Editing Origen (section)

==Views==
===Christology===

Origen writes that Jesus was "the firstborn of all creation [who] assumed a body and a human soul".{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=61}} He firmly believed that Jesus had a human soul{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=61}} and abhorred [[docetism]] (the teaching which held that Jesus had come to Earth in spirit form rather than a physical human body).{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=61}} Origen envisioned Jesus' human nature as the one soul that stayed closest to God and remained perfectly faithful to Him, even when all other souls fell away.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=61}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} At Jesus's incarnation, his soul became fused with the Logos and they "intermingled" to become one.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=61–62}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} Thus, according to Origen, Christ was both human and divine,{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=61–62}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} but like all human souls, Christ's human nature was existent from the beginning.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=62}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}}

Origen was the first to propose the [[ransom theory of atonement]] in its fully developed form,{{sfn|Eddy|Beilby|2008|p=86}} although [[Irenaeus]] had previously proposed a prototypical form of it.{{sfn|Eddy|Beilby|2008|p=86}} According to this theory, [[Crucifixion of Jesus|Christ's death on the cross]] was a ransom to Satan in exchange for humanity's liberation.{{sfn|Eddy|Beilby|2008|p=86}} This theory holds that Satan was tricked by God{{sfn|Eddy|Beilby|2008|p=86}}{{sfn|Plantinga|Thompson|Lundberg|2010}} because Christ was not only free of sin, but also the incarnate Deity, whom Satan lacked the ability to enslave.{{sfn|Plantinga|Thompson|Lundberg|2010}} The theory was later expanded by theologians such as [[Gregory of Nyssa]] and [[Tyrannius Rufinus|Rufinus of Aquileia]].{{sfn|Eddy|Beilby|2008|p=86}} In the eleventh century, [[Anselm of Canterbury]] criticized the ransom theory, along with the associated [[Christus Victor]] theory,{{sfn|Eddy|Beilby|2008|p=86}} resulting in the theory's decline in western Europe.{{sfn|Eddy|Beilby|2008|p=86}} The theory has nonetheless retained some of its popularity in the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]].{{sfn|Eddy|Beilby|2008|p=86}}

===Cosmology and eschatology===
[[File:Jan_Brueghel_de_Oude_en_Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_Het_aards_paradijs_met_de_zondeval_van_Adam_en_Eva.jpg|thumb|upright=1.7|''[[The Garden of Eden with the Fall of Man]]'' ({{circa}} 1617) by [[Peter Paul Rubens]] and [[Jan Brueghel the Elder]]. Origen based his teaching of the preexistence of souls on an allegorical interpretation of the creation story in the [[Book of Genesis]].{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=53–55}}]]

One of Origen's main teachings was the doctrine of the [[pre-existence|preexistence of souls]],{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=53–55}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} which held that before God created the material world he created a vast number of incorporeal "[[Soul|spiritual intelligences]]" ({{lang|grc|ψυχαί}} {{translit|grc|psychaí}}).{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=53–55}}{{sfn|Chadwick|2017}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} All of these souls were at first devoted to the contemplation and love of their Creator,{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Chadwick|2017}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} but as the fervor of the divine fire cooled, almost all of these intelligences eventually grew bored of contemplating God, and their love for him "cooled off" ({{lang|grc|ψύχεσθαι}} {{translit|grc|psýchesthai}}).{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=53–55}}{{sfn|Chadwick|2017}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} When God created the world, the souls which had previously existed without bodies became incarnate.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=53–55}} Those whose love for God diminished the most became [[demons]].{{sfn|Chadwick|2017}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} Those whose love diminished moderately became human souls, eventually to be incarnated in fleshly bodies.{{sfn|Chadwick|2017}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} Those whose love diminished the least became [[angels]].{{sfn|Chadwick|2017}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}}

One soul, however, who remained perfectly devoted to God became, through love, one with the Word ([[Logos (Christianity)|Logos]]) of God.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=61}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} The Logos eventually took flesh and was born of the [[Virgin Mary]], becoming the [[God-man (Christianity)|God-man]] [[Jesus Christ]].{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=61}}{{sfn|Chadwick|2017}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} In recent years it has been questioned whether Origen believed this, being in reality a belief of his disciples and a misrepresentation by Justinian, Epiphanius and others.<ref> Ilaria Ramelli. (2018). Chapter 14 - Origen. In; Anna Marmodoro and Sophie Cartwright. (2018). A History of Mind and Body in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University Press. pp. 245 - 266. </ref>

Origen believed that, eventually, the whole world would be converted to Christianity,{{sfn|Cahill|1994|p=53}} "since the world is continually gaining possession of more souls".{{sfn|Cahill|1994|pp=53–54}} He believed that the [[Kingdom of Heaven (Gospel of Matthew)|Kingdom of Heaven]] was not yet come,{{sfn|Cahill|1994|p=54}} but that it was the duty of every Christian to make the eschatological reality of the kingdom present in their lives.{{sfn|Cahill|1994|p=54}} Origen is often believed to be a [[Christian Universalism|Universalist]],{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|p=56}} who suggested that all people might eventually attain salvation,{{sfn|McGuckin|2004|p=96}}{{sfn|Olson|1999|p=100}}{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|p=56}} but only after being purged of their sins through "divine fire".{{sfn|Moore|2005|p=96}} This, of course, in line of Origen's allegorical interpretation, was not ''literal'' fire, but rather the inner anguish of knowing one's own sins.{{sfn|McGuckin|2004|p=96}}{{sfn|Moore|2005|p=96}}

Origen was careful to maintain that universal salvation was merely a possibility and not a definitive doctrine,{{sfn|McGuckin|2004|p=96}} though he seemed strongly convinced that at least all human souls will be reunited to God in a final [[apokatastasis]] – the re-establishment of an original unity in creation – "because the end is always like the beginning" and because he believed all divine punishment to be medicinal.{{sfn|Daley|1991|pp=58–59}} It is certain that Origen rejected the [[Stoicism|Stoic]] doctrine of [[eternal return]],{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|p=55}} although he did posit the existence of a series of non-identical worlds.{{sfn|Butterworth|1966|page=lvi}} Jerome quotes Origen as having allegedly written that "after aeons and the one restoration of all things, the state of [[Gabriel]] will be the same as that of the Devil, Paul's as that of [[Caiaphas]], that of virgins as that of prostitutes".{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|p=56}} However, Origen expressly states in his ''Letter to Friends in Alexandria'' that Satan and "those who are cast out of the kingdom of God" would not be included in the final salvation.{{sfn|McGuckin|2004|p=96}}{{sfn|Kelly|2006|p=199}} Moreover, Origen often described a quite traditional fiery punishment in his homilies, considering the doctrine vital for the Christians who are not yet spiritually mature. On the other hand, he thought it sometimes necessary to admit the medicinal character of divine punishment to refute the notion of a cruel God.{{sfn|Daley|1991|pp=56–57}}

A number of critics in the [[Church Fathers|patristic]] era accused Origen of teaching that even the resurrection bodies would eventually vanish so that the souls could be united with the incorporeal God. In Rufinus's favourable translation of ''[[On the First Principles]]'', however, Origen repeatedly asserts that some kind of body is indispensable for created beings, although when contemplating the final end of all things, he offers three hypotheses – incorporeal existence, ethereal corporeality, or corporeality coming to rest in a stable part of the universe – leaving the reader to judge whichever is best. Nevertheless, based on other passages from his works, he probably preferred the third one.{{sfn|Daley|1991|pp=54}} He seems to have believed that even the not yet resurrected souls of the departed possess bodies, albeit luminous ones, which explains [[List of reportedly haunted locations|ghost sightings]].{{sfn|Daley|1991|pp=55–56}} In discussing the resurrection bodies, he stressed Paul's teaching about the [[spiritual body]]. Origen emphasized its vast superiority and difference from the current body to the point of arguing that it will lack teeth and other no longer needed parts. However, he insisted that our individual bodies will be recognizable thanks to a unique form (εἶδος), preserved by each of our immortal souls, that shapes and integrates each body.{{sfn|Daley|1991|pp=51–54}}

Origen explicitly rejected "the false doctrine of the transmigration of souls into bodies".{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|p=55}}{{sfn|Olson|1999|p=100}} But this may refer only to a specific kind of transmigration according to theologian [[Geddes MacGregor]], who has argued that Origen must have believed in the Platonic teaching of {{translit|grc|[[metempsychosis]]}} ('transmigration of souls'; i.e. [[reincarnation]]){{sfn|MacGregor|1982|pp=56–57}}{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|p=55}} because it makes sense within his eschatology{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|pp=54–55}} and is never explicitly denied in the Bible.{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|pp=54–55}} [[Roger E. Olson]], however, dismisses the view that Origen believed in reincarnation as a [[New Age]] misunderstanding of Origen's teachings.{{sfn|Olson|1999|pp=99–100}}

===Ethics===
[[File:Master of Jean de Mandeville The Birth of Esau and Jacob.jpg|thumb|left|''The Birth of Esau and Jacob'' ({{circa}} 1360–1370) by Master of Jean de Mandeville. Origen used the Biblical story of Esau and Jacob to support his theory that a soul's free will actions committed before incarnation determine the conditions of the person's birth.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=58–59}}]]

Origen was an ardent believer in [[free will]],{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=56–59}} and he adamantly rejected the Valentinian idea of [[Election (Christianity)|election]].{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=58}} Instead, Origen believed that even disembodied souls have the power to make their own decisions.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=58}} Furthermore, in his interpretation of the story of [[Jacob]] and [[Esau]], Origen argues that the condition into which a person is born is actually dependent upon what their souls did in this pre-existent state.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=58–59}} According to Origen, the superficial unfairness of a person's condition at birth—with some humans being poor, others rich, some being sick, and others healthy—is actually a by-product of what the person's soul had done in the pre-existent state.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=58–59}} Origen defends free will in his interpretations of instances of [[Prophecy|divine foreknowledge]] in the scriptures,{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=79}} arguing that Jesus's knowledge of Judas's future betrayal in the gospels and God's knowledge of Israel's future disobedience in the [[Deuteronomistic History|Deuteronomistic history]] only show that God knew these events would happen in advance.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=79}} Origen therefore concludes that the individuals involved in these incidents still made their decisions out of their own free will.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=79}} Like [[Plato]], [[Plotinus]]<ref> Enn. 6.8.4.11 </ref> and [[Gregory of Nyssa]], Origen understands that only the agent who chooses the Good is free; choosing evil is never free but slavery.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.doi.org/10.1111/moth.12777 | doi=10.1111/moth.12777 | title=The Legacy of Origen in Gregory of Nyssa's Theology of Freedom | year=2022 | last1=Ramelli | first1=Ilaria L. E. | journal=Modern Theology | volume=38 | issue=2 | pages=363–388 | s2cid=247117697 }}</ref>

Origen was an ardent [[Christian pacifism|pacifist]],{{sfn|Caspary|1979|pp=125–127}}{{sfn|Brock|1972|pp=11–12}}{{sfn|Cahill|1994|pp=53–54}}{{sfn|Trigg|1983|pp=235–236}} and in his ''Against Celsus'', he argued that Christianity's inherent pacifism was one of the most outwardly noticeable aspects of the religion.{{sfn|Caspary|1979|pp=125–127}} While Origen did admit that some Christians served in the Roman army,{{sfn|Charles|2005|p=36}}{{sfn|Caspary|1979|pp=126–127}}{{sfn|Cahill|1994|pp=53–54}} he pointed out that most did not{{sfn|Charles|2005|p=36}}{{sfn|Cahill|1994|pp=53–54}} and insisted that engaging in earthly wars was against the way of Christ.{{sfn|Charles|2005|p=36}}{{sfn|Brock|1972|pp=11–12}}{{sfn|Cahill|1994|pp=53–54}}{{sfn|Trigg|1983|pp=235–236}} Origen accepted that it was sometimes necessary for a non-Christian state to wage wars{{sfn|Brock|1972|p=12}} but insisted that it was impossible for a Christian to fight in such a war without compromising his or her faith, since Christ had absolutely forbidden violence of any kind.{{sfn|Brock|1972|p=12}}{{sfn|Trigg|1983|pp=235–236}} Origen explained the violence found in certain passages of the Old Testament as allegorical{{sfn|Cahill|1994|p=53}} and pointed out Old Testament passages which he interpreted as supporting nonviolence, such as Psalm 7:4–6<ref>{{bibleverse|Psalm|7:4–6|HE}}</ref> and Lamentations 3:27–29.<ref>{{bibleverse|Lamentations|3:27–29|HE}}</ref>{{sfn|Cahill|1994|p=53}} Origen maintained that, if everyone were peaceful and loving like Christians, then there would be no wars and the Empire would not need a military.{{sfn|Trigg|1983|p=236}}

===Hermeneutics===
{{rquote|right|For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.|Origen, ''On the First Principles'' [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm IV.16]}}

Origen bases his theology on the Christian scriptures{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=55–58}}{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|pp=56–57}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|p=155}} and does not appeal to Platonic teachings without having first supported his argument with a scriptural basis.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=58–60}} He saw the scriptures as divinely inspired{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=55–56}}{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=55–58}}{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|pp=56–57}}{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|pp=87–88}} and was cautious never to contradict his own interpretation of what was written in them.{{sfn|MacGregor|1982|pp=56–57}} Nonetheless, Origen did have a penchant for speculating beyond what was explicitly stated in the Bible,{{sfn|Olson|1999|pp=99–100}}{{sfn|McGuckin|2004|pp=13–17}} and this habit frequently placed him in the hazy realm between strict orthodoxy and heresy.{{sfn|Olson|1999|pp=99–100}}{{sfn|McGuckin|2004|pp=13–17}}

According to Origen, there are two kinds of Biblical literature which are found in both the Old and New Testaments: {{translit|grc|historia}} ('history' or 'narrative') and {{translit|grc|nomothesia}} ('legislation' or 'ethical prescription').{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|pp=87–88}} Origen expressly states that the Old and New Testaments should be read together and according to the same rules.{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=88}} Origen further taught that there were three different ways in which passages of scripture could be interpreted.{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=88}}{{sfn|Grant|1967|p=551}} The "flesh" was the literal, historical interpretation of the passage;{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=88}}{{sfn|Grant|1967|p=551}} the "soul" was the moral message behind the passage;{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=88}}{{sfn|Grant|1967|p=551}} and the "spirit" was the eternal, incorporeal reality that the passage conveyed.{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=88}}{{sfn|Grant|1967|p=551}} In Origen's exegesis, the [[Book of Proverbs]], [[Ecclesiastes]], and the [[Song of Songs]] represent perfect examples of the bodily, soulful, and spiritual components of scripture respectively.{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=90}}

Origen saw the "spiritual" interpretation as the deepest and most important meaning of the text{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=90}} and taught that some passages held no literal meaning at all and that their meanings were purely allegorical.{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=90}} Nonetheless, he stressed that "the passages which are historically true are far more numerous than those which are composed with purely spiritual meanings"{{sfn|Ludlow|2013|p=90}} and often used examples from corporeal realities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Soler|first=Fernando|date=2019|title=The Theological Use of Eating and Drinking Metaphors in Origen's De Principiis|journal=Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum|volume=23|issue=1|pages=4–20|doi=10.1515/zac-2019-0001|s2cid=171528428|issn=1612-961X}}</ref> Origen noticed that the accounts of Jesus's life in the four canonical gospels contain irreconcilable contradictions,{{sfn|Perkins|2007|p=292}}{{sfn|Kugel|Greer|1986|p=183}}{{sfn|Keefer|2006|pp=75–76}} but he argued that these contradictions did not undermine the spiritual meanings of the passages in question.{{sfn|Kugel|Greer|1986|p=183}}{{sfn|Keefer|2006|pp=75–76}} Origen's idea of a twofold creation was based on an allegorical interpretation of the creation story found in the first two chapters of the [[Book of Genesis]].{{sfn|Scott|2012|pp=53–55}} The first creation, described in Genesis 1:26,<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|1:26|9}}</ref> was the creation of the primeval spirits,{{sfn|Layton|2004|p=86}} who are made "in the image of God" and are therefore incorporeal like Him;{{sfn|Layton|2004|p=86}} the second creation described in Genesis 2:7<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|2:7|9}}</ref> is when the human souls are given ethereal, spiritual bodies{{sfn|Layton|2004|pp=86–87}} and the description in Genesis 3:21<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|3:21|9}}</ref> of God clothing [[Adam and Eve]] in "tunics of skin" refers to the transformation of these spiritual bodies into corporeal ones.{{sfn|Layton|2004|p=86}} Thus, each phase represents a degradation from the original state of incorporeal holiness.{{sfn|Layton|2004|p=86}}

===Theology===
[[File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg|thumb|Origen significantly contributed to the development of the concept of the [[Trinity]]{{sfn|Olson|Hall|2002|p=24}}{{sfn|La Due|2003|p=37}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|pp=154–156}} and was among the first to name the Holy Spirit as a member of the Godhead,{{sfn|Olson|Hall|2002|p=25}} but he was also a [[Subordinationism|subordinationist]],{{sfn|La Due|2003|p=38}}{{sfn|Olson|Hall|2002|p=25}}{{sfn|Pollard|1970|p=95}}{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=161}} who taught that the Father was superior to the Son and the Son was superior to the Holy Spirit.{{sfn|La Due|2003|p=38}}{{sfn|Olson|Hall|2002|p=25}}{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=161}}]]

Origen's conception of God the Father is [[Apophatic theology|apophatic]]—a perfect unity, invisible and incorporeal, transcending all things material, and therefore inconceivable and incomprehensible. He is likewise unchangeable and transcends space and time. But his power is limited by his goodness, justice, and wisdom; and, though entirely free from necessity, his goodness and omnipotence constrained him to reveal himself. This revelation, the external self-emanation of God, is expressed by Origen in various ways, the Logos being only one of many. The revelation was the first creation of God (cf. Proverbs 8:22), in order to afford creative mediation between God and the world, such mediation being necessary, because God, as changeless unity, could not be the source of a multitudinous creation.

The Logos is the rational creative principle that permeates the universe.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=80}} The Logos acts on all human beings through their capacity for logic and rational thought,{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=79–80}} guiding them to the truth of God's revelation.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=79–80}} As they progress in their rational thinking, all humans become more like Christ.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=80}} Nonetheless, they retain their individuality and do not become subsumed into Christ.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=80–81}} Creation came into existence only through the Logos, and God's nearest approach to the world is the command to create. While the Logos is substantially a unity, he comprehends a multiplicity of concepts, so that Origen terms him, in Platonic fashion, "essence of essences" and "idea of ideas".

The focused understanding of the Logos, along with the paradigms of participation carried from Greek philosophy, allowed Origen to have a major role in the development of the concept of human deification or {{translit|grc|[[Theosis (Eastern Christian theology)|theosis]]}}. Origen believed that Christ's humanity was deified and this deification spread to all the believers.<ref>Contra Celsum 3.28</ref> By participating in the very Logos himself, we become participants in divinity. Origen, however, concluded that only those who are created in God's image and live a life of virtue can deified; virtue for Origen is linked to the person of Jesus Christ.<ref name="Zakhary-2024">{{Cite journal |last=Zakhary |first=Beniamin |date=September 2024 |title=Μετοχῇ Θεότητος: Partakers of Divinity in Origen's Contra Celsum |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/936757 |journal=Journal of Early Christian Studies |language=en |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=315–340 |doi=10.1353/earl.2024.a936757 |issn=1086-3184}}</ref> Thus, he excluded all inanimate objects or animals (previously seen as divine in some pagan polytheistic systems), and also excluded the pagan heroes from this perceived deification.<ref name="Zakhary-2024" />

Origen significantly contributed to the development of the idea of the [[Trinity]].{{sfn|Olson|Hall|2002|p=24}}{{sfn|La Due|2003|p=37}}{{sfn|Ehrman|2003|pp=154–156}} He declared the Holy Spirit to be a part of the Godhead{{sfn|Olson|Hall|2002|page=25}} and interpreted the [[Parable of the Lost Coin]] to mean that the Holy Spirit dwells within each and every person{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=159–160}} and that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was necessary for any kind of speech dealing with God.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=160}} Origen taught that the activity of all three parts of the Trinity was necessary for a person to attain salvation.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=161}}

In one fragment preserved by Rufinus in his Latin translation of [[Pamphilus of Caesarea|Pamphilus]]'s ''Defense of Origen'', Origen seems to apply the phrase {{translit|grc|homooúsios}} ({{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}} 'of the same substance') to the relationship between the Father and the Son.{{sfn|La Due|2003|p=38}}{{sfn|Williams|2001|p=132}} But Williams states that it is impossible to verify whether the quote that uses the word {{translit|grc|homoousios}} really comes from Pamphilus at all, let alone Origen.{{sfn|Williams|2001|p=132}}

In other passages, Origen rejected the belief that the Son and the Father were one {{translit|grc|hypostasis}} as heretical.{{sfn|Williams|2001|p=132}} According to [[Rowan Williams]], because the words {{translit|grc|ousia}} and {{translit|grc|hypostasis}} were used synonymously in Origen's time,{{sfn|Williams|2001|p=132}} Origen almost certainly would have rejected {{translit|grc|homoousios}}, as a description for the relationship between the Father and the Son, as heretical.{{sfn|Williams|2001|p=132}}

Nonetheless, Origen was a [[Subordinationism|subordinationist]],{{sfn|La Due|2003|p=38}}{{sfn|Olson|Hall|2002|p=25}}{{sfn|Pollard|1970|p=95}}{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=161}} meaning he believed that the Father was superior to the Son and the Son was superior to the Holy Spirit,{{sfn|La Due|2003|p=38}}{{sfn|Olson|Hall|2002|p=25}}{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=161}} a model based on Platonic [[Proportionality (mathematics)|proportions]].{{sfn|Olson|Hall|2002|p=25}} Jerome records that Origen had written that God the Father is invisible to all beings, including even the Son and the Holy Spirit,{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=152–153}} and that the Son is invisible to the Holy Spirit as well.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=152–153}} At one point Origen suggests that the Son was created by the Father and that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son,{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=153}} but, at another point, he writes that: "Up to the present I have been able to find no passage in the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is a created being."{{sfn|Olson|Hall|2002|p=25}}{{sfn|Greggs|2009|p=154}} At the time when Origen was alive, orthodox views on the Trinity had not yet been formulated{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=152–153}}{{sfn|Badcock|1997|p=43}} and subordinationism was not yet considered heretical.{{sfn|Greggs|2009|pp=152–153}}{{sfn|Badcock|1997|p=43}} In fact, virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the [[Arian controversy]] in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent.{{sfn|Badcock|1997|p=43}} Origen's subordinationism may have developed out of his efforts to defend the unity of God against the Gnostics.{{sfn|Pollard|1970|p=95}}

===Transmission of knowledge===
Origen cites [[Hermippus of Smyrna]] to argue that [[Pythagoras]] owed a debt to [[Judaism]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fuss |first=Abraham M. |date=1994 |title=The Study of Science and Philosophy Justified by Jewish Tradition |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40914819 |journal=The Torah U-Madda Journal |volume=5 |pages=101–114 |jstor=40914819 |issn=1050-4745}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Stern |first=Menahem |title=Hermippus of Smyrna: c. 200 B.C.E. |date=1974-01-01 |work=Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism |pages=93–96 |url=https://brill.com/edcollchap/book/9789004673403/B9789004673403_s018.xml#:~:text=Both%20Josephus%20and%20Origenes%20quote%20statements%20of,warned%20the%20philosopher%20not%20to%20pass%20a. |access-date=2025-05-08 |publisher=Brill |language=en |isbn=978-90-04-67340-3}}</ref>