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.

















