Origen's teachings are brief. Origen: life, views and works
Origen (Ώριγένη-) (c. 185, Alexandria, - 253 or 254, Tire), Christian theologian, philosopher and scientist, representative of early patristics. He studied ancient philosophy (according to some sources, at the school of Ammonius, from which Plotinus also graduated). From 217 he headed a Christian school in Alexandria, but in 231 he was condemned by the Alexandrian and other churches, after which he transferred his teaching activities to Palestine (to the city of Caesarea). During the next wave of anti-Christian repressions, he was thrown into prison and tortured, from which he soon died.
The list of Origen's works included about 2000 “books” (in the ancient sense of the word). In his work on criticism of the text of the Bible, Origen acted as the heir of the Alexandrian philological tradition and at the same time as the founder of biblical philology. Origen's philosophy is a stoically colored Platonism. To reconcile it with faith in the authority of the Bible, Origen, following Philo of Alexandria, developed the doctrine of the three meanings of the Bible - “physical” (literal), “mental” (moral) and “spiritual” (philosophical-mystical), which was given unconditional preference. Origen interpreted the creation of the world by God as an eternally lasting act: before this world and after it there were and will be other worlds. Origen’s eschatological optimism was reflected in the doctrine of the so-called apocatastasis, i.e. the inevitability of complete “salvation”, enlightenment and union with God of all souls and spirits (as if independently of their will), including the devil, and about the temporary nature of hellish torment. Origen’s doctrine of ascetic self-knowledge and the fight against passions had a strong influence on the formation of monastic mysticism in the 4th-6th centuries, and the system of concepts he developed was widely used in the construction of church dogmatics (in Origen, for example, the term “god-man” was first encountered). During the heyday of patristics, Origen's followers were Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus and especially Gregory of Nyssa. Other theologians sharply condemned Origen for his “heretical” opinions (the doctrine of apocatastasis) and for the inclusion of incompatible theses of ancient philosophy into the Christian dogma (in particular, Plato’s doctrine of the pre-existence of souls). In 543, Origen was declared a heretic by an edict from Emperor Justinian I; however, many medieval thinkers were influenced by his ideas.
Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editor: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983.
Essays in Russian trans.: Works of Origen, c. 1 - About the beginnings, Kaz., 1899; Against Celsus, part 1, Kaz., 1912.
Literature: Bolotov V., Origen's Teaching about St. Trinity, St. Petersburg, 1879; History of philosophy, vol. 1, M., 1940, p. 390-81; Völker W., Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes, Tüb., 1931; DanielouJ., Origene, P., 1948.
Christian theologian
Origen (185-253) - philosopher and Christian theologian, representative of the ante-Nicene, early patristics. Origen's philosophy is a stoically colored Platonism. In his main work, “On the Beginnings,” Origen tries to give a systematic explanation of the essence of the Christian view of the world in the categories of Greek philosophy and thereby “introduces” it into matters of faith. On a personal level, this experiment ended in church condemnation for him. However, Origen's thought influenced all subsequent development of Christian theological and philosophical thought. Believing that the interpretation of Holy Scripture is the basis of Christian life, he, deepening his ideas Clement of Alexandria, is the first to attempt a critical analysis of the Bible, which he interprets symbolically. Behind all the plots and minor details of Scripture, he tries to find the meaning “common and historical,” “mental” or moral, allegorical or spiritual, symbolic or “sublime”; the latter was preferred. Origen believed that this path of exegesis (interpretation) is more worthy of God and those who “possess learning.” He leaves the literal understanding of the Bible to the “common people.” This is how the foundations of the medieval tradition of allethorism and symbolism were laid. The method of exegesis introduced by Origen, in a refined and expanded form, is the most important aspect of religious and philosophical thought to this day.
The versatility of Origen's interpretation of biblical texts, the attempt at a certain synthesis of theology with Greek philosophy contributed to the fact that philosophers, Church Fathers, and heretics will continue to refer to him. In particular, he makes an attempt to reconcile the biblical idea of the creation of the world with Plato's doctrine of the reality of ideas. Origen insists on the eternity of existence, but not in an empirical, but in an ideal sense: since God is eternal, therefore, the world is also eternal (God could not “once” become the Creator - he has always been one).
In the world there is not only diversity, but also diversity, “inequality” (there is beautiful and ugly, good and evil, perfection and imperfection), which cannot be explained by the “all-goodness of God.” Origen, in the spirit of Christianity, says that God does not create imperfection and inequality. Their reasons lie not in God or in the “primordial creation,” but in its freedom. The Neoplatonist Origen believes that the perfection of “various creatures” consisted in their spirituality and incorporeality. Possessing free will, they “forgot” about their purpose, this was the Fall. The only living being who has not abused freedom is the man Jesus Christ. Thus, he preserved his inextricable unity with the divine Logos, being His created bearer. The role of Christ in the salvation of the world in Origen is not redemptive, but moral and pedagogical. Imitation of perfection, as well as a system of “exhortations,” are capable of leading the world, without violating its freedom, to perfect unity with absolute Good.
According to Origen’s logic, this will not be a frozen, static harmony, since freedom will again entail the possibility of a new “fall”, and then a new “restoration”. For Origen, the whole world turns out to be the eternal cycle of history. In this eternal creation of the cycle, the “beginning” becomes the “end” and the “end” becomes the “beginning”. Events lose their meaning, God himself is deprived of his own freedom, dissolves in the “bad” infinity of absolute determinism.
Origen’s idea that, subject to the restoration of the “principles” in themselves, everyone will accept the state of “equal to Christ”, was subsequently preached from time to time in various religious and philosophical-religious sects. Echoes of Origen's idea are heard in the philosophical works of L. Tolstoy, in “Readings on God-manhood” by Vl. Solovyova. The term “god-man” itself first appears in Origen. His followers were Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa. Other theologians sharply condemned Origen for including incompatible Platonist theses into Christian doctrine. In 543, Origen was declared a heretic in an edict Justinian I, which did not, however, put an end to his influence.
Kirilenko G.G., Shevtsov E.V. Brief philosophical dictionary. M. 2010, p. 258-259.
Representative of early patristics
Origen (c. 185-254) - Christian theologian, philosopher, scientist, representative of early patristics. One of the Eastern Fathers of the Church. Founder of biblical philology. Author of the term "god-man". He studied at the Alexandria Christian School of Clement of Alexandria. After Clement's flight, he taught philosophy, theology, dialectics, physics, mathematics, geometry, and astronomy at the school (from 203). Headed the school (217-232). Ordained ca. 230 bishops Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea. Immediately excommunicated from the Alexandrian Church by a Council convened by the Bishop of Alexandria Demetrius (on the basis that in his youth O. carried out self-castration). In 231, O.'s ordination was annulled by the next Council. Later O. founded a school in Caesarea (Palestine) with the support of the local bishop. He died after being tortured and imprisoned (250-252) during the next persecution of Christians. Main works: “Treatise on Principles” (220-225), “Against Celsus”, “Treatise on Demons”, etc. (In total, the list of O.’s works includes about 2000 “books” in the ancient sense of the word - commentaries, homilies, scholia , fragments, etc.). Having adopted a number of systemic ideas from the teachings of Plato (immortality and preexistence of souls, the “uncreated” God, comprehension of God through contemplation), O. used the approaches of Aristotelian dialectics, as well as, in relation to the study of psychological problems, the vocabulary of Stoicism. At the same time, O. considered it necessary to abandon a number of essential theses of orthodox Platonism (in particular, the theory of ideas and dialectics). He criticized Plato for his description of the army of gods and demons in the dialogue "Phaedrus", believing that it was suggested to him by "the devil himself." He forbade his students from reading the works of the Cynics, Epicureans and skeptics, fearing “so that their souls would not be polluted by listening to speeches that, instead of leading them to piety, are contrary to the divine cult.” Considering himself an interpreter of Holy Scripture, O. devoted his work to revealing the allegorical “dimension” of the texts of the Bible. O. emphasized that “if you carefully study the Gospel in many respects, considering it from the point of view of the contradictions associated with the historical meaning of the word... you will become dizzy and after that you will either stop advocating the truth of the Gospels and read from them what you are committed to, because you do not dare to completely abandon faith in the Lord, or you recognize the four Gospels and connect their truth not with bodily signs." Not wanting to rise above the letter, but showing oneself insatiable in relation to it, according to O., is a sign of living in a lie. Since, O. argued, God is the author of Holy Scripture as such, nothing in this text appears to have no sacred meaning. (Cf. Jesus Christ about the Law: “until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle will pass from the law until everything is fulfilled.”)
The whole word of God, according to O., is a mystery: “The fact is that the images of parables are all things that are written down and reflect certain mysteries, are a reflection of divine things. Regarding this, there is one opinion in the whole church that the whole Law is spiritual.” . O. was the author of notes and commentaries on all the books of the Old and New Testaments, placing special emphasis on the problem of providentialism. O. recommended that students study a wide variety of poetic and philosophical works written by both Greeks and barbarians, with the exception of “the works of atheists and those who denied Providence.” According to O., the path to comprehending the meaning of Holy Scripture (“the perfect and harmonious means of expressing God,” “the one perfect body of the Word”) is isomorphic to knowledge as such. Knowledge is inherent in the human soul itself as one of its aspirations: “As soon as the soul is struck by the fiery arrow of knowledge, it can no longer indulge in idleness and calm down, but will always strive from the good to the better and from it again to the higher.” The subject of human knowledge, from O.’s point of view, is infinite (in O., a person, cognizing, “finds everything deeper and the more inexplicable and incomprehensible it is for him”) and is organized in accordance with the fact that a person comes into contact with the visible material world and only on this foundation is able to comprehend the invisible world: “God created two natures - the visible nature, i.e. corporeal, and the invisible, which is incorporeal... One was created in its own sense and for its own sake, and the other only accompanies and was created for the sake of another." The true, according to O., is heavenly and it is the goal of knowledge: “... if someone gives us some material object, then we do not say that he gave us the shadow of the object, because he gave us the thing, without the intention of giving an object and a shadow. When transferring an object, a co-transfer of the shadow also occurs at the same time." “This-worldly”, a specific thing, according to O., has a certain similarity to the corresponding heavenly thing, and to the entire “otherworldly” world: “maybe... it is not just an image of some heavenly thing, but the entire Kingdom of Heaven.”
The thirst for knowledge, according to O., is the basis for mastering Christian teaching, while students who share the truths of the faith after their “reasonable and wise” study are preferable, rather than those who assimilate them by “simple faith.” (O. refers to the Apostle Paul, who said: “... for when the world through its wisdom did not know God in the wisdom of God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.”) O. set out to refute the idea that Christianity has a negative attitude to educated people: "...whoever holds such an opinion, let him pay attention to the fact that the Apostle /Paul. - A.G./...reproaches ordinary people who reject the contemplation of spiritual, invisible and eternal truths and engage in only with sensory things and on them they concentrate all their thoughts and aspirations.” Only educated people, according to O.’s conviction, are able to talk about “those highest and most important questions, which in each individual case testify and reveal the existence of a philosophical discussion of them among the prophets of God and the Apostles of Jesus,” only they “are able to penetrate into the meaning of images and hidden places in the law, the prophets and the gospels." O. believed that the quintessence of Christian education was that “young men, after the preliminary preparation they received from studying general sciences and philosophy, could achieve a glorious and sublime state of Christian eloquence, inaccessible to the majority of the masses.” As O. taught, "...The Word standing before the disciples calls upon the listeners to lift up their eyes to the margins of the Scriptures and to the field where the Word is present in every individual being, so that they may see the whiteness and radiant brilliance of the light of truth present everywhere."
O.'s main philosophical work - "Treatise on Principles" - includes four books dedicated to God, the world, humanity and the Holy Scriptures. O. emphasized that he teaches about God “only that which constitutes the “immutable” truth - that which even a simple person can understand, although not as clearly and intelligibly as only a few who try to more deeply understand the mysteries of faith can do ". Those who wrote down the Gospel, according to O., hid the explanation of the corresponding parables, for the revelation given about them surpassed the nature and property of the letters, and the interpretation and clarification of these parables is such that “the whole world could not contain the books that need to be written about these parables ". God the Father, active providence (see Providentialism), according to O., is “immeasurable and incomprehensible,” fundamentally immaterial and absolutely one. (According to O., “... the “heart of God” should be interpreted as the power of His mind and His power in governing the universe, and His Word as the expression of what is present in this heart.”) God the Father as the Ground of Being or “ The First God" can only be known by God the Son (Logos), as well as the Holy Spirit, eternally generated by the First God. God the Father, according to O., reveals himself through God the Son, the essence of the eternally existing Word of God, co-eternal with the Father. God the Son (for O. not so much a deliverer as a model) - Jesus Christ - is also embodied in Moses and the prophets, and - to some extent - in the “great men” of ancient Greece. The Holy Spirit, according to O., also co-eternal with the Father and the Son, inspires the Scriptures. The latter - for every letter in them is inspired by God - is the key to understanding the mysteries of life. O.'s God "created Scripture as body, soul and spirit - as a body for those who came before us, as a soul for us, but as a spirit for those who "in the future will inherit eternal life" and reach the things of heaven." From O.’s point of view, “The Son, being less than the Father, stands above only rational creatures (for He is second after the Father), and the Holy Spirit is even less and lives only in the souls of saints.” O. denied the opinion, quite widespread in the 2nd-3rd centuries, according to which the God of the Old Testament, being just, but not good, is not identical to God - the Father of Jesus, unjust, but good. The Holy Spirit, according to O., available only to the prophets before the Incarnation, now and forever will be given to all who believe in Christ. Repeatedly using the concept of “free will,” O. believed it to be inherent not only in all “intelligent creatures,” but even (to some extent) in the natural order. Everyone who has free will is responsible before God: it is the Divine maxim about a righteous life that proves, according to O. , the ability to choose between good and evil. (Evil, according to O., is an undesirable consequence of a good intention.) The entire universe, according to O., will over time restore its original unity with everything created, shaken by the “Fall.” He was a supporter of the idea of the final salvation of all things (see Apokatastasis).
O. rejected the educational potential of the literal interpretation of sacred Christian texts: their true interpretation, according to O., presupposes the presence of different semantic levels ("bodily" - literal, "mental" - moral, "spiritual" - philosophical-mystical) for different categories of believers and dedicated. (From O.’s point of view, “following the footsteps of the flocks” means following the teachings of those who themselves remained sinners and could not find a potion to heal sinners. Whoever follows these “goats” (sinners) will wander “at the shepherd’s tabernacles ", that is, he will strive for ever new philosophical schools. Think deeply about how terrible what is hidden behind this image.") The initiates, according to O., carry out God's providence for the enlightenment of people and the evolution of the world: "People of God there is a “salt” that holds worldly relationships on earth, and earthly things will remain together until the “salt” changes.” O. believed that the existence of a “secret” Christian tradition, associated with the task of “preserving the teaching from the chatter and ridicule of those who do not understand, is justified Christian sacraments." (Cf. "watershed" in Philo of Alexandria: disciples who, "by studying and succeeding in learning, achieve perfection," and a more selected category - "those who have withdrawn from teaching and become gifted disciples of God"; according to Philo of Alexandria, " is given both as an explicit presentation for many, and as a hidden one for the few who study the paths of the soul, and not the forms of bodies.")
As O. noted regarding the Christian worldview, “if, along with the public teaching, there is something in it that is not communicated to many, then this constitutes a feature not only of the teaching of Christians, but also of the teaching of philosophers; these latter also had some to all accessible teachings and hidden teachings." People-ascetics, introduced to the true depths of the Teaching, according to O., must meet certain social and moral characteristics: “... to the sacraments and to participation in the secret, hidden wisdom, which God destined before the ages for glory (1 Cor. 2: 7) our righteous, we do not call on scoundrels, thieves, destroyers of walls, desecrators of graves, or any of these people... We call all these people only to healing.” Jesus, according to O., “prepares for his sick not herbal decoctions, but medicines from the secrets contained in words. If you see these medicines of the Word scattered like wild plants, and do not know the power of each statement, you will pass by them as if by barren grass, because you will not find there what is usually inherent in a beautiful language." By the edict of Emperor Justinian (543) O. was declared a heretic. O.'s teaching, which was the first systematic presentation of the ideas of Christianity in a philosophical context, had a significant impact on the work of subsequent thinkers: Eusebius Pamphilus, Gregory of Nazianza, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, etc. Selected works of O. were published in France (de la Roux) in 1733-1759 (in 4 volumes) and in Germany (Lommatzsch) in 1831-1848 (in 25 volumes).
A.A. Gritsanov
The latest philosophical dictionary. Comp. Gritsanov A.A. Minsk, 1998.
Early Christian philosopher
Origen (Ὠριγένης) (c. 185 – c. 254, Tire) - early Christian philosopher, theologian and exegete. Born into a Christian family, probably in Alexandria. In his youth he was a teacher of grammar and rhetoric, and at the same time studied philosophy (according to Porfiry, at the school of Ammonius Saccas). From 217 he headed the catechetical school in Alexandria, but in 231 he was condemned and excommunicated by the Alexandrian church. This forced Origen to move to Caesarea in Palestine, where he founded a school similar to the one in Alexandria. During the persecution of Emperor Decius, he was thrown into prison, tortured and soon died.
In terms of the volume of what he wrote, Origen surpassed all the early Christian fathers of the Church: the list of his works included 2000 “books.” Origen's main activity was devoted to biblical exegesis. Having been provided with stenographers and copyists by rich Christians and relying on the Alexandrian philological tradition, he compiled a critical edition of the Old Testament - “Hexapla”, including six parallel texts: two Hebrew originals and four Greek translations. Origen wrote commentaries on almost every book of the Bible. Commentaries were of three types: scholia - short remarks on difficult passages, homilies - popular conversations and sermons, and, finally, commentaries in the modern sense, some of which reached the volume of an extensive theological treatise. Of this enormous work, only a small part has survived: a small number of homilies and fragments of commentaries on the book of Song of Songs and on the gospels of Matthew and John. Following Plato's trichotomy, Origen distinguishes three meanings in Scripture: bodily, or literal, mental, or moral, and spiritual, or allegorical-mystical. He uses the allegorical method of exegesis, believing that everything in Scripture has a spiritual meaning, but not everything has a literal-historical meaning, and the smallest episode of the history of the Old Testament is a sign and image of earthly or heavenly events in the history of salvation. Scripture, like the human nature of Christ, is one of the ways of the presence of the divine Logos in this world, and the degree of its spiritual understanding corresponds to the achieved stage of spiritual life.
Origen's On the Elements is the first systematic theological treatise in the history of Christian thought, which, however, is not a purely dogmatic presentation of the teachings of the Church. Origen proceeds from the premise that the believer is free in his reflections regarding the truths of faith, which were only affirmed, but not defined, by the apostles. He primarily proceeds from the idea of God as a monad, but at the same time he affirms His trinity, being a subordinationist in his understanding of the Trinity: the Father for him is “actually God,” the Son is “the second God,” and the Holy Spirit is less than the Son. For Origen, there is no clear distinction between creation and birth, therefore the concepts of begetting and the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father (the term was first introduced by Origen), which he uses, do not have decisive significance for him. God, due to His omnipotence and goodness, cannot remain inactive, therefore He is the Creator. Origen thinks of creation as an eternal act: before our world and after it there were and will be other worlds, thus the universe is coeternal with God. This means that God is not completely transcendental to the creature. Being good, God originally created equal spiritual beings or minds with the help of the divine Logos. The freedom that the spirits possessed led them to turn away from the contemplation of God and thus more or less move away from Him and from each other. The depth of the fall determined the fate of each spirit: some became angels, others descended into human bodies, and others became demons. In accordance with this fall the material world was created. The fall must be followed by salvation or restoration (apokatastasis), which Origen understands as the return of spirits to the original blissful state of unity with God, which is ensured by Divine providence, and since none of the spirits is completely deprived of reason and freedom, gradually everyone will be saved, including Satan. The Savior is Christ, the incarnate Son of God, or Logos. In his Christology, Origen claims that the only one of all spirits that retained its original unity with the divine Logos, as His created bearer, became that human soul, the soul of Christ, in which the Son of God was incarnated on earth. Christ appears to Origen more as a teacher than as a redeemer, since salvation lies in a gradual universal restoration through exhortation and suggestion. However, the restoration is not final: due to their freedom, the spirits can fall again and the whole process will repeat again.
Thus, Origen's theological system is defined, on the one hand, by the concept of freedom, and on the other, by the concept of gradual Revelation and the slow and gradual education of spiritual beings. The goal of human life is the contemplation of God, which is achieved through struggle and liberation from passions. This teaching of Origen about the ascetic life influenced the development of the entire monastic tradition, and his theological and exegetical ideas were reflected in the works of the later Church Fathers. Nevertheless, disputes about Origen’s Orthodoxy did not subside even after his death. His theses about universal apokatastasis, the existence of souls before bodies, and the temporality of hellish torment caused particular rejection. In an edict of 543, Emperor Justinian condemned Origen as a heretic, which was reinforced by a similar decision of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553).
A.V. Ivanchenko
New philosophical encyclopedia. In four volumes. / Institute of Philosophy RAS. Scientific ed. advice: V.S. Stepin, A.A. Guseinov, G.Yu. Semigin. M., Mysl, 2010, vol. III, N – S, p. 164-165.
Carl Gustav Jung about Origen
The complete opposite Tertullian is Origen. Origen was born in Alexandria in 185 AD. e. His father was a Christian martyr. Origen himself grew up in a completely unique spiritual atmosphere, in which the thoughts of East and West intertwined and merged. With great curiosity, he assimilated everything worthy of study and, thus, perceived the totality of everything that the inexhaustibly rich Alexandrian world of ideas in those days gave: Christian, Jewish, Hellenistic, Egyptian. He successfully acted as a teacher at the school of catechists. The pagan philosopher Porphyry, a student of Plotinus, speaks of him this way: “His outer life was Christian and illegal, but in his opinions about things and about divinity he was close to the Hellenes and introduced the ideas of the Greeks into foreign myths.”
Even before 211, his self-castration took place, the internal motives of which can only be guessed at, since they are historically unknown. As a person, he enjoyed great influence, his speech charmed and convinced. He was constantly surrounded by students and a whole crowd of stenographers, on the fly catching the precious words coming from the lips of the revered teacher. He is known as the author of numerous works; he developed enormous energy in teaching. In Antioch, he lectured on theology even to the empress’s mother, Mammea. In Caesarea (a city in Palestine - editor's note) he headed a school. His teaching activity was repeatedly interrupted by distant travels. He had extraordinary learning and an amazing ability to carefully study things. He sought out ancient biblical manuscripts and gained deserved fame for his analysis and criticism of the original texts. “He was a great scientist, yes, the only true scientist in the ancient Church,” Harnack says of him. In contrast to Tertullian, Origen did not isolate himself from the influence of Gnosticism; on the contrary, he even introduced it, albeit in a softened form, into the bosom of the Church - at least that was his desire. One could even say that in his thinking and his basic views he himself was a Christian Gnostic. Harnack defines his position in relation to faith and knowledge with the following psychologically significant words: “The Bible is equally necessary for both: it gives believers the facts and commandments they need, and people of science analyze the ideas contained in it and draw strength from it , elevating them to the sight of God and to love for Him; thanks to spiritual interpretation (allegorical explanation, hermeneutics), material matter is dissolved and transformed into the cosmos of ideas, thanks to the “ascent” it is gradually overcome and left behind as a passed stage; finally, the creature of God - the spirit emanating from God - returns to its beginning and achieves blissful peace, immersion in the Divine (amor et visio).”
The theology of Origen, in contrast to the theology of Tertullian, was essentially philosophical and, one might say, fit completely within the framework of the philosophy of Neoplatonism. In Origen we see a peaceful and harmonious fusion and interpenetration of two spheres: Greek philosophy and Gnosticism, on the one hand, and the world of Christian ideas, on the other. But such broad and deep tolerance and justice brought persecution and condemnation from the Church on Origen. True, the final sentence was pronounced only after his death, which occurred from the consequences of torture and torture to which Origen, already an old man, was subjected to during the persecution of Christians under Decius. In 399, Pope Anastasius I publicly anathematized him, and in 543 his false teaching was cursed by the All-Church Council convened by Justinian, and this curse was confirmed by the verdicts of later church councils.
Origen is a classic representative of the extroverted type. His basic orientation is directed towards the object, this is evident both from his conscientious attention to objective facts and the conditions that give rise to them, and from the formulation of the supreme principle - amor et visio Dei. On the path of its development, Christianity encountered in the person of Origen a type whose primary basis is the relationship to objects; Symbolically, such an attitude was originally expressed in sexuality, which is why, according to some theories, all essential mental functions are reduced to sexuality. Therefore, castration is an expression adequate to the sacrifice of the most valuable function. It is highly characteristic that Tertullian brings the sacrificium intellectus, while Origen brings the sacrificum phalli, for the Christian process requires the complete destruction of sensual attachment to the object, or more precisely, it requires the sacrifice of the most valuable function, the highest good, the most powerful attraction. From a biological point of view, the sacrifice is made in the name of domestication; from a psychological point of view - in the name of dissolving old connections and, consequently, in the name of new opportunities for spiritual development.
Tertullian sacrificed his intellect because it was his intellect that tied him especially strongly to the worldly. He fought against Gnosticism because this teaching personified in his eyes the false path leading to the realm of intellect, an intellect that also determines sensuality. And indeed, in accordance with this fact, we see that Gnosticism branches out in two directions: the Gnostics of one direction strive for excessive spirituality; the Gnostics of the other are mired in ethical anarchism, absolute libertinism (English - licentiousness, debauchery; freethinking), which does not stop at any form of depravity, even the most disgusting perversity and shameless licentiousness. Representatives of Gnosticism were even divided into encratites (abstinent), on the one hand, and antitacts and antinomians (opponents of order and legality) on the other; these latter sinned according to principle and indulged in the most unbridled debauchery deliberately, on the basis of well-known decrees. Among the latter were the Nicolaitans, Archontics, etc., as well as the aptly named Borborians. We see how closely the apparent contrasts came into contact with the example of the Archontics, where the same sect split into an encratic and an antinomian direction, both of which remained logical and consistent. Whoever wishes to become acquainted with the ethical significance of bold and widely pursued intellectualism, let him study the history of Gnostic morals. Then sacrificium intellectus will become absolutely understandable. Representatives of this trend were consistent not only in theory, but also in practice, and lived out all the inventions of their intellect to the extreme, to the point of absurdity.
Origen sacrificed his sensory connection with the world and for the sake of this sacrifice he emasculated and mutilated himself. It is obvious that for him the specific danger was not the intellect, but rather the feeling and sensation that connected him with the object. Through castration, he overcame the sensuality inherent in Gnosticism, and could boldly surrender to the richness of Gnostic thinking. Tertullian sacrificed his intellect, closed himself off from the influence of Gnosticism, but thereby achieved such a depth of religious feeling that we would look in vain for Origen. Schultz says about Tertullian: “He differed from Origen in that he experienced every word of his in the innermost depths of his soul; he was carried away not by reason, like Origen, but by an impulse of the heart, and this was his superiority. However, on the other hand, he is inferior to Origen, because he, the most passionate of all thinkers, comes almost to the denial of all knowledge and his struggle with gnosis almost leads to a struggle with human thought in general.”
We see in these examples how, in the process of the development of Christianity, the very essence of the original type turns into its opposite: Tertullian, a deep thinker, becomes a man of feeling; Origen becomes a scientist and completely loses himself in intellectualism. It is not difficult, of course, to logically turn the question around and say that Tertullian was from time immemorial a man of feeling, and Origen a man of thought. But such a reverse formulation of the question does not at all destroy the very fact of typical difference, but leaves it still in force and, moreover, does not at all explain why Tertullian saw his most dangerous enemy in the field of thought, and Origen in the field of sexuality. One could say that both were mistaken, and as an argument cite the fact of the fatal failure to which the lives of both ultimately came down. Then we would have to admit that each of them sacrificed what was less dear to him, that is, in some way he made a fraudulent deal with fate. Why not accept and acknowledge even such an opinion? After all, it is known that even among primitive people there were such cunning people who, approaching their fetish with a black chicken under their arm, said: “Look, here I am sacrificing you a beautiful black pig!” However, my opinion is that an explanation that strives at all costs to devalue a fact is not always and not under all circumstances the most correct one, even if such an explanation seems to us to be completely “biological” and brings the average person that undoubted relief which he always experiences when he manages to reduce something great to his flat level. But so far as we can judge the personalities of these two great representatives of the human spirit, we must recognize them as so penetrating and serious that there could be no question of cunning or deceit: their Christian conversion was true and truthful.
K. Jung. Psychological types. SPb., 1995, p. 42-47.
Read further:
Philosophers, lovers of wisdom (biographical index).
Essays:
Werke (Griechische christliche Schriftsteller, Bd. 1–12). V., 1899–1959;
in Russian trans.: Creations, vol. 1. About the beginnings. Kazan, 1899 (reprint Samara, 1993);
Against Celsus, part 1. Kazan, 1912;
On prayer and exhortation to martyrdom. St. Petersburg, 1897.
Literature:
Bolotov V.V. Origen's teaching about St. Trinity. St. Petersburg, 1879;
Eleonsky F. Origen's teaching about the Divinity of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. St. Petersburg, 1879;
Volker W. Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes. V., 1931;
Daniélou J. Origène. P., 1948;
Bertrand F. La mystique de Jesus chez Origène. P., 1951;
Lubac H. de. Histoire et esprit. Lʼintelligence de lʼEcriture selon Origène. Aubier, 1949–50;
Hanson R.P.C. Allegory and Event. L., 1959;
Crouzel H. Origène et Plotin. P., 1992.
Christian theologian, studied and taught in Alexandria. In everyday life I literally followed the gospel rules about poverty...
According to Christian legend, to get rid of attraction to women with whom he worked and, taking literally the words of the evangelist Matthew: “... there are eunuchs who were born like this from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who are castrated from people; and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can contain it, let him contain it." castrated himself. This radical measure allowed Origen, indeed, concentrate on theological works and write a lot: p The list of his theological treatises numbers approximately2000 works.
Origen believed that the Bible represents a one-of-a-kind “complete set of all possible truths.” He compared various translations of Bible texts and wrote a detailed commentary on these texts that has not reached us. He was one of the first to combine biblical texts with ancient Greek philosophy.
He talks about the meaning of Jesus Christ: “All the provisions of Christianity are found among some philosophers. But no one taught that the Word became flesh and lived among us.”
“In the teachings of Origen, the ideas of negative theology have their own definite place, and one cannot help but see his closeness in this regard to Dam. In the first book of the essay “On Principles,” which contains the general teaching about God, His transcendence and incomprehensibility are sharply affirmed. “Having refuted, as far as possible, every thought about the corporeality of God, We affirm, in accordance with the truth, that God is incomprehensible (incompehensibilis) and inestimable (inaestimabilis). Even if we were given the opportunity to know or understand anything about God, we still, of necessity, must believe that He is incomparably better than what we have learned about Him. Indeed, if we saw a person who can barely see a spark of light or the light of the shortest candle, and if we wanted to give this person an idea of the clarity and brilliance of the sun, then, without a doubt, we would have to tell him, that the brilliance of the sun is inexpressibly and incomparably better and more beautiful than any light visible to it. So is our mind. Although he is considered much higher than the corporeal nature, however, striving for the incorporeal and delving into the contemplation of it, he is hardly equal to any spark or candle - and this as long as he is imprisoned in the bonds of flesh and blood and, due to participation in such matter remains relatively motionless and dull. And among all spiritual (intellectua-libus), that is, incorporeal beings, what being is so inexpressible and incomparably superior to all others, if not God? Indeed, its nature cannot be contemplated and comprehended by the power of the human mind, even if it were the purest and brightest mind.”
Bulgakov S.N. , Non-evening light: Contemplations and speculations, M., “Ast”; Kharkov “Folio”, 2001, pp. 179-180.
"Through Origen ancient philosophy penetrated into Christianity in an abundant flow. “A whole series of Origen’s teachings were subsequently rejected by the church. So, for example, Origen’s teachings about the infinite number of worlds that preceded ours, and, consequently, about the eternity of the universe, were recognized as illegitimate. The church also rejected the (Platonic) doctrine of the pre-existence of souls and knowledge as recollection. Finally, the church condemned, after a long and bitter struggle, the teaching of Origen that the “son” (the second “hypostasis of the Trinity”) is in everything inferior to the “father.” And yet, even after many of Origen’s teachings were recognized as heretical, his authority among Christian writers stood very high.” (History of Philosophy, 1941, p. 390).
In full agreement with his Platonism, Origen attached great importance to natural science, natural philosophy, geometry and astronomy, and considered geometry to be the model and ideal of the other sciences (ibid.).
The theory of the subordination of the “son” to the “father” led to the condemnation of Origen by two Alexandrian synods in 231, which sentenced him to expulsion from Alexandria and deprivation of the title of presbyter.
As far as I know, another (if not the main) reason for Origen’s deprivation of the priesthood was his self-castration, which, guided by one of the Gospels, he carried out in order to avoid temptation: according to an amazing law that is still in force in our time, outstanding preachers enjoy great success among many overly religious women.
We see thus:
1) the condemnation of Origen was caused not by his astronomical views, but by his theological judgments;
2) this conviction did not lead to his excommunication;
3) even after the condemnation and even to this day, Origen’s authority among theologians stands extremely high;
4) finally, and most importantly, Platonovskaya Origen’s line found successors among the highest representatives of the Christian clergy even after the triumph of the “anti-philosophical” line in Christianity, which became the state religion.”
Lyubishchev A.A. , Lines of Democritus and Plato in the history of culture, St. Petersburg, “Aletheia”, 2000, p. 185-186.
"Although Origen was recognized as one of the church fathers, in later times he was accused of four heretical views:
1. Pre-existence of souls, according to teaching Plato.
2. Not only the divine, but also the human nature of Christ existed before the incarnation.
3. Upon resurrection, our bodies will turn into absolutely etheric bodies.
4. All men and even devils will be saved in the end.”
Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian, M., Politizdat, 1987, p. 240.
Three different statements can be heard about the Fifth Ecumenical Council: 1) that it was not condemned; 2) that Origen was condemned, but the doctrine of the finality of hellish torment was not condemned; 3) that the doctrine of the finality of hellish torment was condemned, but not in general, namely and only in the interpretation of Origen. Let's consider how consistent each of these statements is.In 553, in Constantinople, Saint Justinian the Great, Emperor of Byzantium, convened a council, which the Church recognized as the Fifth Ecumenical. He condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia, some of the works of the blessed one. Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Willow of Edessa, as well as Origen, Didymus and Evagrius of Pontus.
The church historian Evagrius Scholasticus (†594) writes that at that time there was great unrest in Palestine due to the Origenist monks, who were patronized by Bishop Theodore Askidas, close to the emperor. Patriarch Eustochius of Jerusalem took measures to induce the emperor to a new, larger-scale condemnation of Origenism than what had happened ten years earlier on the initiative of St. Justinian at the local Council of Constantinople. To divert attention from Origenism, Theodore Askida began to talk about the need to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia and the pro-Nestorian writings of Theodoret and Iva. As a result, as Evagrius Scholasticus notes, “the All-Holy God arranged everything for good, so that [at the convened council] the unclean would be blotted out both here and here,” that is, condemnation followed of both the “three heads” on the one hand, and Origen on the other .
The church historian writes that first there was a condemnation of “three heads”, and “then, when the monks - Eulogius, Conon, Cyprian and Pancratius submitted [to the emperor] a written report against the teachings of Origen... and against the followers of his wickedness and error, Justinian asked the fathers of the Council and about this, providing them with a copy of that report and his message to [Pope] Vigilius on the same subject. From all this one could understand that Origen tried to fill the purity of the apostolic dogmas with Hellenic and Manichaean tares. Therefore, following exclamations of reproach to Origen and his inventions, a report was drawn up at the Council to Justinian, which in other places is stated as follows: “we have avoided, we have avoided this; for they did not recognize the voices of strangers, but such a person (Origen), like a thief and a robber, having been tightly bound with the bonds of anathema, was cast out outside the sacred fence.” Then a little lower: “You will learn the power of our deeds by reading them.” To this they added all the chapters that were usually defended by admirers of Origen’s teachings, and from which it was clear in what they agreed [with the Orthodox], and in what they disagreed and were mistaken in various ways... With great care they chose and exposed many others blasphemies of Didymus, Evagrius and Theodore."
The fact that the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned Origen is also testified by the fathers of the Sixth Council: “Our holy and ecumenical Council, having rejected the error of wickedness from former times until now, and steadily following the straight path of the holy and glorious fathers, piously joined in everything the voice of the five saints and ecumenical councils, namely the council of 318 holy fathers who gathered in Nicaea against the frantic Arius... [ further - a list of other cathedrals - Dr. G.M.] ... besides, the last of them, the fifth holy Council, gathered here against Theodore of Mopsuet, Origen, Didymus and Evagrius. Also in the definition of the VII Ecumenical Council, when listing the decisions of previous councils, it is said: “At the same time, we anathematize the nonsense of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, as did the fifth [ecumenical] Council, which was in Constantinople.”
In church historiography, the opinion has become established that the condemnation of Origen was the main decision of the council, even more significant than the condemnation of the “three chapters.” St. Theophan the Confessor in his “Chronography” writes: “This year there was a holy and ecumenical fifth Council against Origen the wise and Didymus the blind and Evagrius and their Hellenic chatter, as well as against the headless heads.” It is noteworthy that he puts Origen in first place, and the fathers of the VII Ecumenical Council, as can be seen from the above quote, do not even mention the “three chapters” at all, and present the condemnation of Origen and his followers as the main matter of the V Ecumenical Council.
It is also worth noting that at the fourteenth meeting of the VI Ecumenical Council there was a detailed examination of some documents relating to the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and it was established that they were subsequently deliberately distorted by the Monothelites. The fathers of the council pointed out examples of such distortions, declared anathema to “all counterfeiters of the acts of the Holy and Ecumenical Fifth Council” and ordered the books to be corrected, bringing them to their original form.
The surviving text of the acts of the council concerns only the condemnation of the “three chapters”, and nowhere is it dealt with the teaching of Origen. He himself is mentioned twice. The first time, at the fifth meeting, when considering the possibility of condemning heretics posthumously, it was noted: “if anyone turns to the times of the holy memory of Theophilus or before, he finds that Origen is anathematized after death: your holiness and Vigilius have now done the same to him , the most pious pope of ancient Rome." The Fathers of the Ecumenical Council mention here the generally accepted condemnation of Origen by the Council of Alexandria in 400, and also in Constantinople and Rome in 543. The second time Origen is mentioned by name is in the 11th anathematism of the eighth session: “If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonia, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen with their wicked writings... and all those who philosophize like the above-mentioned heretics... - let such be anathema."
At the end of the 17th century, Peter Lambek in Vienna found a manuscript with the text of fifteen anathematisms, entitled “Canons of the Holy 165 Fathers of the Holy Fifth [Ecumenical] Council.” It contains a condemnation of the points of doctrine of the Origenists, but does not mention the names of Origen, Didymus and Evagrius. And in this text there are also no words that Evagrius Scholasticus quotes from the council decrees.
It is no secret that in modern times in the West, disputes arose regarding the condemnation at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and some of the initiators of these disputes did not hide their sympathies for Origen. Three groups of such authors can be distinguished:
The first point of view is currently no longer popular. As one modern scholar observes: “Anyone who has studied religion or philosophy a little knows at least two things about Origen: he castrated himself, and he was condemned by the Church as a heretic. Today, if there are still any doubts about the first, then there are none about the second. Emperor Justinian convened a council in Constantinople in 553, at which Origen was posthumously declared a heretic." As Rev. notes. Valentin Asmus, “previously the prevailing opinion was that Origen was condemned at the local Polish Council of 543, and the V Ecumenical Council did not deal with him, and the chapters against Origen were mechanically attached to the Acts of the Council of 553. It is currently believed that the Council directly investigated Origenism."
Let us briefly list the main arguments that were proposed in favor of the mentioned point of view, and counterarguments to them. Those who tried to prove that Origen was not condemned at all at the V Ecumenical Council, and his name was later interpolated into the list of heretics of the 11th anathematism, said that:
1) Placing Origen in last place on this list violates the chronological order, and that in terms of the content of his teaching he stands out from this series of “Christological heretics.”
However, it is incorrect to impose “armchair” schemes for listing heresiarchs on the fathers of the council, who followed the already established tradition of adding the names of newly convicted heretics to those who were condemned before;
2) This anathematism mentions only those heretics who were condemned at previous ecumenical councils.
But, firstly, not only Origen, but two more from this list of heretics - Apollinaris and Macedonius - had never before been condemned by name by Ecumenical Councils, and secondly, the inclusion of Origen's name was required to overcome the unrest in Palestine. Considering this circumstance, as well as the personal participation in the polemic against Origenism of the emperor who convened the Council, the appearance of Origen’s name in the list of convicted heretics is not at all surprising;
3) Bishop Theodore Askida would not allow Origen to be condemned.
However, he had already allowed this to happen when he signed the emperor's proposed condemnation of Origen ten years earlier. As a contemporary of the events testifies, the Origenists Theodore Askida and Dometian of Galatia were able to enter the circle as an assistant to the anti-Origenist emperor precisely because they “concealed their heresy”;
4) Anathematism coincides with a quote from the message of St. Justinian, in which, however, the name of Origen is not present.
But this does not in any way exclude the possibility that when compiling a new text, the fathers of the council or even the emperor himself proposed adding the name of another heresiarch.
5) Pope Vigilius did not mention Origen in his message recognizing the V Ecumenical Council.
But, as Castellano notes, the reason was most likely that for the West, unlike the East, the condemnation of the “three heads” was a more sensitive issue, whereas for a long time it had no longer been a subject of debate. Origen's teachings were condemned conciliarly in Rome in 400 and 494, and the same Pope Vigilius had already recognized in writing the decisions of the anti-Origenist Council of Constantinople in 543, initiated largely by his legate Pelagius. The condemnation of the “three heads” was opposed by many in the West, and in a number of areas, for this reason, splits occurred due to the fact that Pope Vigilius signed the decisions of the council. It took a whole century to overcome this division. It should also be added that in the ancient list of the Latin translation of the acts of the V Ecumenical Council, probably written for Pope Vigilius himself, the name of Origen is present in the list of heretics condemned by the council.
Two further serious objections to the idea that Origen was not condemned at all by this Council should be mentioned. It is contradicted, firstly, by the fact that the Origenist monks broke off communication with the Palestinian bishops precisely after they recognized the decisions of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: “When our God-protected emperor sent the acts of this Council to Jerusalem and all the Palestinian bishops agreed to them, and they affirmed this in writing and orally (except for Alexander of Avila, who was deprived of his bishopric for this reason), then the monks of the New Lavra separated from the ecumenical communion.” The condemnation of the "three chapters" could not have caused such a reaction, since it was initiated in large part by the friends and patrons of the Origenists.
Secondly, accepting this idea, it is impossible to explain the numerous and confident historical evidence about the condemnation of Origen at the V Ecumenical Council. And among them there are testimonies from contemporaries of the Council. In addition to Evagrius Scholasticus, these include St. Cyril of Scythopolis (†560) is an eyewitness to the Origenist unrest, who writes that Emperor Justinian “courageously rebelled against the heresies of Nestorius and Origen. He uprooted and cursed them with the instructions issued about this, now collected in Constantinople by the holy Fifth Ecumenical Council.” And in another place: “When the Fifth Holy Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople, Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia were given over to general and universal damnation; what Evagrius and Didymus said about the pre-existence and restoration (apokatastasis) of all things was also cursed.”
Since the surviving acts of the council do not contain an analysis of the teachings of Origen, many modern researchers, following Dicamp, believe that the discussion of Origenism took place at a preliminary meeting of the council, before its official opening.
Based on this assumption, some decide to assert that Origen was nevertheless condemned not by an ecumenical council, but by some private, “local” one. Kartashev also expresses this opinion: “after all, Origen was not strictly formally condemned by the Ecumenical Council.”
This opinion is, to put it mildly, extravagant. If the condemnation of Origen in 553 had not initially been given the status of an ecumenical council decision, then there would be no point in raising this issue at all, since at the level of a local council Origenism had already been condemned ten years earlier in Constantinople, and even earlier in Rome and Alexandria, as mentioned by the council fathers in the Acts, and immediately before 553 by a local council in Antioch.
But the most important thing: the condemnation of Origen is repeated by the VI and VII Ecumenical Councils, the acts of which claim that this condemnation took place at the V Council. How can one, knowing this, assert that Origen was not condemned by the Ecumenical Council is a mystery.
It is worth recalling that, according to Evagrius Scholasticus, the condemnation of Origen, Didymus and Evagrius took place not before, but after the sessions dedicated to the “three chapters”. Of the old Western researchers, Noris and Ballerini adhered to this point of view.
Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the discussion and condemnation of Origenism was carried out in the same year, in the same place and by the same composition of persons, which was recognized by the Church as the V Ecumenical Council.
![]() |
Many scientists believe that the cathedral adopted the same 15 anathematisms found in a single copy in the Vienna Library. Kartashev writes: “These 15 anathematisms really (only in expanded form) repeat the previous 10 [anathematisms of Justinian].” In fact, 10 anathematisms of St. Justinian and the 15 anathematisms differ quite greatly. Guillaume proved that most of the differences are due to the fact that the first text deals mainly with Origen's On the Elements, while the second pays more attention to the Gnostic Chapters of Evagrius of Pontus.
One difference is worth noting in particular. Saint Justinian directly condemns the doctrine of the finality of hellish torment: “Whoever says or thinks that the punishment of demons and wicked people is temporary and that after some time it will have an end, or that there will be a restoration (“apokatastasis”) of demons and wicked people, - anathema" (9th anathematism). But in a text found in Vienna, it is written differently: “If anyone says that the heavenly powers and all men, and the devil, and the spirits of wickedness are so invariably united with God the Word, as is the mind itself, which they call Christ, existing in the image of God and having exhausted himself, as they say, and that this will be the end of the kingdom of Christ: let him be anathema” (12th anathema).
This distinction is sometimes used by those who claim that the 15 anathematisms do not condemn the teaching that all will be saved. In reality, of course, an implicit condemnation of this teaching is contained in the 12th anathematism, since the union of all with God the Word presupposes the cessation of hellish torment and, accordingly, its finitude. But here there is still no such precision and certainty as in the text of St. Justinian.
However, the status of the 15 anathematisms themselves is unclear. Is this really the document that was adopted by the fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council? Many researchers doubt this. Castellano also expressed doubt that these anathematisms were adopted by the V Ecumenical Council and, as an argument, pointed out the lack of mentions or citations of this text in other sources.
Indeed, those 15 anathematisms that were found in the Vienna Library represent a text that, it seems, was not known to anyone in Byzantium. And this despite the fact that the very status of the decision of the Ecumenical Council suggests that its contents will be widely known and not limited to one randomly found manuscript. Evagrius Scholasticus saw the resolutions of the Fifth Ecumenical Council on Origen and cites excerpts from it - and not one of them is contained in a document from the Vienna Library.
Moreover. The content of the anti-Origenist decrees of the V Ecumenical Council is retold by many ancient authors and is found in official church decrees. It has never been a “closed secret.” The acts of the VI Ecumenical Council contain a letter to St. Sophronius of Jerusalem to Patriarch Sergius with a confession of faith. In this letter, the saint writes: “I also accept another, after these, the Fifth Holy and Ecumenical Council... and all its definitions... It destroys and casts into destruction, first of all, the insane Origen and all his pompous nonsense, as well as inventions full of wickedness all kinds; along with it the teachings of Evagrius and Didymus and all the pagan, monstrous and completely fabulous idle talk.” A little earlier St. Sophrony sets out exactly what these “nonsense and fiction” were. At the same time, he directly says that he is based on what is contained in the conciliar “anathemas directed against heretics and in their definitions.” St. Sophronius sets out in some detail a list of the errors of Origen and his followers. Moreover, interestingly, he contains that point condemning the Origenists-“Isochrists”, which Evagrius Scholasticus quotes as the fifth point of the Council’s resolution - the teaching that at the resurrection righteous Christians will become equal to Christ.
This is what Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem writes (†638): “Let us not assume that souls existed before bodies, and let us not think that before the appearance of this visible world they lived... an incorporeal and ethereal life and eternal in heaven... as the erring Origen wished it. and his accomplices and like-minded people, Didymus and Evagrius... They not only preach this erroneously, being carried away by pagan teachings and desecrating the high Christian origin, but they even madly reject the resurrection of these bodies with which we are now endowed... and they say many other things contrary to the apostolic and paternal tradition: they reject planting of paradise, do not want to [admit] that Adam was created in the flesh, they condemn the formation of Eve from him, they deny the voice of the serpent, they do not allow that an orderly distribution of heavenly bodies was established in this way by God, but they fantasize that it occurred as a result of the initial condemnation and transformation [of sinful minds]. They are godlessly and fabulously delusional, as if something unreasonable had happened in the individuality of minds... they want there to be an end to punishment, they allow complete damage to everything sensible, they talk about the restoration of all rational beings: angels, people, demons, and again merge their different properties into a mythical singularity . [They say] that [after the resurrection] Christ is no different from us... and thousands of [absurdities] these unfortunates draw from the devilish and wicked treasures of their hearts... and kill the souls of people for whom Christ deigned to die... We... being free from all their incoherent idle talk, and following in the footsteps of our fathers, we speak about the end of the present world, and we believe that after this life that other life will continue forever, and we also accept endless punishment.”
But how St. Photius of Constantinople (†886), in his letter “On the Seven Councils” to Prince Michael of Bulgaria, retells the decision of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: “The Holy and Ecumenical Fifth Council... also condemned and anathematized Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, ancient men, sick with unbelief, who tortured bring Hellenic mythology into the Church of God. They falsely taught that souls were before bodies, and that one soul changes clothes into many bodies - a nasty and despicable teaching, and truly worthy of their souls alone. And they preached the end of endless torment, that there is a call to all sin and destruction, and they dreamed that the crafty demons would again be granted their first dignity, and an ascension to the highest glory from which they had fallen. They also said that bodies will not be resurrected with souls, but I don’t know how the rise of souls alone without bodies can be called resurrection... And they were not afraid, the accursed ones, that this was not a justification, but a slander against the Righteous Judge, for they blasphemously testify that bodies, together those who labored in virtue with their souls will be deprived of their reward, and [the bodies], together [with their souls] who sinned and were guilty, will remain unpunished... these the divine assembly of bishops cut off and rejected... and these are the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council about them.”
Finally, a statement of the conciliar decision is also found in the Nomocanon or Helmsman: “The fifth holy Ecumenical Council was in Constantine, in the summer of 6047... This Holy Council... anathematized and rejected the evil Origen and all his wicked writings. Also Evagrius and Didymus, who lived in ancient times, and the chapters they set forth... as students and like-minded people of Origen, and carried away by Hellenic teachings: for they madly said that the bodies that we now possess will not be resurrected. And besides, they erroneously said that souls precede bodies and arose before bodies. They taught about the transmigration of souls from body to body, borrowing this from Hellenic legends. They said that there would be an end to the torment, and that the demons would return to their original order, and that Christ would be like us, and in no way different from us. They slandered heaven, saying that it was not created by God and did not exist. And they also said that Adam was not created in the flesh. And they wrote many other blasphemies, of which they were convicted, and they destroyed many from the Church.”
Apparently, this presentation of the Nomocanon is briefly repeated by the famous Byzantine canonist Alexei Aristinus (†1166): “The Fifth Council was under Justinian the Great in Constantinople against the extravagant Origen, also Evagrius and Didymus, who resumed Hellenic fables and foolishly said that the bodies themselves, by which We are clothed now, we will not be resurrected - the sensory paradise was not created by God and does not exist - Adam was not created in the flesh - there is an end to torment and the restoration of demons to their former state, and many other blasphemies have been brought to light.”
For clarity, we present a table where the points of the condemned teaching in each of the sources are briefly noted in the order they appear.
№ | 15 anathematisms | St. Sophrony (C) | St. Photius (F) | Helmswoman (K) |
1 | Preexistence of souls and apokatastasis | Pre-existence of souls | Pre-existence of souls | Previous bodies will not be resurrected |
2 | The Fall of the Spirits ("Nuses") | Previous bodies will not be resurrected | Reincarnation of souls | Pre-existence of souls |
3 | The sky and luminaries are animated | Heaven was not created | The end of torment, apokatastasis | Reincarnation of souls |
4 | Bodies arose due to the fall of spirits | Adam was not created in the flesh, a rejection of the story of the book. Genesis about the creation of the world | Previous bodies will not be resurrected | The end of torment, apokatastasis |
5 | Souls passed from angels to humans | The world came into existence due to the fall of spirits | ||
6 | The soul of Christ pre-existed | End to torment, destruction of matter, apocatastasis | Heaven was not created | |
7 | Christ incarnated in all forms | Christ will not be distinguishable from us | Adam was not created in the flesh | |
8 | Christ is the union of an unfallen spirit with the Word | |||
9 | It was not the Word that became incarnate, but this spirit (“nous”) | |||
10 | Bodies after the resurrection will be spherical | |||
11 | Future life is immaterial | |||
12 | Apokatastasis and the finitude of the kingdom of God | |||
13 | “Nus” of Christ is not fundamentally distinguishable from other “nuses” | |||
14 | All forms of existence will become one | |||
15 | Life will be the same as before the fall |
It is not difficult to notice that what was written by Saint Photius, as well as the Helmsman, expound the same text about which St. wrote. Sophrony. Meanwhile, there are differences in the order of anathematisms. As a result, in Kormcha the condemnation of the opinion of the “Isochrists” is precisely in fifth place, as Evagrius Scholasticus testified, and not in seventh, as in St. Sophronia. In addition, the retelling of the Helmsman includes one point that St. does not mention. Sophronius, but which is in the presentation of St. Photia. In other words, all three texts independently retell the same anti-Origenist decree, which does not coincide with either the 15 anathematisms or the 10 anathematisms of St. Justinianna. You should also pay attention to the high authority of these texts - one of them is included in the acts of the VI Ecumenical Council, the other is a generally accepted and conciliarly approved code of church law. The Slavic Helmsman was compiled on the basis of the Nomocanon of the Church of Constantinople, translated into Slavic by Saint Equal to the Apostles. Methodius (†885), and Nomocanon, translated by St. Savva of Serbia (†1237). At the Council of Vladimir in 1274 it was accepted as the canonical source of the Russian Church.
Based on a comparison of the available evidence, we can try to reconstruct the points of the conciliar anathematisms:
1. Anathema to those who “say that souls precede bodies and came into being before bodies” (K); “that souls were before bodies” (F); “that souls existed before bodies, and... [that] it was as if they, before the appearance of this visible world, lived... an incorporeal and ethereal life and eternal in heaven” (C).
2. Anathema to those who “crazyly say that the bodies we now possess will not be resurrected” (K); “that bodies will not be resurrected with souls” (F), who “madly rejects the resurrection of these bodies with which we are now clothed” (C).
3. Anathema to those who “teach about the transmigration of souls from body to body, borrowing this from Hellenic legends” (K); “that one soul dresses up in many bodies” (F).
4. Anathema to those who “say that there will be an end to torment, and that demons will return to their original order” (K); who “preaches the end of endless torment... and that the wicked demons will again be granted their first dignity, and an ascension to the highest glory from which they fell” (F); those who “want there to be an end to punishment, allow complete damage to everything sensory, talk about the restoration of all rational beings: angels, people, demons, and again merge their different properties into a mythical singularity” (C).
5. Anathema to those who say “that Christ will be like us and not different from us” (K); “that [after the resurrection] Christ is no different from us” (C).
6. Anathema to those who “slander heaven, saying that it was not created by God and did not exist. And that Adam was not created in the flesh” (K); those who “reject the planting of paradise, do not want [to admit] that Adam was created in the flesh, condemn the formation of Eve from him, deny the voice of the serpent, do not allow that an orderly distribution of heavenly bodies was established in this way by God, but fantasize that it occurred as a result of the initial condemnation and transformation [of sinful minds]” (C).
This is what has been preserved since ancient times by the Tradition of the Church as the resolution of the Fifth Ecumenical Council on Origen, Didymus and Evagrius. And, looking at him, it is not difficult to notice the inconsistency of the second of the points of view we mentioned - that, although Origen was condemned, the doctrine of the finality of hellish torment was not condemned at the Council. Church tradition clearly indicates that it was precisely this teaching that was condemned, and over time this began to be indicated as perhaps the main decision of the council.
For example, St. Demetrius of Rostov writes: “The Fifth Ecumenical Council was in the city of Constantinople, in 553, during the reign of Justinian the Great... This holy Council completed and confirmed the acts of the holy Council of Chalcedon, cursed the heresies that spread in his time, namely the ancient fabulous teachings of the glorious teacher presbyter Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, who foolishly taught that there would be an end to torment, for the Lord, they said, “ generous and merciful, does not become completely angry”(Ps. 102:8-9), forgetting at the same time the words of the Gospel: “ These go into eternal torment, but the righteous into eternal life"(Matt. 25:46)"
We will see the same thing if we turn to the traditional iconography of the Ecumenical Councils. So, for example, on the frescoes of the Church of the Nativity of Christ in Bethlehem we read: “The fifth holy council of 164 bishops took place against Nestorius’ disciples and against Origen. Origen taught that punishment has an end. Justinian the Great condemned him. The Holy Council confirmed the decisions of previous councils: the Mother of God is the Theotokos, condemned Nestorius, his disciples and Origen, who argued that torment has an end.” And here is the inscription in the Church of the Nativity in Arbanasi (Bulgaria): “The Fifth Ecumenical Council took place in Constantinople under the leadership of Justinian the Great, against Origen, who argued that the torment of Gehenna has an end.”
It is now worth considering the third point of view, according to which the V Ecumenical Council condemned not the doctrine of the finality of hellish torment and the salvation of all, but only the version of Origen. Supporters of this point of view point out as an argument that when condemning apokatastasis the name of St. was not mentioned. Gregory of Nyssa. And from this they conclude that there is a “bad apokatastasis” of Origen, condemned by the council, and there is a “good apokatastasis” of St. Gregory of Nyssa, who was not convicted and, accordingly, is quite acceptable. This opinion was expressed by Western authors, for example, Jean Danielou, and by Orthodox Christians, Metropolitan. Macarius (Oksiyuk), Metropolitan. Kallist (Ware), A.I. Osipov and others.
This idea is not new. There were also precedents in ancient times when supporters of the doctrine of the finality of hellish torment appealed to the authority of St. Gregory of Nyssa.
So, for example, in the 6th century one monk asked St. Barsanuphius the Great: “I became interested in the books of Origen, Didymus and the Gnostic writings of Evagrius and his disciples. They say that human souls were not created together with bodies, but before them they were simple minds... the future torment must have an end, and people, and angels, and demons will return again to their first state, that is, they will be simple minds, and this is what they call restoration. My soul has fallen into double-mindedness and laments, doubting whether this is true or not; and therefore I ask you, master, teach me the truth.”
To this the Rev. Barsanuphius replied: “This is a thorn that grew on the ground cursed by the Lord God. They are a complete lie, complete darkness, complete delusion, a decisive alienation from God. Run away from them, brother, so that their teaching does not take hold in your heart. They... completely destroy people who listen to them... Regarding knowledge of the future, do not be mistaken: whatever you sow here, you will also reap there (see Gal. 6:7). After leaving here, no one can succeed... Brother, here is work - there is reward, here is feat - there are crowns. Brother, if you want to be saved, do not delve into this teaching, for I testify to you before God that you have fallen into the den of the devil and into extreme destruction. So, step away from this and follow the Holy Fathers.”
Then the monk asked the same question to another elder - St. John the Prophet and received the following answer: “This is not wisdom coming down from above, but earthly, spiritual, demonic(James 3:15). This is the teaching of the devil. This teaching leads to eternal torment those who listen to it. Whoever engages in this teaching becomes a heretic. Those who believe him have turned away from the truth. Anyone who agrees with this is alien to the way of God... Quickly leave these opinions, brother, so as not to burn your heart with the fire of the devil.”
Having received these answers, the monk, together with other brethren, again asks the saint. Barsanuphius, pointing, like some modern authors, to St. Gregory of Nyssa: “The same Saint Gregory of Nyssa clearly speaks about apocatastasis, but not about the kind they mean, that at the end of the torment a person will be restored to his primitive state, that is, there will be a pure mind; but he says that the torment will be mitigated and end.” As we see, the monk emphasizes that St. Gregory has a different version of the doctrine of the finality of hellish torment than that of Origen, Didymus and Evagrius. But St. Barsanuphius, answering, does not say at all that the version of St. Gregory of Nyssa, in contrast to Origen's, is acceptable, but says that St. Gregory was wrong on this issue and explains why this happens:
“Listen to what God revealed to me three days before you wrote me your question... Do not think that people, although saints, can completely comprehend all the depths of God... The saints, having become teachers... surpassed their own teachers and, having received approval from above, set forth a new teaching, but at the same time they retained what they accepted from their former teachers, that is, an incorrect teaching. Having subsequently succeeded and become spiritual teachers, they did not pray to God that He would reveal to them regarding their first teachers: whether what they taught them was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but, considering them wise and reasonable, they did not examine their words; and, thus, the opinions of their teachers were mixed with their own teaching... So, when you hear that one of them says about himself, that he will tell what he heard from the Holy Spirit, then this is certain, and we must believe it. If the holy man speaks about the above-mentioned opinions, then you will not find him confirming his words, as if he had confirmation from above, but they stemmed from the teaching of his former teachers, and he, trusting their knowledge and wisdom, did not ask God whether it was true this"
It is noteworthy that Rev. Barsanuphius directly writes about this answer as a revelation of God to him, and not as his own reflection.
It is also necessary to pay attention to the words of St. Mark of Ephesus (†1444) about St. Gregory of Nyssa: “This teacher is seen as clearly agreeing with the dogmas of the Origenians and introducing an end to torment... however, this was when this teaching was the subject of a dispute and was not finally condemned and rejected by the opposite opinion pronounced at the Fifth Ecumenical Council; so it is not surprising that he himself, being a man, sinned in the accuracy [of the truth]... But the Fifth Ecumenical Council recognized such an opinion [about the finiteness of torment] of all teachings as the most inhuman, and, as causing harm to the Church and as weakening the diligent, anathema. So, these sayings, if indeed spoken by the wonderful Gregory, ... introduce the final purification and final restoration of all; but they are in no way convincing for us, looking at the general judgment of the Church.”
St. Mark of Ephesus directly writes that the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa about the finality of hellish torment falls under the anathemas of the V Ecumenical Council, and is not some kind of permissible exception due to the fact that Gregory himself is among the saints. In the same place St. Mark gives examples of other ancient saints who made erroneous opinions. And this is quite appropriate.
Let us quote the words of St. Basil the Great about St. Dionysius of Alexandria: “I don’t praise everything from Dionysius, but I completely reject others, because, as far as I know, he was almost the first to provide people with the seeds of this wickedness, which has now caused so much noise; I’m talking about the teaching of the Anomeans. And I believe the reason for this is not his crafty intention, but a strong desire to challenge Sabellius... through his excessive jealousy, without noticing it, he is involved in the opposite evil... affirms not only the otherness of the Hypostasis, but also the difference in Essence, the gradualness of power, the difference in glory, and from this it happened that he exchanged one evil for another and he himself deviates from the right teaching.”
Like St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Dionysius of Alexandria is also among the saints and was never condemned by a council. Is it really possible to say on the basis of this that at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils it was not the teaching in general that the Son is consubstantial with the Father that was condemned, but only the version of this teaching that was proposed by Arius, and since St. Dionysius of Alexandria was not condemned by “any Ecumenical Council,” which means it is permissible to say that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father? The doctrine of the pre-existence of souls was also expounded by Nemesius of Emesa, but he, too, was not mentioned at the V Ecumenical Council. Does this really mean that the “version of Nemesius” is not condemned and is acceptable, so that a Christian, despite the conciliar anathema, can teach about the pre-existence of souls? It is difficult to find a heresy that could not be justified by such strange logic - that, supposedly, a false teaching is only fully condemned when the Ecumenical Council condemns by name all the supporters of this false teaching.
But the fathers of the Ecumenical Councils never set themselves the goal of anathematizing the names and works of all authors without exception who expressed this or that false opinion. First of all, the false teaching itself was condemned. Only heresiarchs, leaders of heresy, and in rare cases - individual, most controversial creations, were subjected to a nominal anathema, as was the case with the bl. Theodorite. The reason why St. was not condemned. Dionysius of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nyssa, not that in their mouths false teachings became the truth, but that, unlike the heresiarchs, they were not driven by a proud desire to replace the truth with lies and introduce a new teaching into the Church. They fell into error “not from an evil intention,” but either from excessive trust in their teachers, or from excessive zeal in the fight against the opposite error.
The Holy Tradition of the Church leaves no room for speculation on the name of St. Gregory of Nyssa. More than once or twice the holy fathers mentioned his error, and none of them said that this was an acceptable version of the doctrine of the finality of hellish torment. Let us quote the words of St. Photius of Constantinople: “What Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, says about apocatastasis is not accepted by the Church.” Kirill Skifopolsky , St. Life of St. Sava the Sanctified, ch. 90.
Kirill Skifopolsky , St. Life of St. Savva, ch. 74, 90.
Danielou J. Origen. London, 1955. P. 289.
Macarius (Oksiyuk), Metropolitan Eschatology of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1999. S. 570, 649.
Callistus (Ware), ep. Understanding salvation in the Orthodox tradition // Pages. No. 3, 1996. P. 34..
Osipov A.I.. From time to eternity: the afterlife of the soul. M., 2011. P. 117, 156-157.
Rev. Fathers Barsanuphius the Great and John Guide to spiritual life in answers to questions from students. M., 2001. pp. 386-388.
Ambrose (Pogodin), archim. Saint Mark of Ephesus and the Union of Florence. M., 1994. S. 68-69.
Basil the Great, saint. Letter 9, to Maxim the Philosopher.
Photius. Bibliotheque. Ed. R.Henry. Vol. IV. Paris, 1965. P. 291a.
Origen (185-254) was born into a Christian family and from a young age experienced persecution of his new faith - his father was executed for his religious beliefs. But this did not turn young Origen away from Christianity. Moreover, he strives to strengthen his faith and receive a serious philosophical education. So he ends up in Alexandria at the philosophical school of Ammonius Sacca, where the future creator of Neoplatonism, Plotinus, also studied.
Unlike Plotinus, who did not accept the new religion, Origen remained committed to Christianity and in 217 headed a Christian school in Alexandria. However, for his peculiar interpretation of Christian doctrine, in 231 he was removed from his post as mentor of this school, deprived of the rank of presbyter, and even expelled from Alexandria. Origen settles in Palestine, in Caesarea, where he reopens a Christian school. During the next persecution of Christians, he was imprisoned and died from torture.
Origen owns a huge number of works - their list includes up to two thousand titles.
In his understanding of the problem of the relationship between philosophy and Christianity, Origen is directly opposed to Tertullian. Origen believed that Christianity is the logical conclusion of all ancient philosophy and the study of philosophy is necessary to fully understand all Christian truths. Therefore, in the works of Origen, in his interpretations of Christian doctrine, the influence of Platonic and Neoplatonic teachings is clearly visible.
Origen, following his scientific approach to Christianity, developed a doctrine of three meanings of the Bible: literal (“bodily”), moral (“mental”) and philosophical (“spiritual”). He himself considered the most correct philosophical interpretation of the Bible.
Origen was the first Christian writer to substantiate the immateriality, infinity, perfection and eternity of God. There are no such interpretations of the essence of God directly in the texts of the Bible. Using Neoplatonic arguments, Origen argued that the infinity of God follows from his immateriality - that which is incorporeal cannot have boundaries. And in this sense, he brought the Christian God closer to the Neoplatonic understanding of the absolute One. But Origen also preserved the biblical idea of God as a person who is characterized by the greatest love and kindness.
Touching on the issue of God creating the world “out of nothing,” he did not accept the then existing opinion that God used pre-existing matter for this - this is what the early apologists of Christianity said, relying on Plato. Origen argued that the creation of the world “out of nothing” is more understandable and less controversial, because the recognition of the existence of matter limits Divine omnipotence.
In his discussions about the essence of God, Origen laid the foundation for all future Christian theology. However, further in his interpretations of the nature of God and the process of creation, he expressed views that were later recognized as incompatible with official church teaching.
Thus, he asserted the subordination of God the Son in relation to God the Father. Here the influence of Neoplatonism was felt, for the relationship between Origen’s God the Son and God the Father approached the Neoplatonic understanding of the relationship between the One and the Mind (Nus) - Christ the Logos, being generated by God the Father, himself creates the world, while God the Father is so powerful that he does not turn own attention to the corruptible world.
In addition, Origen believed that the act of creation is not at all isolated - the Lord constantly creates new worlds, which successively replace each other. The eternity of Divine creation is also manifested in his creation of immortal and incorporeal spirits, subordinate to God as the Holy Spirit.
The official Church did not accept the idea of apocatastasis put forward by Origen. Apokatastasis is the idea of the final restoration and salvation of every creature, including the fallen angels condemned to terrible torment. According to Origen, all spirits now in evil will be saved and will return to God, moreover, even the devil will be worthy of salvation.
Such peculiar interpretations of Christian doctrine caused dissatisfaction on the part of the official Church. Origen, as already mentioned, was excommunicated from the leadership of the school. After his death, for several centuries there were theological debates about the content of Origen's teachings. Despite a cautious attitude towards this teaching, many famous Christian philosophers, including Athanasius the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, were significantly influenced by Origen's religious philosophy.
Three hundred years after Origen's death, in 543, he was declared a heretic by an edict of the Byzantine emperor Justinian. This decision was confirmed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553.
In this regard, Origen is not officially included among the Fathers of the Church, and his works do not actually belong to patristic literature, to patristics.
© All rights reserved
(~185–~254)
Childhood and adolescence
Origen was born into a pious Christian family, presumably in 185 or 186, in Egypt, in Alexandria. Origen's father, the grammarian Leonidas, died for his belief in the persecution of the North when his son was not yet seventeen years old.
From childhood, Origen stood out for his academic success and high self-discipline. Both natural talents and good parental upbringing had an impact. Along with general education subjects, he studied the Holy Scriptures especially carefully, memorizing certain passages by heart. At the same time, Origen was not content with a superficial perception of the text, but sought to comprehend the depth of the content, asking his father serious questions that were not childish, which put him in a difficult position. It happened that Leonid told his son to be content with a simple, obvious meaning, meanwhile, in the depths of his heart, of course, he rejoiced at his curiosity and thanked God.
From a young age, Origen attended classes at the Alexandria Catechetical School, glorified by the works of Panten and Clement.
After his father was taken into custody during the persecution of the Church, Origen became inflamed with even greater zeal for the Lord. The mother, knowing how much her son neglected danger, more than once begged him to have pity on her maternal feelings. It happened that she hid clothes from him, trying to keep them to herself. Moved by a fiery impulse, Origen wrote to his father, urging him not to renounce his thoughts out of fear for his family.
After Leonid suffered martyrdom, the family's property was confiscated, leaving her without a livelihood. During this period, Origen found shelter with a noble woman who sympathized with him. Everything would be fine, but this woman showed attention to heretics. Origen shunned the prayer meetings held in her house and after some time left it.
After the death of his father, Origen continued to improve his educational level. And soon he began teaching grammar privately. In this way he earned money to support his orphaned family.
Origen's activities as a Christian teacher
When, as a result of persecution, the Alexandrian Catechetical School lost its leader, many, driven by the desire to comprehend the truths of Christian doctrine, began to turn to Origen for help.
The young teacher's fame grew every day. In addition to his education, his behavior also contributed to this: he, not fearing the threats of idolaters, as if challenging them, regularly visited Christian prisoners, was present when the sentences were announced, and courageously accompanied them to the places of execution. The pagans more than once tried to organize attacks on the meetings organized around Origen, and he was forced to change the places of such meetings.
Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria, appreciating the zeal and abilities of the young teacher, officially called him and offered him the position of head of the Catechetical School in Alexandria.
Origen accepted the offer. He sold the books he had accumulated with great difficulty. The man who acquired them began to pay him four ovols daily, which at that time was the wages of an ordinary day laborer. A strict ascetic life allowed him to be content with such a small amount.
According to legend, Origen subjected himself to voluntary castration. It is believed that he decided to take this difficult step by literally taking the words of the Redeemer about eunuchs. Meanwhile, there is reason to believe that he did this in order to ward off possible suspicions of illicit relationships with women who were part of his circle of students.
Around 211-212, Origen, driven by a good desire to see the “most ancient Church,” went to Rome, and upon returning from this trip he again devoted himself to teaching.
At some point, due to the large number of people announced, he was forced to take on an assistant. The choice fell on Herakles, the brother of Plutarch, who accepted death for Christ. Since then, Herakles taught primary knowledge to beginners, and Origen himself taught a more prepared audience.
Over time, Origen's fame began to attract philosophers and even heretics who wanted to know his opinion on this or that issue.
Around 212 or 213, the Providence of God brought Origen and Ambrose together. Before they met, he was an adherent of one of the Gnostic sects. Origen managed to find the right words and turn him to Light and Truth. Soon a partnership began between them. By mutual agreement, he organized the recording of Origen’s speeches and assumed the material costs. At the same time, he received the right to dispose of the compiled manuscripts. In addition to cursive writers, he kept scribes who replicated texts for distribution.
Around 214, Origen, with the blessing of Bishop Demetrius, undertook a trip to Arabia, where he was invited by the local prefect. He stayed in Arabia for a relatively short time.
Origen's activities in Palestine
After popular unrest broke out in Alexandria, which was suppressed by the authorities, the city was plundered by soldiers, and then the newcomers were expelled from it. , being an Antiochian and forced to leave Alexandria, he moved to Caesarea in Palestine. During this period, Origen also moved to Caesarea.
Here he established relations with the clergy, including the Bishop of Caesarea, Theoctistus. Due to respect and trust, Origen, as a Christian teacher, was given the opportunity to preach publicly in the Church. Having learned about this, Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria was indignant. In his message to the local church leadership, he insisted that it was not appropriate for a layman to preach in the presence of bishops. In their response message, the bishops objected and reminded Demetrius that even the apostles attracted people from the people who were capable of preaching.
Soon Bishop Demetrius, needing Origen as a teacher, sent people for him and demanded his immediate return. Origen, obeying the will of the bishop, returned to Alexandria.
A few years later (probably around 230), Origen was sent by Bishop Demetrius to Greece, with instructions on church affairs. During this period, another event occurred that caused indignation in Demetrius.
Either out of old memory, or due to some other reasons, Origen laid out his route through Palestine and stayed there. Bishops Alexander and Theoktist gave him a warm, hospitable welcome. Moreover, remembering past misunderstandings associated with Origen’s preaching (as a layman), he was ordained a priest.
Bishop Demetrius, who was initially amazed at Origen's decision to subject himself to emasculation, and as if he did not see anything contrary to piety in this, suddenly spoke of this as a canonical obstacle to the priesthood.
There is reason to believe that Demetrius felt banal envy towards Origen. In 231 he initiated the convening of the Council. Egyptian bishops and Alexandrian priests were present at the Council. The ruling they made regarding Origen was quite harsh: he was removed from teaching and prohibited from living in Alexandria. The next Council, convened a few months later, declared the ordination of Origen to the presbyter illegal.
Subsequently, Origen lived and worked in Palestine under the patronage of friends. After the death of Demetrius, Herakles took over the See of Alexandria, and Origen expected a change in attitude towards him, but his expectations did not come true.
The Theological School founded by Origen in Caesarea soon became one of the centers of education. Origen's fame even reached the imperial court. Emperor Alexander's mother, Mammea, invited him to her place, wanting to listen to his speech.
The last period of Origen's life was full of preaching and literary activity.
During the next persecution against the Church, launched during the reign of Decius, Origen was captured and imprisoned. He had to experience humiliation and torture for Christ. A chain was placed around his neck, and his legs were stretched on a special tool for many days. In addition, Origen was threatened with burning. He survived and even gained freedom, but the consequences of the torment were so painful that he died. This happened in 253 or 254.
Scientific and writing activities
Despite his lifetime respect, ascetic life, and confession, Origen was not counted among the holy fathers of the Church. This is due to his deviation from the purity of doctrine on a number of essential issues concerning the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the creation of the world, the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the future fate of sinners. Meanwhile, he is recognized as one of the outstanding and most fruitful church writers.
Among the priority areas of Origen’s scientific and theological creativity was the study of the Holy Scriptures. In this regard, Origen even learned Hebrew. The fruit of his many years of research was the fundamental work “Exaples” (Hexaples), containing a set of biblical texts presented both in Hebrew and in various translations. Unfortunately, this work has not reached our days.
From the explanations of the Books of Scripture, separate fragments of the works have survived: