See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233485814

Genesis 1-3 as Source for the Anthropology of Origen

Article  in  Vigiliae Christianae · July 2008

DOI: 10.1163/157007208X265737

CITATIONS READS

3 761

1 author:

Anders-Christian Jacobsen
Aarhus University
13 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

THE HISTORY OF HUMAN FREEDOM AND DIGNITY IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anders-Christian Jacobsen on 08 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vigiliae
Christianae
Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232 www.brill.nl/vc

Genesis 1-3 as Source for the Anthropology

of Origen

Anders Lund Jacobsen

Department of Systematic Theology, Faculty of Theology,
University of Aarhus, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
alj@teo.au.dk

Abstract
According to Origen Genesis 1-3 is an anthropological key-text. The account of man’s
creation in Gen. 1,26f deals with the creation of the inner non-material man in the
image of God, whereas Gen. 2,7 deals with the creation of the human body, the outer
man, which is not created in the image of God. Some later critics claim that according
to Origen Gen. 2,7 is about the creation of a non-material luminous body. In Origen’s
opinion only the inner man can reach perfection. The outer man can never be perfect,
but will be destroyed. To deepen our understanding of, how Origen understands the
mortality of the human body, some short sayings about the meaning of Gen. 3,21 are
interpreted. In the few places where Origen refers explicitly to Gen. 3,21 there is
no clear picture of how he interprets this verse. The most precise observation we can
make is that in his view the skin coats denote the mortal corporality that surrounds the
inner man.

Keywords
Origen, anthropology, Genesis 1-3, human body, inner man, outer man, image of
God

Introduction
Origen grounds many of his anthropological statements in the biblical
creation thought. A literal interpretation of the accounts of the Creation
and Fall in Gen. 1-3 is unacceptable to both reason and piety. However, if
these accounts are interpreted allegorically, they are in Origen’s view pre-
cise testimonies to the creation of man and the cosmos. An examination of
Origen’s interpretation of these first three chapters of Genesis is therefore
an important prerequisite for understanding his anthropology.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/157007208X265737

214 A.L. Jacobsen / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232

At the outset, however, there is a major practical problem: We know

that Origen wrote a very detailed commentary on the first chapters of
Genesis that is lost. His understanding and exposition must therefore be
gathered from many other sources, whose reliability must be evaluated if
we are to create order and coherence in the fragmentary material. Even if
this proves successful, we can never acquire as comprehensive a picture of
Origen’s interpretation of Gen. 1-3 as the commentary itself would give.
These then are the premises on which we must work: they must spur us
towards the greatest possible precision when studying the texts and towards
caution on any conclusions we may reach—for in the circumstances these
can never be regarded as final.
To focus the evaluation of Origen’s Genesis-exegesis for his anthropol-
ogy I have chosen to concentrate on his interpretation of Gen. 1,26-27;
2,7 and 3,21

The Relation between Gen. 1,26-27; 2,7 and 3,21

Origen often compares Gen. 1,26f with Gen. 2,7. According to him, these
are two accounts of the same event, yet simultaneously accounts of two
stages in the Creation process. This is how they are presented for instance
in Hom. Jer. 1,10,1 where Origen points out that in Gen. 1,26 (LXX) we
find ποιέω (make, create), whereas in Gen. 2,7 (LXX) πλάσσω (form) is
used.2 Ποιέω is applied to the creation of non-material man in the image
of God, whereas πλάσσω is used about the creation of man’s material form
from earth. This is why, according to Origen, Jer. 1,5 uses πλάσσω and
not ποιέω, since the non-material, inner man, who is created, does not
come into being in the womb. That, on the other hand, is precisely the case
with material man, who is formed. We thus have a clear definition of the
difference between Gen. 1,26f and Gen. 2,7. It is important to note that
in this interpretation Gen. 2,7 refers to the creation of the concrete, mate-
rial body, not to the formation of a spiritual corporality or suchlike. This
understanding of the relation between Gen. 1,26f and Gen. 2,7 is charac-
teristic of Origen,3 and can be regarded as one of the most important
hermeneutic keys to his interpretation of the Creation accounts.

1)
Homiliae in Ieremiam, Origenes Werke, Vol. 3/GCS, ed. E. Klostermann, 1901, 8,28-
9,25.
2)
Cf. Dialogus cum Heraclide (Dial. Her.) 12,4-14.
3)
See also Dial. Her. 10,16-24,17; Com. Joh. 20,22; C .Cels. 4,37; Com. Mt. 14,16.
 Genesis 1-3 as Source for Origen 215

Among Origen’s critics from later centuries we find a somewhat different

picture of the structure in his interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis.
In his commentary on Genesis Procopius of Gaza4 makes the following
comment on Gen. 3,21:

But those who allegorise say after this ridicule that the man in the image denotes
the soul, and the man from the earth denotes the body of fine particles, which is
worthy of life in Paradise, and which some have called luminous. The skin coats
denote, as Job says: You have clothed me with skin and flesh, You have woven me of
bones and sinews [Job 10,11]. They say that the soul first uses the luminous [body]
as a vehicle, and later dons the skin coats.5

Procopius says that such teachers are contradicting the teaching of the
Church. He then appends a list of theologians of the early Church who in
his view oppose these allegorists’ interpretation of the first chapters of
Genesis; among them is Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria.6 In an epistle to
the church in Constantinople Theophilus rejects Origen’s allegorical inter-
pretation, which suggests that Origen might actually be one of the allego-
risers whom Procopius names. However, we cannot be certain that
Procopius is referring directly to Origen. He may well have been referring
to the Origenists7 in general. If the reference is to Origen himself, it is
equally uncertain whether or not Procopius is reproducing Origen’s view
faithfully. The source for Origen is therefore unsafe here, though there is
some probability that it contains important material to illuminate his
interpretation of Genesis.

4)
Procopius of Gaza, who lived from 465 CE to shortly after 530, was the first to write a
major catena to the Octateuch, where in particular he compiled statements from Origen’s
commentaries. See also B. Altaner, Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenväter,
Herder, Freiburg 19585 § 104,3; H.R. Drobner, Lehrbuch der Patrologie, Herder, Freiburg/
Basel/Wien 1994, 431-433.
5)
Οἱ δὲ ἀλληγοροῦντες μετὰ τὸν εἰρημένον διασυρμόν, φασὶν, ὡς ὁ μὲν ’κατ ̓εἰκόνα ̓
τὴν ψυχὴν σημαίνει· ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ χοῦ πλασθεὶς, τὸ λεπτομερὲς σῶμα καὶ ἄξιον τῆς ἐν
παραδείσῳ διαγωγῆς, ὅ τινες αὐγοειδὲς ἐκάλεσαν· οἱ δὲ δερμάτινοι χιτῶνες, τὸ Δ ̓ έρμα
καὶ χρέας με ἐνέδυσας, ὀστέοις δὲ καὶ νεύροις με ἐνεῖρας ̓ [Iob. 10,11]. Τῷ δὲ αὐγοειδεῖ
τὴν ψυχὴν ἐποχεῖσθαι πρώτῳ λέγουσιν, ὅπερ ὕστερον ἐνεδύσατο τούς δερματίνους
χιτῶνας (Procopius Gazaeus, Commentarii in Genesin, PG 87,1, col. 221A).
6)
Theophilus was Bishop of Alexandria from 385-412, cf. B. Altaner 1958, § 55,3.
7)
This is my designation for those who perpetuated Origen’s teaching in the following
centuries. There was no “school” of Origen as such, only groups or individuals who dis-
seminated various elements of Origen’s theology.
216 A.L. Jacobsen / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232

The Procopius text provides a somewhat different picture of the struc-

ture in the interpretation of the Genesis account than is characteristic of
Origen’s own texts. In similar fashion Gen. 1,26f describes the creation of
the inner man, but according to Procopius’ allegorisers, Gen. 2,7 does not
describe the creation of man’s material body, but rather the creation of a
finer, more radiant body that is more suited to life in Paradise, in other
words, the bodies that Adam and Eve had in Paradise. According to Proco-
pius, the material body comes into being only as a result of the Fall, a
process described in Gen. 3,21 where God subsequently clothes Adam and
Eve in skins. If this idea can be attributed to Origen himself, it has impor-
tant consequences for our understanding of his interpretation of the Crea-
tion account, since this view of corporality is different and more complex
than immediately appears from the preserved texts of Origen.

Origen’s Exegesis of Gen. 1,26f and 2,7: Creation of the Inner and the
Outer Man
C. Cels. 6,63 contains in a condensed but relatively clear form some of the
most important perspectives in Origen’s interpretation of Gen. 1,26f and
Gen. 2,7. The text is transmitted in Greek and is therefore a good starting-
point for our examination. The section in question constitutes part of a
lengthy discussion of Celsus’s criticism of the Creation accounts. For
instance, Celsus attacks the idea that from Gen. 1,26f one can conclude
that man is created in God’s image: God is not like man, God has no form,
says Celsus.8 His protest is against the anthropomorphic image of God.9
According to Origen, the charge against Celsus is that he shares a broad
misconception of God’s image in man, with the topsy-turvy result that
man thereby creates God in his own image. This is also true of many Chris-
tians, the so-called simpliciores,10 from whom Origen distances himself time
and again. So what does he do to put a stop to this misunderstanding?
8)
C. Cels. 6,63, Origenes Werke, Vol. 2, GCS, ed. P. Koetschau, 1899, 133,16-17.
9)
On Origen’s criticism of the anthropomorphic image of God and polemic against those
who claim such a concept of God see G. Hällström, Fides Simpliciorum according to Origen
of Alexandria, Eknäs 1984, 64-69.
10)
On these simpliciores see G. Hällström 1984, who examines Origen’s description of these
“simple” Christians who at least quantatively constituted a distinctive factor in contemporary
Christianity. According to Hällström these simpliciores are not Christians without theology
but Christians without a speculative and philosophical stamp to their theology, building
instead on a literal reading of the Bible.
 Genesis 1-3 as Source for Origen 217

Firstly he points out that Celsus is in error in failing to distinguish

between what is in God’s image,11 and what is God’s image.12 God’s image
is the firstborn of all creation, the Logos Himself, Truth itself and Wisdom
itself.13 Man on the other hand is created in God’s image.14 This is Origen’s
first precaution against anthropomorphising God’s image. Since man is not
God’s image, but is only in or according to God’s image, there is an instance
between God and man that prevents us from concluding too swiftly from
man to God. This idea of the Logos as God’s image and as an intermediary
between God and man has a number of consequences with regard to the
theology of Creation, to anthropology and to christology, and is a subject
to which we shall return. The essential point here is Origen’s rebuttal of
Celsus’ criticism of the anthropomorphising of the concept of God.
As his second argument against Celsus’ criticism of the idea that God’s
image in man attributes anthropomorphic features to God, Origen asserts
that Celsus has failed to understand which part of man God’s image relates
to. God’s image does not relate to man’s body, as Celsus believes, but to his
soul, which either has not been defined, or is no longer defined, by man
and his deeds before the Fall.15 According to Origen it is inconceivable that
God’s image should have its seat in the corruptible body, which is the low-
est part of the composite man. This would mean that the highest part of
man, the soul, would not be in the image of God. Two possibilities remain:
Either God’s image can be in both the body and the soul, or it can be in
the soul alone. The first of these is again rejected by Origen, since it would
mean that God, in whose image (εἰκών) man is created, must also then be
composed of body and soul. The only remaining possibility is that God’s
image relates to the soul, or the inner man,16 as Origen also calls it. This
distinction between soul and body is, as we shall see, absolutely fundamen-
tal to Origen’s understanding of man and of man’s creation and salvation.
According to Origen man is a composite (σύνθετος) being, and not all

11)
“κατ ̓εἰκόνα θεοῦ” (Origenes Werke, Vol. 2,133,6-7).
12)
“τῆς εἰκόνος αὐτοῦ” (Origenes Werke Vol. 2, 133,7).
13)
“…, ὅτι ’εἰκὼν ̓μὲν ’τοῦ θεοῦ ̓ὁ ’πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεώς ̓ἐστιν ὁ αὐτολόγος καὶ ἡ
αὐτοαλήθεια, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία, ’εἰκὼν ̓οὖσα ̓τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ’,…” (C. Cels.
6,63, Origenes Werke Vol. 2, 133,7-10). On αὐτολόγος, see Jn 1,1.14; αὐτοαλήθεια, see Jn
14,6; 17,17; αὐτοσοφία, see Lk. 11,49; 1. Cor. 1,30; Wis. 7,26.
14)
“…, ’κατ ̓εἰκόνἀ δὲ τοῦ ’θεοῦ ̓ὁ ἄνθρωπος πεποίηται,…” (C. Cels. 6,63, Origenes Werke
Vol. 2, 133,10).
15)
Cf. Col. 3,9.
16)
ἔσω ἀνθρώπῳ (C. Cels. 6,63, Origenes Werke Vol. 2, 134,4).
218 A.L. Jacobsen / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232

parts of his being can be saved, because not all of them have the same rela-
tion to the Creator and the saviour. Only the part of man that is created in
God’s image can be saved.
The idea of God’s image in man plays a role in the creation of man but
also in his salvation and perfection, according to Origen. This finds par-
ticular expression in the last part of C. Cels. 6,63, where in connection
with the localising of God’s image in the inner man we find this inner man
defined as that which can be renewed and formed in the Creator’s image. We
are dealing here with man’s endeavour to perfection. It is God’s image in
the soul that has the strength to strive for perfection and sanctity, and the
soul that can follow God and assume God’s characteristics to itself. It is clear
that man’s soul must move towards a perfect condition, the point being
that it is the soul that is created in God’s image and can achieve this perfec-
tion—not the body.
In C. Cels. 6,63 there are thus three major themes connected with man’s
creation in God’s image: 1) The idea that the Logos is God’s image, whereas
man, or rather, rational beings, are copies of God’s image. 2) The idea that
man is dichotomous and consists of both soul and body, of which only the
soul is in God’s image. 3) Finally the idea that God’s image is the perfected
state to which the soul is striving. In the following I shall only examine how
the second of these themes is developed in Origen’s exposition of Genesis.
It transpires from the above analysis of C. Cels. 6,63 that one of Origen’s
main points in his interpretation of Gen. 1,26f is that it is man’s soul that
is created in God’s image and not man’s body. If we are to judge by how
often and how markedly he makes this point, we are dealing here with the
most central theme in his interpretation of Gen.1,26f.
In Dial. Her. 10,16-24,17 Origen treats the subject of God’s image in
man in connection with his response to Bishop Dionysius’ question: “Is
the soul the blood?”17 According to Origen it is a misunderstanding to
identify the soul with the material blood—and a misunderstanding that
would mean that the soul perishes together with the material body.18 Ori-
gen’s solution, which he derives from his study of scripture is that incorpo-
real phenomena such as the soul are given the same names as corporeal
phenomena. Specifically therefore, the designations refer to corporeal phe-
nomena, but figuratively they refer to the inner—incorporeal—part of
man. Origen develops this argument by applying it to practically every

17)
Dial. Her.10,16. The question arises from the Septuagint version of Lk. 17,11.
18)
Cf. Dial. Her. 10,17-21.
 Genesis 1-3 as Source for Origen 219

part of the body in Dial. Her. 16,17-22,12.19 However, in our context it is

not these concrete examples that are interesting, but rather the underlying
viewpoint, which is as follows:

Scripture says that man consists of two people.20

This assertion is defended first with a reference to Paul’s speech on the

outer and the inner man in 2. Cor. 4,16.21 According to Origen, however,
Paul is not the first to see this, but Moses. This is clear from Gen. 1,26f and
Gen. 2,7. For Gen. 2,7 is not, as some believe,22 a repetition of Gen. 1,26f,
but there are two accounts representing different stages in the process of
the Creation: Gen. 1,26f describes the creation of immaterial man in God’s
image, while Gen. 2,7 describes the creation of material man from earth.
Origen’s conclusion to this account is as follows:

The first-made man was thus the one who was created in the image. In this man
there was nothing material. For the man who is created in the image is not of the
material. And God said: Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them
rule over etc. and God created man not by taking dust from the earth as in the
second time but in God’s image He created him.23

19)
Cf. C. Cels. 7,34; De princ. 1,1,9; Hom. Ex. 10,3.
20)
“Δύο ἀνθρώπους ἡ γραφὴ λέγει εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον” (Dial. Her. 11,19-20).
21)
As can be seen here, Origen finds the biblical justification that man comprises two peo-
ple, an inner and an outer one in 2. Cor. 4,16, where Paul distinguishes precisely between
the outer man (ὁ ἔξω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος) and the inner man (ὁ ἔσω ἡμῶν [ἄνθρωπος]). Due
to this distinction the verse is one of Origen’s anthropological core texts. The same is true
to a certain extent of Rom. 7,22f, where ἔσω ἄνθρωπος also appears, though not in con-
trast to ἔξω ἄνθρωπος, but to μέλη μου. Origen’s understanding of ἔσω ἄνθρωπος is prob-
ably also marked by the Platonic tradition’s use of the concept, e.g. in Plato, Republic IX,
589A; Plotinus, Enneade V,I,10. On Origen’s distinction between the inner and the outer
man see also Früchtel, Origen. Das Gespräch mit Herakleides und dessen Bischofs kollegen
über Vater, Sohn und Seele. Die Aufforderung zum Martyrium. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit
Anmerkungen versehen, Bibliothek der Griechischen Literatur, Vol. 5, Hiersemann, Stutt-
gart 1974, 34 note 58, where in particular the assumptions in Philo and the philosophical
tradition are emphasised, and H. Rahner, ‘Das Menschenbild des Origen,’ Eranos Jahrbuch
15 (1947), 212-217.
22)
Cf. Dial. Her. 12,4-14.
23)
“‘Ο ἄνθρωπος τοίνυν κτιζόμενος πρότερον μὲν ἐκτίσθη ὁ ’κατ ̓εἰκόνα ,̓ οὗ ὕλη οὐχ
εὑρίσκεται· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐξ ὕλης ἐστὶν ὁ ’κατ ἐ ἰκόνα ·̓ ’Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός· Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον
κατ ̓εἰκόνα καὶ καθ ̓ ὁμοίωσιν ἡμετέραν· καὶ ἀρχέτωσαν ̓ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· ̓Καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ
Θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ̓ οὐ ’χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς̓ λαβὼν ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ δευτέρου, ἀλλὰ ’κατ ̓εἰκόνα
Θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν” (Dial. Her. 15,28-16,4).
220 A.L. Jacobsen / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232

It is established here that the Creation act related in Gen. 1,26f, is the
creation of the non-material man. It is this man that in the context of the
quotation Origen calls the inner man.24 And it is this inner man that is in
God’s image and not the outer man created from earth (cf. Gen. 2,7).25 So
Origen reads Gen. 1,26f in combination with Gen. 2,7 to define what
man is: a being with two aspects, an inner and an outer man. It is thus clear
that on the basis of his exegesis of the Creation account Origen sets down
certain fundamental anthropological definitions. Already here we can sense
that his distinction between the inner and the outer, between the corporeal
and the incorporeal is value-laden, and this is confirmed by other texts.
In Hom. Gen. 1,13 Origen explains what God’s image in man consists
of by first distancing himself from an apparently widespread misconcep-
tion, and then by asserting its true content. The misconception is that man
in God’s image is a corporeal being. Both the reservation and the terminol-
ogy in which it is expressed we have met before. Origen is again playing on
the difference that he finds between ποιέω (facere), as used in Gen. 1,26,
and πλάσσω (plasmare), as used in Gen. 2,7.26 The formed, material body
cannot contain God’s image. Only the created, i.e. incorporeal, man can
do that.27 We saw above that Origen emphasises among other things the
asomatic condition of man in God’s image in an attempt to avoid the idea
that God’s image in man leads to the attribution to Him of anthropomor-
phic features. It is also his only justification in this context for man in
God’s image being incorporeal.28
Of more interest, however, is the positive content that Origen defines as
being linked to God’s image in man:

But what is created in God’s image is our inner man, which is invisible, incorpo-
real, incorruptible and immortal. In such [qualities] God’s image must be truly
apprehended.29

24)
Cf. Dial. Her. 11,16-23.
25)
See also e.g. C. Cels. 7,66. Cf. H. Rahner, 1947, 211.
26)
Cf. Hom. Jer. 1:10, cf. the explanation for the use of these concepts earlier in this section.
27)
Cf. Hom. Gen. 1:13, Origenes Werke, Vol. 6, GCS, Vol. 29, ed. von. W.A. Baehrens,
1920, 15,7-11.
28)
Cf. “Si qui vero hunc corporeum putet esse, qui ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei factus
est, Deum ipsum corporeum et humanae formae videtur inducere; quod sentire de Deo
manifestissime impium est” (Hom. Gen. 1,13, Origenes Werke Vol. 6, 15,14-17).
29)
“Is autem, qui ad imaginem Dei factus est, interior homo noster est, invisibilis et incor-
poralis et incorruptus atque immortalis. In his enim talibus Dei imago rectius intelligitur”
(Hom. Gen. 1,13, Origenes Werke Vol. 6, 15,11-14).
 Genesis 1-3 as Source for Origen 221

First he asserts again that man in God’s image is asomatic—to which the
predicate invisible corresponds. The two other characteristics that Origen
links to the image—incorruptibility and immortality—point to the escha-
tological perspectives in the idea of God’s image in man: The inner man is not
stricken down with death and annihilation as the body—man’s outer form—
is. It is unthinkable for Origen that the divine should be annihilated; since it
is everlasting. God will not allow that which He has created in His image to
perish.30 Here we see how in the context of the doctrine of Creation and of
anthropology certain premises are laid down that are of great significance for
eschatology. While there is little doubt that with the definitions of immortal-
ity and incorruptibility Origen is pointing towards the eschatological con-
summation, it is less certain what these characteristics mean for man’s origin.
Origen’s repeated emphasis that the consummation is identical with the
beginning, which also finds expression in Hom. Gen. 1,13, must force us to
consider to what extent incorruptibility and immortality, which can be com-
bined in the concept of eternity, also play a role in connection with protology.
This question can only be answered, however, by including other texts in a
more systematic description of the inner man created in God’s image.
In Com. Rom. 7,4 Origen also makes the same distinction as in Gen. 1,26f
and Gen. 2,7 between the inner and the outer man, and in this context he
adds a number of definitions of the inner man. He is expounding Rom. 8,
18-22 and therefore examining what kind of incorruptibility it is that the
Creation is subject to (cf. Rom. 8,20), with the following result:

It seems to me that this is said of the material and corruptible corporeal substance.
For corruptibility applies only to the body. For the inner man, who is created in
accordance with God, i.e. created in His image, is incorruptible and invisible and
in accordance with his own kind is called incorporeal. The outer man on the other
hand is called corporeal and corruptible.31

According to Origen, the corruptibility that Rom. 8,20 refers to is actual

corporality. It is not corporality that is subject to corruptibility; corporality

30)
Cf. e.g.. Hom. Jer. 16,6.
31)
“Mihi videtur, quod de hac materiali et corruptibili corporis substantia ista dicantur.
Neque enim corruptio alii cuiquam nisi corpori dominatur. Nam ille interior homo, qui
secundum Deum creatus est et ad imaginem Dei factus, incorruptibilis est et invisibilis et
secundum propriam sui rationem etiam incorporeus dici potest. Exterior vero homo et
corporeus et corruptibilis dicitur,…” (Com. Rom. 7,4, ed. von T. Heiter, Fontes Christiani,
Herder, Freiburg 1990-1996, Vol. 2/4, 50,17-24).
222 A.L. Jacobsen / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232

is itself corruptibility. It is thus a radical understanding of the relation

between the outer and the inner man that Origen is asserting here. The inner
man, however, is created in accordance with God, created in His image.
This inner man is further defined as incorruptible, invisible and incorpo-
real, appellations that we have previously seen.32 The new element in this
text is that the inner man is radically contrasted with the outer man. As so
often, Origen draws his distinction between the inner and the outer man
from Paul in 2. Cor. 4,16, whom he quotes, both in support of his thesis
and as a continuation of his theme, where he concentrates on describing
the renewal of the inner man. For Rom. 8,20f speaks not only of the sub-
jection of creation to corruptibility but also of the hope of deliverance.
According to Origen therefore, there is close agreement between Rom. 8,20f
and 2. Cor. 4,16. For the destruction of the outer man leads precisely to
the deliverance of the inner man. Origen is therefore able to summarise
concisely the significance of man’s deliverance as follows:

The hope is that of being delivered from this corporeal and corruptible state.33

This text brings no specifically new information about the nature of the
inner man. As can be seen from the above, this man is described as incor-
poreal, incorruptible and invisible. What is clearer, however, is how radi-
cally Origen understands this incorporality and incorruptibility. In his
view there is absolutely nothing corporeal or corruptible in the nature of
the inner man. It is also clear what this means in an eschatological perspec-
tive: Renewal, deliverance and consummation involve a radical separation
of everything corporeal and corruptible.34
At this stage we can thus conclude that Origen’s exegesis of Gen. 1,26-
27 and 2,7 is focused on the definition of the inner and the outer man. The
inner man is created in the image of God, which is Logos. Therefore he is
incorporeal and spiritual. It is also the inner man who will be saved in the
end. The outer man is the man of flesh and blood. The man of flesh and

32)
Cf. esp. Hom. Gen. 1,13.
33)
“Spes namque est ab his rebus corporeis et corruptibilibus aliquando cessandum” (Com.
Rom. 7,4, Fontes Christiani, Vol. 2/4, 56,20-21).
34)
On Origen’s distinction between the inner and the outer man, see also Com. Cant., prolo-
gus, Origenes Werke Vol. 8, GCS, ed. von. W.A. Baehrens, 1925; Com. Joh. 20,22, Origenes
Werke Vol. 4, 354,33-355,17; Com. Rom. 1,19, Fontes Christiani Vol. 2/1, 162,21-164,26;
Com. Rom. 2,13, Fontes Christiani Vol. 2/1, 296,20-298,20; Com. Rom. 7,4, Fontes Christiani
Vol. 2/4, 50,20-23.
 Genesis 1-3 as Source for Origen 223

blood is a consequence of the Fall, and will therefore not be saved. When
Origen thus connects the creation of the outer man in Gen. 2,7 with the
Fall of man we have to take a look at his exegesis of story of the Fall of Man
in Gen. 3 to see how it relates to his exegesis of Gen. 2,7. For that purpose
the best will be to focus on Gen. 3,21 where it is told, how God equips Eve
and Adam with skin coats.

Origen’s Interpretation of Gen. 3,21

The above examination of Origen’s interpretation of Gen. 1,26f and Gen. 2,7
has shown that according to him these two texts deal with the creation of
the inner and the outer man respectively. As we saw in the introduction,
Origen’s critics later claimed that he distinguished between two forms of
corporality, so that Gen. 2,7 was said to deal with the creation of a form of
spiritual corporality, while Gen. 3,21 was said to describe the coming into
being of material corporality. This is an interesting claim, since Origen
speaks of different forms of corporality in his description of the resurrected
body. However, our examination of Origen’s exegesis of Gen. 2,7 already
questions this claim; for we have seen that Origen consistently maintained
that Gen. 2,7 describes the creation of the material and corruptible corpo-
rality without defining this corporality as a special spiritual corporality. To
provide further clarity on this point I shall turn to his interpretation of
Gen. 3,21, where God equips Eve and Adam with skin coats after they
have been banished from the Garden.
According to Biblia Patristica35 Origen annotates Gen. 3,21 only five
times,36 and the interpretation of Gen. 3,21 is the main purpose in only
one of these pericopes. This makes it even more difficult to say anything
for certain about how Origen would have read the text if it was a question
of an actual commentary on the verse. The one passage that may be said to
have the character of an actual commentary on Gen. 3,21 has been trans-
mitted by Theodoret.37 In this paragraph he sets Theodore of Mopsuestia’s
view of what the skin coats in Gen. 3,21 denote against Origen’s. Theodoret

35)
Biblia Patristica. Index des citations et allusions Bibliques dans la Littérature Patristique,
Vol. 3, Origène, Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris 1980, 42.
36)
C. Cels. 4,40; Hom. Reg. 1,6; Hom. Lv. 6,2; Hom. Jer. 18,9 and finally Theodoret
summarises Origen’s interpretation of Gen. 3,21 (Quaestiones in Genesim 39, PG 80,
col. 138D).
37)
Quaestiones in Genesim 39, PG 80, col. 138D.
224 A.L. Jacobsen / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232

regards both views as unacceptable. However, it is only Origen’s interpreta-

tion that is of interest in this context. According to Theodoret, Origen first
distances himself from the literal interpretation: God does not sew clothes
for Adam and Eve. In order to avoid the literal interpretation one could
assume that the skin coats denote the bodies. Origen finds this convincing,
but lacking proof. In particular it is a problem that in Gen. 2,23 Adam says
of Eve: This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh etc. This sug-
gests that the earthly bodies were present before God clothed Adam and
Eve in the skin coats. To avoid this difficulty one could assume, as some
have done according to Origen, that the skin coats denote the mortality to
which Adam and Eve had been subjected as a result of their sin. But in
Origen’s view this creates even more difficulties: Firstly, it was God who
gave the skin coats but it was sin that was the cause of mortality. Secondly,
such an interpretation would mean that the earthly body of nature is immor-
tal, since death was not added until after the body’s creation. Thirdly, proof
would be needed that man required all his limbs in Paradise. Origen does
not believe this to be the case. At this point Theodoret’s quotation ends. In
my view not much can be said for certain about Origen’s interpretation of
Gen. 3,21 on the basis of this short fragment. It must be allowed, however,
that Origen apparently leans to the view that the skin coats in Gen. 3,21
denote corporality. But first and foremost it is clear that under all circum-
stances Origen believes that the verse must be interpreted allegorically.38
This is also the most important point that can be concluded from Origen’s
statement on the question in C. Cels. 4,40. Here he says that the skin coats
have a secret, mystical significance that surpasses Plato’s doctrine of the fall
of the soul. He thus suggests at the very least that the skin coats have some-
thing to do with the fall of the soul leading to its being clothed in a body.
Moreover the skin coats were given to those who had sinned, suggesting
that the two interpretations which according to the Theodoret fragment
Origen had contrasted with one another were not incompatible: the skin
coats are the mortal bodies that are given by God as a result of man’s sin.
This linking of sin, mortality and material corporality is also found in many
other passages in Origen, including, as we saw, the interpretation of

38)
On the interpretation of this passage see H.-J. Vogt, ‘Warum wurde Origen zum Häretiker
erklärt?,’ Origeniana Quarta, ed. L. Lies, Tyrolia-Verlag, Innsbruck/Vienna 1987, 86-87
and 100-101. Vogt argues both for the authenticity of the text and that Origen agreed with
the interpretation of the skin coats as denoting the bodies.
 Genesis 1-3 as Source for Origen 225

Gen. 2,7. In Hom. Reg. 1,6 Origen presents one of his typical exegetical
associations in commenting on Ex. 3,5, where God commands Moses to
take off his sandals because he is standing on holy ground. Origen calls
these sandals calciamenta de pellibus mortuis.39 This defining of the sandals
as being of mortal skin must without doubt be understood as an allusion
to Gen. 3,21. The sandals denote the same as the cloaks of skin. That they
are of mortal skin symbolises the mortality that surrounded Moses as he left
Egypt, but which he was released from when he began to go forth in power
and climb up to God’s mountain, where he became keeper of the immortal
mysteries.40 It is clear that the sandals of mortal skin refer to mortality. But the
very fact that they denote the mortality by which Moses was surrounded
(constrictus) suggests to me that it is more precise to say that the sandals denote
the mortal body. Moses is released from this mortal corporality by his
ascension of God’s mountain, whereby he becomes administrator of the
immortal mysteries. Of course this is a reference to the ascension of Sinai,
where Moses is given the tablets of the Law and the directives for the fur-
nishing of the tabernacle.41 The mountain thus becomes a symbol of the
state in which one can exist without a mortal body. It is made even clearer
if we imagine that when he wrote this passage Origen also had at the back
of his mind the transfiguration on the mountain (cf. Mt. 17,1-13). For
Moses is standing on top of the mountain in a transfigured and radiant
form—a form that has discarded all signs of mortality. Thus on this inter-
pretation the leather sandals, which correspond in meaning to the leather
cloaks in Gen. 3,21, denote the material, mortal corporality with which
the inner man is clothed, while he lives “here below”, and from which he
can be released through the ascent or process of education that is the core
of Origen’s theological system.

39)
Cf. Hom. Reg. 1,6, Origenes Werke Vol. 8, 10,29, GCS, ed. W.A. Baehrens, 1925.
40)
The above is a summary of the following passage: “…, sicut dicitur ad Moysen: solve
corrigiam calciamenti tui; locus enim, in quo tu stas, terra sancta est [Ex. 3,5]. Et quid puta-
mus quod in his non aliquid mysterii obtectum sit, sed, quia Deus exsecrabatur calciamenta
Moysi corporalia, ideo haec iubeat? Aut illud magis putandum est quod, cum exiret de terra
Aegypti, habebat calciamenta de pellibus mortuis et erat velut quadam mortalitate constrictus,
cum vero coepit proficere ad virtutem et adscendere montem Dei atque ibi immortalibus
ministrare mysteriis, tunc dicitur ad eum, ut indicia mortalitatis abiceret, quae in calcia-
mentis peliciis designantur” (Hom. Reg. 1,6, Origenes Werke Vol. 8, 10,24-11,4).
41)
Cf. Ex. 19-31. In Greek early Church theology there are several examples of Moses’ ascent
of Sinai being regarded as a model for man’s ascent to God, cf. e.g. Gregory of Nyssa, De Vita
Moysis.
226 A.L. Jacobsen / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232

In Hom. Lv. 6,2 Origen examines some of the precepts for the Levitical
priesthood, including the precepts for Aaron’s clothing.42 In this context he
compares Aaron’s clothes, which are the clothes of faith (fidelibus) and
piety (sanctis), with the clothes that God gave Adam and Eve after their
sin. These are the clothes of unhappiness (infelicia).43 And they are skin
coats. These

… symbolised the mortality that he had received for the sake of sin and his frailty,
which came as the result of the corruption of the flesh.44

The skin coats clearly symbolise mortality. It is less clear whether they
denote at the same time the origin of material corporality, or whether this
corporality was already present before Adam and Eve’s sin but because of
their sin was subjected to mortality and frailty. The latter seems to me the
more probable interpretation of the brief statement. It does not agree,
however, with those passages in which Origen says that Gen. 2,7 deals
with the creation of the corruptible body. Nor does such an interpretation
take into account the misgivings he expressed in the Theodoret-fragment,
where he speaks of a material corporality that was originally immortal. The
question is whether one can or should expect systematic precision of such
a brief passing remark as the present one.
Finally, there is perhaps a statement in Hom. Jer. 18,945 that can throw
light on Origen’s interpretation of Gen. 3,21. This is not a quotation from
Gen. 3,21 or a direct reference to that verse. On the contrary, Origen
inserts the statement as one of the promises of the prophets concerning the
nearness of God, though the statement cannot be identified in the canonical
writings. It is probably a quotation from an apocryphal book of Ezekiel:46

I will be closer to them than their cloaks of flesh.47

42)
Hom. Lv. 6,2, Origenes Werke Vol. 6, GCS, Vol. 29, ed. W.A. Baehrens, 1920, 361,26-
362,22.
43)
Hom. Lv. 6,2, Origenes Werke, Vol. 6, 362,12-14.
44)
“…quae essent mortalitatis, quam pro peccato acceperat, et fragilitatis eius, quae ex carnis
corruptione veniebat, indicium” (Hom. Lv. 6,2, Origenes Werke Vol. 6, 362,17-19).
45)
Origenes Werke Vol. 3, 163,26-27.
46)
Cf. W.D. Stroker, The Source of an Agraphon in the Manichaean Psalm-Book, JTS
N.S. 28 (1977), pp. 114-118.
47)
“ἐγγιῶ αὐτοῖς ἢ ὁ χιτὼν τοῦ χρωτὸς αὐτῶν” (Origenes Werke Vol. 3, s. 163, 26-27).
 Genesis 1-3 as Source for Origen 227

Although Origen does not use δερμάτινος, found in Gen. 3,21, but χρώς,
the allusion to Gen. 3,21 is unmistakeable. The deviant wording is because
he is quoting from elsewhere. Whether Origen is referring to Gen. 3,21 in
a specific context or the allusion is the sole work of the author of the apoc-
ryphal book of Ezekiel is hard to determine. Nevertheless, Origen is clearly
using the quotation to support his view that the material body is regarded
as a cloak that surrounds the real man. The understanding of corporality
in this quotation is thus the same as that which is most often expressed in
connection with Gen. 2,7.
Despite their divergences and limited scope these texts give a clear pic-
ture of what is important for Origen in the interpretation of Gen. 3,21,
namely that the skin coats denote the corruptible corporality that is the
result of sin. In this conclusion lies the view that it is inexpedient to sepa-
rate mortality and material corporality by saying that according to Origen
the skin coats in Gen. 3,21 either denote mortality as a consequence of sin
or material corporality. The distinction is doubtless due to the Gnostic inter-
pretation of Gen. 3,21, and to the possibility that Origen himself may have
hinted at it, cf. the Theodoret fragment in particular. It is typical of Origen,
however, that he links mortality and material corporality,48 though in the texts
analysed above it is unclear how the form of material, mortal corporality in
Gen. 3,21 relates to the corporality in Gen. 2,7. These statements therefore
bring us no clarification of the relation between Gen. 2,7 and 3,21.
Along with these views from Origen’s own texts on the meaning of
Gen. 3,21 are some statements made by the participants in the Controversy
over Origen in which it was claimed that according to Origen the skin
coats in Gen. 3,21 denote the body or corporality. In Methodius’s work De
resurrectione Aglaophon, who can be regarded as a representative of Origen’s
views,49 claims that the clothes which God made to clothe Adam and Eve
after their sin are their bodies.50 Similarly, Epiphanius of Salamis states that
Origen taught that the skin coats were “the body’s flesh or the body itself ”.51
In Panarion52 and in his epistle to the Origen-orientated Bishop John of

48)
See e.g. De princ. 1,7,5; 2,10,1.
49)
Thus H.J. Vogt 1987, 83, incl. a reference to Methodius, De resurrectione 1,27,1, GCS
Vol. 27, 255,3-5.
50)
Cf. Methodius, De resurrectione, 1,4,2-3, GSC Vol. 27, 223,28-224,12.
51)
“ἀλλὰ τοῦτό φησι χιτῶνα δερμάτινον τὸ σαρκῶδες τοῦ σώματος ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ σῶμα·”
(Epiphanius, Ancoratus 62,2, GCS 25, 74,9-10).
52)
Panarion 64,4,9, GCS 31, 412,12-15; 64,63,5, GCS 31, 500,19-501,1.
228 A.L. Jacobsen / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232

Jerusalem53 Epiphanius repeatedly presents the same charge against Ori-

gen. Jerome too believes that Origen claimed that the skin coats in Gen. 3,21
denote the human body. Like the other two Jerome thinks that this is a
heretical assumption.54 Thus a number of early Church theologians testify
unanimously that Origen understood the skin coats in Gen. 3,21 to denote
the human body.
It is difficult to determine on this basis what Origen himself believed.
We cannot ignore the fact that the clearest and most schematic presenta-
tion of the relation between Gen. 2,7 and Gen. 3,21—according to which
Gen. 2,7 denotes the origin of a spiritual body and Gen. 3,21 the origin of
the material body—appears in one of the critics’ summaries of Origen’s
teaching but not in his own writings. It is equally difficult to ignore the
fact that Origen’s critics present his interpretation of Gen. 3,21 more
unambiguously than he himself does. The critics’ description is perhaps an
expression of a systematisation which either they themselves attribute to
Origen or which they find in the Origenists of posterity. In Origen’s own
writings the image is not so unequivocal. Both Gen. 2,7 and Gen. 3,21 can
be read as a description of the origin of the material body. On the basis of
the above analysis, all that we can say about the structure in Origen’s inter-
pretation of Gen. 1-3 is that with his background in an allegorical inter-
pretation of the Creation and Fall Origen believes that the creation of man
in God’s image in Gen. 1,26f denotes the creation of the rational being
(the inner man). After this comes a Fall that involves the origin of corpo-
rality. Both Gen. 2,7 and Gen. 3,21 deal with this origin of corporality. It
is possible that in certain contexts (e.g. in his Genesis commentary) Ori-
gen distinguished between different forms of corporality, so that Gen. 2,7
denoted the origin of a finer spiritual body, while Gen. 3,21 denoted the
origin of the rougher material body. The crucial distinction, however, lies
between Gen. 1,26f and Gen. 2,7, between the inner and the outer man,
between an incorporeal and a corporeal existence. This also means that the
decisive Fall is the fall of the rational being in pre-existence and not the fall
of the first human in Paradise. Origen has not therefore, as Procopius sug-
gested, followed the structure in Gen. 1-3 slavishly. His allegorical reading
has enabled him to avoid such a schematic interpretation. The text tradi-

53)
This epistle is preserved in a Latin translation in Jerome, Hier. ep. 51,5, CSEL 54,403,4-
405,19.
54)
Jerome, Contra Joannem 7, PL 23,376C.
 Genesis 1-3 as Source for Origen 229

tion does not therefore provide a basis for distinguishing between different
forms of corporality in connection with the interpretation of Gen. 2,7 and
3,21, which would otherwise have fitted in very well with certain state-
ments on the resurrected body which appear among others in the context
of Origen’s interpretation of 1 Cor. 15.55
In addition to the above-mentioned texts in which Origen expresses his
view of the skin coats in Gen. 3,21 there are a few other texts in which it
is suggested that Origen interpreted the Fall in Gen. 3 as an expression of
the fall of the rational being and thereafter his incarnation. In C. Cels.
7,50 Origen answers Celsus’ charge that the Christians are totally bound
to the flesh.56 Celsus justifies this criticism by claiming that the Christians
are unable to distinguish between being and coming into being.57 Celsus
is here using the well-known Platonic distinction between on the one
hand actual being in its true sense, which is immutable and therefore
everlasting, and on the other hand non-being in its true sense, because it
comes into being and is therefore mutable and corruptible. To this Ori-
gen responds that this distinction is well-known among Christians. He
adduces as proof of this a number of OT statements among others, which
all show that the ancient prophets often claimed that what comes into
being, i.e. the corporeal, is corruptible, whereas the true man, i.e. the
soul, is incorruptible and everlasting. In this context there is a reference to
Adam, who was expelled from Paradise for his sin. Origen refers first to
Ps. 43,20 (LXX):

You humbled us at the place of suffering.58

55)
Such a distinction can be found e.g. in Hennessey, ‘A Philosophical Issue in Origen’s
Eschatology: The Three Senses of Incorporality,’ Origeniana Quinta, ed. R.J. Daley, Leuven
University Press, Leuven 1992, 373-380 and in H.S. Schlibli, ‘Origen, Didymus, and the
Vehicle of the Soul’, Origeniana Quinta, ed. R.J. Daley, Leuven University Press, Leuven
1992, 381-382. This is because without reservation they understand Origen’s interpreta-
tion of Gen. 2,7 and 3,21 partly in the light of what the later tradition says concerning his
interpretation of these texts, and partly in the light of what Origen himself says about the
resurrected body.
56)
Cf. C. Cels. 7,45, Origenes Werke Vol. 2, 196,9-11.
57)
οὐσία καὶ γένεσις (C. Cels. 7,45, Origenes Werke Vol. 2, 196,19).
58)
“ἐταπείνωσας ἡμᾶς ἐν τόπῳ κακώσεως” (C. Cels. 7,50, Origenes Werke Vol. 2,
201,13).
230 A.L. Jacobsen / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232

He then identifies this place of suffering with the earthly surroundings

into which Adam was cast after his sin.59 From the context it is clear that
the reference is to the true man’s or rational being’s incorporation into a
body, as Origen’s reference to Paul’s statement that he longs to break away
from the body in order to be at home with the Lord (2. Cor. 5,6.8). Ori-
gen understands this as Paul’s confirmation that the true man—the rational
being—is bound to his body against his nature. Here at least we have a
hint that Origen could interpret the Fall in Gen. 3 as an account of the fall
of the everlasting, incorporeal being, whereby it assumed a body.60
It is reasonable to assume that the most important reason why Origen
only rarely uses the Fall in Gen. 3 as an occasion to speak of the fall of the
pre-existent rational being is that the structure of the Creation and Fall in
Gen. 1-3 has caused him problems in this respect. As can be seen from the
above it is not in Gen. 3,21 but already in Gen. 2,7 that according to Ori-
gen the creation of the material body is mentioned. This material corporal-

59)
“…, ’κακώσεως τ̓ όπον λέγων τὸν περίγειον τόπον, ἐφ ̓ ὃν ἐκβληθεὶς ἀπὸ τοῦ παραδείσου
διὰ τὴν κακίαν ἐλήλυθεν ὁ ’Αδάμ, ὅ περ ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος” (C. Cels. 7,50, Origenes Werke
Vol. 2, 201,13-16).
60)
There are indications of this interpretation of the Fall in C. Cels. 4,40; 6,43; 7,39. In the
first two passages Origen refers directly to Plato’s myth (Phaedrus 246), where he describes
the soul as a winged team of two where one of the horses is of noble origin and the other is
not. The bad horse pulls the other on and the team (i.e. the soul) loses its wings, falls to the
ground and becomes incarnated in a body. In De princ. 3,6,3 Origen explains how at the
consummation the rational beings will reach a perfect state which corresponds to their
original creation state. In this state there will be no form of wickedness and death, since no
one will desire to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. In this state the rational beings are without
bodies. This suggests the degree to which sin, corporality and death belong together in
Origen. This is confirmed by among others Com. Joh. 1,20, Origenes Werke Vol. 4, 25,1-7;
13,34, Origenes Werke Vol. 4, 259,34-260,4, where man’s corruptibility and mortality are
seen as a precise consequence of his transgression of the commandment not to eat of the
Tree of Knowledge. Cf. also a number of passages in Com. Rom. (e.g. 3,3, Fontes Christiani
Vol. 2/2, 68-70; 5,1, Fontes Christiani Vol. 2/3, 30-82; 10,14, Fontes Christiani Vol. 2/5,
232-34), where the first man’s sin, in accordance with Paul (cf. Rom. 5,12) is regarded as
the cause of man’s mortality. Here it becomes clear, however, that Origen goes further than
Paul by expressly equating man’s mortality with his corporality, Cf. Com. Rom. 5,1, Fontes
Christiani Vol. 2/3, 50,8-12: “Per unum ergo hominem peccatum introivit in hunc mun-
dum”. “Mundus” autem, ut diximus, intelligendus est vel locus, in quo habitant homines,
vel terrena et corporalis vita, in qua mors habet locum; cui mundo, hoc est terrenae vitae,
crucifixos se dicunt sancti et mortuos”. Finally see also Hom. Gen. 15,5, where Origen says
that the first formed man came down to this world (i.e. the material world) after his expul-
sion from Paradise.
 Genesis 1-3 as Source for Origen 231

ity is a consequence of the rational beings’ fall. It also means that Origen
has a structural or chronological problem with the position of the Fall in
Gen. 3 after the account of the body’s creation in Gen. 2,7. He doubtless
discussed this problem in his Genesis-commentary,61 but on the basis of
the present texts it is impossible precisely to reconstruct his answer to the
problem. We can only say that he probably understood the Fall in Gen. 3 as
a mythologically cast account of the rational beings’ fall and incarnation.

Conclusion
The above examination of Origen’s exegesis of Gen. 1-3 has concentrated
on his interpretation of the verses 1,26f, 2,7 and 3,21 and their internal
relation. According to Origen they deal with the creation of the inner and
the outer man respectively. On the background of the preserved texts the
crucial difference is between Gen. 1,26f on the one hand and Gen. 2,7 and
3,21 on the other, since Gen. 1,26 deals with the creation of the inner
man, while the two others deal with various aspects of the creation of the
body. However, the relation between the latter two texts is not clearly
described in the textual tradition. According to Procopius of Gaza, for exam-
ple, Origen may have claimed that Gen. 2,7 described the creation of a
spiritual body, while Gen. 3,21 described the creation of the earthly body.
This question could probably have been resolved from Origen’s commen-
tary on Genesis, but unfortunately this is lost. It is nevertheless character-
istic of the preserved texts that Gen. 1,26f and Gen. 2,7 are often treated
together, whereas Gen. 3,21 is only seldom included.
According to Origen Gen. 1,26f is about the creation of the inner man
in the image of God, meaning that he is created in the likeness of the
Logos, the Son, who is God’s image. The Logos is thus an intermediary
between God and the inner man, thereby ensuring both the relationship
and the distance between God and man. Origen maintains that it is the
inner man, the soul, that is created in God’s image and that this inner man
is immaterial. His connection to the body is the consequence of the Fall
and not of his creation in God’s image. For God is entirely immaterial and
nothing that is created in His image can therefore be material. The creation
of the inner man in God’s image does not mean that he is divine, but that
61)
It is clear from among others C. Cels. 4,39 that Origen really did attempt to provide a
coherent interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis, including the account of the Fall
in Gen. 3.
 232 A.L. Jacobsen / Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008) 213-232

on crucial points he participates in the divine nature. The inner man is

therefore also invisible, as well as immortal and incorruptible, everlasting
and so on.
Gen. 2,7 describes in contrast to Gen. 1,26f the creation of the outer
man. Origen’s exegesis of this verse is not explicit and independent, but is
nearly always derived from his exegesis of Gen. 1,26f. The outer man is
therefore described largely in an antithetical relation to the inner man: The
outer man is corporeal, visible, mortal, corruptible and so on. Unlike the
inner man, the outer man is a temporary phenomenon.
In the few places where Origen refers explicitly to Gen. 3,21 there is no
clear picture of how he interprets this verse. The most precise observation
we can make is that in his view the skin coats denote the mortal corporality
that surrounds the inner man. In Origen there does not therefore seem to
be any difference between the body whose creation is mentioned in Gen.
2,7 and that which is mentioned in Gen. 3,21, though the preserved text
material is too narrow for us to be able to reject the possibility in Origen
of two qualitatively different forms of corporality in Gen. 2,7 and 3,21.
Such a distinction between a spiritual corporality and an earthly corporal-
ity in connection with the Creation would correspond to the distinction
he makes between these two forms of corporality in connection with his
eschatology.
It is clear, however, that according to Origen there is a fundamental
distinction between the inner man created in God’s image and the outer
man who is not. Equally clear is the fact that Origen’s interest is focussed on
the inner man and his path from creation to consummation. The outer man,
the body, only interests Origen insofar as it plays a role for the inner man.

View publication stats