Origen’s Vision of Scripture as

Ontological Interpenetration:

Scripture as Means for Participation in Christ

Joshua Schooping

20 Dec 2012

1
Introduction
1
Origen’s understanding of Scripture ​ was based on the belief that, in reading
it, one participated in God Himself. Not mere texts, at their most fundamental level
the Scriptures were actually a primary means of communion with God. In other
words, as I hope to show, for Origen the body of Scripture was essentially the body
of Christ, and much like Ezekiel eating the divine scroll, a primary act of
communion was actually reading, meditating on, and participating in God’s Word.
This, for Origen, is what constituted a profound dimension of participation in the
life of God, for the Logos Himself was understood to be actively speaking through
the “flesh” of the letters, therein generating what could be understood as an
interpenetrating matrix of minds, a transformative or efficacious “blending” of His
Mind with the mind of the reader in the very act of reading.
Rather than discuss the modes or “senses” of interpretation, either literal or
allegorical, it seems instead yet more essential to place these interpretive modes in
the larger context of Origen’s basic theological paradigm, the one which gave such
great importance to the need for interpreting in the first place: divinizing
participation. It ought to go without saying that Origen’s interpretive framework
does not operate as an end in itself, but serves toward the genuinely Christian goal
of salvific participation in the life of Christ. In order to make this claim, then, at
least two crucial things need to be established. The first will be to determine what
the essential nature of the Scriptures are in Origen’s thought, and the second will
be to determine the root and scope of what he means by “participation” in God.2
These together will then demonstrate how Scripture is the vehicle of this process,
rendering participation a technical term perhaps better understood, in this light, as
3
ontological interpenetration​.

1
Including both the Old and New Testaments. Cf. PA 1.1.9, 4.1.1.
2
Though there is not room in this essay to explore how Origen’s doctrine of Scripture translates into canonical
thought about the nature of Scripture, it is worth keeping in mind throughout that most of Origen’s thought on
Scripture, as found in the relevant chapter of ​On First Principles​, was taken up and incorporated into the ​Philocalia
as compiled by Saints Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, thus lending it a greater weight of authority.
3
This will take further some sound conclusions by Shin in his article (see below); wherein he does not seem to see
much more than a pedagogical function, certainly not an “ontological interpenetration.”
2
 Since it contains Origen’s most extended discussion of the Scriptures, the
fourth book of his ​On First Principles ​will function as the primary text in the
4
present study. Other passages from ​On First Principles​ shall be used as necessary
when they seem to bear on the discussion at hand. Beyond these there are a few
works that, although they will not figure directly, inform the present study and
therefore hover informatively in the background. These include Henri de Lubac’s
5
foundational investigation of Origen’s understanding of Scripture. Also, a
particularly perceptive article by Daniel Shin, entitled ​Some Light from Origen;
Scripture as Sacrament​, will operate behind the scenes so as to avoid undue
duplication of research as well as provide an impetus for this study’s desire to go
further than a concept of pedagogy if one is to fully appreciate the depth of
6
Origen’s comprehensive theology of Scripture. Finally, a fascinating dissertation
completed at the University of Michigan by one Jason B. Parnell, for a doctorate in
Philosophy, will indirectly supplement certain of this study’s insights concerning
7
especially the efficacy of Scripture as understood by Origen.

I. Origen’s View of the Scriptures as per Book IV of ​On First Principles

To begin, according to Origen, the basic nature of the Scriptures is that they
8
are divine writings having, therefore, a divine character. Now, it does not seem
that this is an optional adjective in Origen’s mind, so a word of emphasis seems
appropriate. For example, it is not as though the holiness of Scripture can be
likened unto the fuel-efficiency of a car; for fuel-efficiency is not essential to a car.
It is likewise not comparable to a man who is strong, for a man is not essentially
strong. Likewise, it is not an outstanding or meritorious distinction like Alexander
the Great’s so-called “greatness,” for Alexander was not necessarily great but only
became so as a result of great action. Essentially an hypostasized divine speech act,

4
​On First Principles​, trans. G.W. Butterworth (New York: Harper & Row, 1966).
5
Henri de Lubac, ​History and Spirit; The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen​ (San Francisco: Ignatius,
2007).
6
Daniel Shin, “Some Light from Origen; Scripture as Sacrament,” ​Worship​ 73.5 (S 1999): 399-425.
7
Jason B. Parnell, ​The Theurgic Turn in Christian Thought: Iamblichus, Origen, Augustine, and the Eucharist​ (Ann
Arbor: ProQuest, UMI Dissertation Publishing, 2011).
8
PA 4.1.1.
3
the divinity of Scripture is not a feature added or attributed ​ex post facto​ to an
otherwise neutral or passive content; neither is it merely reflecting a divine
incidental quality. Like man’s being essentially rational, so Scripture is essentially
divine.
A Scriptural analogy for this position can be found in the books of ​Exodus
9
and ​Leviticus​, where certain objects only become holy upon contact with the altar.
Another analogy would be that of a spotless lamb, which is especially suitable for
10
ritual use. These are things which are clean, neutral, or even profane, yet not
essentially ​so, for they only become holy through contact with the holy. For
Origen, on the other hand, the Scriptures are fundamentally different from an
indirect or mediated holiness, for their divinity does not represent an added quality
or a mere mark of excellence, as if divinity were an “accident” ascribed or pasted
onto an essentially mundane thing.
Origen is saying the opposite; he is saying that an essentially divine mind is
11
clothing itself in the flesh, which is to say letters and words, of Scripture; and so,
when one interprets them, the interpretation is then not merely of these letters and
12
words but “of the mind of Christ.” The outward and obvious aspects of the
Scripture are merely its flesh, its skin; where the divinity is not like a garment
13
clothing or overlaying said skin, but the deep heart inside. The point may seem
obscure, but it goes towards establishing a non-material and non-corporeal origin
for the text, and more than that, a non-corporeal divinity expressing itself
14
corporeally as text. Rather than being merely a physical tome with letters
referring to something standing apart or pointing away from an inert block of text
out of which one takes or abstracts something like “meaning,” or puts some
meaning into, or in some way pragmatically “uses,” Scripture is actually something
15
divinity is clothing itself in and speaking through, Mind to mind.
Taken from another angle, the essence of a key is not the lock but the
treasure it keeps. This is an analogy of inwardness, and Origen uses just such an

9
Exodus 29:27 and Leviticus 6:18. Among several translations, the ESV makes this sense especially clear.
10
Exodus 12:5, Leviticus 4:32, 9:3, etc.
11
PA 4.2.4.
12
PA 4.2.3.
13
PA 4.2.4.
14
Cf. 4.3.15. See also his argument for ​asomaton​ in the preface and first chapter to Book I.
15
More on this below.
4
image when speaking of the Scriptures. He says they are the “key of knowledge,”
and that they contain, again as if inwardly, “the secrets of knowledge and the
16 17
all-perfect mysteries.” The Scriptures are “treasure in earthen vessels.” Again,
these are not “things,” for Origen sees their essence as inward, invisible, and
18
ineffable rather than material or even verbal, and that this ineffable nature is
actually the mind of Christ clothed in letters and whose truth is concealed in the
19 20
words. It is God’s speech, and not something created by man. It is then a real
Person with a real Mind, expressing Himself as text and in the guise of letters and
words, and so Scripture is not merely pointing at a real person or concerning itself
with an abstract mind; it ​is​ the divine mind, and “he who approaches the prophetic
words with care and attention will feel from his very reading a trace of their divine
21
inspiration.”
In the very act of reading, then, one is therefore encountering in a startlingly
personal way the mind of Christ. Rufinus’ Latin of the previous quote is translated:
“it is certain that in the very act of reading and diligently studying them his mind
and feelings will be touched by a divine breath and he will recognize that the
22
words he is reading are not the utterances of man but the language of God.” In
other words, a person’s mind and feelings will encounter a touch of God’s holy
breath as He speaks in the reading of Scripture. This is because, according to
Origen, one is not merely holding a book with abstract content, but a living oracle
through which God is presently speaking in a manner coterminous with “the very
23
act of reading.” It may even be permissible to say that it is not possible to divorce
the act of reading Scripture from that of God speaking, for they are likely
24
understood as different perspectives on the selfsame action.
This is ​why​ Origen spends so much time with Scriptural exegesis. This is
why he says that one ought to “devote himself with his whole soul to the words of

16
PA 4.2.3.
17
PA 4.1.7.
18
PA 4.3.15.
19
PA 4.2.8.
20
PA 4.3.8. CF. 4.3.15.
21
PA 4.1.6.
22
PA 4.1.6.
23
PA 4.1.2.
24
It can also provide insight into why Stephen in Acts can call them “living” oracles in Acts 7:38.
5
 25
God.” For according to him these very words, being the manifest mind of Christ
26
touching our mind “within the ‘frail vessel’ of the poor letter,” stamp God’s
27
wisdom in and upon us. It is thus from Mind to mind that He, the Wisdom of
God, stamps His image on the believing soul; and we, for our part, “conform our
28
mind” precisely through this interaction with the words coming in Scripture. As
such, the Scriptures are at the heart of Origen’s theology, “a treasure of divine
29 30
meanings,” for “all the king’s glory is within.” Thus it is within the Holy
Scriptures that one approaches, with “the mind, which is capable of receiving
31
God,” the Mind of God. The soul is therein shaped according to His image; and
thus on this foundation Origen established the purpose and scope of his exposition,
the very reason for his seeking the various senses of interpretation. Interpretation is
interpenetration.
Without this framework undergirding one’s understanding of Origen’s
three-fold Scriptural sense, Origen’s exegesis runs the too-easy risk of seeming
naught but a fascinating, endless, ultimately tiresome, arbitrary, and yet largely
Christocentric foray into excessive allegorization, eisegesis, and
over-interpretation. For, if it were just a text with valuable or even vital
information, what would be the purpose? It would still be mere information. On the
other hand, when one understands Origen’s paradigm, one sees that he is more like
Jacob wrestling with the Angel, where the point of contact between persons is the
flesh of the letter; and then one begins to perceive what is at stake in the contest.
There is in this sense an almost kinesthetic dynamism to Origen’s exegesis.
Origen wrestles with Scripture, and this is why. As he himself said, “we
must acknowledge a diversity of participation in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
32
varying in proportion to the earnestness of soul and the capacity of the mind.” In
33
other words, since man is “created by God as a mind or rational spirit,” and

25
PA 4.1.7.
26
PA 4.3.14.
27
PA 4.1.7.
28
PA 4.3.14.
29
PA 4.3.14.
30
PA 4.3.14.
31
PA 4.4.9.
32
PA 4.4.9.
33
PA 2.9.7.
6
 34
Origen further equates mind with soul, it follows thus that, Mind to mind, what is
at stake in the Scriptural senses is participation in God according to one’s ability or
capacity to “portray the meaning of the sacred writings in a threefold way upon
35
one’s soul.” Again, being incorporeal Mind to incorporeal mind, this is a mutual
36
and even cooperative interpenetration of being. It can even be understood as Soul
to soul, for just as man’s soul is incorporeal and “implanted throughout the whole
body,” so God, according to Origen, can be understood to have a “soul,” which is
37
“his only-begotten Son” who is “implanted in him” and who, to complete the link
38
to the human, is approached in Scripture.
Though running the risk of overstatement, it is nevertheless clear that for
Origen the depth of so-called allegorization to which one is able to plumb is the
corresponding depth to which one is indwelt or “implanted” by the Logos Himself.
This, again, is what was at stake in Origen’s various “senses” of Scripture. It was
certainly not a rationalistic exercise, nor a flight of fancy, nor an accumulation of
information. Knowledge has an ontological dimension, and as such is the currency
of reason, the blood through which “men have a kind of blood-relationship with
39
God,” which is “implanted” by the Word which is also Reason. It follows from
this that the reading of the Word actually “implants” God within the mind via the
40
currency, the medium of exchange, which is knowledge. In other words,
Scriptural knowledge of God is not just information ​about​ God’s real presence, but
formation ​by​ God’s real presence. Therefore it is God’s presence in Scripture
effecting and making possible a change in the reader by implanting Himself in the
reader through the act of reading, interpreting, and meditating on what is read:
“This then is the way by which the word of God promises to implant knowledge in

34
PA 2.9.6.
35
PA 4.2.4.
36
PA 3.1.15.
37
PA 2.8.5.
38
Although Origen says in PA 2.8.5 that these are not “definite and settled doctrines,” it would be well to remember
that they are yet indicative of his personal position.
39
PA 4.4.9.
40
Cf. PA 1.2.2 which says Christ, as Wisdom, is “imparting ​itself​”; and which is translated by Crombie as
“​implanting​ ​itself​.” Also, PA 1.3.6 which says “all rational beings are partakers of the word of God, that is, of
reason, and so have ​implanted​ within them some seeds, as it were… which is ​Christ​.”
7
those who come to it,” enabling “them to walk in the divine commandments and to
41
keep the divine ordinances.”
As Origen says, “the divine word promises to take away those who come to
42
it​” (emphasis added). The ambiguity of Christ as Word, on the one hand, and
Scripture as Word, on the other, is at full tilt, for Origen does not divide them
ontologically. When Origen says that those who come to “it,” are also told that “it”
speaks of a “stony heart,” one can remember that the Incarnate Christ in the New
Testament narratives never refers to a “stony heart.” The Word of the Lord speaks
of a stony heart in Ezekiel 11:19, a reference Origen began at the opening of the
section. The only way one can “come to it,” that is, the divine Word so that
knowledge can be “implanted,” is directly in Scripture. It is thuswise not and
cannot be a process of abstract cogitation. That would be to assert an overly
pedagogical role to the reading, as if the text were merely pointing to Christ
somewhere else. No, for Origen it goes much further than that, for the Logos is not
becoming present merely conceptually or abstractedly ​to​ the human logos via
Scripture, but ​in​ the human logos through participation as Christ Himself emerges
within the faithful reader in the act of reading. The non-corporeal God is thus
speaking within the reader, actually becoming present within the reader, enfleshing
Himself, so to speak, in the words which are present in the reader’s mind. If
Origen’s paradigm be taken to its natural conclusion, the conclusion which
evidence seems to declare was his own, God actually incorporates Himself in the
reader in direct proportion to the depth of sense to which the reader is able to
plumb.
In support of this, Origen says, “Every mind which shares in intellectual
light must undoubtedly be of one nature with every other mind which shares
43
similarly in this light.” In reading Scripture, then, which Origen has already
44
declared is the ​mind​ of Christ, one is therefore sharing in the light of Christ, and
participating in His very nature. This is how, in other words, one can encounter
Christ. Origen’s theology of Scripture is thus of a startling intimacy, and is a

41
PA 3.1.15.
42
PA 3.1.15.
43
PA 4.4.9.
44
PA 4.2.3.
8
 45
functional means of salvation, a salvation by adoption through participation. As
he says, “by participation in the Son of God a man is adopted among God’s sons,
and by participation in the wisdom of God he becomes wise, so, too, by
46
participation in the Holy Spirit he becomes holy and spiritual.” Participation
therefore takes center stage in Origen’s soteriology, for it is through participation
in the Son that one is “adopted among God’s son,” and shares in God’s holiness,
“for this [participation] is one and the same thing as to receive a share of the Holy
47
Spirit,” which furthermore implies all of God for “the nature of the Trinity is one
48
and incorporeal.” Therefore one becomes united to Him in nature through
participation; and the Scriptures, the hypostatized speech-acts and eternal mind of
God, are presented by Origen as a primary and efficacious means for this sharing
and participation; which above all is necessary, “for every rational creature needs
49
to participate in the Trinity.”

II. Evidence from the Rest of Origen’s ​On First Principles

With that said, it will be helpful to include further statements of Origen
concerning the Scriptures from among the larger work ​On First Principles​ so as to
gain a surer vision of his outlook. To begin, ​On First Principles​’ introductory
preface bears testimony to what has so far been observed. The entire edifice of this
work is built on the opening line, really an all-encompassing thesis: “All who
believe and are convinced that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ and that Christ
is the truth… derive the knowledge… from no other source but the very words and
teaching of Christ.” Now, when one first reads this they may not glimpse the scope
of what is meant when he says such a thing, but the whole of the present study thus
far has illustrated just how far-reaching the implications of a statement such as this
coming from Origen are. Scripture, as found in the Church, is the only location for

45
Again, it must be kept in mind that Scripture is the Word and therefore essentially incorporeal. It is not the
material text, the physical page, which is salvific, but is the flesh of the hand of God which man might grasp so as
to be saved.
46
PA 4.4.5. Furthermore, this is likely a key passage underscoring the potential use and deep purpose of the divine
names in Scripture, and why Origen generally spends so much time on them.
47
PA 4.4.5.
48
PA 4.4.5.
49
PA 4.4.5.
9
these words and teachings, and is coextensive with the very Person to which a
50
Christian entrusts himself.
Furthermore, as touched on above, by knowledge Origen does not mean
merely informational knowledge, but ontologically participatory knowledge. Man
51 52
is at his root a “rational nature.” Men are “souls that make use of bodies.” To be
essentially rational or intellectual in nature is to share in, really derive from, the
53
ultimate rational and intellectual principle which is God. It is thus from this
position that Origen says, “Everyone who shares in anything is undoubtedly of one
54
substance and one nature with him who shares in the same thing.” Thus, Christ
55 56
being the truth, the root Intellect, the “first principle himself,” knowledge of
57
Him must correspond to relationship, to participation, to an intermingling, and to
sharing in His nature and substance, and this knowledge-relationship comes, as
said above, “​from no other source​ but the very words and teaching of Christ.” In
this way the very opening lines indicate Origen’s comprehensive theology not just
of grace, truth, and Christ, but also of Scripture.
Origen’s next statement presses this further, for “by the words of Christ we
do not mean only those which formed His teaching when he was made man and
dwelt in the flesh, since even before that Christ the Word of God was in Moses and
the prophets.” Transcending His historical Incarnation, what Origen is establishing
is a continuity between the Old and New Testaments, and, more than a continuity,
he is establishing a shared identity between them in Him. Furthermore, that
together they are the selfsame Word of God which is expressed as Scripture,
Scripture thus functioning as a type of Incarnation of Christ. Scripture, then, forms
not only a vital component of Origen’s soteriology and Christology, but also
functions holistically as the access point to salvation through participation in

50
PA 3.1.15.
51
PA 4.4.9.
52
PA 4.2.7.
53
PA 1.1.5. Cf. from this same section: “Among all intellectual, that is, incorporeal things, what is there so
universally surpassing… as God.” Also, “God… is Unity… and the mind and fount from which originates all
intellectual existence or mind.”
54
PA 4.4.9.
55
PA 1.1.6.
56
PA 1.1.6.
57
PA 1.1.6.
10
Christ, in Scripture, because Scripture is ontologically coextensive with Christ the
Word.
From the above quote we also see the primacy of Scripture, for Origen says:
“from no other source.” He does not even speak of the historical Cross or the
58
historical Resurrection in this manner, and yet the logic for this is likely quite
simple. It is through the Scriptures that one learns of the historic Passion, but it is
through the faithful reading and contemplating of them in Scripture that their
ontological ground, which is to say His Person, Mind, and Life, is effectively
participated in. Rather than merely stimulating the memory of an historic Christ,
the Scriptures are given primacy of place due to their participatory nature, for
knowledge finds its ground in Scripture, Scripture which is coextensive with the
Divine Mind, Scripture which renders the living Person of Christ Himself present
within the soul. To place the historic economy first could, for Origen, appear as a
type of historicizing obfuscation of the present reality of the living Christ who is
actively participated in through the Scriptures. Immediately prior to his extended
discussion of ​asomaton​, the conclusion of the Preface seems to confirm this: “For
the contents of scripture are the outward forms of certain mysteries and the images
59
of divine things.” In this reading the Passion is no less profound, but it is more
than a holy memory preserved in a text; what is read on the literal level is the
historical image of a still more present truth, an eternal truth coming from the Mind
of Christ who is present Truth, who cannot be merely an historical or even
philosophical cognitive content, but is a Person met in the flesh of Scriptures.
Moving forward, Origen’s notion of participation seems especially rooted in
his understanding of the intellectual nature that is man, the ​mind​ that is at the root
of who he is. Along these lines Origen says, “there is a certain affinity between the
60
mind and God, of whom the mind is an intellectual image.” In other words, the
mind of man is the incorporeal and invisible image of God. He also equates the
61
intellectual faculty with the mind as well as the soul. Thus there is this
constellation of concepts uniting God with man who is mind, soul, intellect, and

58
Cf. PA 3.5.6. Also 1.2.4. The Resurrection, which Origen here calls a figure, has “​its​ ground in the very wisdom
and word and life of God”(emphasis added), and not that these have their ground in the Resurrection.
59
PA Preface.8
60
PA 1.1.7.
61
PA 1.1.9.
11
rational nature; a constellation which ought not to seem too surprising. What is
most unique in Origen’s usage of these, however, is precisely in his exalted notion
of Scripture; for, “from no other source,” Scripture serves as the bridge linking
62
man and God. Christ is the Mediator, an idea not lost on Origen, and so in his
uniting of Christ the Word with the Word as Scripture it follows that he has
functionally rendered the Scriptures as the corresponding access point into Christ
and therefore God. Scripture, as the manifest mind of Christ, thus functions
likewise as the salvific mediator between man and God for the person who entrusts
63
himself to it as his instructor.
This then adds further weight to Origen’s statement that “the right way… of
approaching the scriptures and gathering their meaning… is extracted from the
64
writings themselves.” This goes much further than the Protestant dictum which
states that Scripture interprets Scripture; for what Origen understands Scripture to
contain is not at its basis a “content” to which one is merely obedient, a collection
of holy memories of past actions, but the presence of the Logos Himself. They are
65
divine and therefore living words, “words of God and the utterances of Wisdom,”
66
not human; and so to “gather meaning” from them is, for Origen, more essentially
67
like gathering the precious and life-giving flesh itself, communion, an ontological
interpenetration from Mind to mind, and not simply something from which to
derive pious feelings, ideas, or doctrine, but God Himself.
Furthermore, when Origen says that the right “way” is derived from
Scripture, one must remember Origen’s fondness for Christological names and
68
titles. “The Way,” being one of Christ’s names, is a correspondence not likely
lost on him, and so when one sees that the right “way” of approaching the Mind
that is Christ is through the mind of Christ, that is, the Scriptures, one gains a
deeper insight into how textuality and interpretation are interwoven with

62
PA 2.6.1.
63
Cf. PA 3.1.15, especially his use of how the “instructor promises” lines up with how the “divine word promises.”
64
PA 4.2.4.
65
PA 4.3.8.
66
PA 4.3.5.
67
Cf. John 6:55, which in the ESV says, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
68
The underlying Greek word, ​odos​, translated from the Philocalia as “way” is the same as the title of Christ found
in John which is also generally translated as “Way.” In addition to PA 1.2, see also Book 1 of his commentary on
John for a thorough sample of his depth of interest in the names and titles of Christ, with the present study perhaps
lending itself to a fuller appreciation for what Origen is attempting to accomplish in his exposition.
12
participation in Christ Himself. Again, interpretation is interpenetration. Taken
further, this is the very gospel. Since “everyone who shares in anything is
undoubtedly of one substance and one nature with him who shares in the same
69 70
thing”; and since “intellectual light,” which is “of the divine nature,” is also
71
“mind, which is capable of receiving God,” ​ and does so expressly “from no other
source” than Scripture, it follows for Origen that to receive what Scripture truly is,
is to receive salvation. God, like a fountain, is the Mind from which all other minds
72
derive their existence; with Scripture, then, operating as the cup of communion
73
joining the minds in unity.
Though it has only been touched on so far, much of Origen’s view of
Scripture hinges on his general understanding of the mind. Not only non-corporeal,
mind is in a manner of speaking permeable. Christ, who is identified by Origen as
Wisdom, is not as though He were “some wise living being, but a certain thing
which makes men wise by revealing and ​imparting​ itself to the minds of such as
74
are able to receive its influence and intelligence.” Though one may be tempted to
75
argue his apparent reduction of Wisdom to a “thing,” the focus here is instead on
its “imparting” of “itself” to the “minds” its “intelligence.” It is not merely then
some datum being shared, as if it were a letter from a wise being dropped in a
mailbox, but is an actual imparting of essence, a sharing of “itself” to the mind.
76
Intelligence, or Wisdom, cannot be divided. For Wisdom to impart wisdom
means that Wisdom is actually coming into the person such that the person
77
receives Wisdom, the same Wisdom that is Wisdom. Again, this is because
Wisdom cannot be divided from itself. Wisdom thus personally abides in the
person who receives it, and this is made possible because of the “permeable”

69
PA 4.4.9.
70
PA 4.4.9.
71
PA 4.4.9.
72
PA 1.1.6.
73
Given Origen’s views on the Scriptures and the names of Christ, these might give an interesting reading of Psalm
116:13: “I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.” Perhaps the name is a “cup.”
74
PA 1.2.2.
75
He elsewhere says that He is a “living being.” Cf. PA 1.2.3. Let it also be mentioned that in this same section the
unity of God and Word is maintained.
76
PA 1.2.6. See also below.
77
An admittedly and torturously self-referential statement.
13
 78
nature of the mind to receive into itself that which is like unto it. This is also why
79
Origen could say that “the mind… is capable of receiving God” Himself in itself.
80
In his “exposition” on Christ’s names, Origen provides further evidence in
support of the above. He says, “the Son is the Word,” and therefore imperceptible
81
to the senses. This is a basic rationale for the centrality of Scripture. How does
one perceive or commune with something incorporeal and imperceptible? One
cannot, unless that thing clothes itself in something corporeal and perceptible.
Even more than an historical Jesus, the Scriptures remain as the very thing that
operates to render an access point into the invisible Word, for these Scriptures “are
82
the outward forms of certain mysteries and the images of divine things.” The
83
human body operates similarly for Origen. In short, like the body, he sees
Scripture as bringing the Person of the Word into a literally communicable
medium.
Taking this further, Origen observes concerning the Image-bearing Son of
the Father: “This image preserves the unity of nature and substance common to a
84
father and a son.” In other words, “the Son, whose birth from the Father is as it
85
were an act of will proceeding from the mind,” is in a real sense coextensive with
86
the Father. Since there is no “splitting of the divine nature into parts,” it would be
“not at all consistent… to think that a physical division of an incorporeal being is
possible. Rather must we suppose that as an act of will proceeds from the mind
without either cutting off any part of the mind, or being separated or divided from
87
it,” ​ it only makes sense that this unity of Mind, the eternal communion of Father
and Son, is communicated in just such a unitive way in the soul communing with
Christ. The point here is to demonstrate that from mind to mind there is no
division, thus establishing more firmly what is being called a blending or
“intermingling” of being. Christ’s mind is therefore interpenetrating our mind as

78
PA 4.4.9.
79
PA 4.4.9.
80
PA 1.2.7.
81
PA 1.2.6.
82
PA Preface, 8. Remember also Origen’s description of Wisdom as “thing.”
83
PA 1.1.6.
84
PA 1.2.6.
85
PA 1.2.6.
86
PA 1.2.6.
87
PA 1.2.6.
14
our mind communes with His in Scripture and, since we are at root a mind, as He
is the divine Mind, it follows from Origen’s anthropology and theology of
Scripture that in reading and meditating on the words, on the “certain mysteries
and divine images,” there is an ontological participation in the Person of the Word.
Although examples could be multiplied, the above is intended to indicate
more directly how the nature of the mind plays a key role in Origen’s
understanding of God, His Word, and man. The mind actually lies at the heart of
the matter, as does its incorporeality, which serves as a theme running throughout
the entire ​On First Principles​. God is the root Mind, the intellectual principle; and
man is likewise a mind created in His image. In fact, “all rational beings are
partakers of the word of God, that is, of reason”; and not only this, but all things
88
also “derive their share of being from him who truly exists.” Furthermore, “Christ
is ‘in the heart’ of all men, in virtue of his being word or reason, by sharing in
89
which men are rational.” Not only do word, reason, intellect, rational nature, soul,
and beingness get treated more or less interchangeably here and throughout, they in
fact lie at the root of what makes man who he is.
Concerning incorporeality, it might seem quite odd for Origen to stress it to
the degree he does, unless one understands how it is essential to his vision of
communion. Since there is no division in divinity, incorporeality implies a
potential for both continuity and permeability with God. It is because of this very
incorporeality of the mind that it is able to share in “the whole of company virtues;
90
which exist in God essentially.” Since they exist in God “essentially,” it is a
participation in God’s essence that gives man the potential to share in them.
As Origen says, “the marks of the divine image in man may be clearly
discerned, not in the form of his body… but in the prudence of his mind… and
91
may exist in man as a result of his… imitation of God” The implication is that
imitation is possible only because of a basic continuity or similarity of intellectual
nature, for a man can only truly imitate another man because they are alike;
whereas a worm cannot imitate a man because there is a basic dissimilarity.
Incorporeality is in this sense what allows a permeability of that nature which
88
PA 1.3.6.
89
PA 1.3.6.
90
PA 4.4.10.
91
PA 4.4.10.
15
exists in God essentially, an incorporeality which is therefore at the root of man’s
capacity to “partake” in God’s essence, enabling “through our imitation of him”
92
the real possibility of becoming “partakers of the divine nature.” Corporeality not
only interrupts this through an implied separation, but also through an
incommensurable ontological gap.
This is why Origen presses the issue of incorporeality, “For if the Son is
something separated from the Father and an offspring generated from him… then
both he who generated and he who was generated are of necessity [corporeal]
93
bodies.” By delimiting divinity within bodies and rendering it expressive of a
fundamental separation, this would also render the full humanity of the Word
impossible, Jesus no longer conceivable as existing “united in a spotless
94
partnership with the Word of God.” ​ It would thus preclude man’s sharing in the
divine nature, no longer able “through imitation of him, [to become] partakers of
95
the divine nature.” ​ Origen, however, in preserving the incorporeality of the divine
nature renders sharing and participation in God possible.
96
Origen further links incorporeality, or invisibility, with the mind when he
writes: “setting aside all thought of a material body, we say that the Word and
Wisdom was begotten of the invisible and incorporeal God… like an act of will
97
proceeding from the mind.” This demonstrates the conceptual link between the
two ideas of incorporeal begetting and mind proceeding. With these two held
together one can see how pivotal Origen’s concept of the incorporeal mind is in his
theology, for “all souls and all rational natures… are incorporeal in respect of their
98
proper nature.” It is thus a matter of joining like with like, mind with mind, light
with light, and Scripture provides the literary flesh with which man can accomplish
this, with which he can approach the incorporeal Word. It is then from this
foundation that Origen says a person can “receive a share of God’s Word, or of his
99
wisdom or truth or life.”
92
PA 4.4.4. Interestingly, Origen, in the two passages just cited, links imitation with participation, and does so again
in PA 1.6.2.
93
PA 4.4.1.
94
PA 4.4.4.
95
PA 4.4.4
96
Cf. PA 1.P.8, 4.3.15. Basically, he sees the concept of incorporeality reproduced in Scripture as “invisibility.”
97
PA 4.4.1.
98
PA 1.7.1.
99
PA 4.4.2.
16
 With the centrality of the mind considered, a fuller significance can be given
to Origen’s statement, quoted above, that “Every mind which shares in intellectual
light must undoubtedly be of one nature with every other mind which shares
100
similarly in this light.” Earlier this had been looked at from the perspective of
participation, of “sharing,” yet now it can be seen that the very context of sharing
is the mind, the rational nature comparable with light that man shares with God.
Origen, it can be further noted, is also well aware that Light serves as a name of
101
Christ. Tying this together, he observes that it is an “intellectual light” which
102
“intermingles” with the mind, and this intellectual light is “of the divine nature,
103
in virtue of the fact that they share in wisdom and sanctification”; the last
concepts again being names of Christ. Now, “if the soul of man receives a share of
104
the same light and wisdom,” then this is tantamount to sharing and participating
105
in the very Person who is incorruptible Light, transformative Sanctification, and
eternal Wisdom.
Sharing in this light, sanctification, and wisdom, “undoubtedly therefore the
substance of the soul of man will also be incorruptible and immortal. And not only
so, but since the nature of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to whom alone belongs the
intellectual light… it follows logically and of necessity that every existence which
has a share in that eternal nature must itself also remain for ever incorruptible and
106
eternal,” for they have in a manner of speaking internalized, through sharing, the
essence of that which is participated in. In other words, the soul has the ability to
partake of the Light that comes from God alone, and when it does the soul is
transformed through this Light so as to become like God. This potential for
transformation, then, provides further depth to Origen’s saying that “the mind… is
107
capable of receiving God,” for it is not possible to receive God and not be
transformed, for reception and transformation are coterminous.

100
PA 4.4.9.
101
PA 1.2.13.
102
See PA 2.6.3. for how Christ’s role as Mediator makes ontological “intermingling” possible. Also see how this
relates to what is in this same section, how through “imitation” of Jesus one becomes “one spirit” with Him.
103
PA 4.4.9.
104
PA 4.4.9.
105
PA 1.2.13.
106
PA 4.4.9.
107
PA 4.4.9.
17
 In accordance with the above principle, perhaps even to safeguard it, he
acknowledges a “rule [which] must control our interpretation even of the divine
writings, in order that what is said therein may be estimated in accordance not with
the meanness of the language but with the divine power of the Holy Spirit who
108
inspired their composition.” This is not merely artful language, but is geared
towards a commitment to He who speaks with divine power in the Scriptures. The
meanness of the language cannot be taken as a stopping point, or even really a
starting point, for even if it is somewhat of a beginning point, it is not essentially
so. One must estimate Scripture in accordance with the First Principle which
speaks in and through it.

III. Conclusion
This then brings the present study full circle with Origen’s view of Scripture.
To conclude, though many important things have had to be omitted from this
present study, it has been shown that the theology of Scripture plays an absolutely
critical role in Origen’s thought. It is not merely a text, but the flesh of the Word of
God and His Mind manifested in letters. Scripture is thus coextensive with Him,
with the mind of He who is Mind. The person, then, who reads Scripture, must
understand that he is not reading merely with his own isolated mind, but is actually
joining his mind to the Mind that is Christ. He is thinking His thoughts, and
embodying His incorporeal presence thereby. This joining, then, results in nothing
less than salvation through deification.
If, as Psalm 10:4 says of the wicked, that “God is in none of his thoughts”;
then Origen is seeing the other side of this. He is seeing how one can come to have
God ​in​ his thoughts, his mind, his very being. Man, being essentially a soul, which
for Origen’s anthropology includes being a mind, is therefore capable of receiving
God: Mind to mind. The Scriptures therefore create the access and contact point for
what amounts to ontological interpenetration. A sharing of spirit, of essence, is not
then merely made possible, but made actual to the degree with which one applies
himself to more deeply reading and being read by Scripture. This then was the
reality he saw concerning what the Scriptures most fundamentally are, a vision
which worked to structure his “senses” of Scripture and give impetus to his
108
PA 4.3.15.
18
incredible intuition which saw Christ throughout. His writings, then, operated to
communicate the insight generated from his communion with the Lord. For
Origen, and as he would have it, for all Christians, perhaps made possible by Saints
Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian who together adopted much of
Origen’s thought on Scripture in their ​Philocalia​, Christ is the Light found
especially in Scripture, and if a closing analogy be permitted: the Scriptures are
like frozen light; and much like ice, which is but frozen water, when one chews on
the Scriptures the frozen speech melts, becoming like liquid light warming and
transforming our souls from the inside out in union with the Mind of God Himself.

Bibliography
Behr, John. ​The Way to Nicaea​. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 2001.
de Lubac, Henri. ​History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to
Origen​. San
Francisco: Ignatius, 2007.
Origen. ​Commentary on the Gospel According to John: Books 1-10​, trans. R.E.
Heine. FC 80.
Washington, D.C.: Catholic University, 1989.
Contra Celsum​. trans. Henry Chadwick. London: Cambridge, 1980.
On First Principles​. trans. G.W. Butterworth. New York: Harper & Row,
1966.

19
Parnell, Jason B. ​The Theurgic Turn in Christian Thought: Iamblichus, Origen,
Augustine, and
the Eucharist​. Ann Arbor: ProQuest, UMI Dissertation Publishing, 2011.
Shin, Daniel. “Some Light from Origen; Scripture as Sacrament,” ​Worship​ 73.5 S
1999: 399- 425.

20