The Condemnation of ‘Origenism’
In the last post, we looked at the doctrine of universal restoration throughout the first Origenist controversy and afterward. Although this doctrine wasn’t the main focus of the controversy, it became less popular as a result, due to its association with Origen. In this post, we’ll look at the resurgence of ‘Origenism’ in the sixth century, its condemnation by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I and the Council of Constantinople in 553, and especially the reception of the doctrine of universal restoration before and after these events.
Palestinian ‘Origenists’
Origenian and ‘Origenist’ thought saw a resurgence in Syria and Palestine around the turn of the sixth century, along with belief in the universal restoration. For example, John of Caesarea, an important neo-Chalcedonian theologian in the early sixth century, supported this doctrine in his polemic against the Manichaeans: there he argues that evil is no substance, and punishment is intended to reform sinners, so that eventually evil will cease (Syll 1; 3; 5; 10). [1] His fellow neo-Chalcedonian Leontius of Byzantium, on the other hand, seems to have opposed the doctrine of universal restoration (e.g., Con Nest et Eut 3), although he was an Origenian thinker in other respects (and was actually expelled from his monastery at one point for alleged ‘Origenism’). [2]
Severus, the Syrian miaphysite bishop of Antioch (512–518) and the Christological opponent of John of Caesarea, also opposed universalism, to which end he cites Matthew 25:46, along with the disputed passage from Basil’s Regulae and several other passages from Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria that he believes to support endless punishment (Letter 98). Philoxenus of Mabbug (d. 523), another Syrian miaphysite theologian, may have been a supporter of the universal restoration. [3] Philoxenus conceived of the restoration (universal or not) principally as a unity between God and creation, which will involve the disappearance of material bodies. This puts him squarely within the Evagrian school of thought on the restoration (even though he opposed to most radical ‘Origenism’ of bar Sudayli – see below).
Aeneas of Gaza was a Neoplatonist philosopher who converted to Christianity in the early sixth century. After his conversion, he wrote against certain Neoplatonist doctrines that he viewed as incompatible with Christianity, which were also associated with ‘Origenism’. He especially refutes the ideas of preexistence and transmigration of souls (Theophrastus 13.1–36.3), along with the non-bodily resurrection, or the idea that the resurrection body will be “luminous, airy, or oyster-like” (51.25–61.19). Rather, we will be resurrected with the same body, which will be made “pure, light, and immortal” (54.15–60.3). The bodies of the wicked will be made fit for punishment in the resurrection, according to what is deserved by the person’s actions on earth (35.26–36.3; 61.5–9).
For Aeneas, the purpose of punishment is to restore those who rebel against the Creator, by exposing the weakness of their rebellion and eventually destroying it, restoring the former rebels; this is “an exhibition of the power, justice, gentleness, and love of humanity of the Creator” (50.20–51.12). Even physical death was instituted so that “wickedness could be eradicated and [the soul] could find punishment for itself” (60.1–3; cf. 51.2–9), an idea which is first found in Theophilus of Antioch and Origen. Thus, in the end, every creature will be restored and made immortal, not just humanity but the whole universe (51.21–24). This will take place when God wishes it, and absolutely everything will exist in unity and harmony, according to the will of the Creator (43.10–19). Aeneas of Gaza’s view seems to be a recovery of genuine Origenian thought, in contrast to the ‘Origenism’ of the time.
Pseudo-Hierotheus and Pseudo-Dionysius
The most radically ‘Origenist’ thinker of this period was Stephen bar Sudayli, a Syriac Christian mystic and monk. He left his hometown of Edessa in the early sixth century for Jerusalem, where ‘Origenism’ was considered more acceptable. Bar Sudayli was an overt supporter of the universal restoration. He was most likely the author of the Book of Hierotheus, which purports to be written by Hierotheus – a student of Paul, the first bishop of Athens, and the teacher of Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts 17:34). The end of this book deals with the eschatological restoration:
Then know this, my son, that the nature of all is destined to be commingled in the Father; nothing perishes or is annihilated; all returns, all is sanctified, all is made One, all is commingled, and the word is fulfilled which was said, “God will be all in all.” Even hell passes away and the damned return. Orders that are above pass away, and distinctions that are below are abolished, and all becomes One Thing: for even God [the Father] will pass away, and Christ will be done away, and the Spirit shall no longer be called Spirit, for names pass away and not essence. For if distinctions will pass away, who will call whom? And who, on the other hand, will answer whom? For One neither names nor is named. This is the limit of all and the end of everything; and take heed. (Book of Hierotheus V.2)
Whether or not this was written by Stephen bar Sudayli, this is the same view that is attributed to him in the Letter to Abraham and Orestes. This letter, written by Philoxenus of Mabbug against Stephen’s views, attributes to him the view that there will be no judgment, so that all will receive the same retribution followed by the same honor (!), and that everything will become consubstantial and identical with God, so that even distinctions between divine persons are lost. Philoxenus was himself an ‘Origenist’, but these views are far too radical for him.
A related theologian from this period is the author of the Corpus Areopagiticum, a group of texts which purport to be written by Paul’s Athenian convert Dionysius the Areopagite. These texts were most likely written shortly after, and influenced by, the Book of Hierotheus. [4] The author, who is commonly referred to as Pseudo-Dionysius, speaks of Hierotheus as his teacher and highly praises him (Divine Names III.2). This author was a Christian Neoplatonist philosopher, most likely based in Syria, and he extensively paraphrases the Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus throughout his works, especially on the topic of the ontological non-subsistence of evil (DN IV.18–35). At the beginning of his treatise on divine names, he seems to relate the Neoplatonist concept of emanation-and-return (epistrophē) of all beings to the Christian concept of creation-and-restoration:
The Cause of all is, according to the saying, “all in all,” and truly must be praised as the Giver of existence to all, the Originator of all beings, who perfects all [teleiōtikē], holding them together and protecting them; their shrine, which has them all return [epistreptikē] to itself, and this in a uniform, irresistible, and preeminent way. (DN I.7)
Ps.-Dionysius relates the return of all beings to their “perfection,” which he elsewhere relates to the removal of ignorance and turning toward the true Being and Good, that is, God (DN IV.6). He also speaks of this cyclical view of emanation/creation-and-return/restoration of all things in his section on God as “the Good,” which he bolsters with a quote from ‘Hierotheus,’ which may actually be a paraphrase from Origen’s commentary on the Song of Songs (DN IV.14–17). [5] He goes on to prove that evil is not a substance nor in a substance, but is rather a privation, and therefore “unstable”; even the demons are good in their essence, and evil only in their wills (DN IV.18–35).
Ps.-Dionysius insists on future punishment and that such punishment is just, because creatures have freedom of choice (DN IV.35; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy VII.3.1–3). However, he doesn’t describe such punishment as eternal or endless. [6] He is aware that aiōn and aiōnios do not strictly refer to eternity or endlessness. As he recognizes in his discussion of God’s name “Ancient of days,” aiōnios can refer to things that are strictly without beginning and without end, or to things that are only without end, or to things that seem to be without end, or to ancient things, or to the duration of our time and aeon; therefore, “one must not consider the things called ‘aeonian’ to be co-eternal with God, who is prior to every aeon” (DN X.3).
Ps.-Dionysius conceives of the restoration as a state in which, “when our many distinctions [heterotētas] are folded up in a supermundane manner, we are collected into a God-like monad and God-imitating union [henōsin]” (DN I.4). Likewise, at the beginning of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, he states that God “elevates us, folds up our many distinctions, and... perfects us into a onelike [henoeidē] and divine life, habit, and activity”; in this way “we shall be able to become offerings and offerers, luminating and divine-workers, perfected and perfecting” (EH I.1). The one who is himself both offering and offerer, and divine-worker, and perfecter, is Christ (EH IV.3.12), so this implies a kind of identity with Christ. However, in both passages Ps.-Dionysius says that this will be “according to our power” (DN I.4; EH I.1), which implies that personal identities will remain in the restoration; thus, his ‘Origenism’ was less radical than Ps.-Hierotheus.
The Corpus Areopagiticum was incredibly influential on later theologians, such as John of Damascus and Thomas Aquinas, both of whom quote from this corpus extensively. Ps.-Dionysius’ negative or apophatic theology had a large impact on later Eastern Christian thinking. This raises the question, how did he have such influence on Christian theology after his ‘Origenism’ was condemned? First, the Greek text of his corpus was likely altered to make it more orthodox. The earlier, Syriac translation of his work by Sergius of Reshaina is more explicitly ‘Origenist’ than the surviving Greek text. [7] Moreover, his expressions of ‘Origenism’ are clothed in philosophical language that could be reinterpreted by later anti-‘Origenist’ authors. Even so, the fact remains that one of the most influential Eastern theologians was an ‘Origenist’ and universalist.
Theodore of Caesarea
Another prominent ‘Origenist’ from this period was Theodore of Caesarea, also known as Theodore “the Wine-Sack” (askidas). He was a monk from the New Lavra community in Palestine, who became bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia around 536, and from then on until 553 was the primary religious adviser to the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. [8] According to the anti-‘Origenist’ church historian, Cyril of Scythopolis, he was so influential on Justinian that he “held in his hands the affairs of the state” (Vita Sabae 89). He was a proponent of neo-Chalcedonian Christology, and his influence resulted in the official acceptance of this view at the Council of Constantinople II.
Theodore belonged to the Isochrist faction of ‘Origenists’ – those who believed that, in the restoration, all rational beings would become equal to Christ’s created nature – as opposed to the Protoctists, those who believed that Christ’s created nature has an ontological priority over all others. (Ps.-Dionysius probably belonged to the Protoctist faction. [7]) This intra-‘Origenist’ dispute was a Christological one: the Isochrists accused the Protoctists of being ‘Nestorians,’ due to their overemphasis on Christ’s created nature, while the Protoctists accused the Isochrists of teaching the equality of the saints with Christ.
The Questions and Answers of Caesarius, a work which claims to be written by Gregory of Nazianzus’ brother Caesarius, was most likely authored by Theodore of Caesarea. [9] This book repeatedly condemns Origen himself, which indicates that it was written after Justinian’s condemnation of Origen in 543, but it presents a consistently ‘Origenist’ protology, cosmology, and eschatology. [10] Ps.-Caesarius cryptically speaks of the creation of rational beings as a unified substance, which fell resulting in the material world and bodies; but when we are perfected we will “put off the tunic of matter, which is full of passions.” Following Origen and Evagrius, Ps.-Caesarius interprets Romans 11:25–26 (and 1 Cor 15:28) to refer, not to the salvation of the Jewish people, but to the restoration and subjection of all people (126; 217). [11] He refers to Christ’s incarnation as a “hook” intended to deceive the devil (represented as a sea dragon) and save people, eventually including the Dragon himself (133); this precise metaphor was developed by Gregory of Nyssa to expound his own universalism (Cat Orat 24; 26).
In summary, far from being a marginal group within sixth-century Christianity, ‘Origenism’ was actually rather influential among theologians during this period. Two of the most influential Eastern theologians of the sixth century – Ps.-Dionysius and Theodore of Caesarea, who greatly impacted later theology and Christology – were themselves ‘Origenists’ who belonged to opposing factions (the Protoctists and Isochrists respectively). Furthermore, alongside the more radical ‘Origenist’ view, there existed some strands of authentic Origenian thought (represented by Aeneas of Gaza and possibly John of Caesarea).
Justinian and Constantinople II
The floruit of ‘Origenism’ took place before and toward the beginning of the reign of Justinian I (527–565). He was concerned with uniting and centralizing the Roman Empire under him, both politically and religiously. Justinian was very concerned about ‘Origenism’ as both a heresy and a destabilizing force, even though his closest religious adviser, Theodore of Caesarea, was an ‘Origenist’ (and may have kept his views under wraps for this reason). At the Synod of Constantinople in 543, he condemned both Origen himself and ‘Origenism’, including the views that the soul preexisted the body (anathemas 1–3), that the resurrection body is spherical (5), and that Christ will be crucified again for demons (8). The final, ninth anathema deals with the universal restoration:
If anyone says or holds that the punishment of demons and impious human beings is temporary and that it will have an end at some time, and that there will be a restoration of demons and impious human beings, let him be anathema.
Whereas the anti-‘Origenists’ of the first controversy (Epiphanius, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Jerome) were primarily concerned about the restoration of the devil, Justinian is concerned about the restoration of demons and “impious” humans (cf. Jerome, Dial adv Pelag I.26).
In his letter to Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, which accompanied these anathemas, he provides a few arguments against the universal restoration [PG 86.975]: it will make people lazy (this concern was shared by Origen himself, who thought that the doctrine shouldn’t be taught to the masses); it contradicts Jesus’ teaching in Matt 25:41, 46 that both heaven and hell are aeonian (this Augustinian argument was already refuted by Origen in Comm in Rom V.7.8); it makes Christ’s crucifixion worthless (not true of the authentic Origenian doctrine, nor probably ‘Origenism,’ which are both centered around Christ’s incarnation and death); and it gives sinners and saints the same reward (this concern was shared by some patristic universalists, such as Jerome in his Origenian phase).
After Origen’s condemnation by Justinian, Theodore of Caesarea sought to also condemn some writings he viewed as ‘Nestorian’. These came to be known as the “Three Chapters”: the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris. Theodore’s crusade against the “Three Chapters” may have been, as Facundus of Hermiane suggests, a kind of ‘revenge’ against the condemnation of Origen; more likely, it had to do with the intra-‘Origenist’ feud between the Isochrists and Protoctists. Theodore of Caesarea, as an Isochrist, would have been concerned about any overemphasis on Christ’s created nature, which he saw as ‘Nestorian’.
Theodore succeeded in getting his condemnation against the “Three Chapters,” since Justinian called an ecumenical council in 553 for this purpose (the Council of Constantinople II). However, in what may have been a political move by the emperor, a later session of this council examined Theodore himself and condemned his ‘Origenism’. [12] The fifteen anti-‘Origenist’ anathemas, which may or may not have been officially promulgated at Constantinople II, reveal exactly what was condemned:
If anyone advocates the mythical pre-existence of souls and the monstrous restoration that follows from this, let him be anathema. (anathema 1)
What was condemned here was not the universal restoration as such, but the concept of restoration to a bodiless state, which was propounded by Evagrius and sixth-century ‘Origenists’.
The anathemas go on to condemn the view that rational beings first existed as a henad without numbers or names (2), that bodies after the resurrection are aethereal and spherical (10), that the judgment will result in disappearance of bodies (11), that all rational beings will be united to God in the same way that Christ is (12), that there will be no difference between rational beings (13) and all rational beings will form a henad (14), so that the end is identical to the beginning (15). These anathemas are focused against ‘Origenism’, and especially Theodore of Caesarea’s Isochrist faction (see anathema 12), although 13 and 14 also apply to Ps.-Dionysius’ view that distinctions will fold away and rational beings will form a monad and henad.
The eleventh canon of Constantinople II officially anathematizes “Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen... who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy [ecumenical] synods”. However, as Ramelli argues, Origen’s name may not even be original to the text of the canons. [13] The other heretics are listed in chronological order, are Christological heretics, and were actually condemned at the four previous ecumenical councils. Origen fits none of this pattern, which suggests that his name is an interpolation. Even if the council did condemn him, however, the doctrines it condemns have nothing to do with his authentic thought, only the later ‘Origenism’ which was wrongly associated with him.
Maximus the Confessor
The fifth ecumenical council didn’t condemn the universal restoration as such, but Justinian’s influence and the death of ‘Origenism’ resulted in the loss of this doctrine, for the most part, in the East (just as Augustine’s influence did earlier in the West). However, Maximus the Confessor – an influential seventh-century theologian (d. 662) – was most likely a proponent of the universal restoration. Maximus is best known for his role in the monothelite controversy, where he supported the dyothelite position (that Christ has a divine and a human will) and was actually persecuted for this. He was vindicated by the sixth ecumenical council, the Council of Constantinople III in 680–1, which condemned monothelitism as a Christological heresy.
Maximus was a critic of both radical ‘Origenism’ and radical anti-‘Origenism’. [14] In his Ambigua, where he interprets difficult passages from Ps.-Dionysius and Gregory of Nazianzus, he comments on Gregory’s statement that we “are a portion of God that has flowed down from above,” and refutes the ‘Origenist’ interpretation that this refers to the preexistence of souls in a divine henad (Amb 7 [PG 91.1068–1101]). Our souls did not preexist; what ‘preexisted,’ in a sense, was the logoi, God’s purposes for his creatures, which existed within the Logos prior to creation [PG 91.1077–80]. This, and not the ‘Origenist’ myth of preexistence, was Origen’s actual view. [15] If a being moves in accordance with its logos (God’s purpose for it), it finds rest in God [PG 91.1080–81]. Maximus also criticizes the view that bodies will pass away into non-being after the restoration in Ambiguum 42.
In a few places, Maximus speaks of an interpretation that he knows of, but which he will not divulge for the sake of beginners. When he talks about Christ’s victory over evil, he says that there is a “more mystical and sublime interpretation... [which] must not be committed to writing” (Ad Thal 21.8). When he comments on the “eternal chains” of fallen angels in Jude 6, he says that this might mean they will never achieve divine rest, or that they are restrained from doing evil to us now, and the fate of these fallen angels is known only to God (Ad Thal 11.3). In his comments on Luke 3:6 (“all flesh will see God’s salvation”), he says that this means “faithful flesh,” but hints at a “loftier contemplation” which relates to God becoming “all in all” in order to “save all” (Ad Thal 47.8). In his interpretation of the two trees in the garden of Eden, he says that there is another interpretation which should only be divulged to advanced believers (Ad Thal 43.2). He refers to the same in his comments on Adam’s pre-fallen state (Amb 45 [PG 91.1356]).
Maximus believed in the ontological non-subsistence of evil (e.g., Amb 20; 45 [PG 91.1237, 1332]), and that the choice of evil is the result of ignorance (Ad Thal 16.5). It is impossible for any being to rest, that is, cease from motion, in evil (Amb 15 [PG 91.1217–20]). Thus, it’s unsurprising that he conceives of the restoration as one in which evil will cease:
The third meaning [of “restoration”] is used by Gregory of Nyssa to refer to the powers of the soul that had been corrupted by sin and then are restored to their natural state... the powers of the soul that have been led astray will, in the duration of the aeons, shed all imprints of evil clinging to them. After passing through all aeons without finding rest, they reach God, who is without limit. Thus, by full knowledge [of God], not by participating in good things, it will recover its powers and be restored to its original state, so that the Creator will be revealed as not being responsible for sin. (Q et Dub 19)
This passage doesn’t explicitly describe the restoration as universal, but it’s a holistic interpretation of restoration which Maximus draws directly from Gregory of Nyssa. In other passages, he does speak of the restoration of the whole human nature and bringing it to harmony within itself (Or dom I.82; Myst 19, 24; In Ps 59). Given his metaphysics of universals, in which universals only subsist in their particulars (Amb 41 [PG 91.1312]), the whole human nature could only participate in God if every individual human does. Indeed, later in the same passage Maximus says that God will unite every particular to its universal (PG 91.1313; cf. Ad Thal 2). [16] Perhaps his most universalistic passage is found toward the end of his Ambiguum 7:
The Godhead will really be “all in all,” [1 Cor 15:28] embracing all and giving substance to all in itself, in that no being will have any movement separate from it and nobody will be deprived of its presence. Thanks to this presence, we will be, and will be called, gods and children, body and limbs, because we shall be restored to the perfection of God’s project. [PG 91.1092]
This aligns with his interpretation of 1 Cor 15:24–28 elsewhere: the subjection there is a voluntary one [PG 91.1076–77], and the last enemy, death, is destroyed when we submit our will to God (Q et Dub 21). It’s significant that this comes at the end of his anti-‘Origenist’ passage; he rejects the mythology of the preexistence of souls and disappearance of bodies, but supports the universal restoration. As Maximus says elsewhere, “divinization will be present in actuality to all, transforming all human beings into the divine likeness, in a manner proportionate to each, to the extent that each one is receptive of it” (Ad Thal 59.11; cf. Amb 47 [PG 91.1357–61]). Thus, personal distinctions will remain when all are divinized, contrary to some radical ‘Origenists’.
Maximus certainly believed in future punishment in hell, and described it not only as aiōnios, but also apeiros (“unlimited”) and ateleutētos (“unending”) on occasion (although never as aidios, “eternal,” which he did use to describe future life). His fearsome hell passages can be explained by the fact that, in his view, “beginners” are motivated primarily by the fear of hell, whereas the “advanced” and “perfect” are motivated by love, not threats (Cap theol II.9; Myst 1060–70; cf. Ad Thal 10). In fact, he interprets “the fire of judgment” as one that consumes sin in sinners, while resulting in repentance and salvation for the human being (Q et Dub 159). In the parable of wheat and tares, the wheat are “the good things God planted in beings,” which means that the tares are evilness, and they will be completely burned away when “all the aeons have reached their appointed limit” (Amb 46 [PG 91.1357]).
According to Maximus’ view of hell, when Christ returns, God will unite to all people, but those who act contrary to nature will experience this as suffering (Ad Thal 59.8). The wicked “will be like a part of the body utterly bereft of the soul’s vital energy” (Ad Thal 61.13–15). Maximus’ most difficult hell passage is found in his Ambiguum 65:
If, then, voluntary activity makes use of the potential of nature, either according to nature or against nature, it will receive nature’s limit of either well-being or ill-being – and this is always-being [aei einai], in which the souls celebrate their Sabbath, receiving cessation from all motion... to those who have willfully used the principle [logos] of their being contrary to nature, [God] rightly renders not well-being but always-ill-being [to kakos aei ainai], since well-being is no longer accessible to those who have placed themselves in opposition to it, and they have absolutely no motion after the manifestation of what was sought [PG 91.1392]
Maximus seems to say that it will be possible for beings to eternally rest in evil, if they use their logos contrary to nature. This would contradict his earlier statement that no being can rest in evil (Amb 15), along with his other universalist statements. Instead of concluding that his eschatology is irreconcilably contradictory, I think we should view his statement about “eternal ill-being” as a mere logical possibility, not something that will actually be realized. After all, he says elsewhere that because of Christ’s death, all movements contrary to God will cease, so that “in this restoration, not even one of the logoi of creatures will be found falsified” (Ad Thal 63.19).
In summary, Maximus was one of the last patristic universalists – not an ‘Origenist,’ but a proponent of the Origenian universal restoration in all its key aspects (ontological non-subsistence of evil, restorative future punishment, concern about ‘honorable silence’). At his trial, he was actually accused of ‘Origenism’ in response to which he condemned Origen. He most likely knew of the universal restoration, not from the writings of Origen himself, but through the Cappadocians and Ps.-Dionysius who were deeply influenced by Origen. The fact that Maximus was nevertheless a prominent saint, a confessor who was tortured and died for his belief and was vindicated at an ecumenical council, shows that the universal restoration as such was not condemned at Constantinople II (only in its ‘Origenist’ form).
Conclusion
Over a century after the first Origenist controversy, there was a resurgence of Origenian and more radical ‘Origenist’ thought, especially in Palestine. The radicalized ‘Origenism’ of some Palestinian monks caught the attention of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I, who believed that this set of doctrines was the authentic teaching of Origen, and took it upon himself to condemn both him and them. The Council of Constantinople (II) in 553, which was convened primarily to condemn suspected ‘Nestorian’ writings (known as the Three Chapters), likely also condemned ‘Origenism’ and possibly Origen himself. However, the doctrine of universal restoration per se was not condemned, and one prominent saint after this council – Maximus the Confessor – was himself a reticent universalist.
______________________________
[1] Brian Daley, The Hope of the Early Church, 187; Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 721–22.
[2] Daley, The Hope of the Early Church, 187.
[3] Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 690; but see Daley, The Hope of the Early Church, 176–77.
[4] Nicolò Sassi, “The Corpus Areopagiticum and the Book of the Holy Hierotheos,” Orientala Christiana Analecta 307 (2019), 197–217.
[5] Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 702–04.
[6] The Greek text of EH VII.3.3 refers to the threatened punishment of the wicked as “endless impiety” (anierois ateleutētous), but describes this as a threat intended to be profitable for them, to bring them to “the perfection in Christ” (tēn en Christō teleiōsin), which according to DN I.7 will be experienced by all.
[7] For examples, see István Perczel, “Pseudo-Dionysius and Palestinian Origenism,” Orientala Christiana Analecta 98 (2001), 267–78.
[8] István Perczel, “Clandestine Heresy and Politics in Sixth-Century Constantinople: Theodore of Caesarea at the Court of Justinian,” in New Themes, New Styles in the Eastern Mediterranean (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 138–45.
[9] István Perczel, “Finding a Place for the Erotapokriseis of Pseudo-Caesarius: A New Document of Sixth-Century Palestinian Origenism,” ARAM 18 (2006): 49–83.
[10] István Perczel, “Pre-Existence and the Creation of the World in Pseudo-Caesarius,” in Questioning the World: Greek Patristic and Byzantine Question-and-Answer Literature (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), 311–60.
[11] István Perczel, “Universal Salvation as an Antidote to Apocalyptic Expectations: Origenism in the Service of Justinian’s Religious Politics,” in Apocalypticism and Eschatology in Late Antiquity (Leuven: Peeters, 2017), 132–40.
[12] Perczel, “Clandestine Heresy and Politics,” 154–56.
[13] Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 737 n. 210.
[14] Vladimir Cvetković, “Maximus the Confessor’s Reading of Origen Between Origenism and Anti-Origenism,” in Origeniana Undecima (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 747–57.
[15] Daniel Heide, “The Origenism of Maximus Confessor: Critic or True Exegete?,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 63, no. 3 (2019): 277–95.
[16] The universalist implications of this view are made explicit in Maximus’ scholium on this passage, where he refers this to “the union of all men according to a single movement of the will’s inclination toward the principle of nature, a union that is the work of God through His providence, so that, just as all human beings have one nature, they might also have one voluntary inclination, and thus all shall be united to God and to each other through the Spirit” (Ad Thal 2, schol 2).
