Opening the library…
Home Bible Corpus Discover You
De Principiis
Origen of Alexandria
Book 2 · Chapter 4 About this work Origen’s systematic exploration of God, Christ, spiritual beings, creation, Scripture, freedom, and restoration, preserved largely through a Latin translation whose handling of the Greek original remains debated.
Author Origen of Alexandria
Date c. AD 220–230
Origin Alexandria
Genre Theological Treatise The title follows common modern usage; the surviving Latin translation complicates reconstruction of Origen’s exact wording.
Chapter IV.—The God of the Law and the Prophets, and the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is the Same God. Section 1 1 . Having now briefly arranged these points in
‹ Book 2 · Chapter 3 Book 2 · Chapter 5 ›
order
as
we
best
could
,
it
follows
that
,
agreeably
to
our
intention
from
the
first
,
we
refute
those
who
think
that
the
Father
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
is
a
different
God
from
Him
who
gave
the
answers
of
the
law
to
Moses
,
or
commissioned
the
prophets
,
who
is
the
God
of
our
fathers
,
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Jacob
.
For
in
this
article
of
faith
,
first
of
all
,
we
must
be
firmly
grounded
.
We
have
to
consider
,
then
,
the
expression
of
frequent
recurrence
in
the
Gospels
,
and
subjoined
to
all
the
acts
of
our
Lord
and
Saviour
,
“
that
it
might
be
fulfilled
which
was
spoken
by
this
or
that
prophet
,
”
it
being
manifest
that
the
prophets
are
the
prophets
of
that
God
who
made
the
world
.
From
this
therefore
we
draw
the
conclusion
,
that
He
who
sent
the
prophets
,
Himself
predicted
what
was
to
be
foretold
of
Christ
.
And
there
is
no
doubt
that
the
Father
Himself
,
and
not
another
different
from
Him
,
uttered
these
predictions
.
The
practice
,
moreover
,
of
the
Saviour
or
His
apostles
,
frequently
quoting
illustrations
from
the
Old
Testament
,
shows
that
they
attribute
authority
to
the
ancients
.
The
injunction
also
of
the
Saviour
,
when
exhorting
His
disciples
to
the
exercise
of
kindness
,
“
Be
ye
perfect
,
even
as
your
Father
who
is
in
heaven
is
perfect
;
for
He
commands
His
sun
to
rise
upon
the
evil
and
the
good
,
and
sendeth
rain
on
the
just
and
on
the
unjust
,
”
most
evidently
suggests
even
to
a
person
of
feeble
understanding
,
that
He
is
proposing
to
the
imitation
of
His
disciples
no
other
God
than
the
maker
of
heaven
and
the
bestower
of
the
rain
.
Again
,
what
else
does
the
expression
,
which
ought
to
be
used
by
those
who
pray
,
“
Our
Father
who
art
in
heaven
,
”
appear
to
indicate
,
save
that
God
is
to
be
sought
in
the
better
parts
of
the
world
,
i
.
e
.
,
of
His
creation
?
Further
,
do
not
those
admirable
principles
which
He
lays
down
respecting
oaths
,
saying
that
we
ought
not
to
“
swear
either
by
heaven
,
because
it
is
the
throne
of
God
;
nor
by
the
earth
,
because
it
is
His
footstool
,
”
harmonize
most
clearly
with
the
words
of
the
prophet
,
“
Heaven
is
My
throne
,
and
the
earth
is
My
footstool
?
”
And
also
when
casting
out
of
the
temple
those
who
sold
sheep
,
and
oxen
,
and
doves
,
and
pouring
out
the
tables
of
the
money
-
changers
,
and
saying
,
“
Take
these
things
,
hence
,
and
do
not
make
My
Father’s
house
a
house
of
merchandise
,
”
He
undoubtedly
called
Him
His
Father
,
to
whose
name
Solomon
had
raised
a
magnificent
temple
.
The
words
,
moreover
,
“
Have
you
not
read
what
was
spoken
by
God
to
Moses
:
I
am
the
God
of
Abraham
,
and
the
God
of
Isaac
,
and
the
God
of
Jacob
;
He
is
not
a
God
of
the
dead
,
but
of
the
living
,
”
most
clearly
teach
us
,
that
He
called
the
God
of
the
patriarchs
(
because
they
were
holy
,
and
were
alive
)
the
God
of
the
living
,
the
same
,
viz
.
,
who
had
said
in
the
prophets
,
“
I
am
God
,
and
besides
Me
there
is
no
God
.
”
For
if
the
Saviour
,
knowing
that
He
who
is
written
in
the
law
is
the
God
of
Abraham
,
and
that
it
is
the
same
who
says
,
“
I
am
God
,
and
besides
Me
there
is
no
God
,
acknowledges
that
very
one
to
be
His
Father
who
is
ignorant
of
the
existence
of
any
other
God
above
Himself
,
as
the
heretics
suppose
,
He
absurdly
declares
Him
to
be
His
Father
who
does
not
know
of
a
greater
God
.
But
if
it
is
not
from
ignorance
,
but
from
deceit
,
that
He
says
there
is
no
other
God
than
Himself
,
then
it
is
a
much
greater
absurdity
to
confess
that
His
Father
is
guilty
of
falsehood
.
From
all
which
this
conclusion
is
arrived
at
,
that
He
knows
of
no
other
Father
than
God
,
the
Founder
and
Creator
of
all
things
.
Section 2 2 . It would be tedious to collect out of all the passages in the Gospels the proofs by which the God of the law and of the Gospels is shown to be one and the same . Let us touch briefly upon the Acts of the Apostles , where Stephen and the other apostles address their prayers to that God who made heaven and earth , and who spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets , calling Him the “ God of Abraham , of Isaac , and of Jacob ; ” the God who “ brought forth His people out of the land of Egypt . ” Which expressions undoubtedly clearly direct our understandings to faith in the Creator , and implant an affection for Him in those who have learned piously and faithfully thus to think of Him ; according to the words of the Saviour Himself , who , when He was asked which was the greatest commandment in the law , replied , “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart , and with all thy soul , and with all thy mind . And the second is like unto it , Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself . ” And to these He added : “ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets . ” How is it , then , that He commends to him whom He was instructing , and was leading to enter on the office of a disciple , this commandment above all others , by which undoubtedly love was to be kindled in him towards the God of that law , inasmuch as such had been declared by the law in these very words ? But let it be granted , notwithstanding all these most evident proofs , that it is of some other unknown God that the Saviour says , “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart , ” etc . , etc . How , in that case , if the law and the prophets are , as they say , from the Creator , i . e . , from another God than He whom He calls good , shall that appear to be logically said which He subjoins , viz . , that “ on these two commandments hang the law and the prophets ? ” For how shall that which is strange and foreign to God depend upon Him ? And when Paul says , “ I thank my God , whom I serve in my spirit from my forefathers with pure conscience , ” he clearly shows that he came not to some new God , but to Christ . For what other forefathers of Paul can be intended , except those of whom he says , “ Are they Hebrews ? so am I : are they Israelites ? so am I . ” Nay , will not the very preface of his Epistle to the Romans clearly show the same thing to those who know how to understand the letters of Paul , viz . , what God he preaches ? For his words are : “ Paul , the servant of Jesus Christ , called to be an apostle , set apart to the Gospel of God , which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning His Son , who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh , and who was declared to be the Son of God with power , according to the spirit of holiness , by the resurrection from the dead of Christ Jesus our Lord , ” etc . Moreover , also the following , “ Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn . Doth God take care for oxen ? or saith he it altogether for our sakes ? For our sakes , no doubt , this is written , that he that plougheth should plough in hope , and he that thresheth in hope of partaking of the fruits . ” By which he manifestly shows that God , who gave the law on our account , i . e . , on account of the apostles , says , “ Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn ; ” whose care was not for oxen , but for the apostles , who were preaching the Gospel of Christ . In other passages also , Paul , embracing the promises of the law , says , “ Honour thy father and thy mother , which is the first commandment with promise ; that it may be well with thee , and that thy days may be long upon the land , the good land , which the Lord thy God will give thee . ” By which he undoubtedly makes known that the law , and the God of the law , and His promises , are pleasing to him .
Section 3 3 . But as those who uphold this heresy are sometimes accustomed to mislead the hearts of the simple by certain deceptive sophisms , I do not consider it improper to bring forward the assertions which they are in the habit of making , and to refute their deceit and falsehood . The following , then , are their declarations . It is written , that “ no man hath seen God at any time . ” But that God whom Moses preaches was both seen by Moses himself , and by his fathers before him ; whereas He who is announced by the Saviour has never been seen at all by any one . Let us therefore ask them and ourselves whether they maintain that He whom they acknowledge to be God , and allege to be a different God from the Creator , is visible or invisible . And if they shall say that He is visible , besides being proved to go against the declaration of Scripture , which says of the Saviour , “ He is the image of the invisible God , the first - born of every creature , ” they will fall also into the absurdity of asserting that God is corporeal . For nothing can be seen except by help of form , and size , and colour , which are special properties of bodies . And if God is declared to be a body , then He will also be found to be material , since every body is composed of matter . But if He be composed of matter , and matter is undoubtedly corruptible , then , according to them , God is liable to corruption ! We shall put to them a second question . Is matter made , or is it uncreated , i . e . , not made ? And if they shall answer that it is not made , i . e . , uncreated , we shall ask them if one portion of matter is God , and the other part the world ? But if they shall say of matter that it is made , it will undoubtedly follow that they confess Him whom they declare to be God to have been made ! — a result which certainly neither their reason nor ours can admit . But they will say , God is invisible . And what will you do ? If you say that He is invisible by nature , then neither ought He to be visible to the Saviour . Whereas , on the contrary , God , the Father of Christ , is said to be seen , because “ he who sees the Son , ” he says , “ sees also the Father . ” This certainly would press us very hard , were the expression not understood by us more correctly of understanding , and not of seeing . For he who has understood the Son will understand the Father also . In this way , then , Moses too must be supposed to have seen God , not beholding Him with the bodily eye , but understanding Him with the vision of the heart and the perception of the mind , and that only in some degree . For it is manifest that He , viz . , who gave answers to Moses , said , “ You shall not see My face , but My hinder parts . ” These words are , of course , to be understood in that mystical sense which is befitting divine words , those old wives ’ fables being rejected and despised which are invented by ignorant persons respecting the anterior and posterior parts of God . Let no one indeed suppose that we have indulged any feeling of impiety in saying that even to the Saviour the Father is not visible . Let him consider the distinction which we employ in dealing with heretics . For we have explained that it is one thing to see and to be seen , and another to know and to be known , or to understand and to be understood . To see , then , and to be seen , is a property of bodies , which certainly will not be appropriately applied either to the Father , or to the Son , or to the Holy Spirit , in their mutual relations with one another . For the nature of the Trinity surpasses the measure of vision , granting to those who are in the body , i . e . , to all other creatures , the property of vision in reference to one another . But to a nature that is incorporeal and for the most part intellectual , no other attribute is appropriate save that of knowing or being known , as the Saviour Himself declares when He says , “ No man knoweth the Son , save the Father ; nor does any one know the Father , save the Son , and he to whom the Son will reveal Him . ” It is clear , then , that He has not said , “ No one has seen the Father , save the Son ; ” but , “ No one knoweth the Father , save the Son . ”
Section 4 4 . And now , if , on account of those expressions which occur in the Old Testament , as when God is said to be angry or to repent , or when any other human affection or passion is described , ( our opponents ) think that they are furnished with grounds for refuting us , who maintain that God is altogether impassible , and is to be regarded as wholly free from all affections of that kind , we have to show them that similar statements are found even in the parables of the Gospel ; as when it is said , that he who planted a vineyard , and let it out to husbandmen , who slew the servants that were sent to them , and at last put to death even the son , is said in anger to have taken away the vineyard from them , and to have delivered over the wicked husbandmen to destruction , and to have handed over the vineyard to others , who would yield him the fruit in its season . And so also with regard to those citizens who , when the head of the household had set out to receive for himself a kingdom , sent messengers after him , saying , “ We will not have this man to reign over us ; ” for the head of the household having obtained the kingdom , returned , and in anger commanded them to be put to death before him , and burned their city with fire . But when we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God , we do not take such expressions literally , but seek in them a spiritual meaning , that we may think of God as He deserves to be thought of . And on these points , when expounding the verse in the second Psalm , “ Then shall He speak to them in His anger , and trouble them in His fury , ” we showed , to the best of our poor ability , how such an expression ought to be understood .
Notes 1 Matt. v. 48 , 45.
2 Matt. vi. 9.
3 Matt. v. 34, 35.
4 Isa. lxvi. 1.
5 John ii. 16.
6 Matt. xxii. 31, 32 ; cf. Ex. iii. 6.
7 Isa. xlv. 6.
8 Acts vii.
9 Matt. xxii. 37 , 39, 40.
10 2 Tim. i. 3.
11 2 Cor. xi. 22.
12 Rom. i. 1–4.
13 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10 ; cf. Deut. xxv. 4.
14 Eph. vi. 2, 3 ; cf. Ex. xx. 12.
15 John i. 18.
16 Col. i. 15.
17 John xiv. 9.
18 Ex. xxxiii. 20 , cf. 23.
19 Aliud sit videre et videri, et aliud nôsse et nosci, vel cognoscere atque cognosci.
20 Matt. xi. 27.
21 Luke xix. 14.
22 Ps. ii. 5.
