Guarding the Mysteries of Salvation

Journal of Early Christian Studies 18:3, 347–368 © 2010 The Johns Hopkins University Press

Let me express my appreciation to Sarah Coakley, Rowan Greer, Christopher Hampson, Glenn Snyder, and Peter Widdicombe for their insightful suggestions for this article.

1. For two recent discussions on universal salvation that take Origen’s universalism for granted without sufficient nuance, see Gerald O’Collins, Salvation for All: God’s Other Peoples (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 208–9, 230, and Morwenna Ludlow, “Universalism in the History of Christianity,” in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, ed. Robin A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 191–94.

2. On the salient themes of Origen’s eschatology, see Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 47–64; Henri Crouzel, Origen: The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian, trans. A. S. Worrall (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 235–66; Jean Daniélou, Origen, trans. Walter Mitchell (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955), 276–89.

Guarding the Mysteries of Salvation: The Pastoral Pedagogy of Origen’s Universalism

MARK S. M. SCOTT

Origen has an enduring reputation as a universalist. Patristic scholars and non-specialists alike routinely associate him with the doctrine of universal salvation. This article complicates the simplistic portrayal of Origen as a uni-versalist while affirming the universalist implications of his theology. Far from explicitly teaching universalism, particularly the salvation of the devil, Origen consistently presupposes the reality of hell and the destruction of the devil. He circumspectly reserves the deeper mysteries of salvation, including the pos-sibility of salvation beyond the purging fires of hell, for the intellectually and spiritually mature. With the “simple-minded” and “common crowd,” however, he conceals potentially subversive speculations about universal salvation. As a prudent teacher and caretaker of souls, Origen carefully calibrates his theologi-cal reflections to the intellectual and spiritual capacity of his audience.

Many scholars take Origen’s universalism for granted1 as a self-evident and well-established feature of his eschatology.2 A closer analysis of his corpus,

348 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

3. For a recent examination of Origen’s universalism, particularly as it relates to the question of genre, see Tom Greggs, “Exclusivist or Universalist? Origen the ‘Wise Steward of the Word’ (CommRom. V.1.7) and the Issue of Genre,” Interna-tional Journal of Systematic Theology 9 (2007): 315–27, and his monograph Barth, Origen, and Universal Salvation: Restoring Particularity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). For a concise introduction, see Elizabeth A. Dively Lauro, “Universal-ism,” in The Westminster Handbook to Origen, ed. John A. McGuckin (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 211–14.

4. For an extensive discussion of Origen’s universalism vis-à-vis the problem of evil, see Mark S. M. Scott, Cosmic Theodicy: Origen on the Problem of Evil (Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 2008). This article draws from chapter 6, “Final Harmony: The End of Evil and Universal Salvation.”

5. Elizabeth Dively Lauro, “Universalism,” 212, outlines some of the relevant anti-universalist passages in Origen: “In places, he suggests that salvation is not uni-versal (PArch 2.9.8; HomJr 18; ComJn 19.88). For example, he states that he does not know if hell is final (ComJn 28.63–66) and that it may indeed be final for some (HomJr 12.5, 19.15; HomLev 3.4, 14.4), especially demons and Satan (HomJos 8.5; ComJn 20.174; ComRm 8.9; HomJr 18 and 19), who have become ‘non-beings’ by falling so far from God (ComJn 2.93–98).”

however, reveals the subtlety of his position.3 In what follows I will clarify the ambiguity in Origen’s writings on the question of universal salvation by showing how pastoral and pedagogical concerns inflect his account of the fate of the soul after death. In particular, I will argue that while Ori-gen does not openly teach universalism, he nevertheless cautiously posits the ultimate purification of all souls to select audiences.4 Origen does not recklessly enter into the mysteries of salvation: he exercises theological discretion for pedagogical and pastoral reasons, recognizing the ruinous potential of universalism for those who might misappropriate it to justify moral laxity. Origen views himself as a teacher and caretaker of souls. As a judicious teacher accommodates knowledge to the level of the student and as a skilled physician prescribes a remedy appropriate to the ailment of the patient, so Origen conceals or discloses the possibility of universal salvation based on whether it will have a salutary or detrimental impact on the health of the soul.

ORIGEN’S REPUDIATION OF UNIVERSALISM AS “INSANE”

Origen has conflicting statements on the doctrine of universal salvation. On the one hand, in his Letter to Friends in Alexandria, he categorically denies teaching universalism, particularly the salvation of the devil. More-over, in many places he rejects universalism, upholding the traditional teachings on hell.5 On the other hand, numerous passages in De principiis

SCOTT / ORIGEN’S UNIVERSALISM 349

6. On the affirmation of universal salvation, see princ. 1.2.4 (ed. Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti, Origène: Traité des principes, SC 252, 253, 268, 269, 312 [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1976–1984], 116–18; trans. G. W. Butterworth, On First Principles, repr. [London: Peter Smith, 1973], 17); 2.10.8 (SC 252:392–94; trans. Butterworth, 145–46); 3.5.7 (SC 268:230–32; trans. Butterworth 243); 4.4.9 (SC 268:422–26; trans. Butterworth 326–27), among many other passages that we will examine below.

7. Frederick W. Norris, “Universal Salvation in Origen and Maximus,” in Univer-salism and the Doctrine of Hell, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1991), 56, and 52 n. 4. See also C. C. Richardson, “The Condemna-tion of Origen,” Church History 6 (1937): 53–55.

8. Greggs, “Exclusivist or Universalist?,” 315.9. princ. pref. 5 (SC 252:82–84); 2.10.1 (SC 252:374–76). For a detailed analy-

sis of Origen’s theology of Hades and Gehenna, see Henri Crouzel, “L’Hadès et la Géhenne selon Origène,” Gregorianum 59 (1978): 291–331. Crouzel acknowledges the ambiguity in Origen’s thought on these notions: “La notion d’Hadès ne paraît pas très claire à Origène” (293; cf. 309).

10. Origen links hell and the devil, although not always with precision. As the paradigmatic sinner, the devil personifies hell. Consequently, the devil becomes the litmus test of the efficacy of divine love and power. According to the implicit logic of universalism, God’s restoration of the devil entails the restoration of all lesser sinners as well. Once sin has been destroyed, hell will cease to exist. The restoration of the devil, then, logically entails universal salvation.

11. The fragments of this letter are preserved in Rufinus, De adulteratione librorum Origenis 7.1–67 (NPNF2 3:423–24), and Jerome, Apologia adversus libros Rufini II, 18 (NPNF2 3:511–12). They are discussed in Henri Crouzel, “A Letter from Origen to ‘Friends in Alexandria,’” in The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of George Vasilievich Florovsky, ed. D. Neiman and M. Schatkin; trans. J. D. Gauthier (Rome: Pontificio Istituo Orientale, 1973), 135–50. Although this letter exists only in fragmentary form, the substantial agreement between the fragments of Rufinus and Jerome provide us with a full and accurate account of the letter, according to Henri

insinuate the salvation of all.6 More often than not, however, he hints at this possibility rather than explicitly endorses it. Frederick Norris surveys some of the salient passages for and against universalism in Origen and comes away perplexed: “This is a muddle,” he opines.7 How do we rec-oncile these “two seemingly contradictory strands in the Origen corpus” that create “dual pictures of Origen as either an arch-universalist or an exclusivist”?8 Why such blatant confusion? Or, as we should always sus-pect with Origen, is he operating at a deeper level?

Despite assenting to the doctrine of hell and the destruction of the devil,9 Origen engaged in speculative discussions about the fall of the devil and his possible restoration. A distorted version of these discussions became pub-lic.10 To redress the misinformation that was tarnishing his reputation, he wrote his Letter to Friends in Alexandria in which he emphatically denies teaching the salvation of the devil.11 Jerome summarizes the crux of the


Crouzel: “Thus Rufinus and Jerome have preserved in a Latin translation fragments of a letter addressed to ‘friends in Alexandria.’ The authenticity of their information is guaranteed, wherever the two authors agree” (136).

12. Crouzel, “A Letter from Origen,” 143–44.13. Crouzel calls Origen the “theologian par excellence of free will” (Origen,

195; cf. 21).14. Jo. 2.97 (ed. Cécile Blanc, Origène: Commentaire sur Saint Jean, SC 120, repr.

[Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1996], 272; trans. Ronald Heine, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1–10, FOTC 80 [Washington, DC: The Catho-lic University of America Press, 1989], 119).

15. Crouzel, “A Letter from Origen,” 139–40.16. For a recent discussion, see Lisa R. Holliday, “Will Satan Be Saved? Reconsidering

Origen’s Theory of Volition in Peri Archon,” Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009): 1–23.17. Crouzel, “A Letter from Origen,” 139.

debate that sparked the controversy between Origen and the Valentinian Candidus: “[Candidus] claims that the devil has an evil nature which can never be saved (salvari nunquam possit). To that Origen answers rightly that the devil is not destined to perish because of his substance, but he fell by his own will and he can be saved (posse salvari).”12 Origen, the unflinching theological champion of free will,13 characteristically rejects the deterministic view that God creates the devil with an evil nature, as he does in his Commentary on John: God did not create the devil “insofar as he is the devil (διάβολος),” but God created the sinless being who became the devil through his misuse of freedom.14 By leaving open the theoretical possibility of the devil’s salvation, however, Candidus fallaciously assumes that Origen affirms what he refuses to deny, that is, that he teaches that the devil will in fact be saved. This misunderstanding was likely reinforced by Origen’s refusal, following the angel Michael, to curse the devil.15

In this letter, then, Origen responds to his detractors by adamantly denying that he teaches the salvation of the devil and its logical corollary, universal salvation, at least in the unnuanced sense of the salvation of all rational beings, regardless of the state of their soul.16 First, he unambigu-ously declares that all sinners will be excluded from salvation:

As for us, we think that among those to be excluded from the kingdom of heaven are not only ones who committed the large sins, like the fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, but also ones who committed the lesser sins, since it is written: “Neither drunkards nor slanderers will possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:10).17

Second, Origen specifically denies teaching the salvation of the devil:

Some of those who take pleasure in accusing their neighbors ascribe to us and to our doctrine a charge of blasphemy, which they never heard from


18. Crouzel, “A Letter from Origen,” 140–41. Crouzel juxtaposes Rufinus and Jerome’s reproduction of this key passage from Origen’s letter, which are identical in substance. We will reproduce Rufinus’s version because while “it is a little more redundant,” it is also “more lucid.”

19. A. M. Castagno, “Origen the Scholar and Pastor,” in Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, ed. Mary B. Cunningham and Pauline Allen; trans. Frances Cooper (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 84–86.

20. Daley, Hope of the Early Church, 56, and 65. See dial. 10.6–18 (ed. Jean Scherer, Origène. Entretien avec Héraclide, SC 67, repr. [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2002], 76–77).

21. hom. in Lev. 14.4.2 (ed. Marcel Borret, Origène: Homélies sur le Lévitique, SC 287 [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1981], 242–44; trans. G. W. Barkley, Origen: Homilies on Leviticus 1–16, FOTC 83 [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990], 252).

22. hom. in Lev. 14.4.2 (SC 287:244).23. hom. in Lev. 14.4.4 (SC 287:244–46).

us. Let them pay heed, who do not wish to pay attention to the precept: “slanderers will not possess the kingdom of God.” According to them, I say that the father of malice and perdition, and of those who are excluded from the kingdom of God, that is, the devil, will be saved. Not even a deranged and manifestly insane person can say this.18

Origen, then, characterizes the doctrine of the salvation of the devil as an irrational “blasphemy.” We will see below, however, that the situa-tion is more complex than it appears in this letter. Origen certainly does not openly teach the salvation of the devil, but he cautiously posits its theoretical possibility to more enlightened Christians. Moreover, while sinners and the devil cannot be saved in their sinful condition, once they have been purified from sin they may enter into divine bliss. In the con-text of this letter, however, Origen distances himself from these heretical teachings without entertaining speculative possibilities that could engen-der further misunderstandings and recriminations. Audience and context often determine which teachings Origen unveils and which teachings he suppresses, as we will see.19

We find corroboration of his public position on hell and damnation in his writings, especially his homilies. Often in his homilies Origen takes the reality of hell for granted and describes it “in thoroughly traditional terms,” as Brian Daley observes.20 In Homilies on Leviticus, for instance, Origen distinguishes between “eternal punishment” and “temporal punishment,” suggesting that those punished for sin in this life will forego punishment in the next.21 He takes the “aeterni ignes”22 of hell for granted on the basis of explicit biblical testimony and examples, such as the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16.20–25).23 God balances the cosmological ledger of


24. hom. in Jer. 20.3.3 (ed. Pierre Nautin, Origène: Homélies sur Jérémie, SC 238 [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1977], 262; trans. J. C. Smith, Origen: Homilies on Jer-emiah, Homily on 1 Kings 28, FOTC 97 [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998], 226–27).

25. hom. in Jer. 12.5.1 (SC 238:24; trans. Smith 117).26. hom. in Jer. 12.5.2 (SC 238:26; trans. Smith 117–18).27. hom. in Jer. 12.5.3 (SC 238:26; trans. Smith 118).28. hom. in Jer. 20.9.2–3 (SC 238:292–94; trans. Smith 241).29. hom. in Jer. 19.15.1–9 (SC 238:238–49; trans. Smith 216–20).

suffering by expanding, both forward and backward, the life span of the soul. Our place in the cosmos reflects our pre-existent choices, he suggests. Our place in the afterlife, correspondingly, will reflect our choices in this life. Thus, the sinful will undergo remedial punishment while the innocent (so far as they may be called innocent) will be rewarded while they make the final stages of their journey toward divine likeness. This purification process presupposes the reality of hell.

God must punish sinners in order to safeguard divine justice and good-ness, Origen argues in Homilies on Jeremiah: “For it is necessary to punish every sinner for his sins. ‘Do not be misled, God is not mocked’ (Gal 6.7).”24 While “the heretics” argue that “the demiurge, the God of the Prophets” (τὸν δημιουργὸν τὸν τῶν προφητῶν θεόν) punishes and there-fore cannot be good, Origen argues that divine punishment reflects divine justice and goodness.25 Just as a judge does not arbitrarily “show pity” to the offender, which would only incite moral laxity and recidivism, so God does not spare the sinner and risk inciting sin: “So if God spares the sinner and shows mercy to him and pities him such that he [does] not punish him, who would not be inflamed? Who among the evil, when their own sins are stopped through fears of punishment, will not be inflamed, will not be worse?”26 As civil punishment deters crime, divine punishment deters sin. Origen bemoans the deleterious moral consequences of premature clem-ency: “One can also see such things occurring in the churches. Someone sinned and after sinning prayed for return to communion. If he is shown mercy hurriedly, the common good will be inflamed, and the sin of oth-ers increases.”27 Sin must be punished by fire, either through the internal fire of remorse in this life or the “other fire” in the afterlife.28 The threat of hellfire, then, has an advantageous pastoral function. But eternal pun-ishment might simply be a divine ruse—a scare tactic for the spiritually immature—to prevent impiety.29 Origen leaves it as an open question in this passage.

In Homilies on Joshua Origen speaks of the “future resurrection” when the devil will be destroyed. Following 1 Cor 15, his guiding eschatological


30. hom. in Jos. 8.4 (ed. Annie Jaubert, Origène: Homélies sur Josué, SC 71, repr. [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2000], 228; trans. Barbara J. Bruce, Origen: Homilies on Joshua, FOTC 105 [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002], 89).

31. hom. in Jos. 8.5 (SC 71:230; trans. Bruce 90).32. comm. in Rom. 8.9.4 (ed. Caroline P. Hammond Bammel, Der Römerbriefkom-

mentar des Origenes, AGLB 34 [Freiburg: Herder, 1998], 687; trans. Thomas P. Scheck, Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 6–10, FOTC 104 [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2002], 168).

33. hom. in Ex. 13.4 (ed. Marcel Borret, Origène: Homélies sur l’Exode, SC 321 [Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1985], 388–92; trans. R. E. Heine, Origen: Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, FOTC 71 [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982], 382).

text, Origen posits the annihilation of the devil: “But concerning the devil, the Apostle says, ‘Death, the last enemy, is destroyed’ because death is truly conquered when ‘this mortal is swallowed up by life.’”30 Commenting on the burning of Ai in Josh 8.28, Origen allegorizes the story, suggesting that the burning refers to the destruction of demons and sinners:

For it is not so much that a piece of land is forever uninhabitable, but that the place of demons will be uninhabitable when no one will sin and sin will not rule in any one. Then the devil and his angels will be consigned to the eternal fire with our Lord Jesus Christ sitting as ruler and judge and saying to those who overcame before and afterwards, “Come, blessed of my Father, take possession of the kingdom that was created for you by my Father.” But to the others he will say, “Go into the eternal fire that God prepared for the devil and his angels,” until he takes care of every soul with the remedies he himself knows and “all Israel may be saved.”31

Origen also rejects the possibility of the salvation of the devil in his Com-mentary on Romans: “But for that one who is said to have fallen from heaven, there will not be any conversion at the end of the age.”32 As we will see momentarily, however, his statements about the destruction of sinners and the devil can be reconciled with the affirmation of universal salvation if we distinguish between their sinful and purified identity.

Origen discusses the fires of hell in Homilies on Exodus as well, where he puzzles over the spiritual interpretation of the “scarlet doubled” in Exod 35.6.33 Scarlet, he explains, represents fire. He then distinguishes between two types of fire: burning fire and enlightening fire, a distinction that applies to both physical fire and spiritual fire. Origen illustrates enlight-ening fire by Jesus’ declaration “I came to cast fire on the earth” (Luke 12.49) and burning fire by his future condemnation of sinners: “Go into everlasting fire which my Father has prepared for the devil and his angels”


34. hom. in Ex. 13.4 (SC 321:388–90; trans. Heine 382).35. hom. in Ex. 13.4 (SC 321:390; trans. Heine 382).36. hom. in Ex. 13.4 (SC 321:390; trans. Heine 382).37. Castagno, “Origen the Scholar and Pastor,” 85.38. On the end of evil and the ἀποκατάτασις in Origen’s theology and cosmology,

see Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “Christian Soteriology and Christian Platonism: Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Biblical and Philosophical Basis of the Doctrine of the Apokatastasis,” Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007): 313–56, and “Origen’s Interpretation of Hebrews 10:13: The Eventual Elimination of Evil and the Apocatastasis,” Augus-tinianum 47 (2007): 85–94.

(Matt 25.41).34 Enlightening fire, however, sometimes burns, as when the disciples reflected on Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to them: “Was not our heart burning within us when he opened to us the Scriptures?” (Luke 24.32).35 Origen then raises the possibility that burning fire might enlighten, that is, that the fires of hell could possibly enlighten the soul and function salvifically. He brings up the possibility only to plead igno-rance on the question: “I do not know, however, whether that fire in the world to come which burns also has the power to enlighten.”36 Despite his reticence here, it is fascinating that he would raise this question, even though he leaves it unanswered.

From our analysis of these texts we can make the following three conclu-sions. First, Origen categorically denies teaching universalism in his Letter to Friends in Alexandria. Second, in his writings, especially his homilies, he presupposes the existence of hell and the damnation of the devil. In fact, he appeals to the threat of hellfire to dissuade his audience from sin-ning and exhorts them to pursue holiness, thereby avoiding punishment. Third, Origen leaves open the possibility of an end to punishment, but he often refuses to probe too deeply into speculations in his homilies; instead, he reserves this discussion for a more enlightened audience. Thus, while he affirms the traditional church teachings on hell and the destruction of the devil, he makes subtle hints about a future beyond the purging fires of hell, a future which we will now explore.37

“NO LONGER AN ENEMY”: UNIVERSAL SALVATION BEYOND PURIFICATION

If Origen categorically denies teaching universalism, why should we pursue the question any further? Are we misunderstanding his conception of the ἀποκατάστασις38 or reading too much into his veiled references to the end of punishment? Henri Crouzel perceptively points out the lack of explicit textual evidence for universalism in Origen, epitomized in the salvation of


39. Crouzel, “A Letter from Origen,” 146.40. Greggs, “Exclusivist or Universalist?,” 317.41. Greggs, “Exclusivist or Universalist?,” 323; cf. Castagno, “Origen the Scholar

and Pastor,” 84–68.42. For example, dial. 15.9–15 (SC 67:88; trans. Robert J. Daly, Origen: Treatise

on Passover and Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides, ACW 54 [Mahwah, NJ: Pau-list Press, 1992], 69); Cels. 6.26 (ed. Marcel Borret, Origène. Contre Celse IV, SC 147 [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1969], 242–44; trans. Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980], 341); hom. in Jer. 20.8.4 (SC 238:288; trans. Smith 239).

43. princ. pref. 4 (SC 252:80).44. princ. pref. 4 (SC 252:80).

the devil, the most intractable and incurable of sinners: “Indeed, there is not a single text of Origen extant today that maintains expressly the sal-vation of the devil.”39 Nevertheless, in several significant passages Origen insinuates the salvation of all, at least as a theoretical possibility. These suggestive passages should alert us to the presence of secret mysteries or teachings that Origen reserves for the spiritually and intellectually mature. While he may not openly teach universalism, I argue that universal salva-tion follows as a logical corollary of his theological worldview.

Tom Greggs rightly observes that the universalist “strain of thought” in Origen derives “primarily through De Princ.”40 Greggs posits a theologi-cal disjunction between Origen’s theoretical and pastoral works: “It is not surprising, therefore, that the sermons of Origen are largely less positive than De Princ. on the question of universalism.”41 While it is helpful to attend to the disparate theological emphases in Origen’s corpus, his state-ments on universal salvation cannot be neatly schematized by genre. There are traces of universalism throughout his writings—even in his homilies—but he rarely develops these theories in pastoral contexts. In fact, Origen sometimes catches himself mid-sentence, restraining himself from expand-ing on the possibilities of divine love because of its subversive potential.42 When addressing both the spiritually mature and spiritually immature, he carefully parses his words. With one eye on the mature, he hints at univer-salism; with the other eye on the immature, he avoids speculating on the mysteries of salvation. Before we explicate Origen’s pastoral and peda-gogical approach to the question of universal salvation, we must examine the textual evidence for universalism in his writings. Not surprisingly, the most suggestive passages come from De principiis.

While certain theological truths have been revealed and fixed by the “apostolic teaching” of the church,43 others remain open. As we mentioned above, Origen classifies the doctrine of hell as an official church teaching.44


45. princ. pref. 7 (SC 252:84; trans. Butterworth 4–5): Quid tamen ante hunc mundum fuerit, aut quid post mundum erit, iam non pro manifesto multis innotuit. Non enim evidens de his in ecclesiastica praedicatione sermo profertur.

46. princ. 1.2.4 (SC 252:116; trans. Butterworth, 17): Et utique non esset conse-quens ut ea, quae semel ad vivendum fuerant procreata a deo, penitus deperirent.

47. princ. 4.4.9 (SC 268:424).48. princ. 4.4.9 (SC 268:424; trans. Butterworth 326).

But at the same time, he leaves open the possibility of the end of hell, since the church had no formal position on that question: “But what existed before this world, or what will exist after it, has not yet been made known openly to the many, for no clear statement on the point is set forth in the Church teaching.”45 In the absence of formal declarations, Origen feels free to speculate on the latent possibilities of Christian theology. So on the one hand he situates himself within the church and submits to established church doctrine, but on the other hand he engages in speculations that go beyond the official church teaching, provided it does not contradict it in principle. Origen, then, assents to the church’s doctrine of hell yet conceives of it as a temporary purifying stage in the soul’s ascent to God.

Origen often hints at the logical possibility of universal salvation rather than explicitly teaching it, such as when he reasons that “it would cer-tainly not have been logical that beings once created by God for the enjoy-ment of life should utterly perish.”46 Similarly, Origen argues that since all creatures share in the incorruptible intellectualis lux of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they must also share in God’s incorruptibility.47 If any creature were to fade into oblivion because of sin, God’s goodness would be diminished: “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 eternal, in order that the eternity of the divine goodness may be revealed in this additional fact, that they who obtain its blessings are eternal too.”48 Universalism, then, follows as the logical corollary of divine goodness, which expresses itself in the creation of souls and their ultimate restoration, even after they have fallen into sin. Divine goodness functions as the theological underpinning of both the soul’s pre-existence (since there must have been something over which God demonstrates divine goodness) and salvation.

We find passages outside of De principiis that echo these sentiments. In Contra Celsum Origen emphasizes the cosmic scope of salvation. On the surface, Celsus suggests, it seems that God does not intervene to save humanity from itself. Why does God allow evil to go unchecked? Rising to the defense of providence, Origen argues that God does not leave human-


49. Cels. 4.4 (ed. Marcel Borret, Origène: Contre Celse II, SC 136 [Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1968], 194–96; trans. Chadwick 186–87).

50. Cels. 4.4 (SC 136:196; trans. Chadwick, 187).51. Jo. 6.284 (SC 157:344).52. See the fragment at princ. 2.10.8 (trans. Butterworth 146).53. See Butterworth, On First Principles, 146 n. 1; also John Anthony McGuckin,

The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, The Westminster Handbooks on Christian Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 204 s. n. “Leontius of Byzantium.”

54. At princ. 1.6.2 (SC 252:196; trans. Butterworth, 53), Origen posits a multifac-eted theory of cosmological symmetry where the end mirrors the beginning: “For the end is always like the beginning” (Semper enim similis est finis initiis).

ity to perish by its own devices. God knows its plight, he avers, and sends “ministers” to correct sinners and to curb evil.49 God sent Moses and the prophets to instruct humanity, but God’s greatest emissary was Jesus: “But greater than all these was the reformation brought about by Jesus, who did not want to cure only those in one corner of the world, but as far as pos-sible to heal people everywhere. For he came as ‘savior of all men’ (1 Tim 4.10).”50 Salvation, Origen intones, cannot be restricted geographically or temporally. Moreover, in his Commentary on John Origen marvels at the “magnitude” of the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, who takes away “the sin, not of a few, but of the whole world (Cf. John 1.29).”51 While these texts gesture toward universalism, they do not provide conclusive evidence. Hence, we must turn to other texts to flesh out the picture of Jesus as the cosmic savior who saves all creation.

In a fragment included in the text of De principiis by Koetschau, Origen strongly intimates the reality of universal salvation: “There is a resurrec-tion of the dead, and there is punishment, but not everlasting. For when the body is punished the soul is gradually purified, and so is restored to its ancient rank.”52 We should be extremely cautious in our use of sec-ondary accounts of Origen’s words, especially when they are recorded by his enemies. But in the case of this fragment, the sentiments clearly reflect Origen’s theology, particularly the notions of remedial punishment and restoration to the primal harmony. Moreover, since it comes from Leon-tius of Byzantium (d. ca. 543 c.e.)—an Origen sympathizer—the chances of malicious tampering are minimal.53 So while the fragment may not contain a verbatim rendering of Origen’s words, in all likelihood it accu-rately captures the thrust of his eschatology, where the end mirrors the beginning.54

In the fragment immediately following this allusion to the ἀποκατάστασις, we need to exercise more caution. In it Origen explicitly affirms the


55. princ. 2.10.8 (SC 252:392; trans. Butterworth 146).56. See Butterworth, On First Principles, 146 n. 1; also McGuckin, Westminster

Handbook to Patristic Theology, 199–200 s. n. “Justinian.”57. Ramelli, “Origen’s Interpretation,” 90–91.58. princ. 3.5.7 (SC 268:232; trans. Butterworth 243).59. princ. 3.5.8 (SC 268:232–34).

salvation of the wicked and fallen angels: “For all wicked men, and for daemons, too, punishment has an end, and both wicked men and daemons shall be restored to their former rank.”55 Unlike the previous text, this fragment comes from the emperor Justinian (482–565 c.e.), an enemy of Origen.56 Hence we have more reason to doubt its authenticity, at least as a verbatim quotation from De principiis. I doubt Origen would express his belief in the theoretical possibility of the salvation of the wicked and demons so incautiously and openly: it would be utterly inconsistent with his usual theological reserve. More often than not, as we have seen, he implies the possibility of universal salvation. Nevertheless, the language of being “restored” to “ancient rank” rings true to Origen’s theology. The sentiment expressed in the fragment strikes me as authentically Origenian, but it probably was a theological extrapolation rather than a quotation or summary. As we will see, Origen generally reserves these higher truths of the faith for an elite audience, so it seems highly doubtful that he would freely express it without qualification in De principiis.

Another more explicit affirmation of universal salvation comes from his exegesis of 1 Cor 15.28 in De principiis where he interprets the mean-ing of the subjection of the universe to the Father positively to mean the salvation of all God’s enemies:57

If therefore that subjection by which the Son is said to be subjected to the Father is taken to be good and salutary (bona et salutaris), it is a sure and logical consequence that the subjection of his enemies, which is said to happen to the Son of God, should also be understood to be salutary and useful (salutaris et utilis); so that, just as when the Son is said to be subjected to the Father the perfect restoration of the entire creation is announced, so when his enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God we are to understand this to involve the salvation of those subjected and the restoration of those that have been lost.58

God does not subject his enemies by force, but through remedial disci-pline and education. Origen envisions God as a physician and educator, not a conqueror and destroyer.59 The subjection in this verse, then, entails salvation, not annihilation. And, as a good educator, God never compels subjection, but persuades and exhorts lost souls to return: “The whole


60. princ. 3.5.8 (SC 268:232; trans. Butterworth, 244).61. princ. 3.5.8 (SC 268:232; trans. Butterworth, 244).62. Holliday, “Will Satan Be Saved?,” 1–23.63. comm. in Rom. 8.9.4 (AGLB 34:687; trans. Scheck 168).64. See Scheck, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 168 n. 233.65. Norris, “Universal Salvation,” 48; cf. Scheck, Commentary on the Epistle to

the Romans, 168 n. 233.66. Jo. 32.27 (ed. Cécile Blanc, Origène: Commentaire sur Saint Jean V, SC 385

[Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1992], 198; trans. Ronald Heine, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13–32, FOTC 89 [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1993], 347).

67. Heine, Commentary on the Gospel of John 13–32, 56.

world will not become subject to God by the pressure of some necessity that compels it into subjection, nor by the use of force, but by word, by reason, by teaching, by the exhortation to better things, by the best methods of education,” only resorting to threats for those who “contemptuously neglect to care for their own salvation and advantage and their spiritual health.”60 God uses “the fear of blows” only for the spiritually immature who do not respond to sound reason, but once they have arrived at higher knowledge of the good, these threats will no longer be necessary.61

Does universal restoration imply the salvation of the devil?62 Again we find conflicting statements in Origen. On the one hand, he seems to expressly reject the salvation of the devil: “For indeed there will be a conversion for them [Israel] at the end of the age . . . but for that one who is said to have fallen from heaven, there will not be any conversion at the end of the age.”63 Henry Chadwick, among others, has attributed this sentence to Rufinus, who surreptitiously inserted it into the text to bring Origen’s theology into conformity with current orthodoxy.64 Those of this opinion assume that Origen taught the salvation of the devil. Others, such as F. W. Norris, suggest that this accurately reflects Origen’s thought, since he “rejected the salvation of the devil as unbiblical and even insane.”65 But in his Commentary on John Origen argues that the “all things” (πάντες) that have been given to the Son include his enemies.66 These two passages—John 13.3 and 1 Cor 15—form an eschatological unit, according to Ronald Heine, that entails the restoration of the devil.67 Thus, since the “all things” given to Jesus includes the devil, and since “all things” will be subjected to God the Father, it follows that the devil will be subjected: “But if all things have been subjected,” Origen says, “then he too, of whom it is written, ‘He exalted himself before the Lord almighty’ (Job 15.25) will belong to those things subjected to him, having been conquered, so that he yields to the Word, is subjected to the image


68. Jo. 32.33 (SC 385:200–2; trans. Heine 348).69. princ. 3.6.5 (SC 268:244; trans. Butterworth, 250–51); cf. Holliday, “Will

Satan Be Saved?,” 5–14.70. princ. 3.6.5 (SC 268:244; trans. Butterworth 250).71. princ. 3.6.5 (SC 268:244; trans. Butterworth 251).

of God, and becomes Christ’s footstool.”68 Subjection, for Origen, entails salvation for all, after purification.

Perhaps the clearest allusion to the salvation of the devil occurs in Ori-gen’s discussion of the destruction of the last enemy (1 Cor 15.26)—death—in De principiis:

For the destruction of the last enemy must be understood in this way, not that its substance which was made by God shall perish, but that the hostile purpose and will which proceeded not from God but from itself will come to an end. It will be destroyed, therefore, not in the sense of ceasing to exist, but of being no longer an enemy and no longer death (destruitur ergo, non ut non sit, sed ut inimicus et mors non sit).69

In this passage “death” signifies the devil. Destruction, like subjection, has a positive soteriological connotation. God destroys the “hostile purpose and will” (propositum et voluntas inimica) of the devil, but not his “sub-stance” (substantia), which will be salvaged after its purification.70 Like a physician who must destroy part of the body to salvage the life of the patient, God destroys the source of the devil’s depravity: his misdirected will. Once this has been removed, the devil will be transformed from the archenemy to the subject of God. Thus, even the devil, the paragon of evil, can be restored: “For to the Almighty nothing is impossible, nor is anything beyond the reach of cure by its Maker; for it was on this account that he made all things, that they might exist, and those things which were made in order to exist cannot cease to exist.”71 God’s power to heal far exceeds the devil’s power to destroy.

From these passages we can formulate a partial solution to the seem-ingly contradictory statements on the salvation of the devil. We must dis-tinguish between the devil in his present fallen state and the devil in his future state of restoration after purification. Ronald Heine offers a pre-liminary sketch of this approach:

Given his argument concerning the distinction between the devil as a being created by God, and the devil as wicked on the basis of his own choice, he may have argued that insofar as he is the devil, he is destroyed, as are all the other evil powers, but insofar as he has being, that being, properly


72. Heine, Commentary on the Gospel of John 13–32, 65; cf. Scheck, Commen-tary on the Epistle to the Romans, 168 n. 233.

73. Greggs, “Exclusivist or Universalist?,” 318.74. Cels. 5.15 (SC 147:50; trans. Chadwick 275).

changed through ages of disciplinary chastisement in which he is “treated as he deserves,” will finally be restored to its original state.72

Heine’s hypothesis, when fleshed out, helps to clarify Origen’s conflict-ing statements on the salvation of the devil. God preserves all creation, but destroys the corruption that vitiates its original goodness. Hence the devil, in his present state of rebellion, must be destroyed, since God can-not coexist with evil. Once God becomes “all in all,” however, evil loses all ontological footing in creation. Nevertheless, divine goodness requires the preservation of creation, even when it has lost its original goodness and degenerated into a mere shadow of the divine light. The devil, purged of evil and restored to his sinless condition, regains his original goodness. Inasmuch as “the devil” signifies his fallen identity, Origen truthfully declares the devil will be destroyed. Inasmuch as “the devil” endures after God has subjected creation, Origen truthfully suggests that the devil will be saved. The confusion dissipates when we realize that a purified devil is no longer the devil: his identity transforms from enemy to subject, from sinful to sinless, from evil to good. The same principle applies to all sinful beings: their sinful identity will be destroyed, but their purified soul will be saved. In this sense, then, God indeed destroys the devil and sinners, who cannot co-exist with God, but salvages their soul from the flames and restores them to spiritual health. The devil qua devil will not be saved: he will cease to exist. The sinless creature who became the devil, however, will be restored.

For Origen, then, hell does not continue endlessly, for that would not manifest divine goodness. After it has accomplished its purifying purpose, it will vanish. Like evil, it has no place in the ἀποκατάστασις.73 All punish-ment is remedial, not vengeful. Contrary to Celsus’s parody of God as a “cook,” Origen portrays God as a benevolent physician:

[Celsus] has not realized that according to the opinion of some Greeks (probably borrowing from the very ancient notion of the Hebrews) the fire that is brought on the world is purifying, and it is probable that it is applied to each individual who needs judgment by fire together with healing.74


75. Cels. 5.15 (SC 147:50; trans. Chadwick 275).76. princ. 1.6.1 (SC 252:194; trans. Butterworth 52): Quae quidem etiam a nobis

cum mango metu et cautela dicuntur, discutientibus magis et pertractantibus quam pro certo ac definito statuentibus.

Origen tries to convince Celsus of the ancient pedigree of the notion of hellfire as purifying. To say that God “roasts” people misrepresents the Christian doctrine of hell. God does not “apply fire like a cook” but like a physician, purging diseases and cauterizing wounds: “The fire burns but does not consume utterly those who have no matter which needs to be destroyed by it, while it burns and does utterly consume those who have built ‘wood, hay, or stubble’ (1 Cor 3.12) on the building (as it is allegori-cally called) by their actions, words, and thoughts.”75 Divine fire “refines” the soul, but the soul survives the fire. From the ashes of the “wood, hay, or stubble” that has been consumed by God’s refining fire arises the stain-less soul. Hell destroys our sinful identity, leaving only the purified soul. Hence, the devil and sinners are consumed in hell, but their repristinated souls, completely purged of evil, survive.

We see, then, the complexity of Origen’s position. On the one hand, he teaches the traditional doctrines of hell and the damnation of sinners. On the other hand, he spiritualizes hell and posits universal restoration after the destruction of sin. Confusion arises when interpreters fail to apply this distinction to Origen’s seemingly contradictory statements on the salva-tion of the devil and sinners. Once we refer Origen’s statements on hell and damnation to sinners in their sinful condition and his statements on universalism to purified souls, the inconsistency dissolves—mostly. Theo-logically, a tension remains between the biblical portrayal of hell and Ori-gen’s heavily Platonized re-interpretation of the fate of the soul after death and its eventual divinization.

Moreover, to understand his position aright we must distinguish between Origen’s different pedagogical modes of operation. In his role as a pastor and caretaker of simple souls, he avoids disclosing the mysteries of the faith that could have subversive effects. In his role as a διδάσκαλος of more advanced souls, he speculates on mysteries that lie beyond established church teaching, always approaching the mysteries of the faith with theo-logical reserve: “Now we ourselves speak on these subjects with great fear and caution, discussing and investigating rather than laying down fixed and certain conclusions.”76 Instead of looking for theological surety on these matters, he searches for the theological possibilities latent in Scrip-ture and the apostolic deposit.


77. dial. 15.8–15 (SC 67:86; trans. Daly 69).78. Jo. 13.27 (SC 222:46; trans. Heine 74): τὰ κυριώτερα καὶ θειότερα τῶν μυστηρίων

τοῦ θεοῦ.

MYSTERIES REVEALED AND CONCEALED

These distinctions point us to the pastoral and pedagogical dimensions of Origen’s reflections on universalism. Origen has two types of audiences in mind when he teaches. On the one hand, he wants to edify the simple multitude. He fears that speculations on universal salvation might scandal-ize the simple-minded or engender spiritual apathy. On the other hand, he wants to facilitate the growth of the spiritually advanced. Those Christians who have arrived at a higher knowledge of the mysteries of the faith see beyond the elementary matters and are able to sail into uncharted theo-logical waters without danger of spiritual shipwreck. Origen expresses his dilemma:

I am worried about speaking; I am worried about not speaking. For the sake of the worthy, I want to speak so as not to be guilty of defrauding of the Word [to] those able to hear it. Because of the unworthy, I hesitate to speak, for the reasons mentioned, so as not to throw holy things to dogs and cast pearls before swine.77

I contend that Origen wants to retain the threat of hellfire for the wayward multitude who need prodding to keep them from wandering into sin. With the more advanced, who are less prone to stray, he will speculate about the possibility of universal salvation. Moreover, I argue that Origen’s the-ology and cosmology logically entail universalism and that he personally affirms this hypothesis, which he probably only discussed explicitly with a select group in fairly closed conditions. Since he does not openly teach universalism, he was not being disingenuous in his Letter to Friends in Alexandria when he emphatically denies teaching the salvation of the devil. Origen chooses to emphasize different themes to different audiences for pastoral and pedagogical reasons.

Not all theological truths have been fully revealed in Scripture, Origen avers. Some truths still remain undisclosed, as John 21.25 implies: “But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” Commenting on this cryptic passage, Origen sur-mises that beyond Scripture lies a vast reservoir of deep theological knowl-edge: “For indeed, Scripture has not contained some of the more lordly and more divine aspects of the mysteries of God.”78 Remarkably, given his


79. Jo. 13.30 (SC 222:48; trans. Heine 74).80. Jo. 13.37 (SC 222:50; trans. Heine 76). 81. Jo. 13.28 (SC 222:46–48; trans. Heine 74).82. comm. in Rom. 5.2.7 (AGLB 33:395; trans. Scheck 331).83. comm. in Rom. 5.2.7 (AGLB 33:395; trans. Scheck 331).

extensive exegetical interests, he thinks that Scripture only begins to pen-etrate into the depths of the divine mysteries: “Now I think that all of the Scriptures, even when perceived very accurately, are only very elementary rudiments of and very brief introductions to all knowledge.”79 The Scrip-tures, Origen maintains, are merely “introductions” that lead us to Jesus and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.80 Consequently, Origen suggests that the Spirit of God may lead the spiritually advanced to unexpected truths not enunciated in Scripture.

Moreover, Origen contends that not all knowledge should be openly disclosed. Some mysteries are given only to a chosen few, such as Paul, who “heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat” (2 Cor 12.4). Only the spiritually mature, such as John and Paul, are permitted to “hear” these mysteries, but they are forbidden to “speak” the heavenly knowledge uttered by the angels. The knowledge that edifies them would harm others, so they must keep silent:

John is forbidden to write when he is about to record all that the seven thunders said (Rev 10.4). Paul, too, says that he has heard words that cannot be spoken (2 Cor 12.4). These were not words that were not permitted to be spoken by anyone, for angels were permitted to speak them, but not men, “for all things are permitted, but not all things are beneficial” (1 Cor 6.12).81

Likewise, in his Commentary on Romans, Origen balances the twin responsibilities of shielding the simple from scandal while edifying the more advanced. In Rom 5.15, Paul deliberately specifies that God’s grace abounds “to many” rather than “to all” to avoid providing false theologi-cal rationalization for moral laxity.82 Paul, Origen insists, does not want to fuel spiritual complacency through misapprehensions of universalism. He clearly perceives the potential dangers for those inducted into the mys-teries of grace prematurely “without closing the mysteries of the divine goodness (divinae bonitatis secreta) for those who are more perfect” and able to peer into these mysteries.83

Following Paul, Origen sees himself as a “wise steward of the word,” judiciously withholding the secrets of the mysteries of divine goodness to those who would use it as a pretext for ungodliness: “For it is a custom of the Apostle Paul, when he is disclosing anything about the kindness of


84. comm. in Rom. 5.1.7 (AGLB 33:363; trans. Scheck 306).85. comm. in Rom. 5.1.7 (AGLB 33:363–64; trans. Scheck 307).86. Greggs, “Exclusivist or Universalist?,” 321.87. See Joseph Trigg’s analysis of this passage vis-à-vis Origen’s hermeneutics in

“Divine Deception and the Truthfulness of Scripture,” in Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy, ed. Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Peterson (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), 147–64.

God in his ineffable goodness, in turn to roughen up, as it were, at least in some measure because of certain negligent hearers, what he said and to put some fear into those who are remiss.”84 Origen, like Paul, does not want to inadvertently lull his spiritually immature hearers into a false sense of complacency:

Paul is thus acting as a wise steward of the word. And when he comes to the passages in which he has to speak about God’s goodness, he expresses these things in a somewhat concealed and obscure way for the sake of certain lazy people lest perchance, as we have said, “they despise the riches of his goodness and patience and forbearance and store up for themselves wrath on the day of wrath” (Rom 2.4–5).85

Tom Greggs takes this passage to be the “hermeneutical key” to Origen’s teaching on universalism and exclusivism.86 While he rightly highlights Origen’s pastoral awareness, this principle finds support in a multiplicity of passages. Origen accommodates his teaching to the needs and capac-ity (both intellectual and spiritual) of his audience, resulting in a posture of discretion and reserve with respect to the easily distorted and highly contentious issue of universalism.

In Homilies on Jeremiah, Origen expresses the principle of pedagogi-cal accommodation through the example of the parental instruction and discipline of children. Commenting on the perplexing passage “You have deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived” (Jer 20.7),87 Origen explains that just as parents employ scare tactics to promote the “education” and “prog-ress” of children, so God sometimes deceives us to facilitate our salvation. Certain pedagogical methods, he suggests, are age-appropriate:

When guiding children we speak to children, and we do not speak to them as we do to mature people but we speak to them as children who need training, and we deceive children when we frighten children in order that it may halt the lack of education in youth. And we frighten children when we speak through words of deceit (ἀπάτης λόγους) on account of what is basic to their infancy, in order that through the deceit we may cause them to be afraid and to resort to teachers both to declare and to do what is applicable for the progress of children. We are all children to God and we need


88. hom. in Jer. 19.15.4–5 (SC 238:240–42; trans. Smith 217–18). See also Cels. 5.16 (SC 147:52–54; trans. Chadwick 276): “Probably, just as some words are suitable for use with children and are appropriate for their tender age, in order to exhort them to be better, because they are still very young, so also those whom the word calls ‘the foolish things of this world and the base things and the things that are despised’ (1 Cor 1.27–28) the ordinary interpretation of punishments is suitable because they have not the capacity for any other means of conversion and of repentance from many evils, except that of fear and the suggestion of punishment.”

89. Consistent with his pastoral role, Origen (hom. in Jer. 19.15.9 [SC 238:246–49; trans. Smith 220]) admonishes the “children” in his audience to fear the reality behind the threats: “And insofar as you are a child, fear the threats so that you may not suffer what comes beyond the threats, the eternal punishments, the unquenchable fire, or perhaps something more than this lays in waiting for those who have lived to the full outside of right reason.”

90. hom. in Jer. 19.15.7 (SC 238:242; trans. Smith 218).91. See Castagno, “Origen the Scholar and Pastor,” 84: “Like all preachers, Ori-

gen was convinced that fear of the pains of hell was a useful spur to progress along the path toward perfection.”

92. hom. in Jer. 20.3.2 (SC 238:260; trans. Smith 226).

the discipline of children (πάντες ἐσμέν παιδία τῷ θεῷ καὶ δεόμεθα ἀγωγῆς παιδίων). Because of this, God, since he cares about us, deceives us, even if we do not perceive the deceit beforehand, lest as those who have gone beyond the infant we may no longer be trained through deceit but through acts. In one way the child is led into fear, in another way into progressing in age and crossing beyond the age of childhood.88

We would not expect Origen to spell out the implications of this peda-gogical principle for universalism, since he would regard most in his audi-ence as spiritual infants, but I suggest that the principle clearly applies.89 God threatens eternal hellfire, then, to promote our spiritual progress by spurring us to action; it is a benevolent deceit, designed to spare us from suffering. This interpretation finds support in the ensuing passage, where Origen illustrates the principle of pedagogical accommodation through the book Jonah, where God vows to destroy Nineveh, only to relent after the people repent (Jonah 3.4).90 According to Origen, God threatened destruction to elicit repentance, just as the threat of hellfire deters the simple from straying from the paths of righteousness:91

Perhaps then, as a father (πατήρ) wishes to deceive a son (υἱόν) in his own interest while he is still a boy (παῖς), since he cannot be helped any other way unless the boy is deceived, as a healer (ἰατρός) makes it his business to deceive the patient (κάμνοντα) who cannot be cured unless he receives words of deceit, so it is also for the God of the universe (ὁ τῶν ὅλων θεός), since what is prescribed has to help the race of men (τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος).92


93. hom. in Jer. 20.4.2 (SC 238:268; trans. Smith 229–30).94. Cels. 6.26 (SC 147:242–44; trans. Chadwick 341); cf. hom. in Jer. 20.8.4 (SC

238:288; trans. Smith 239): “The Word intends to be daring here, but I do not know for what sort of audience it is fitting”; also Cels. 5.15 (SC 147:53; trans. Chadwick 275): “The Logos, accommodating himself to what is appropriate to the masses who will read the Bible, wisely utters threatening words with a hidden meaning to frighten people who cannot in any other way turn from the flood of iniquities.”

95. Daley, Hope of the Early Church, 57.96. hom. in Jer. 20.9.1–4 (SC 238:290–99; trans. Smith 240–42).97. Cels. 8.48 (SC 150:278; trans. Chadwick 487); my emphasis.

Those who prematurely discover the emptiness of the threat of eternal physical hellfire might put themselves at spiritual risk.93 Origen reiterates this point in Contra Celsum. While enumerating the allegorical parallels in the Hebrew Bible for the gospel teaching on Gehenna “as a place of punishment” (Matt 5.22), Origen stops short of explaining its purifying function for fear of its misappropriation by “the masses”:

It is not right to explain to everybody all that might be said on this subject. Nor is this an appropriate moment. It is risky to commit to writing the explanation of these matters, because the multitude does not require any more instruction than that punishment is to be inflicted upon sinners. It is not of advantage to go on to the truths which lie behind it because there are people who are scarcely restrained by fear of everlasting punishment from the vast flood of evil and the sins that are committed in consequence of it.94

The threat of physical torture in hell was so ingrained in his listeners that he was reluctant to dispense with the idea altogether.95 Origen, then, simul-taneously spiritualizes punishment, associating the burning fire with our seared consciences pained with remorse for sin,96 and upholds the threat of hellfire because of its proven effectiveness in curbing sin among the simple or immature, which ultimately facilitates their growth. Christians should live “as though these things [eternal punishment] were real” in order “to avoid doing the actions which cause punishments,” Origen exhorts.97 Threats serve a temporary purpose, but as the soul matures scare tactics become unnecessary and inappropriate. Thus, for Origen, the threat of punishment facilitates the soul’s moral progress.

CONCLUSION

Was Origen a universalist? Origen’s position on universalism, as we have seen, resists neat schematization. A simple assertion that Origen was a universalist fails to capture the subtly of his position and to account for some of its irreconcilable tensions. Origen simultaneously wants to


98. Cels. 5.15 (SC 147:52; trans. Chadwick 276): “But we have been compelled to hint at truths which are not suitable for the simple-minded believers who need elementary words which come down to their level.”

99. Cels. 5.19 (SC 147:58; trans. Chadwick 278).100. Cels. 5.19 (SC 147:58; trans. Chadwick 278).101. dial. 15.27–28 (SC 67:88; trans. Daly 69).

affirm the traditional doctrines of hell and damnation while exploring the latent possibilities of divine love. When addressing the masses Origen will only “hint” at the deeper truths behind the threat of hellfire and eternal punishment.98 There are “secret truths” or “mysteries” that are “rightly concealed from the multitude” because “they are not appropriate for the simple-minded and for the ears of the common crowd.”99 These potentially subversive mysteries edify the mature, but not the simple, who “who are led on to live better lives by their belief,” even when these beliefs do not capture the fullness of the mysteries of salvation.100 Origen’s pedagogical principle of accommodation and pastoral principle of edification engen-ders a graded curriculum designed to facilitate the ascent of souls at their particular stage of growth.

When seen through the lens of his pastoral pedagogy, Origen’s univer-salism comes into sharper focus. Origen shifts his theological emphasis to accommodate the capacity and exigencies of his audience: “What is it I really want? To treat the matter in a way that heals the souls of my hear-ers (λαξεῖν λόγον θεραπεύοντα τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἀκουόντων).”101 Thus, with the simple he accentuates the destruction of the devil and sinners in hell as a deterrence, but with the advanced he speculates about restoration beyond purification. As a judicious caretaker of souls, Origen guards the myster-ies of salvation from the spiritually immature, perceiving the moral dan-gers of universalism. Yet, for the sake of the mature, who have surpassed elementary teaching and benefit from deeper reflections, he will peer into the divine secrets of universal salvation.

Mark S. M. Scott is Visiting Assistant Professor of the History of Christianity in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Missouri

Guarding the Mysteries of Salvation

Documents

Transcript of Guarding the Mysteries of Salvation