The “Aspects of Christ” (Epinoiai

Christou) in Origen’s Commentary on

the Epistle to the Romans
Matthew Kuhner
Ave Maria University

 Introduction
Origen’s understanding of the epinoiai (aspects or concepts)1 of Christ is certainly
one of the most fascinating and unique facets of his theology. By no means a
marginal element in his Logos-Christology, a treatment, mention, or application of
the epinoiai can be found in most of Origen’s surviving texts. Scholarship on this
topic has justifiably focused upon the two primary sources of the epinoiai in Origen’s
writings: Book I of his Commentary on John and Book I, Chapter 2 of On First
Principles. While referencing these texts because of their systematic and definitional
character, I intend to focus this article upon the substantial and multifaceted role
of the epinoiai Christou in Origen’s Commentary on Romans, the oldest extant
commentary on this Pauline epistle.2 In doing so, my thesis is two-fold: first, I will
1
Linguistically, the primary sense of ἡ ἐπίνοια given by LSJ is “a thinking on or of a thing,
thought, notion” [italics in original]. Such is how the term appears to be used in its single appearance
in the New Testament, in Acts 8:22 rsv: μετανόησον οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς κακίας σου ταύτης, καὶ
δεήθητι τοῦ κυρίου εἰ ἄρα ἀφεθήσεταί σοι ἡ ἐπίνοια τῆς καρδίας σου (“Repent therefore of
this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent [ἐπίνοια] of your heart
may be forgiven you” [italics added]). PGL likewise identifies its meaning as “thought, conception,”
yet goes on to note its particular role in Origen’s theology, namely, “in distinguishing various
aspects of Christ’s redemptive activity.” Taking into consideration the linguistic meaning of the
word as well as its theological content (discussed below in Part I), a translation of Origen’s use of
the term as “aspect” or “concept” seems to capture the appropriate inflection. In this I concur with
the translations given by Ronald E. Heine in his entry, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook
to Origen (ed. John Anthony McGuckin; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004) 93–95.
2
For an exploration of the surviving texts of the Commentary that we possess—most especially
the translation/abridgement of Rufinus—see Caroline Hammond Bammel, Der Römerbrieftext des
Rufin und seine Origenes-Übersetzung (Freiburg: Herder, 1985); for a textual analysis comparing

HTR 110:2 (2017) 195–216

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 196 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

argue that the epinoiai Christou play a considerable role in Origen’s exegesis of
Paul’s epistle. If correct, this conclusion will be crucial for anyone seeking to gain
a comprehensive account of Origen’s concept of the epinoiai. Such is especially
the case insofar as I will propose that the Commentary on Romans accentuates
specifically the virtues as epinoiai, thereby offering a noteworthy glimpse into
this particular aspect of Origen’s epinoiai teaching. Second, I will argue that the
results of Origen’s application of the epinoiai concept to his exegesis constitute a
compelling reading of the Pauline text that is worthy of contemporary engagement.
In order to argue for this two-fold thesis, I have divided the paper into three
parts. The thesis will be addressed most directly in Part II, while Parts I and III
will be essential for a full treatment of the topic. Part I of the paper will begin
with an introductory—and non-exhaustive—treatment of the epinoiai Christou in
Origen’s thought generally. Such an overview will provide the necessary context
for the following analysis. Part II will be an in-depth engagement of the text of
Origen’s Commentary on Romans specifically. In analyzing three themes, each of
which are prominent in the epistle itself, I intend to show that Origen applied the
concept of the epinoiai Christou in his exegesis, and at the same time assess the
results of this application. The themes are as follows: a) Christ as the end of the
law, b) the Christian’s life in and with Christ, and c) the relationship between faith
and works. The third of these is perhaps the most important, insofar as Origen’s
exegesis offers a vision of the faith/works relationship that is as compelling as it
is ancient. Finally, Part III will conclude the paper by turning to address briefly
a criticism of Origen’s Logos-Christology that may threaten the contemporary
significance of Origen’s exegesis.

 I. The Epinoiai Christou in Origen’s Thought3

The core of Origen’s understanding of the “aspects” of Christ is expressed nicely
in his Commentary on John:
And let no one be surprised if we have understood Jesus to be announced by
the plural “good things.” For when we have understood the things of which
the names [τὰ ὀνόματα] which the Son of God is called are predicated, we
will understand how Jesus, whom these whose feet are beautiful preach, is

Rufinus’s translation with the Greek fragments of the Commentary, see K. H. Schelkle, Paulus,
Lehrer der Väter. Die altkirchliche Auslegung von Römer 1–11 (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1956) 443–48;
for an overview of the Commentary’s reception throughout the tradition, see Thomas Scheck, Origen
and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen’s Commentary on Romans (Notre Dame, IN:
Notre Dame University Press, 2008). These studies (among others) attest to the general reliability
of Rufinus’s Latin translation. A brief discussion of possible difficulties surrounding Rufinus’s
translation is taken up below in n. 45. The Greek fragments of the Commentary will be engaged
in this paper when applicable.
3
The following works have been consulted for Part I: John Behr, The Way to Nicaea (Formation
of Christian Theology 1; New York: St. Vladmir’s Seminary Press, 2001) 180–84; Henri Crouzel,
“Le Christ Sauveur selon Origène,” Studia Missionalia 30 (1981) 63–87; idem, Origen (trans. A. S.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 MATTHEW KUHNER 197

many good things. For life is one good thing, and Jesus is life. And “the light
of the world” [John 8:12] is another good thing, which is “the true light”
[John 1:4] and “the light of men” [John 1:4]. The Son of God is said to be all
these. The truth is another good thing in concept [κατ’ ἐπίνοιαν] over and
above the life and the light; the way which leads to it is a fourth in addition
to these. Our Savior teaches that he himself is all these when he says, “I am
the way, and the truth, and the life” [John 14:6].4

The central tenet of the teaching is seen here in this quotation, in the phrases
suggesting that “Jesus is life,” and “the Son of God is said to be all these.” The
aspects or “names”5 of Christ are by no means limited to those mentioned in this
paragraph, but rather include many others that are enumerated more fully elsewhere.6
As Origen writes,
It is possible to collect 10,000 times as many titles [προσηγορίας] [as those
just enumerated by Origen] which are applied to the Son of God in the Gos-
pels by the apostles and the prophets. These represent either those who wrote
the Gospels setting out their own idea of what he is, or the apostles praising
him on the basis of what they have learned, or the prophets proclaiming in
advance his coming sojourn and declaring the things about him with different
names [διαφόροις ὀνόμασιν].7

Worrall; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989) 189–92; Jean Daniélou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine
Before the Council of Nicaea (trans. John Austin Baker; 3 vols.; Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1973) 2:380–86; idem, Origen (trans. Walter Mitchell; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955)
251–89; Henri de Lubac, Aspects of Buddhism (trans. George Lamb; New York: Sheed and Ward,
1953) 86–130; idem, History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen
(trans. Anne Englund Nash; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007); idem, “Origenian Transposition,”
in Theology in History (trans. Anne Englund Nash; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996) 34–39;
Gerhard Gruber, ΖΩΗ. Wesen, Stufen, und Mitteilung des Wahren Lebens bei Origenes (Munich:
Max Hueber, 1962) 241–67; Marguerite Harl, Origène et la function révélatrice du Verbe incarné
(Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1958) 290–92; Heine, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook (ed.
McGuckin), 93–95; idem, Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church (Christian Theology in
Context; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) 197–205; John A. McGuckin, “The Changing
Forms of Jesus According to Origen,” in Origeniana quarta: die Referate des 4. Internationalen
Origenskongresses (ed. Lothar Lies; Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verlag, 1987) 215–22; Antonio Orbe, La
Epinoia. Algunos preliminares históricos de la distinción kat’ epinoian (Rome: Pontifical Gregorian
University, 1955).
4
Origen: Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 1–10 (trans. Ronald E. Heine;
FOTC 80; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989) I:52–53; GCS 10:14.
5
As the passage just cited shows, there is a strong link in Origen’s works between τὰ ὀνόματα
and αἱ ἐπίνοιαι. Just below Origen will use the term αἱ προσηγορίαι in a similar fashion. The three
terms are used to indicate the same idea: the “names” of Christ are given precisely “in concept”
as aspects of his richness.
6
See especially the Commentary on John, I:109–292. See also Harl, Origène, 290–91, for an
excellent compendium of epinoiai passages drawn from a number of Origen’s works.
7
Origen, Commentary on John, I:136; GCS 10:27.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 198 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

For Origen, Jesus is the fullness and perfection of all that is good; the myriad titles by
which he is represented manifest “the unsearchable riches of Christ.”8 Accordingly,
while the different aspects and “titles” reflect something true about Jesus, they do
so according to our mode of human understanding. Insofar as they are conceptual,
they do not divide or dissolve the unity of Christ: “But let no one take offense when
we distinguish the aspects [ἐπινοίας] in the Savior, thinking that we also do the
same with his essence [τῇ οὐσίᾳ].”9 Yet, insofar as they communicate something
true about Jesus, the aspects play a crucial role in our knowledge of him. For a
proper understanding of the epinoiai, both their conceptual nature and their ability
to communicate the truth of the Savior need to be held in tension. The mediation
of this tension is the ever-greater richness of Christ, as Gerhard Gruber points out:
“a single word or concept does not suffice to fully grasp the essence of the Son
of God.”10 In an attempt to illuminate the meaning of Origen’s teaching, Ronald
Heine recommends the helpful image of the prism: “Christ would be analogous to
the prism through which the light of God is refracted and the person standing in the
light would be the individual Christian. While the prism is more than the different
hues of light, nevertheless one cannot see it without seeing the hues.”11 Origen’s
treatment of this compelling theme was more extensive than any Christian writer
prior and laid a broad foundation for later theologians.12
An examination of the intellectual background of Origen’s understanding of the
epinoiai will help frame a further unpacking of the teaching. First, it is quite clear
that scripture plays a prominent role in Origen’s understanding of the epinoiai. It
is no mistake that an extended treatment of the epinoiai arises in his commentary
on the Gospel of John, wherein we find Jesus making a series of ego eimi (“I am”)
statements. Several of these have predicates that indicate an aspect of his nature

8
Eph 3:8 rsv. See Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 246: “Durch die Fülle der Namen, die im Evangelium—und
das ist nach Origenes die ganze Heilige Schrift—über Jesus ausgesagt werden, erscheint der
Reichtum der Güter Christi. Die Namen zeigen, wie in Jesus die ‘Fülle der Gottheit’ wohnt. Die
Güter sind die ‘Reichtümer Christi.’ Darum weist Origenes immer wieder darauf hin, daβ ‘Jesus
vieles ist gemäβ den Epinoiai.’ ”
9
Origen, Commentary on John, I:200; GCS 10:36.
10
Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 260. Behr notes that Origen warns us not to think of the Son in materialistic
terms; rather, “all of the divine titles of Christ, Origen points out, derive from his activity rather
than corporeal properties” (The Way to Nicaea, 192). Avoiding a materialistic conception of Christ’s
unity will greatly aid the reader in properly conceiving Origen’s doctrine of the epinoiai.
11
Heine, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 95.
12
See Harl, Origène, 85 n. 60: “Un ouvrage pourrait être consacré aux noms du Christ dans la
tradition patristique. Après Origène, où ces noms jouent un rôle important—sous la désignation
de προσηγορίαι, ἐπίνοιαι, ὀνόματα—, on pourrait les étudier dans le traité 30 de Grégoire de
Nazianze (αἱ χλήσεις, αἱ προσηγορίαι) où ils se présentent avec la même subdivision que chez
Origène, entre les noms qui conviennent au Christ en tant que dieu et ceux qui le désignent en
tant qu’Homme.” See also Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century
Trinitarian Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004) chs. 8 and 13 for a discussion of
Basil and Gregory of Nyssa’s reception of Origen’s doctrine. See Orbe, La Epinoia, 33–52 for a
treatment of Athanasius, Basil, and Leontius of Byzantium in reference to the doctrine of the epinoiai.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 MATTHEW KUHNER 199

and/or mission which serve as epinoiai: “I am the bread of life,”13 “I am the light of
the world,”14 “I am the door,”15 “I am the good shepherd,”16 “I am the resurrection
and the life,”17 “I am the way, the truth, and the life,”18 and “I am the true vine.”19
Beyond these important Johannine texts, there are a few crucial Pauline ones as well:
“Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God,”20 “[God] is the source of your life
in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification
and redemption,”21 “for [Christ] is our peace.”22 At the most basic level, this meager
listing of texts is evidence that the names of Christ play a noticeable role in the
New Testament. Origen clearly detects this theme and develops it further through
his concept of the epinoiai.
Second, a consideration of the characteristically Platonic “step” cosmology also
helps to discern the role of the epinoiai Christou within Origen’s Christology.23 The
following quote of Origen manifests the point of contact between his cosmology
and the epinoiai:
God, therefore, is altogether one and simple. Our Savior, however, because
of the many things, since God “set” him “forth as a propitiation” [Rom 3:25]
and firstfruits of all creation, becomes many things . . . as the whole creation
which can be made free needs him. And for this reason he becomes the light
of men when men, darkened by evil, need the light which shines in the dark-
ness and is not grasped by darkness.24

For Origen, Jesus Christ, as the mediator between God and man, is both one and
many: he is the intermediary between the Father (who does not and cannot have any
dealings with multiplicity) and spiritual creatures (i.e., logikoi, who would otherwise
never be able to participate in the ultimate unity of God). The logikoi participate in
the Logos, and the Logos participates in the Father. Jean Daniélou articulates the
central point: “it is the multiplicity in the Logos that makes his dealings with the

13
John 6:35 rsv.
14
John 8:12 rsv.
15
John 10:9 rsv.
16
John 10:14 rsv.
17
John 11:25 rsv.
18
John 14:6 rsv.
19
John 15:1 rsv.
20
1 Cor 1:24 rsv.
21
1 Cor 1:30 rsv.
22
Eph 2:14 rsv.
23
On the philosophical background of the epinoiai, see Theo Kobusch, “Die Epinoia—Das
menschliche Bewusstsein in der antiken Philosophie,” in Gregory of Nyssa: Contra Eunomium
II: An English Version with Supporting Studies (ed. Lenka Karfikova; Boston: Brill, 2007) 3–20.
24
Origen, Commentary on John, I:119–20; GCS 10:24–5.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 200 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

logikoi possible, since it enables him to adapt himself to their diversity.”25 We see
here that Origen’s cosmology gives shape to the epinoiai by situating their function
as the means by which the Logos mediates between the logikoi and the Father.
Having said a word about the intellectual background of Origen’s teaching, there
are several other points of importance that must be mentioned. In Book I, Chapter
2 of On First Principles, Origen writes:
Our first task therefore is to see what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing
he is called by many different names [diversis nominibus] according to the
circumstances and beliefs of the different writers. He is called Wisdom. . . .
Also must wisdom be understood to be the Word of God. . . . This Son, then,
is also the truth and the life of all things that exist; and rightly so [Hic ergo
filius etiam omnium quae sunt veritas est et vita; et recte].26

These four titles elucidated by Origen in this crucial quote—Wisdom, Word, Truth,
and Life—are of particular importance. The following passage, in revealing an
important distinction within the multiplicity of the aspects or titles of Christ, shows
why this is the case:
Once we have collected the titles [τὰς ὀνομασίας] of the Son, therefore, we
must test which of them came into existence later, and whether they would
have become so numerous if the saints had begun and continued in blessed-
ness. For perhaps wisdom alone would remain, or word, or life, and by all
means truth, but surely not also the other titles which he took in addition
because of us.27

As Daniélou summarizes, “some of these epinoiai, such as the names Wisdom,

Word, Truth, and Life, denote the Word as he is eternally in himself; others are bound
up with the economy of the Redemption.”28 The four aspects initially mentioned by
Origen could appropriately be said of the Logos irrespective of his Incarnation.29
25
Daniélou, Origen, 257.
26
Origen: On First Principles (trans. G. W. Butterworth; Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973)
15–17. For the Latin original, see GCS 22:28–31.
27
Origen, Commentary on John, I:123; GCS 10:25.
28
Daniélou, Origen, 258. The importance of this distinction comes to the fore when we consider
Arius’s divergent approach to the epinoiai. In an exquisite note on a section of Athanasius’s Orations
Against the Arians, Khaled Anatolios writes: “Origen divides [the] epinoiai into two sets, those that
apply to the Son in himself and those that apply to the Son in relation to creation. Arius collapsed
this distinction and tended to understand all the epinoiai of the Son as ways of conceiving the Son’s
relation to creation. In particular, the Son is Word and Wisdom not in himself and not as such but only
improperly speaking and due to his graced participation in the essential Word and Wisdom which is
integral to the divine essence and because of his agency in manifesting the divine Word and Wisdom
to creation” (Athanasius [The Early Church Fathers; New York: Routledge, 2004] 261 n. 108).
29
A related theological concern may be raised concerning this point: given that these four aspects
could appropriately be said of the Logos irrespective of the Incarnation, what is the Trinitarian
meaning of these eternal titles? Do they signify a Monarchian understanding of the Logos’s relation
to the Father, which would overlook the distinction between the two? Peter Widdicombe comments
perspicaciously: “Origen is aware that the very words he uses to describe the Son, such as Wisdom,
Word, and Light, which emphasize the Son’s closeness to the Father, are taken by some as grounds

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 MATTHEW KUHNER 201

The order in which they are written here is of great significance as well. Wisdom
is the highest aspect for Origen, as he writes in the Commentary on John: “And if
we should carefully consider all the concepts [τὰς ἐπινοίας] applied to him, he
is the beginning only insofar as he is wisdom. . . . Someone might boldly say that
wisdom is older than all the concepts in the names [πάντων τῶν ἐπινοοθμένων
ταῖς ὀνομασίαις] of the firstborn of all creation.”30 The Word follows next, and
so on for truth and life.31 Beyond these, once we consider the aspects of Christ that
pertain to his economic activity, there appears to be no clear rank or scale for the
epinoiai.32 Many of the economic aspects or titles were mentioned already when
several passages from the Gospel of John were quoted (“door,” “vine,” “shepherd,”
etc.). This category of epinoiai would be incomplete, however, if we failed to
mention that all the virtues are also included therein.33 As will be shown below,
the virtues as epinoiai play a central role in Origen’s Commentary on Romans.
While there is no per se order to the economic epinoiai, they do have an
overarching pattern of ascent, “like the steps leading up into the temple.”34 Here we
see that Origen’s concept of the epinoiai, so important for his Logos–Christology,
also informs his understanding of Christian life and mysticism: “Origen’s Logos–
mysticism and his Logos–theology are bound up together.”35 In the wisdom of the
divine pedagogy, “the doctrine of the epinoiai allows Christ to be accommodated
to the specific needs and spiritual capacities of the different persons calling on
him [Contra Celsum, 2.64]”;36 thus “to the sick the Word will appear as Healer, to
those who need guidance he will show himself the Shepherd; his self-revelation as
Wisdom and Life will be kept for the perfect.”37 The Christian will come to know

for denying the Son a distinct existence. But the Word is not to be thought of as existing only in
the mind of God or as a mere utterance of the Father, existing as syllables. Such a conception fails
to grant him a distinct ὑπόστασις” (The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius [Oxford
Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994] 86; cited in Joseph W. Trigg,
Origen [The Early Church Fathers; London: Routledge, 1998] 263 n. 46). For a further discussion
of Monarchian theology and Origen, see Ronald E. Heine, “Origen: Scholarship in the Service of
the Church” (Christian Theology in Context; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 97-103. For
Origen’s understanding of ὑπόστασις, see Illaria Ramelli, “Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth
of the Trinitarian Meaning of Hypostasis,” HTR 105 (2012) 302–50.
30
Origen, Commentary on John, I:118; GCS 10:24.
31
For a further explanation of the theological reasons behind this ordering, see Heine, “Epinoiai,”
in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 94.
32
To be clear, the four imminent epinoiai Christou are not stripped away through the Incarnation.
For Origen, the mediator, Jesus, must remain both One (which includes retaining the imminent
epinoiai) and Many in order to fulfill his role.
33
Marguerite Harl suggests that the list of virtues that constitute epinoiai broadens over the
course of Origen’s literary output. See Harl, Origène, 291–92.
34
Heine, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 94. See also Gruber,
ΖΩΗ, 252–54.
35
Daniélou, Early Christian Doctrine, 2:386.
36
Heine, “Epinoiai,” in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 94.
37
Daniélou, Origen, 258.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 202 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Jesus more deeply and more perfectly, ascending from the economic aspects of
Christ to those which pertain to his eternal existence with the Father and Holy
Spirit.38 The centrality of this rich element of the epinoiai teaching is clear: passages
containing some variation of its central concern permeate Origen’s corpus.39
Insofar as the virtues as epinoiai feature prominently in Origen’s Commentary
on Romans, it will be helpful to offer two clarifications about this aspect of the
teaching before we move to the next section. These are promissory comments
that will be corroborated by the close attention to Origen’s Commentary in the
coming pages. First, Christ is indeed the fullness and perfection of each and every
virtue. Thus, as one scholar puts it, for Origen “any true virtue in us is a share in
his virtues.”40 But the manner in which we share in his virtues is not simply by
imitation. Rather, inasmuch as one participates in the life of Christ through the
indwelling and the aid of grace, that person will be given an intrinsic participation
in his virtues.41 While the benefit of imitation cannot, of course, be lost, Origen is
clear in his emphasis upon participation: “we have said that Christ is at the same
time wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, truth, and all the virtues. Assuredly the
one who has received these is said to have put on Christ. For if Christ is all these
things, the one who has them necessarily has Christ as well.”42

38
Origen’s understanding of the changing appearance of Christ and his epinoiai is considerably
different than that held by the authors of the Acts of John and the Acts of Peter. Whereas for the
latter the changing form of Christ is “a Christological device to distance the Logos from the flesh,”
McGuckin argues that “[Origen] transforms [the concept of the changing forms of Christ] from
its gnostic use . . . and presents it afresh as a moral category. The changing form of Jesus, in his
hands, tells us more about the varying ability of spectators to apprehend the truth than it does
about the instability of the flesh of Christ” (McGuckin, “Changing Form of Christ,” 219). See also
Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 244.
39
Daniélou cites several such passages in Origen, 258–61: Homilies on Genesis, I:8; Contra Celsum,
II:53; Homilies on Luke, 3; De Oratione, 27; Comm. Ser. Matt., 100; Commentary on John, I:23.
40
Roch A. Kereszty, Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology (New York: Society of St.
Paul, 2002) 214.
41
See Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 258: “Aus der Teilhabe folgt, daβ der Besitz einer Tugend immer eine
reale ontische Verbindung mit dem, der die betreffende Tugend substantiell besitzt, d.h. eine reale
Teilhabe an der einen Substanz jener Tugend besagt. Christus hat alle diese Tugenden substantiell
und auβer ihm niemand. Christus ist die Substanz aller Tugenden.”
42
CRm II, 9.34 [233]. Regarding the text of Origen’s Commentary, the citation convention for the
remainder of the paper will be as follows: Thomas Scheck’s English translation will be cited in the
main text or given first in the footnotes (Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books
1–5; 6–10 [trans. Thomas Scheck; FOTC 103–4; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America
Press, 2001–2002]). I will give the book, chapter, and paragraph number first, and follow this with
the page number in brackets. The first volume of the translated Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans will be cited as the abbreviation CRm I, while the second volume will be cited as CRm II.
For the original Latin (given exclusively in the footnotes as an aid to the reader), I will give the
book, chapter, and line number of Caroline P. Hammond Bammel’s critical edition, published in
three volumes: Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes. Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins,
Buch 1–3 (Freiburg: Herder, 1990); Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes. Kritische Ausgabe der
Übersetzung Rufins, Buch 4–6 (Freiburg: Herder, 1997); Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes.
Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins, Buch 7–10 (Freiburg: Herder, 1998).

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 MATTHEW KUHNER 203

Second, the close participatory relationship between virtue and faith/life in

Christ may suggest at the outset a starkly binary approach, in which one must either
have the fullness of virtue—and thus also have Christ, who is virtue—or have the
stain of sin and be cast out from Christ’s presence. For example, in response to the
quote we just cited from Origen, it could be suggested that any vice at all would be
proof that one does not, in fact, have Christ, and therefore is not a true member of
the Church. But this would be too simplified a view of Origen’s understanding.43
His incorporation of divine pedagogy allows for a real and dynamic growth in
perfection, throughout which Christ reveals himself more and more perfectly to
the Christian. Consonant with that further growth in knowledge of Christ will be
a more perfect growth in virtue.44

 II. Themes in the Commentary on Romans

I have given a brief, systematic introduction to Origen’s concept of the epinoiai
Christou. Moving to the heart of my thesis, I now intend to show directly that
Origen applies the concept of the epinoiai to his exegesis of Romans, while also
articulating and examining the exegetic results of this application.45 The three themes
I will analyze in turn—a) Christ as the End of the Law, b) Life in and with Christ,
43
Origen explicitly opposes such a narrowly binary position in CRm I, 2.7.8 [127]: “It is possible
that someone wants to interject something very serious and intolerable to say, that anyone who sins
should not be regarded as a believer, since, if anyone believes, they do not sin; but if anyone sins,
it is proven from this that he does not believe. But I reckon that it is doubtful to no one how harsh
this opinion is. For how many can be found on earth who so balance their lives that they transgress
at no point whatsoever? Moreover John the apostle plainly criticizes this kind of view in his letter
when he says, ‘If someone says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him’ [see 1 John
1:8]. ‘But if we confess our sins we have an advocate before the Father, Jesus the righteous, who
implores for our sins’ [see 1 John 1:8–9; 2:1–2]”; Bammel 2.5(5–7).345–55.
44
See Peter Widdicombe, “Origen,” in The Blackwell Companion to Paul (ed. Stephen Westerholm;
Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2011) 316–29, at 326.
45
This section is not a linguistic evaluation of the Latin equivalents to αἱ ἐπίνοιαι, τὰ ὀνόματα and
αἱ προσηγορίαι, but rather an analysis of Origen’s concept of the epinoiai as it is present in Rufinus’s
translation and abridgment of the Commentary. While most scholars agree that Rufinus’s translation
is effective in communicating Origen’s thought, it is nonetheless certain that he played down some
of its more controversial aspects. Could this latter tendency be at play in reference to the epinoiai?
Possibly, though in Book I, Chapter 2 of On First Principles—which contains a prime example of
Rufinus’s penchant to alter Origen’s phrases that sound subordinationist (see On First Principles,
27)—Rufinus communicates a thorough portrait of Origen’s epinoiai concept that correlates nicely
with his discussion of the matter in the original Greek of the Commentary on John. For this author,
the more troubling aspect of Rufinus’s translation of the CRm with regards to the epinoiai concept
specifically is identified by Bammel in the following passage: “the transfer from Origen’s Greek to
Rufinus’s Latin inevitably involved a move from a more technically sophisticated philosophical and
speculative mode of expression to a simple, more legalistic approach” (Bammel, Römerbrieftext, 44.
Quoted in CRm I, [Translator’s] Introduction [19]). Did Origen’s original Commentary—twice the
length of Rufinus’s translation—contain more speculative discussion of the epinoiai, such as is found
in the Commentary on John and On First Principles? If it did, perhaps Rufinus left such discussion
aside or simplified it for his audience because it was controversial and somewhat challenging. All
conjectures aside, the significant presence of the epinoiai concept in Rufinus’s translation indicates

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 204 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and c) Faith and Works—are each founded principally upon the virtues taken as
epinoiai. While the virtues as epinoiai are found elsewhere in Origen’s writings,46
the themes discussed here represent three extensions of the epinoiai concept that
are unparalleled in their focus and depth.47

A. Christ as the End of the Law

Origen’s discussion and interpretation of St. Paul’s use of law is a crucial
characteristic of his Commentary on Romans. In fact, for Origen, the differentiation
of the divergent meanings of St. Paul’s use of law is a necessary step in coming
to understand properly the epistle.48 Needless to say, it is beyond the scope of our
current argument to consider each of these meanings.49 Rather, our main concern
is to show how Origen employs the epinoiai Christou in his discussion of Christ
as the fulfillment of the law.
The most fitting place to begin is Rom 10:4, where Paul writes: “For Christ is
the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.” Here is Origen’s
initial commentary:
“Christ is the end of the law,” that is, the perfection of the law, and Christ
is righteousness50 [see 1 Cor 1:30], but for believers. For those who do not
believe, however, since they do not have Christ, they do not have the perfec-
tion of the law and, therefore, they cannot attain to righteousness. . . . For if
Christ is the end of the law, as the Apostle says, the one who does not accept
Christ as the end of the law is not capable, without Christ, of fulfilling that
righteousness that is from the law.51

Origen often interprets Christ as the “end” or “fulfillment” (Matt 5:17 rsv) of the
law to be synonymous with Christ as the “perfection of the law.” The law marks
out what is righteous, and what is just; thus “the law is holy, and the commandment
is holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12 rsv). Yet, insofar as “all have sinned and fall
short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23 rsv), the fulfillment of the law is out of our

that Rufinus was hardly attempting to rid Origen’s corpus of this aspect of his Logos-Christology.
It is also impressive that the presence of the epinoiai concept in Rufinus’s translation accords so
well with the occurrences of the concept elsewhere in Origen’s oeuvre.
46
Some examples: Origen, Commentary on John, VI:107; Commentary on Matthew XII:14;
Contra Celsum, III:81, V:12, VIII:17–18.
47
The treatment of themes here is not intended to be exhaustive of the appearance of the epinoiai
concept in the Commentary. As one notable example of what could not be addressed here, see
Gruber, ΖΩΗ, 258 n. 66 and CRm II, 7.13.2 [105].
48
See CRm I, [Translator’s] Introduction [25]. See also CRm I, Preface [of Origen], 8 [57].
49
Such a study has already been masterfully accomplished by R. Roukema in his 1988 monograph
on the subject, The Diversity of Laws in Origen’s Commentary on Romans (Amsterdam: Free
University Press, 1988).
50
While “justice” is perhaps a better rendering of iustitia, Scheck’s translation of the CRm
followed the RSV usage of “righteousness.” I will conform to the translation of Scheck and the
RSV in this paper.
51
CRm II, 8.2.2 [135–36]; Bammel 8.2.12–15, 32–34.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 MATTHEW KUHNER 205

reach. The only way to reach the righteousness which the law marks out is through
participation by faith in Righteousness itself (see 1 Cor 1:30). This is because “the
Savior alone, the Lord Jesus Christ, is justified in the sight of the Father, since
‘whatever the Father does, even that the Son does likewise’ [John 5:19].”52 Origen
writes elsewhere, “whoever then does not believe in Christ, of whom Moses wrote
in the law, sets aside the law; but he who believes in the Christ, of whom Moses
writes, confirms the law through the faith by which he believes in Christ.”53 Origen’s
commentary on Christ as the end of the law is founded upon his use of 1 Cor 1:30
to establish righteousness as one of the epinoiai Christou.54
Origen’s exegesis does not stop here, however; it reaches high pitch in a passage
from Book 3 of his Commentary:
And just as [Christ] himself is the righteousness through which all become
righteous; and he is the truth through which all stand firm in the truth; and he
himself is the life through which all live; so also he himself is the law through
which all are under law. He comes to the judgment, then, not as one who is
under law but as one who is law [non tamquam qui in lege sit sed tamquam
qui lex sit]. But I think that even those who are already perfect and, by being
united with the Lord, have become one spirit with him are themselves not
under law but are themselves law.55

While this quotation certainly builds upon those cited just above, the claim that
Christ is law offers us a radical understanding of how Christ fulfills the law. From
this perspective, Christ not only fulfills the law because he is its end, but because he
is in some sense also its beginning. There is a sense in which the law (as precepts
of righteousness), when given to Moses, was already a reflection of Christ, who
is righteousness itself.56 A Greek fragment of Origen’s commentary on the same
verse contains a condensed form of this point: “another could say that just as the

52
CRm I, 3.2.11 [194]; Bammel 3.2(2–5).161–63.
53
CRm I, 3.11.1 [233]; Bammel 3.8(11).11–13.
54
See the Greek fragment of Origen’s commentary on 1 Cor 1:30 for an application of the
epinoiai that is strikingly similar to the one discussed here in the CRm: “Therefore, Christ is all
these things [i.e., wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption] for us [ταῦτα πάντα ἡμῖν
ἐστὶ Χριστός] so that what is written may come to pass: “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.”
For if the one who boasts ought to boast in wisdom, but Christ is wisdom [Χριστὸς δὲ ἡ σοφία],
it is clear that the one who boasts is boasting in Christ; and I say the same regarding the others,
namely, sanctification and righteousness” (Fragment VIII, given in Claude Jenkins, “Origen on 1
Corinthians,” JTS 9 [1908] 231–47, at 238).
55
CRm I, 3.6.5 [205] [italics in original]; Bammel 3.3(6).79–83.
56
See Col 1:15–20 and Rev 22:13.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 206 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

only-begotten Son of God is the Word in person [αὐτολόγος] and wisdom in

person [αὐτοσοφία] and truth in person [αὐτοαλήθεια], so also he is the law in
person [αὐτονόμος].”57 Note that Origen here employs αὐτό as a prefix in order
to communicate the epinoiai of Christ.58
A considerable theological concern may be voiced here: does this emphatic
continuity between the law and faith in Christ overshadow the newness of the
Gospel? The following passage reveals how Origen holds together quite nicely
both continuity and newness:
For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed which had been con-
cealed previously, being hidden in the law. But it is revealed to those who
go from the faith of the old covenant to the new faith of the gospel. . . . And
when he comes to the gospel from the faith of the law he is led to faith in
Christ and thus advances from faith to faith.59

Origen’s understanding of Christ as righteousness and law accentuates at least

two central characteristics of his theology of law in his exegesis of Romans. First,
Origen elaborately preserves the symphonic unity of God’s providential plan as
well as the organic unity of the Old and New Testaments. Christ stands as the alpha
and the omega of the law, as righteousness and law itself. Second, insofar as Origen
claims that Christ fulfills the law through perfecting it as righteousness, it follows
that Origen’s understanding of justification is more than simply declarative. Christ
does not save us from the condemnation of the law by a simple edict that takes
away the force of its precepts for righteousness. Rather, he saves us by offering
participation in his own righteousness, which requires a perfection of virtue that
supersedes even the demands of the law.60

57
Origenes Römerbriefkommentar. Fragmente (trans. Theresia Heither; Freiburg: Herder, 1998)
90–91.
58
See Heither’s note on this exquisite passage: “Origenes gebraucht gerne Wörter mit αὐτὸ, um
zu sagen, was Christus in seiner Person verkörpert. Zu ihnen gehört auch der Begriff αὐτονόμος”
(ibid., n. 10).
59
CRm I, 1.13.1 [83]; Bammel 1.15(3).20–23, 24–25. Origen is here presaging Augustine’s
well–known comment in Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, 2.73: “quamquam et in Vetere Novum
lateat, et in Novo Vetus pateat” (the New is hidden in the Old, and the Old is revealed in the New).
See also CRm I, 2.5.4 [115]; Bammel 2.5(5–7).51–54.
60
See Prosper Grech, “Justification by Faith in Origen’s Commentary on Romans,” Aug 36
(1996) 337–59, at 351: “[For Origen,] the justice which comes from Christ . . . is obtained through
rebirth but also through paideia. . . . Moreover, the salvation of believers is not automatic. That
is why Romans 5:15 has in multis not in omnibus, so as to maintain humility in the righteous.”

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 MATTHEW KUHNER 207

B. Life in and with Christ: The Reign of Christ (Rom 6:20–22), the Indwelling
of the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9–10), and Conformation to the Image of Christ
(Rom 8:29)
In this section I would like to assess Origen’s exegesis of three different texts
from Romans, each of which includes a crucial use of the epinoiai Christou. The
Christian’s life in and with Christ is the general leitmotif of these three texts.
(1) “When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But
then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The
end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have
become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.”61
Origen judiciously points out that the pairs of terms juxtaposed in this passage
do not correspond as one might suppose they should. “Slaves of sin/free [from]
righteousness” is paired with “free from sin/slaves of God.” One might expect the
second pair to read, “free from sin/slaves of righteousness.” Deeply convinced that
every word of scripture bears significance, Origen brings in the epinoiai concept
to make sense of the different word choice. He writes,
this [difference in word choice] is no idle distinction. For through this it is
shown that after someone has been set free from sin, he must, first of all,
serve righteousness and all the virtues together, so that from there he might
ascend, by means of progress, to the point that he becomes a slave to God. I
grant that servitude to righteousness is servitude to God. For Christ is righ-
teousness, and to serve Christ is to serve God [Christus est enim iustitia et
seruire Christo seruire Deo est]. Nevertheless, there is an order in the levels
of advancement and there are degrees within the virtues. And this is the rea-
son Christ is said to reign, certainly according to this, that he is righteousness,
until the fullness of the virtues is accomplished in each individual.62

Origen’s commentary involves the crucial identification of Christ as righteousness,

which is used to link servitude to righteousness with servitude to God. Within this
basic congruency, Origen also brings in the differentiation of levels of perfection,
thus including the structural aspect of ascent as well. Rather than offering here a
dismissible and fanciful interpretation, Origen’s textual analysis clearly reveals
that there is in Romans a real identification between being slaves of God and
slaves of righteousness. Such would have to be the case if the literary effect of the
juxtaposition of pairs is to retain its force.
(2) “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But
if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are
alive because of righteousness.”63 How are we to know whether we have the Spirit
of Christ? What does it mean that our “spirits are alive because of righteousness”?

61
Rom 6:20–22 rsv.
62
CRm II, 6.5.6 [14–15]; Bammel 6.5.67–75.
63
Rom 8:9–10 rsv.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 208 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Origen’s understanding of the epinoiai opens up this passage, again through his
identification of righteousness with Christ:
Moreover, each person shall be tested to see if he has the Spirit of Christ
within him. Christ is wisdom [Christus sapientia est]; if he is wise according
to Christ and sets his mind on the things of Christ, he has the Spirit of Christ
in himself through wisdom. Christ is righteousness [Christus iustitia est];
if anyone has Christ’s righteousness in himself, through righteousness he
possesses the Spirit of Christ in himself. Christ is peace [Christus pax est]; if
anyone possesses the peace of Christ in himself, through the Spirit of peace
he has the Spirit of Christ in himself. So also love, so also sanctification, so
also each particular thing that Christ is said to be [quae Christus esse dicitur].
It must be believed that the one who possesses these qualities has the Spirit
of Christ in himself and hopes that his own mortal body will be made alive
because of the Spirit of Christ that dwells within him.64

In congruity with the Pauline verses that love and goodness are the marks of the
Christian65 (and not knowledge or prophecy alone66), Origen offers righteousness,
peace, love, and sanctification as the proof of the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ.
These are proof because, in their perfection, they are Christ himself. The epinoiai
help us to further see that the presence of vice is necessarily opposed to the presence
of Christ and his Spirit.67
(3) “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the
image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.”68
In considering what it means to be “con-form-ed” to Christ, Origen immediately
calls to mind a New Testament text that seems to indicate two forms of Christ.
Philippians 2:6–7 states that Jesus, “though he was in the form of God,” took “the
form of a servant” through his self-emptying. Again, wishing not to overlook even
the smallest shade of meaning in sacred scripture, Origen considers this double–
form of Christ to be insightful when considering how we are conformed to his
image. Origen writes,
[Paul] says that Christ is formed in those who strive for perfection [see Gal
4:19]. Insofar as he is the Word, [this happens] when the sincerity of the word
of God will be purely formed in them; and insofar as he is the truth, when
truth exists within them without the admixture of any deceit; and insofar as he
is wisdom, when the wisdom of God would be preserved in them, the wisdom
that Paul speaks among the perfect, pure and without even the smallest devia-
tion into error. The same applies with all that Christ is, whether righteousness,
64
CRm II, 6.13.9 [57]; Bammel 6.14.114–24.
65
See Rom 12:9.
66
See 1 Cor 13–14:25.
67
See CRm I, 2.6.5 [120–1]: “Moreover, those who oppose wisdom and righteousness and
sanctification are also distrusting Christ, who is both wisdom and sanctification, just as he is the
truth. Not to comply with Christ, who is righteousness, means to comply with wickedness”; Bammel
2.5(5–7).194–97.
68
Rom 8:29 rsv.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 MATTHEW KUHNER 209

sanctification, or any of the other virtues. If these are clearly formed in them,
having become conformed into his image they will be seen in that form in
which [Christ] is in the form of God. But if anyone turns back to the begin-
ning stages—but the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom—and, while
remaining in fear, he undertakes the first elements of the worship of God, they
who receive the initial foundations in the fear of God must be understood to
be conformed to [Christ] in his slave-form, a form that he took in order that
he might teach the fear of God to the raw recruits and the ignorant.69

The epinoiai are introduced here to help Origen elucidate what it means for a
Christian to be conformed to Christ. Conformity to Christ means to bear the
form—more or less perfectly—of that which he is, namely, wisdom, righteousness,
sanctification, and all the virtues. Further, the two-fold form of Christ allows
Origen to incorporate again the ascent structure of the epinoiai. The pattern of
ascent articulated via the two-fold form reveals, interestingly, that Christ himself
is the expression of the divine pedagogy: he takes the slave-form in order to “teach
the fear of God” to those who lack knowledge of him, all the while offering the
invitation to ascend higher, that they may attain to Jesus’s divine form in knowledge
and participatory virtue.

C. Faith and Works

It must be noted at the outset that Origen’s discussion of justification in the
Commentary on Romans operates within a notably different polemical milieu
than that of the Pelagian controversy.70 While in many cases he anticipates later
theological flashpoints, Origen’s polemical milieu in the Commentary remains a
Christian opposition to the deterministic position of fixed natures;71 accordingly,
it would be anachronistic—and exegetically untenable—to label the Commentary
as “Augustinian” or “Pelagian.”72 It is crucial to pursue Origen’s own position on
justification, insofar as it can be gathered from the text. The title to this section, then,
was not chosen in deference to the Pelagian controversy, but rather in deference to
the decisive occurrences of the terms in Origen’s text. While a treatment of Origen’s
discussion of faith and works in its entirety is beyond the scope of this paper, I will

69
CRm II, 7.7.4 [84–85]; Bammel 7.5.42–57.
70
Though one might initially speculate that Rufinus—who moved in the same circles as
Pelagius—may have translated Origen’s Commentary with a “Pelagian” conception of justification
in view, research on this topic does not validate this speculation. In addition to the texts referenced
below, see especially C. P. Bammel, “Rufinus’s Translation of Origen’s Commentary on Romans
and the Pelagian Controversy,” in Storia ed esegesi in Rufino di Concordia (ed. A. Scottà; Udine:
Arti grafiche friulane, 1992) 131–49.
71
See CRm I, Preface [of Origen] [53]: “[Paul] stirs up very many questions in the letter and
the heretics, especially propping themselves up on these, are accustomed to add that the cause of
each person’s actions is not to be attributed to one’s own purpose but to different kinds of natures.”
72
See Bammel, Römerbrieftext, 47, n. 14: “the statements of the commentary are so diverse that
one could prove both Pelagian and typically Augustinian views through quotations from Rufinus’s
translation.” Quoted in CRm I, [Translator’s] Introduction [17].

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 210 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

assess the manner in which the epinoiai Christou play a principal role in Origen’s
treatment of this crucial topic.73
Commenting on the pivotal verse of Rom 3:21–24, Origen writes: “[All who
believe, whether they come from the Jews or from the Gentiles], are justified,
however, not by works but by the grace of God, through the redemption
accomplished for them by Jesus Christ himself.”74 We find Origen here expressing
the centrality of grace as God’s supreme gift to man: “the redemptive work
of Christ has its own proper and unique value as the meritorious cause of our
salvation, anterior to any cooperation on our part.”75 Importantly, as will quickly
be apparent, this claim is imbedded within an exegetical interpretation that holds
a nuanced understanding of the relationship between the centrality of grace on the
one hand, and works on the other. Origen makes a distinction within the general
category of works that is crucial for an understanding of his theology of justification.
Post-baptismal works play an important part in justification in addition to faith,
insofar as they are the proper and necessary fruit borne of the working of God’s
free gift in us. Our pre-baptismal works—either those of natural virtue76 or Jewish
73
For insightful and systematic explorations of Origen’s understanding of justification in his
Commentary on Romans, see C. P. Bammel, “Augustine, Origen, and the Exegesis of St. Paul,” Aug
32 (1992) 341–68; eadem, “Justification by Faith in Augustine and Origen,” JEH 47 (1996) 223–35;
Robert Eno, “Some Patristic Views on the Relationship of Faith and Works in Justification,” Recherches
Augustiniennes 19 (1984) 3–27, at 4–6; Grech, “Justification by Faith,” 337–59; CRm I, [Translator’s]
Introduction [21–48]; Thomas Scheck, “Origen’s Interpretation of Romans,” in A Companion to
St. Paul in the Middle Ages (ed. Steven Cartwright; Boston: Brill, 2013) 34–49; idem, Origen and
the History of Justification, chs. 1 and 6; C. Verfaillie, “La doctrine de la justification dans Origène
d’après son commentaire del’Épître aux Romains” (PhD diss., Université de Strasbourg, 1926).
74
CRm I, 3.7.2 [209]; Bammel 3.4(7).14–16. See Origen, Commentary on John, I:247: “For
Jesus has become sanctification for us, whence the saints are sanctified, and has become redemption.
And each of us is sanctified by that sanctification and redeemed in relation to that redemption.” For
the Greek original, see GCS 10:44. For an insightful comparison of Rufinus’s translation with a
Greek fragment regarding a passage that concerns the epinoiai and redemption, see CRm I, 3.7.14
[215–16] and Fragmente, 99.
75
Scheck, “Origen’s Interpretation of Romans,” 36. See also Grech, “Justification by Faith,”
345–6: “[Origen] cannot insist more persistently on the fact that both Jews and Gentiles come to
salvation not through their own righteousness but through God’s mercy.”
76
See CRm I, 2.7.6 [125–26]: “But also a Greek, i.e., a Gentile, who, though he does not have
the law, is a law to himself, showing the work of the law in his heart and moved by natural reason,
as we see is the case in not a few Gentiles, might hold fast to justice or observe chastity or maintain
wisdom, moderation, and modesty. I grant that such a man might seem a stranger to eternal life,
since he has not believed in Christ, and cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, for he has not
been born again of water and the Spirit. Nevertheless it seems that from what the Apostle has said
here, he cannot completely lose the glory of the good works he has accomplished, and the honor
and the peace. . . . Consequently, I do not think it can be doubted that the one who had merited
condemnation on account of his evil works will be considered worthy of remuneration for his
good works, if he indeed had performed good works”; Bammel 2.5(5–7).302–11, 316–18. See the
important quote from Henry Chadwick, cited in CRm I [125 n. 181]: “[Origen] (hesitantly) denies
the saving value before God of good works done before justification, and in no way mitigates the
absoluteness of the Christian faith as revelation. There is salvation only in Christ, and all must come,
sooner or later, to this realization, in the next world if not in this. So Origen combines an estimate

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 MATTHEW KUHNER 211

rituals77—are not salvific; we are saved through our faith in Jesus Christ, in the
remission of sins and the restoration of friendship with God through the Son’s
deed of love on the Cross. The crucial point of Origen’s understanding comes in
precisely here: works play a part in justification because they cannot be separated
from justification itself. Faith and works form an “organic and synthetic unity”78
which is rooted in the justification offered by Jesus Christ. “You see, then, that
everywhere faith is joined with works and works are united with faith.”79
Importantly, Origen’s concept of the epinoiai Christou appears to be the
mediating principle of this “organic and synthetic unity.” In other words, the
epinoiai are precisely what makes possible the synthetic relationship between faith
and works. Basic evidence for this claim can be found in the fact that Origen often
invokes the epinoiai concept when articulating the inextricable unity of faith and
works. A particularly prominent passage in this respect is Origen’s commentary
on Rom 4:23–25. He writes:
For it is not possible that righteousness can be reckoned to a person who has
any unrighteousness dwelling in him, even if he believes in him who raised
the Lord Jesus from the dead. . . . For if we have been raised together with
Christ, who is righteousness, if we walk in the newness of life, if we live
in accordance with righteousness, then to us Christ has been raised for our
justification. But if we have not yet laid aside the old man with his deeds,
but we live in unrighteousness, I dare say that to us Christ has not yet been
resurrected for justification nor has he been handed over on account of our
sins. . . . Therefore Christ justifies only those who have received the new life
in the pattern of his resurrection and who reject the old garments of unrigh-
teousness and iniquity as if they were the cause of death.80

In a formulation that is reminiscent of Jesus’s words, “you will know them by their
fruits” (Matt 7:16 rsv), Origen claims that righteousness is the necessary fruit of
our incorporation into Christ’s life through baptism. The strong claim of Origen is
clear: “Christ justifies only those who have received the new life in the pattern of
his resurrection” because such newness of life is the inevitable manifestation of
of human nature which is strikingly positive and ‘humanist’ with a cool reserve towards the good
pagan” (Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen
[Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966] 105). The ambiguous claim that there will be remuneration for
the pagan’s good works is granted some clarity through the consideration of Origen’s speculation
on the mobility of souls after death. Despite this questionable speculation, I do not think it entirely
deforms the salient point here expressed: the good works of the pagan surely will not be looked
over, even though we are unsure what exactly this will mean in reference to the eschaton.
77
A characteristic aspect of Origen’s exegesis of Romans is the interpretation of the Pauline
reference to “the works of the law” as the works of Judaic ceremonial requirements, not the works of
the Decalogue. See Scheck, “Origen’s Interpretation of Romans,” 44–45. Pertaining to our concern
here, it is clear that for Origen the ritual works of Judaism have no power to justify mankind, either
before or after baptism.
78
Scheck, “Origen’s Interpretation of Romans,” 40.
79
CRm I, 2.13.23 [156]; Bammel 2.9(12–13).407–8.
80
CRm I, 4.7.6–8 [275–77]; Bammel 4.7.71–73, 100–6, 109–12.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 212 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

true faith. Origen’s reasoning takes him further: how can one have Righteousness
himself indwelling in us, if this place is occupied by unrighteousness?
For righteousness cannot have anything in common with unrighteousness;
just as light cannot with darkness, nor life with death. So also then certainly
to those who believe in Christ but do not lay aside the old man with his
unrighteous deeds, faith cannot be reckoned as righteousness. Moreover in
a similar way, we can say that just as righteousness cannot be reckoned to
an unrighteous man, neither can chastity be reckoned to an unchaste one,
nor justice to an unjust one, nor generosity to a greedy one, nor piety to an
impious one, so long as he does not lay aside the old garments of the vices
and “put on the new man who was created according to God and is being
renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of him who created
him” [Col 3:9–10].81

These words may give rise to an objection, which was already mentioned above. If
“righteousness cannot have anything in common with unrighteousness,” then are
the sins of a person proof that he or she is, in fact, an unbeliever, and that Christ (as
righteousness) does not dwell within him? As was argued above, Origen is far from
affirming such a “rigoristic” position, which would hold that any sin committed
is enough to revoke the person’s status as a believer. Rather, Origen attempts to
preserve the organic unity of faith and works, without necessarily claiming that
an individual sin is manifest proof of a wholesale lack of faith. Thus, if we are
striving forward to perfection, our sins do not individually serve to invalidate our
faith, even while they do frustrate the intrinsic link between faith and works. The
following passage should prove illuminating in this regard:
To serve Christ means to serve wisdom, i.e., to serve righteousness, to serve
truth, and to serve all the virtues at the same time. This is why it must not be
imagined that all at once, when a person expresses the will, he immediately
becomes transferred into Christ Jesus from the slavery of the law of sin, so
that he would possess nothing in him any longer that could serve as grounds
for sin’s condemnation. For in each person righteousness searches for its
own portions and it tests to see if one has been reformed and corrected so
that it can find no unjust work in the man, on the basis of which condem-
nation would follow. . . . If [righteousness] will have discovered that things
are holding together in the individual rightly and with integrity, then the
person will be reckoned to be in Christ and to have no condemnation. There
is absolutely no doubt that these things should be sought after by means of
constant practice and training and by vigilant effort. And for this reason it is
certain that this does not come to pass in those who are lazy or inactive but
rather in those who are gradually making progress, and who at first sin only
a little, then later even less, and ultimately, if they are able to attain it, who
no longer sin at all.82

81
CRm I, 4.7.6 [275–76]; Bammel 4.7.73–83.
82
CRm II, 6.11.2 [45–46]; Bammel 6.11.15–22, 26–33. See also CRm I, 2.7.7 [126–27]: “For are
we to think that anyone who believes in Christ and afterwards commits murder or adultery or speaks

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 MATTHEW KUHNER 213

Therefore, while there will be a judgment for our works, Origen includes a strong
sense of divine pedagogy in order to avoid the problems posed by such a rigoristic
view of post-baptismal acts of sin. In fact, Origen appears to be arguing as follows:
far from requiring us to believe that one who sins does not have faith, the fact that
Christ is perfect righteousness and virtue proves that one could never ascend to
that height in an instant. Rather, faith and works will be continually perfected in the
one who strives earnestly to honor the gift of justification by gradually mounting
the heights of true righteousness.
Maurice Wiles, commenting on the interpretation of faith and works in St. Paul’s
epistles among the Fathers of the Church, strongly emphasizes the mediating role
of the epinoiai for Origen:
Christ did not merely possess the various virtues accidentally or contingently;
Christ is his attributes. . . . Therefore our relationship to Christ is automatical-
ly our relationship to wisdom, righteousness, truth and all the other virtues. To
be “in Christ” is to be “in” all the virtues; to have Christ in us is to have them
in us. . . . Clearly therefore according to this analysis there can be for Origen
no faith without works. Faith in Christ does not need to be supplemented by
the virtuous life; it is the adoption of the virtues. Thus the connection between
faith and works is a logically necessary one.83

Wiles goes so far as to say that this is Origen’s “fundamental resolution of the
problem of the relation of faith and works,” and that this resolution “transposes
the question [of the relation of faith and works] into a new key.”84 I am arguing,
along the same lines as Wiles, that the “new key” into which the question has been
transposed can be articulated as follows: instead of working conceptually from
either faith or works separately in an attempt to link the one up with the other
extrinsically, Origen asks us to behold the prior and intrinsic unity of faith and
works in the mystery of (the epinoiai of) Christ. In other words, Origen points to
Christ as the point of unity between divinity and virtue; if one is to participate in
divinity, that person necessarily must participate in his virtue. The result is a rather
profound Christological understanding of the relationship of faith and works, which
emphasizes their inextricable and internal relationship to each other.

false testimony or does anything of this sort, which we sometimes see even believers perpetrating,
that even then he who has believed in Christ will not be condemned for these things? It is certain
that all these things will come to judgment. . . . Anyone who has believed will not be condemned
as an unbeliever and infidel; but he will undoubtedly be condemned for his own actions. . . . Just
as judgment still awaits a believer when he commits some sin in addition, though his faith is kept
intact, so also the unbeliever shall not lose the remuneration for the good works he has done, his
unbelief notwithstanding”; Bammel 2.5(5–7).332–37, 339–41, 342–45.
83
Maurice Wiles, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Early
Church (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 114–15 [italics in original].
84
Ibid., 114.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 214 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

 III. Conclusion and Assessment

The foregoing engagement with the text of the Commentary on Romans has shown
the considerable use of the epinoiai concept in Origen’s exegesis. Considering this
analysis, it is perhaps accurate to conclude that the Commentary on Romans does
not simply apply the epinoiai concept that is worked out in full elsewhere; rather,
it also makes a marked contribution of its own to our understanding of Origen’s
epinoiai teaching, principally through its focus upon the virtues as epinoiai. As
a result, it seems clear that anyone who wishes to study Origen’s concept of the
epinoiai Christou—and his Logos-Christology more generally—cannot afford to
overlook the contribution of the Commentary on Romans. Further, the compelling
exegesis that results from Origen’s application of the epinoiai Christou—especially
in relation to faith and works—merits serious engagement by scholars and readers
of the Epistle to the Romans.
In order to defend fully the contemporary significance of Origen’s exegesis, a
remaining criticism must be addressed. As a concluding note, I will engage a charge
against Origen’s Logos-Christology that would seem to invalidate the epinoiai
Christou as a source for Christian theological reflection.
Part I of this paper benefited from Jean Daniélou’s analysis of the epinoiai
Christou in Origen’s theology. Revisiting his analysis, it is to his criticism that I will
now turn. Daniélou claims that Origen’s overall theology of the Logos is fraught
with a certain difficulty: namely, that it has been overly conformed to the contours
of Middle Platonism and Stoicism, and is consequently disfigured in two interrelated
respects.85 The first alleged deformation results in a form of subordinationism of
the Son to the Father. The second touches the concept of the epinoiai more directly
and is less frequently addressed by Origen scholarship. Regarding this second
deformation, Daniélou writes,
[Origen] does not allow difference enough between the Logos and the logikoi.
On that point he was influenced by the Stoic idea that the Logos is imminent
in all individual logikoi. “Insofar as a man possesses Wisdom, he shares in
the life of Christ, who is wisdom” (Commentary on John, I:34). It is true
that because of their sins spirits may, in his opinion, be incapable of living a
fully spiritual life unless the Word helps them; they will need his assistance
for that. But even so, the spiritual life is still only the development of that
participation in the life of the Logos which is rooted in all spirits by nature.
Hence the difference between them and the Logos can only be one of degree.
And that destroys the essentially gratuitous character of grace considered as
a sharing in the life of a transcendent Trinity.86

Thus, to summarize the dual charges of Daniélou, the Logos is (so to speak) too
“far” from the Father (subordinationism) and correspondingly too “close” to the
logikoi. The two errors are therefore two sides of the same coin. The influence of
85
See Daniélou, Origen, 261.
86
Ibid., 261–62.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 MATTHEW KUHNER 215

Hellenistic sources has, on this reading, exerted too great a pull upon Origen’s
thought, causing his Logos-Christology/Mysticism to be doubly warped in a way
that proves less than satisfactory for later Christian reflection.87
Is Daniélou correct in his assertion? While a thorough assessment of whether—
and to what to degree—he is indeed correct is a task that deserves a study of its own,
a brief comment may be made with justification: just as several recent authors have
cautioned against an unqualified accusation of subordinationism against Origen,88
a similar caution is required in treating the corresponding accusation, namely, an
over-identification of the Logos and the logikoi via the concept of the epinoiai.
Such caution was exhibited by Aloisius Lieske, an Origen scholar from the first
half of the twentieth century, in the following text:
As in the Stoics, the Logos dwells in all the logoi as “cosmic-reason,” or as in
Plotinus the nous spans the multiplicity of the logoi and the world-soul exists
in the individual souls as the unity of them all—so similar ideas resonate in
Origen, though without intending to be identified with the former. For Origen
denies that consubstantiality [Wesensgleichheit] between the divine Logos and
the logoi. . . . [The presence of the divine Word in the ἡγεμονικόν] is in Ori-
gen not the indwelling of an impersonal, absolute reason, but a real-personal
presence of Christ in the heart.”89

87
For a more contemporary instance of an almost identical critique, see Joseph O’Leary, “Logos,”
in The Westminster Handbook (ed. McGuckin), 145.
88
See the summary statement of Crouzel: “We explained above the subordinationism for which
Origen was blamed, which is also found in the other Ante-Nicenes, by showing that it was not
in contradiction with orthodoxy because it does not express an inequality of power—the Father
communicates to the Son and the Son to the Spirit all that they are except the fact of being Father or
Son—but rather expresses realities which orthodoxy of necessity recognizes, origin and mediation”
(Origen, 203). See also Mark Julian Edwards, Origen Against Plato (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy
and Theology in Late Antiquity; Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002) 69. See also Ayres, Nicaea and its
Legacy, 21: “Origen’s account of the Son as in some ways subordinate to the Father is in part simply
that of his contemporaries: the aspects that seem most his own push in different directions from
those pursued by Arius.” Most compellingly, see the well-sourced study by Illaria Ramelli, “Origen’s
Anti-Subordinationism and its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line,” VC 65 (2011) 21–49.
In this essay, Ramelli offers substantial textual proof that Origen’s anti-subordinationism is not
simply constituted by Rufinus’s redactory translation. One such case regards Rufinus’s translation
of the CRm: “In Comm. in Rom. 1,7,4, the sentence non erat quando non erat, just as in Princ.
1,2,9 the sentence non est autem quando non fuerit, in reference to the Son, is not an invention of
Rufinus opposite to Origen’s own thought, in the light of the other attestations. The same concept is
expressed in Comm. in Rom. 1,7,15–19: Haec nobis dicta sint propter eos qui in unigenitum Filium
Dei impietatem loquuntur [. . .] qui [. . .] semper fuit sicut et Pater. Just as when he interprets 1 Cor
15,28 in an anti-subordinationistic sense, here too Origen polemicises against some subordinationists
(‘Arians’ only ante litteram)” (42–43). These secondary sources simply illustrate the findings of
recent scholarship. As mentioned above, a separate study employing the whole of Origen’s existent
oeuvre would be required to satisfactorily assess the question of subordinationism in relation to the
epinoiai. A pivotal question for such a study would be, for example, the relationship of the four
eternal epinoiai of Christ—Wisdom, Word, Life, and Truth—to the Father.
89
Aloisius Lieske, Die Theologie der Logosmystik bei Origenes (Munich in Westfalen:
Aschendorffsche, 1938) 112, 111.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049
 216 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Lieske can make this claim because of his nuanced understanding—opposed to

Daniélou’s on this point—of the impact of Hellenistic sources on Origen’s work:
But also, if the world is viewed as a necessary and required emanation, and
if at the same time the Logos is construed as its principle of creation, then
undeniably the greatest danger is to attribute even to the Son only the neces-
sity and eternity which the world possesses. . . . Nevertheless, it is important
for the deeper understanding of these thoughts, strongly influenced by Neo-
Platonism, to see them even still in conjunction with the ecclesial elements
of his Logos-theology. . . . Of course Platonic-Stoic philosophy has greatly
influenced Origen’s conception of the Logos’s existence in things; in spite
of this, the formation process of our Christian life in the manner of grace is
conceived of as definitely Christian in its foundations.90

This communication in nuce of Lieske’s argument serves to illustrate a position

different than that of Daniélou, which exhibits a greater discretion towards the
relationship between Origen’s Christian confession and Hellenistic influences.91
While a complete argument would need to be marshaled in critique of Daniélou’s
position and in support of Lieske’s, I think it is minimally appropriate to claim that
the analysis of the epinoiai in his Commentary on Romans achieved in this paper
does not of necessity support Daniélou’s claim that Origen “destroys the essentially
gratuitous character of grace considered as a sharing in the life of a transcendent
Trinity.” This is especially the case for our purposes insofar as the application of
the epinoiai teaching therein draws much of its life-blood from the theology of the
names of Christ already present in many scriptural texts. De Lubac once wrote,
“whatever might have been the other sources of his thought, it was truly from the
Bible that [Origen] drew the marrow of his theology.”92 If this judicious observation
is heeded throughout our reception of his work, Origen’s concept of the epinoiai
Christou need not be dismissed as destroying the gratuity of grace, but will rightfully
retain a fruitful relevance for current theological reflection.

90
Ibid., 186–87.
91
For a very recent articulation of a similar position, see Stephen Bagby, “Volitional Sin in
Origen’s Commentary on Romans,” HTR 107 (2014) 340–62, at 344–45, n. 31: “[The relationship
between Hellenistic influences and the Christian confession/scripture in Origen] is best understood
in a manner that does not see Origen as compromising his Christian confession nor steering clear
of any philosophical categories altogether. His tempered incorporation of philosophical ideas serves
the purpose of clarifying scripture. But philosophy remains an incomplete discipline in Origen’s
thinking in that it is insufficient to lead anyone to salvation. . . . No school of thought is without
critique and, with the exception of Epicureanism, Origen can find some elements in each school
to clarify scripture.”
92
De Lubac, “Origenian Transposition,” 83. See also Behr, The Way to Nicaea, 201: “The context
for Origen was always the pedagogy of Scripture and its exegesis.”

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University Library Svetozar Markovic, on 01 Mar 2019 at 18:44:13, subject to the
Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816017000049