3. The Nature of the Soul

In Origen’s discussion of the seed of Abraham in book 20 of his Commentary on John, I have the feeling that he was talking also about himself and his works. He had seen how the Jews failed to grasp the Word taught by Salomon after their exile in Babylon. Origen had also seen how many had failed to grasp the Word of Jesus in his time. It is likely that he foresaw that few would be able to contain the Word that he taught.

(39) Now, we would have accepted everything that has been said about Abraham’s seed and those who resemble him, if we had accepted that the following statements were not made in the literal sense, “I was not sent except to ti1e lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and, “I have not found so great faith, not even in Israel,” (Mt 15.24; Lk 7.9) and all the statements which are similar to these.
(40) These, however, to whom the Word speaks are not likely to receive the Word since he cannot proceed into them because of the surpassing superiority of his greatness; since they are still only seed of Abraham.
(41) But if, in addition to being seed of Abraham, they had cultivated the seed of Abraham and given it over to greatness and growth, the word of Jesus would have proceeded in the greatness and growth of the seed of Abraham.
(42) And you will add that to the present time the Word does not continue in those who have not advanced beyond being seed of Abraham nor come into the state of being his children.
(43) But these also wish to kill the Word, and to crush him, as it were, because they do not contain his greatness.
(44) It is always possible to see those who do not contain the Word because their vessels are too small wishing to kill the unity of the Word’s greatness, since they can contain his members after he has been destroyed and crushed.
(45) If the Word should in this way come to be in those who will destroy him, as it were, he will say, “All my bones were scattered.” (Cf. Ps 21.15) If indeed, then, anyone of us is seed of Abraham, and the Word of God does not continue in him still, let him not seek to kill the Word, but by changing from being seed of Abraham to having become a child of Abraham, he will be able to contain the Word of God whom he did not contain till then. We know that Jerome was overwhelmed by the volume of work produced by Origen. If he felt that few men could not even read the entire body of knowledge that Origen left behind, maybe he was speaking from his own personal experience? It is worth noting that Jerome was declared a saint by the same power that “scattered the bones” of Origen. In my paper “Origen: Prophet or Heretic” I found all nine charges of heresy against Origen by the Emperor to be questionable, as have others before me.

We can use Origen’s analysis above to find out if the actions of historical figure and institutions were those of “children of Abraham” or not. Clearly Origen was a “child of Abraham.” But from what I have read about the lives of Jerome and Gregory of Nyssa, they were not as pure as Origen, or certainly not as pure as Jesus. As a matter of fact, what resemblance does a pope or a bishop have to their King? Jesus was a true Servant of God, and therefore humanity as was Origen. Jesus never placed Himself above anyone else, but rather He embraced the sick, weak, downtrodden and outcast, but not the rich.

It is interesting that history calls “the greatest student of Origen” a saint while at the same time declaring his teacher a heretic. By the time of Justinian we know that the church had grown into a very worldly and materialistic organization. It was no longer reaching out, as Origen did, to other beliefs, it was condemning them.

I think we should try to rediscover the entire word taught by Origen before attempting to judge whether it needs modification. As I have said before, so far in my search, I have yet to find a teaching of Origen which is in conflict with the findings of the natural sciences. This is not something that we can say about any church, which was exemplified by the inquisition against Galileo.

We should investigate this story of Origen’s castration closer. If we look at it in the purely literal sense, then Origen could have followed his own teachings and have done this to put aside a physical desire that was interfering with his spiritual goals. So why would this be a bad thing in the eyes of a Christian since it follows the teachings of Jesus? And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Mark 9:43-47

If we look at the possible spiritual meaning of “Origen castrating himself”, we could find an explanation more reasonable than the pervious. I personally do not believe that Origen physically castrated himself, but rather that he cut himself off from the materialist powers growing in Alexandria at the time; castrating himself from them and everything that they represented. He wanted no part of the worldly church that was forming there, with its pagan background and materialistic view of Christianity. It is hard for me to believe, based on Origen’s continuous separation of the physical from the spiritual in his work, that he would need this physical separation on his body. From his commentary on Romans we find one of his many discussions in which he conveys the need to separate the physical from the spiritual. (10) Here, then, the man who lives under the law is described by the Apostle as a woman who is under a husband. But he describes the husband as the message of the law, which he nevertheless calls a mortal husband, who is the message of the law according to the letter. But the sense in which he is dead must now be considered. Indeed in this he can seem to be dead since the spiritual understanding excludes and, as it were, kills the bodily understanding and shows that the letter that kills must be abandoned and the life-giving Spirit must be followed. (Cf. 2 Cor 3.6.)
(11) Moreover, this husband will be proven to be dead even more plainly in this way. Truly, as long as “the law was bearing the shadow of the good things to come,” (Heb 10.1.) and as long as an earthly image and type of the heavenly worship was being borne injerusalem,14S and the altar continued to function, and the priesthood, the message of the law of the letter seemed to live in the letter. For Christ had not yet entered into the “sanctuary not made with hands” (Heb 9.24.) nor had he approached the inner curtain, which [M1073] the Apostle, when writing to the Hebrews, interprets to be the flesh of Christ. (Heb 9.3; 10.20.) But when the Word became flesh and lived among US, (Cf.Jn 1.14.) his earthly presence in Jerusalem, with its temple and altar and everything that was borne there, was torn down, at that time her husband died, i.e., the law according to the letter. Or will it not rightly be said in this section that the message of the law is dead, since no sacrifices, no priesthood, and no ministries associated with the Levitical order are being offered? It cannot punish the murderer or stone the adulteress, for the Roman authorities avenge themselves on these things. Do you still doubt whether the law according to the letter is dead? No male goes up to appear before the Lord three times a year; (Cf. Ex 23.17; 34.23; Dt 16.16.) no sheep is being slaughtered at the Passover festival in the city that is believed the Lord God had chosen; (Dt 16.2.) no offering of the piles of first-fruits are being celebrated; no leprous diseases and no defilement of sin are being cleansed. Is it possible to doubt in all these things that the letter of the law is dead? (Cf. 2.13.15.)
…
(15) Yet the Apostle once again draws in different figures to explain the same thought of interpretation. For he adds, “But while we were in the flesh, the vices of sins, which were through the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now, having died, we have been discharged from the law in which we were being held, so that we might serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.” (Rom 7.5-6.)
(16) In these things Paul appears to have departed from one chamber and entered into another using unmarked and hidden entrances, as we said above using the example of a certain parable. (Cf. 5.1.9.) For whereas above he had been treating the law of the letter, which certainly seemed to pertain only to those who had believed from the circumcision, now, by some kind of unmarked switch, he is discussing the law of the flesh and the vices. [M1075] He does this, no doubt, because such a discussion would seem to pertain to the rest of humanity as well, not merely to those who are from the circumcision. Therefore he says, “For while we were in the flesh.” And indeed, as far as the subject is concerned, he certainly was in the flesh when he was saying these things. But “while we were in the flesh,” that is, while we were living according to the ‘flesh, “the vices of sins, which were through the law, were at work in our members.” Now which law is this through which the vices of sins are at work? Does the law of Moses, even when it is observed according to the letter, generate the vices of sins? On the contrary, it is obvious that he is speaking of that law of the members, a law that resists the law of the mind, (Cf. Rom 7.23.) about which we previously have discussed how “the law entered with the result that sin was abounding.” (Rom 5.20.) This, then, is the very law that causes the vices of sins to abound in those who live according to the flesh, with the result that they bear fruit for death. In fact, that law is in our members in order that, by striving against the law of the mind, it might lead us as captives to sin and offer these fruits to death. Origen: Commentary on the First Epistle to the Romans Book 6, Chapter 7 I agree wholeheartedly that very few people can live up to the spiritual demands of scripture in our highly materialistic society, especially for people in positions of power such as politicians, clergy and scientists. Moreover, when a person truly does, it is often relatively easy for the ruling powers (those who were responsible for writing history) to make such people less than they were. Four examples of this stand out in my mind; King Salomon, Socrates, Origen of Alexandria, and Jean d’Arc. The last example is one less discussed in literature, but probably a very good reminder to people how bad things really can get.

I have recently seen two movies done on the life of Jean, and they exemplify the difficulty that historians have in truly understanding extraordinary people of the past. In contrast from what these Hollywood films have to show us, we know from the people that she fought with and those she fought against that this girl was extraordinary. The veteran soldiers that fought with her said that this young girl could use every implement of war as if she had used each of them for 30 years. She could strategize better than the best generals. The mere sight of her made the blood-thirsty English shake in their boots and run away from her. So why was it so hard for the Church to believe that this girl was sent by God, and guided by the Archangel Michael to free France from English oppression? It is straightforward to understand that the King of France, once Jean put him on the throne, was afraid of the popularity that this girl had achieved. The easiest way for him to “take care of her” was to have the Church declare her a heretic so that she could be burned at the stake. And of course, once she was declared a heretic, any other afflictions that historians wanted to prescribe to her, in order to explain away her greatest were easily accepted.

Our search for truth requires that we question long-held beliefs in order to determine if they are not the root cause for the strife in the world. History has shown us that the greatest wrongs can be accomplished by playing on false beliefs, and it is only by putting those beliefs into question that truth has been able to emerge. This is what Origen did, and taught us to do. But he and the Ionian Greeks taught us that we cannot question without basis or without reason. The only viable reference point given to us is God’s creation; nature. As a reminder, we can listen to Origen in his letter to Gregory. But my desire for you has been that you should direct the whole force of your intelligence to Christianity as your end, and that in the way of production. And I would wish that you should take with you on the one hand those parts of the philosophy of the Greeks which are fit, as it were, to serve as general or preparatory studies for Christianity, and on the other hand so much of Geometry and Astronomy as may be helpful for the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The children of the philosophers speak of geometry and music and grammar and rhetoric and astronomy as being ancillary to philosophy; and in the same way we might speak of philosophy itself as being ancillary to Christianity. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-gregory.html Because of the actions of the church founded by Constantine and Justinian, there have been very few natural scientists that have extended their study to philosophy and to the study scriptures. Likewise, there have been very few clergy who have met Origen’s requirement for the study of Scripture. I agree wholeheartedly that the results have been catastrophic, but their have been a few shining stars come out of the natural sciences: Dr. Edward Bach, Dr. Viktor Frankl, and Erwin Schrödinger to name a few noteworthy.