Development of Christian Philosophical Doctrine in the Alexandrian School

During the same 2nd century, which was crucial for the formation of Christian philosophy, and into the early 3rd century, thinkers emerged who not only defended Christian worldview but also began to systematize it. The initial steps in this direction were taken by the teachers of the Christian school in Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

Clement (who died at the beginning of the 3rd century) can be said to have laid the foundation for the systematization of Christian philosophy. He began to gather and synthesize the various, still scattered, ontological and epistemological propositions, as reflected in the title and content of one of his major works, "Stromata," usually translated as "Carpets." The Greek word stromata (plural of stroma) signifies "patchwork" or "mosaic," which better reflects the structure of this work. However, Clement can be rightly called the founder of a system of ethical and aesthetic views of Christianity, as presented in another significant work, "The Instructor."

Clement's views were partly shaped by polemics with the Gnostics, thus a significant portion of his discussions focus on the true Christian gnosis (knowledge) and its bearer—the true Gnostic (a central theme in "Stromata"). We will start by examining this and thereby address the epistemology of Christian philosophy, which essentially boils down to the understanding of Christian doctrine.

As noted by many, including Clement himself, his understanding of Christian knowledge was related to the education of sufficiently educated and cultured individuals of his time. This is evident from the fact that he considered the first phase of gnosis, its preparation, to be the engagement with philosophy and other sciences. He believed that sciences leading to philosophy and philosophy itself aid in the pursuit of truth. He suggested using the fruits of Greek education to “water the fleshly part” of his listeners with the Greek logos so that they could receive the spiritual seed. In achieving this goal, Clement relied particularly on dialectic: "True dialectic, united with true philosophy, rises to the highest essence, which governs all, and even dares to reach the transcendent God, Who is above this world." Through geometry, the Gnostic learns to contemplate pure entities distinct from bodies, and through the science of astronomy, he raises his mind to the heavens, investigating eternal Divine phenomena. In Clement’s view, philosophy is a path to wisdom and, even more importantly, a guide leading the Greeks to Christ. Those who move from philosophy to the instruction of the Lord reach true philosophy.

Nonetheless, the primary source of true gnosis is the Sacred Scripture, received from the Son of God. Clement asserts that we learn the truth only through the Son of God. The seeker of divine knowledge will not attain it by remaining a philosopher if he does not know prophetic revelation. Knowledge of Sacred Scripture requires interpretation, as its meaning is hidden and expressed through riddles, parables, and symbols. Prophets and the Savior did not speak plainly and openly but concealed all Divine mysteries in parables.

Thus, even briefly, we touch upon Clement's remarks on allegories in sacred texts. The seven enclosures of the temple signify the invisible connection between heaven and earth. The altar, a symbol of the earth located at the center of the universe, and the prohibition against eating the eagle, the hawk, or the kite, signifies: do not emulate those who do not earn their sustenance through labor and sweat. Symbols, allegories, riddles, and apothegms of Sacred Scripture contribute, according to Clement, to the construction of correct theology, serve as means for pious expression and concise presentation, exercise the mind, and point to wisdom. He refers to the words of the grammarian Didymus: "The ability to speak symbolically is a mark of wisdom, as is the ability to explain what is hidden behind these symbols." Clement also sees the use of symbols and allegories as beneficial because "hidden things, shining through the veil, leave a more impressive and significant impression of truth," whereas "what is not hidden appears completely definite and is perceived univocally," while many meanings can be seen in what is said with a hidden sense. Moreover, he writes that not everything should be explained to everyone in broad daylight; divine wisdom should not interact with the profane. We "preach the wisdom of God, hidden and secret."

Clement’s discussions on the symbolic nature of Sacred Scripture clearly show that such an understanding was developed to avoid the direct, literal, or "bodily" meaning of the texts, which often reflects, in our view, ancient mythological views of God. This was also intended to guard against profane interpretation and to grant the words of Sacred Scripture greater significance and the necessary theological meaning. This is evident from his condemnation of those who, enmeshed in their passions, naively believe that the good and incorruptible God is like them. But it should not be assumed that the Jews ascribed hands, feet, eyes, or anger to God in a direct and sensual sense. Each of these names was used in the most pious allegorical sense. Prophecies, Clement indicates, in order to avoid appearing blasphemous to the unlearned majority, concealed the possibility of other interpretations behind the meaning of the words. For instance, the books of the prophets contain references to Jesus Christ, His coming, death, etc. However, we believe that Clement’s endorsement of the allegorical nature of Scripture carries a certain risk, as it opens the possibility for interpretations that could deviate from the truth, paving the way for heresies.

Gnosis can also be obtained, as it seems to us, through a certain mystical means. Divine power and wisdom (Sophia) impart truth even to those who are unlettered. According to Clement, Moses commanded that the soul of the Gnostic be freed from worldly goods and passions and, remaining free from the phantoms of imagination, be illuminated by light. Thus, he associates gnosis with the purification of the leading part of the soul (the intellect) and further writes that one who gnostically immerses himself in contemplation and enters into pure communion only with God reaches a state of transcendent Divinity, increasingly identifying with God, and becomes both science and gnosis himself.

The acquisition of knowledge (gnosis) about Christian doctrine from God in Sacred Scripture means that we simply accept and believe in Him: "What is preached by the Old and New Testaments must be believed, even if it is presented, as Plato said, 'without plausible and convincing proofs.'" Clement goes on to say that trust in the Lord’s words fosters faith. Faith is necessary for the true Gnostic no less than air is for every living being, Clement writes. Faith is the ear of the soul, as only through faith can the believer understand the meaning of what is said. It penetrates the soul and grows to the extent that reason itself rests on its foundation.

From his judgments on the essence of faith, let us select the most substantial and clear ones. Clement considers faith to be a form of immediate knowledge: one with faith naturally attains knowledge, much like one with hands takes things or one with eyes sees light. Faith is seen as an act of mental acceptance of the implicit; as an act of free and, importantly, rational choice. Faith guides all our actions, as it indicates rational reasons for activity. The beginning of understanding is found in the free pursuit of what seems best. Clement points out interesting epistemological situations where faith replaces inquiry. It is foolish to make evident things a subject of inquiry, such as asking if it is day during the day; or unknowable things, such as whether the number of stars is even or odd; or ambiguous things, such as whether a child is alive in the womb or not. In all these cases, faith takes its place.

In general, Clement examines faith quite thoroughly and comprehensively. For instance, he shows its connection with time: we believe that the past existed and that the future awaits us. Therefore, memory and hope can be considered manifestations of faith. Faith in expected events becomes knowledge as soon as the future becomes present.

Although Clement's discussions on faith have a religious undertone and he seeks to reduce faith to religious faith, his "justification" of faith also contains an indication of its non-religious significance when faith occurs in human activity and scientific-philosophical knowledge. He notes that initial principles cannot be explained, as they are not comprehended by rational discourse, and only through faith can one come to the understanding of the beginning of all things, which can be related to scientific axioms or intuitively accepted scientific propositions. However, Clement refers to initial principles not of science but of religion, and thus his faith (religious!) "allows one to ascend... to the universal simplicity, which is not material, not connected with matter, and not subject to anything material," that is, to God. It is clear that for a religious person, it is reasonable to believe in Scripture, and since it is the voice of God, its testimony is irrefutable, so faith in it does not require proof, that is, knowledge. The Word of God itself is proof.

Thus, it follows that faith is the foundation of true Christian gnosis: without faith, knowledge is impossible. Clement emphasizes that in relation to God, unlike common views, it is not doubt but faith that is the foundation of knowledge. He constantly expresses the idea that faith is more important than knowledge; that obedience and trust in the Logos constitute knowledge, gnosis, revealed in faith; and that no one can attain knowledge without faith. Thus, Clement addresses the crucial question of religious epistemology—the relationship between faith and knowledge. However, given Clement’s orientation towards attracting educated pagans to Christianity, he aims to rationalize faith, complement it with knowledge and understanding, and asserts that faith is not inactive or vain but presupposes inquiry. Faith is perfected by the application of reason, which consists of the faithful search for truth, and thereby scientific knowledge. Although faith is in itself the source of truth, it is often accompanied by reasoning. Thus, Christian epistemology is to be based on faith, though it will be complemented and explained by science and philosophy.

Clement also addresses general epistemological themes that are not directly related to religion. For instance, he discusses various types of knowledge. Scientific knowledge, based on reason, leads to knowledge that cannot be refuted by any arguments; theoretical knowledge provides understanding of the whole by distinguishing its parts; experience involves studying the properties of sensibly perceived objects; contemplation is directed at objects grasped solely by reason; comparison involves discovering mutual correspondence between parts or things and the ability to subsume them under a single definition; gnosis is revelatory knowledge that penetrates the essence of a subject, or knowledge that accords with its nature. Clement also describes gnosis as characterized by the presence of judgment and rational decision, since it arises from the application of rational faculties directed at conceivable objects. He views different types of knowledge as manifestations of understanding—a contemplative power of the soul that allows one to perceive the meaning of existence, distinguish similarities and dissimilarities, and comprehend the ultimate goal toward which everything strives. Understanding, in its various applications, is given names such as reasoning (when contemplating first causes), scientific knowledge (when supported by evidence), faith (when accepted without scrutiny for the sake of adherence), correct opinion (when distinguishing what appears credible among diverse sensory objects), art (a collection of practical skills), and experience (attempts to create something based on the similarity of things).

Clement speaks not only about gnosis itself but also about its bearer—the “true philosopher” or genuine gnostic, characterized by three traits: a desire for contemplation, adherence to commandments, and the endeavor to cultivate virtuous individuals. He also notes that knowledge is inseparable from righteous action. True gnosis is revealed in the fruits of actions and the observance of commandments, rather than in verbal embellishments. For the true gnostic, will, judgment, and action form a unity. He is in the image and likeness of God in that he is temperate, strives to live justly, and spreads goodness through both word and deed. The gnostic is subject only to the passions necessary for sustaining the body: hunger, thirst, and similar needs. According to Clement, only the gnostic is truly pious. He honors authorities, parents, and elders; respects ancient philosophy and the oldest of prophecies; reveres the source of being—the Son, through whom we know the eternal beginning, the Father of all. The only-begotten Son impresses His image upon the gnostic's soul, making him the third divine image after the Son. Clement also portrays the gnostic as a martyr (reflecting the actual history of Christianity), who, after experiencing disgrace and exile, enduring confiscation of property and ultimately death, will manifest his love for God. Thus, Clement’s epistemological, or rather gnostic, concerns evolve into an ethical doctrine, as gnosis itself purifies us and draws us closer to the good, leading the soul to the Divine and holy.

Clement’s “Pedagogue” continues this religious and moral theme. The Pedagogue refers to the Logos, the Son of God, i.e., Jesus Christ, in His role as educator who oversees humanity's actions and their righteousness. The realm of the Pedagogue is practice and moral improvement of people (Ped. I, 1), specifically the followers of Christ, whom Scripture calls children and inexperienced infants (Ped. I, 7). Based on prophetic testimonies, Clement examines the educational method of the Logos. The Pedagogue, while exposing sin, also points out remedies such as rebuke, encouragement, and counsel (Ped. I, 9; 10). We should heed the Logos, emulate our Savior, and concern ourselves with heavenly life even here on earth (Ped. I, 12). Clement provides definitions for various ethical-pedagogical concepts: rebuke, reproach, admonition, mockery; desire, fear, slackness, pleasure; virtue. For example, pleasure is an irrational (and thus prohibited by the Logos) disintegration of the soul; virtue, on the other hand, is a harmoniously ordered state of the soul created by reason (Logos), manifested in the entire way of life (Ped. I, 13).

The main content of the “Pedagogue” is the examination of duties related to a perfected life, which will develop into life in heaven. This is the focus of its second and third books. It includes numerous detailed prescriptions regarding Christian conduct: our meals should be simple and proper; extravagance and unruliness should be avoided; wit may be used but appropriately and kindly, avoiding making jest of it; our men should not smell of perfumes but of virtue; it is shameful to decorate sandals with golden flowers; Christ’s followers should adorn themselves not with gold but with the Logos; and much more. In summary, Clement asserts that “the best way of life is orderliness, i.e., impeccable propriety in everything and complete beauty, conforming to specific norms, and moral strength, which is self-sustaining, so that everything in thought and action finds its appropriate place, making a person’s virtue invincible” (Ped. III, 12).

As a historian of philosophy, Clement belongs to the Christian historiographical tradition characterized by a generally positive attitude towards Greek philosophy. This is understandable, as he views philosophy as a propaedeutic to Christian gnosis. Clement rejects the notion that philosophy originated from some malevolent and deceitful inventor (as noted by Hermias) and links its origin to the action of divine providence. He states that philosophy was given to the Greeks by the Son of God through lower angels and is a semblance of the truth given to the Greeks by God. It serves as a covenant leading to the philosophy of Christ. His main argument is that nothing arises without the will of God, thus philosophy too is from God. Both barbarian and Greek philosophy contain parts of eternal truth received through the theology of the eternal Logos. While philosophy is not false, it expresses truth in a distorted manner. Clement explains the limitations of Greek philosophy by noting that the Greeks attempted to reason about divine teachings from a human perspective and thus fell into error, grasping only partial truths. He likens philosophers to painters who create mere illusions of perspective on a flat canvas. This reveals Clement’s primary, religious basis for his philosophical historiography, a view also expressed by Justin.

A second basis for Clement’s historiography is his Eastern-centered perspective. He holds that philosophy and sciences, such as astronomy and geometry, were invented by barbarians, i.e., the ancient Eastern peoples, Egyptians, and Chaldeans. This aligns with his view that many Greek sages and philosophers were not Greeks; he even identifies Homer as an Egyptian. Furthermore, he asserts that philosophy entered Greece later and was primarily borrowed from the Jews, specifically from Jewish prophets. He notes that Moses lived long before Greek sages and poets and remarks that the Greeks invented their stories about Minos and Zeus only after learning that God had spoken to Moses. Greek philosophers also learned from barbarians and borrowed their teachings. For instance, Thales received knowledge from Egyptian sages; Democritus appropriated ethical teachings from the Babylonians; and even the Roman king Numa, a Pythagorean, was guided by the books of Moses. Clement finds the origin of the philosophers’ teaching on formless matter in the prophet’s words, “the earth was without form and void,” which inspired the notion of a formless material essence. Clement also accepts the view that Plato borrowed his laws from Moses’ writings and cites a Pythagorean philosopher, Numenius, who asked, “What is Plato but Moses speaking in Attic?” Clement does not consider the fact that the books of the law and prophets were translated from Hebrew into Greek during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, i.e., only in the 3rd century BCE.

Alongside these “external” borrowings, Clement extensively discusses the borrowings of philosophers from their predecessors, thus revealing the origins of their views. For example, Empedocles used a saying from the Pythagorean Atamas: “The ungenerated beginnings and roots of everything are four.” Plato took the doctrine of the immortality of the soul from Pythagoras. Clement presents the history of Greek philosophy in two forms. Firstly, in the most primary historical-philosophical form—doxography, tracing from Aristotle. Clement not only lists philosophers’ views on the goal of life but also aims to examine all that is rational in their teachings. His criterion for evaluation is clear when he discusses Plato, noting that Plato also calls for adherence to the divine law, referring to his understanding of perfection as the knowledge of the Good and resemblance to God. Clement also addresses philosophers’ views on marriage and offers detailed examinations of apophthegms and symbols used by Greek philosophers and poets, especially Pythagoreans. He believes that both barbarian and Greek theologians, philosophers, and poets followed the path of prophets, hiding the principles of their teachings from the unworthy and uninitiated, and conveying truth through riddles, symbols, allegories, and metaphors, so that through the study of hidden meanings, seekers might arrive at the truth. For example, Pythagoras succinctly expressed what Moses said about justice with the symbolic saying: “Do not step over the yoke,” meaning: do not neglect equality and, in dividing, respect justice.

Secondly, he employs a form of diadography already existing in the Hellenistic period, namely, the description of the succession of philosophers according to their schools of thought. He begins with three philosophical schools: the Italic, founded by Pythagoras; the Ionian, founded by Thales; and the Eleatic, founded by Parmenides, who was succeeded by Leucippus, Democritus, and others. In general, his list of schools and their succession, as well as his remarks about individual philosophers, align with what is accepted by contemporary historians of philosophy. For instance, Clement writes that Anaxagoras transferred the Ionian school to Athens; Socrates departed from the natural philosophers and focused on ethics, and so on.

However, Clement only positively regards those philosophical teachings that contain elements resembling the Christian worldview (a position similarly held by the apologists). He writes that philosophers who acknowledge the power of Providence, preach a moderate life, and consider personal misfortunes as punishment for sins have made significant progress in theology, but not completely: they do not know the Son of God. He provides examples of how Greek philosophy partially aligns with the truth. For instance, Socrates, convinced by the words of Jewish Scripture, speaks of the hope that faith fills the righteous with. His daimon hints at guardian angels. Regarding "truth-loving Plato" and Aristotle, Clement suggests that they essentially represent successors to the fourth, theological part of Mosaic philosophy. Plato called it "contemplation" of truly great mysteries, while Aristotle termed it "metaphysics." Moreover, Plato referred to it as dialectic, a science concerned with reasoning and explaining essences.

Thus, Clement identifies philosophical judgments that resonate with Christianity and uses the history of philosophy to support Christian beliefs. According to him, "our teachings about God being glorified forever and 'knowing the heart' of each person" are interpreted by Thales in his sayings, which assert that the Divine has neither beginning nor end, and that humans cannot hide their thoughts from the deity. Stoics defined nature as "creative fire," and accordingly, in Scripture, God and His Logos are metaphorically called "fire and light." The revival of the warrior Er in Plato's "Republic" can be understood by Clement as a hint towards resurrection. Notably, Clement uses Plato's position on the three kinds of people—those mixed with gold, silver, and iron and bronze—to illustrate three types of societies: the Jewish as silver, the Hellenic as the last, and the Christian as the most perfect, since it is mixed with royal gold, the Holy Spirit.

In characterizing Clement as a historian of philosophy, it is important to note that his identification of parallels between philosophers' statements and Christian doctrine is based on external similarities and suffers from superficiality and formalism. For example, Clement interprets the poet Epicharmus's lines—"Man needs calculation and number. / We live by number and calculation; this is what saves people"—as a clear reference to the Logos. This interpretation relies on the Greek word "logos" meaning "count" or "number," and the idea that it "saves." Yet it is clear that here the poet refers to calculation in a mundane sense, rather than the Christian Son of God who saves from sin and death.

Philosophical views that diverge from Christianity on metaphysical issues are firmly rejected by Clement. He condemns sophistic rhetoric and dialectic that might oppose Christianity. Therefore, his condemnation of materialist philosophers is particularly telling, as it reflects Clement's (and some apologists like Theophilus) understanding of fundamental philosophical disagreements. He considers teachings that regard the primary elements as uncreated, and those that do not speak of the Demiurge, to be erroneous. This includes the doctrines of philosophers who venerate the elements and worship air, water, fire, and atoms. Clement is dissatisfied not only with the materialism of Epicurean philosophy, which denies providence, but also with the pantheism of the Stoics, which posits that God is a corporeal substance permeating all matter, even the coarsest. Since Clement viewed Greek philosophy as borrowed from the Jews, he interpreted incorrect philosophical positions as stemming from a misunderstanding of biblical texts. For example, Epicurus’s doctrine of chance is seen as a misinterpretation of the phrase "vanity of vanities, all is vanity" from Ecclesiastes. Clement compares the materialist views to heresies that "grow among our teaching like tares among good wheat," writing that "Epicurean impiety and sensuality, and similar things contrary to reason, grow among Hellenic philosophy like illegitimate fruits among the fruitful seeds cultivated by the Greeks."

Thus, Clement finds truth in a religious-idealistic teaching that acknowledges God as the creator and sees His providence even in minor matters, regarding elements as inherently created and mutable. And it is precisely such a teaching that Christian doctrine represents. Therefore, Clement asserts that true philosophy has been handed down to us by the Son of God. He calls those philosophers who have loved the wisdom of the Creator and the Teacher, that is, the gnosis of the Son of God, as true philosophers. This position, it seems, demonstrates the unity of Clement’s theoretical teachings on gnosis with his historiography, which we consider one of the fundamental methodological principles of historical-philosophical research.

The next teacher of the Alexandrian school, Origen (who died in the mid-3rd century), presented the Christian worldview with greater systematization compared to his predecessor Clement of Alexandria. This is typically the characterization of the content of Origen's work "On First Principles," which was later condemned by the Church. In the treatise, the following task is formulated: "Whoever wishes... to build an organic whole must... form a single organism from examples and propositions found in Holy Scripture or derived through correct reasoning." However, the author of the treatise, as we see it, does not clearly articulate what constitutes the "organic" nature of "On First Principles."

It is clear that Origen’s work begins with an examination of God, this absolute being and source of all existence. Since Scripture describes God neither as a physical entity nor as an anthropomorphic being (as previously noted in connection with Clement), Origen first rejects the notion of God’s corporeality. Although God is called light and fire, He is not corporeal, as this light and fire are spiritual, not physical. From this light comes the knowledge of truth, and fire consumes not wood or hay, but the wicked thoughts of minds. God is a simple spiritual nature, one and unique; mind, just as the mind is not a body, which is why Origen rejects the materialistic formulation that "the power of intellectual nature constitutes an accidental property or effect of bodies." The basis of God’s activity is divine power, through which He arranges, sustains, and governs all that is visible and invisible. God is omnipotent because He holds dominion over everything: heaven and earth, the sun, moon, stars, and everything on them.

Origen then turns to the Son of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Thus, one can speak of principles in Origen’s thought in the form of the Trinity: God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The relationship between them, if we disregard theological points and consider only the philosophical interests, is presented by Origen through the concept of humanity. He writes that beings derive their existence from God, their rationality from the Son, and their holiness from the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the action of the Holy Spirit is linked to the end of human earthly existence, as Origen writes that, after the destruction of sinners, the Holy Spirit will create a new people and renew the face of the earth, when people, with the help of the Spirit, shed their old selves and begin to enter a new life. An eschatological judgment by Origen regarding the interconnectedness of end and beginning is particularly noteworthy: "The end is always like the beginning. As there is one end for all things, so there must be one beginning for all, and just as one end precedes many, so from one beginning arise the differences and diversities."

Thus, the Trinity represents the highest level of being, or rather, being itself. The next level of being includes incorporeal and corporeal rational beings, which are created. Christ is declared the immediate creator of these beings: through Christ and in Christ, all that is visible (corporeal) and invisible (incorporeal) was created. This position can be seen as the beginning of the Christological branch of Christian philosophy, which is especially clearly represented later in the views of Maximus the Confessor. Rational beings are created from nothing. God created a sufficient (quantitatively determined) number of spiritual creatures, or minds.

The created incorporeal and invisible spiritual powers are represented by metaphysical rational beings: thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, angels, and souls. The soul is something intermediate between the weak body and the good spirit. Created corporeal and visible rational beings belong to the physical world and can be divided into heavenly and earthly. The heavenly includes everything on the firmament, which is called the sky and on which the celestial bodies: the sun, moon, and stars are fixed. These celestial bodies can be considered rational living beings based on the following grounds: the motion of a body cannot occur without a soul; the stars move in an orderly and precise manner, which only rational beings can achieve; and finally, celestial bodies receive commandments from God to give a certain amount of light to the world according to their order and movements, which pertains only to rational beings. Here, Origen applies the ancient explanation of animal and human motion to celestial bodies, replacing celestial mechanics with celestial psychology. According to Origen, the terrestrial and celestial bodies form an organic whole (Cosmos), which demonstrates that the divine Principle of the universe (God) not only creates and organizes the world but also provides for its maintenance and perfection.

The world consists of rational beings, non-speaking living creatures, spaces (heaven, earth, waters, and the intermediate air—ether), and everything that emerges from the earth. God harmonizes this diversity, including various souls and ranks of beings, so that they work towards the completeness and perfection of the unified world. Just as our body, composed of many members, is animated by a single soul, Origen writes in a very Platonic manner, so too the entire world, as if it were a vast animal, is sustained by the soul, power, and reason of God.

In connection with the corporeal nature of the world, Origen addresses two philosophical questions: about matter and about change. At the foundation of bodies lies matter, which God created along with rational beings. Matter was created by God in a quantity sufficient to adorn the world. He also endows it with qualities: heat, cold, dryness, and moisture, so that matter, being intrinsically without qualities, never exists without them. The corporeal nature undergoes various transformations, such that from anything it can turn into everything: wood into fire, fire into smoke, smoke into air, and so forth.

Bodies are composed of such qualitatively defined matter. There is enough matter to constitute all the bodies in the world. The bodies of perfect beings are formed from subtle matter, while those of lower beings are made from coarse and dense matter. Origen’s concept of resurrection illustrates the future state of bodies. The soulish body dies, but the spiritual body is resurrected. Our bodies fall into the earth like seeds. They contain a force that sustains the corporeal substance and is preserved by the word of God. This force will raise the bodies from the earth and restore them, even if they have decayed, just as the force inherent in a grain of wheat restores it into a stalk and ear after decomposition. Those who have earned the Kingdom of Heaven will be restored from their earthly and soulish bodies into spiritual bodies by this force. Those who have earned damnation will also receive bodies corresponding to their lives and souls; their bodies will eternally suffer torment due to the sins of the soul.

Besides our world, Origen supposes and permits the existence of many other worlds, differing from one another, which he explains by the fact that souls, in their actions and desires, are not subject to movements that return them to the same cycles after many ages. Instead, they direct their movements according to the freedom of their own reason. Origen writes about these worlds in this manner: There are other parts of the universe to which we have no access and from which no one can come to us. These regions are beyond the Ocean. All worlds beyond the Ocean are also governed by the same divine thought as our world. From this, it seems we can infer that our world should be understood as the oikoumene, and this notion should be applied to other worlds as well.

Regarding the existence of multiple worlds, the understanding of the world and its structure is refined. The image of a grand world, the universe, emerges. Origen states that the universe consists of the heavenly, super-heavenly, earthly, and infernal. All worlds are contained within this universe, formed by the spheres of the Moon, Sun, and planets. Above all is the sphere of the fixed stars. Yet higher is the all-encompassing sphere, which embraces all spaces, the blessed land of the eternally living. This world, called the sphere of the unfading, is not subject to decay by divine will, as it does not accept conditions of decay: it is the world of the saints, not the world of the wicked, like our world. It should also be added that the infernal world is eternal as well, according to Origen’s doctrine of resurrection described earlier. Apparently, Origen’s cosmology and eschatology suggest that after the end of the corporeal, heavenly, and earthly worlds, the resurrection of spiritual and soulish bodies will occur, and only the super-heavenly and infernal worlds will remain. Thus, we conclude a somewhat systematic presentation of the ontological part of Origen’s doctrine.

As the second part of his teaching, we consider questions regarding the knowledge of God and the world and the interpretation of “theological reasoning of Scripture.” According to Origen, knowledge is acquired as follows: God has implanted in us (in the soul) the desire to understand the meaning of what He has created. Therefore, our mind has a natural and inherent drive to grasp the truth about God and to understand the causes of things. The most significant and intriguing aspect of Origen’s gnoseology is his description of knowledge as a multi-tiered process. One can count, perhaps, four stages in the souls' (of the saints) progression towards complete knowledge. In this life (the first stage), people receive only a small portion of the vast treasures of divine knowledge. Origen writes that man has only a sketch of the truth, like a draft of a painting of knowledge, which will be made beautiful with a completed image only in the afterlife: “Now we are still seeking, then we shall see clearly.” These words of Origen reveal the religious-mystical aspect of his gnoseology, as they suggest that true knowledge is attained exclusively after death.

While we are on earth, we observe the differences among animals, trees, and people, but we do not understand the underlying basis of all this. After death, we will be given understanding of this diversity. Origen refers to this as “twofold knowledge of what we see on earth.” The saints acquire it “in a certain place on earth, which Scripture calls paradise,” Origen calls it “the place of learning, the school of souls, where souls will be taught about all that they have seen on earth.” We should consider this the second stage of knowledge.

When the saints reach the heavenly places, they will comprehend the essence of each celestial body, their positions and movements, and understand the foundations of God’s works, which God Himself will reveal to them (the third stage, which closely resembles ancient descriptions of souls' presence in heaven, such as Cicero’s “Dream of Scipio”). Finally, the saints will move on to that which we do not see, which is now known to us only by name, presumably to knowledge of certain divine powers (the fourth stage).

Moreover, the primary source of knowledge in this life is Sacred Scripture (here Origen fully agrees with Clement): “We… to clearly prove our words take testimonies from the Scriptures, which we recognize as divine… from the Old and… New Testaments, and then we strive to confirm our faith by reason.” A major issue associated with acquiring knowledge from Sacred Scripture, which was discussed by all, including Origen, is its understanding and interpretation, as some works of providence that encompass the whole world are very clearly represented as works of providence, while others are hidden. For instance, the creative thought of the Providence is not as clear in earthly matters and human affairs as in the sun, moon, stars, souls, and bodies of animals. But the divinity of Scripture, Origen believes, “loses nothing from our weakness being unable to find in every utterance the hidden light of dogmas contained in the insignificant and despised word.”

Thus, the source of irrational opinions about God is the understanding of Scripture according to the letter, not the spirit, which is why Origen formulates the task: one must indicate the correct path for interpreting Scripture. This consists in the following: Scripture, like a person, consists of body, soul, and spirit. Accordingly, the thoughts of the sacred books should be recorded in one’s soul in three ways: the simple believer is edified as if by the body of Scripture (the most accessible literal meaning); the more advanced is edified as if by its soul; the most advanced is edified by the spiritual law, which contains the shadow of future blessings.

Soulful and spiritual interpretation is available to those who regard the written word as allegory. For example, one son of Abraham from the slave, born of the flesh, is the Old Testament; another son, born of the free woman by promise, is the New Testament. In general terms, Origen recommends exploring where the literal meaning is true and seeking the meaning of what cannot be expressed literally. “Anyone who values truth,” writes Origen, “should care less about names and words and focus more on what is signified than on the words that signify it… There are things whose meaning cannot be properly expressed by any words of human language—things that are better understood by pure reason than by any properties of words. This rule should be adhered to in understanding Divine Scriptures.” Their understanding, therefore, requires the mind to abstract from the sensory reality directly expressed in language. This is what will constitute “pure mind and thought,” “insightful contemplation.”

In conclusion, it is evident that in Origen’s philosophy, both in its ontological and gnoseological parts, one can observe the influence of Platonism in the form of a hierarchical picture of being (God, rational beings, the material world) and the notion that souls gain knowledge of the world and God by ascending to heaven.