about these things. And as far as the sun, moon, and stars go, we don’t know if they’re living beings or not. No one has said anything to us about it.1 Since we’ve been told to “Use the light of knowledge to become enlightened,” we need to get to the bottom of these questions to the best of our ability. This can be done by using critical thinking, logic, illustrations, and good arguments. All of it has to be based on what the asker has found in the sacred writings or what he’s deduced by using carefully-thought-out extrapolation.

 1 It is interesting that so many ancient peoples wondered if the stars were alive. See also Enoch 18-22, Philo, and Is 34.4, Jer 33.22, Dan 8.10, Deut 4.19, Jdg 5.20, Ps 148, I Kgs 22.19. 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Preface 7-8)

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

  1. Another thing the churches teach is that the earth was created on specific days in a specific era. One day it will be destroyed because people do bad things. But when it comes to what existed before this earth (or what will exist after it), we don’t have any explicit information. No one has said anything about it. 
  2. Finally, we learned that the sacred writings were written by God’s spirit. They have two different meanings, too — one that is obvious as soon as you read it, and one that most people miss. The words that we read are a kind of transcendent mystery. They give us an idea of “divine” things. Here’s what every believer agrees on: Everything in the law is spiritual, that’s true. But the deeper meaning is only known to people who have been given special knowledge and intelligence from God’s holy spirit. The word “ασωματον” (asomaton, not having a body) doesn’t exist in our normal vocabulary. Besides, it doesn’t exist in the sacred writings either. If anyone says, “But it’s in The Doctrine of Peter,” we’ll just tell them, “No one thinks that work is inspired, and no one includes it in our collection of legitimate books.” Anyways, in The Doctrine of Peter Jesus is portrayed as saying, “I am not a non-physical daemon.” Whatever it says, we can prove that that book wasn’t even written by Peter, or anyone else guided by God for that matter. Even if The Doctrine of Peter was legitimate, though, we could prove that “ασωματον” doesn’t mean what they say it means. The way they use it, “incorporeal daemon” means something like “the kind of body that a demon has” (whatever that is). A demon-body is supposed to be totally different from our physical bodies (they say). But whoever wrote The Doctrine of Peter was clearly biased. They wanted to communicate that Jesus didn’t have the same kind of body daemons have, which they say is naturally invisible and kind of like the air around us. Their point was that Jesus had a solid, tangible body like ours. Unintelligent people say that anything beyond the material universe is “incorporeal”. They say this because the stuff outside of our material universe “can’t be touched or held or interact with the forces we understand.” 

Origen’s “On First Principles” (Preface 5-6)

What did those believers in Christ close to the days of the apostles understand and teach concerning major theological topics. While these words are not inspired, they are very insightful. Two related topics are discussed by Origen in today’s blog post.


Gary Pollard

5. The apostles also taught that our soul has a form and life force of its own. Once it’s free of this body it will get what it deserves. We’ll either gain immortality and happiness, or we’ll be punished forever with fire. This all depends on how we live our lives. The apostles also said that there will be a day when all people come back to life. When that happens this body “which was planted in the grave and will ruin and decay” will be “raised to a life that cannot be destroyed.” And the dead body that “has no honor” will be “great and glorious” when it is raised from death. Another thing that is clearly taught in every church is this: Every person has the power to choose what they do. Every person is involved in a struggle against the devil and his angels and anti-virtues. They try very hard to make every person do all kinds of bad things. But if we’re trying to live the right way, we should determine to fight off these things. We understand that no one’s forcing us to do anything against our will — right or wrong. Even if we have full control over ourselves, some influences may convince us to do something bad. Some may also help us do the right thing! Whatever it is, we’re not forced to do the right thing and we’re not forced to do the wrong thing. Some people think we are forced to do right or wrong based on the positions or movements of certain stars. They think we’re totally powerless to act against whatever these astrological positions determine. Getting back to the ‘soul’ topic: We don’t have enough information to be dogmatic about it. Does it come from our parents or genetics and is fundamentally part of our physical bodies? Or does it come from somewhere else? We don’t know if we get it at birth or if it’s given to us by an outside source. 

6. About the devil and his angels (and “anti-virtues”), we don’t have good information either. The churches have only told us this: They exist. Aside from this, we haven’t gotten any clarification about what kind of body they have or where they come from. Here’s what most people seem to believe, though: The devil used to be an angel and he rebelled against God. When he did this he convinced a lot of angels to fall with him. From the time he did that until today they are called “the devil’s angels”. 

Origin’s “On First Principles,” Preface 3-4

Gary Pollard

[Editor’s Note: Gary is translating the Ante-Nicene Fathers works, beginning with Origin’s work. It is meant to update the British English of Roberts and Donaldson. What follows is part of that translation]

It’s important to understand that the holy apostles were very clear about what they believed every person ― even people who don’t have an ability or interest in seeking divine knowledge ― needed to know about Christ. On some things they left their rationale open to investigation by intellectually gifted people (especially those whose gifts were given to them by the spirit). On other subjects they gave very little detail about their origin or composition and simply said, “This is how it was.” They were obviously appealing to future readers, especially the ones with a thirst for knowledge. They gave us something to exercise our intellectual talents on, and this is particularly true for people who are willing to learn and worthy of receiving knowledge. 

Here are the different subjects they were explicitly clear about: 

  1. There is one God who created and arranged everything. He created everything from nothing. He has been God since the first created thing came into existence. He is the God of good men like Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets. This is the same God who sent our master Jesus Christ in this last age. He used the prophets to tell everyone that this was his plan long before it happened. Jesus came to call Israel back first. When they didn’t accept him, he called non-Jewish people. This same good and kind God ― the father of our master Jesus Christ ― gave Moses’s Law and the prophets and the gospels. He is also the same God of the apostles and the Old and New Testaments. 
  2. Jesus Christ was born from the father before any other creature was made. He served the father by creating all things, “Everything was made through him, and nothing was made without him.” Then he became human and gave up his God-form (though he was still fully God and human at the same time). The only difference between his human body and ours is that his came from the holy spirit and a virgin. Jesus Christ was really born and actually suffered. He didn’t just appear to die ― he actually died the same way all humans do. He really did come back to life after he died, he talked to his followers, and then was taken up to the sky. 
  3. The apostles told us that the Holy Spirit has the same honor that the father and son have. But they weren’t clear about how we’re supposed to understand his origin ― was he created or eternal? Was he a son of God or not? We’ll have to carefully investigate this to the best of our ability by using the sacred writings. What is abundantly clear is this: the same spirit inspired both the prophets and the apostles. The prophets and apostles were not influenced by two different spirits from God, but by the same Spirit. This, at least, is clearly taught in all churches.