|
Origen
assumed the leadership of Alexandria's Catechetical School at the age of only
eighteen, after an outbreak of persecution under the Roman Emperor Septimius
Severus (146-211) in 203 forced the previous incumbent, Clement, to flee. He
was undoubtedly one of the most brilliant of the church fathers, yet sadly,
due to his more infamous interpretations he has (perhaps unfairly) been the
object of much ridicule over the centuries. Origen
was the most prolific of the Christian writers of his time and his six-column
arrangement of the Hebrew Old Testament text (known as the Hexapla;
an edition of the Old Testament compiled by
Origen, containing six versions of the text) was not surpassed for over a thousand
years. Much time has been wasted in discussions of Origen, arguing over
whether he was orthodox or not. Rather than repeat these I will leave them to
one side and attempt to explain the reasons behind his interpretation
of Scripture and the creation account in particular. As
with all the early Church fathers we must learn to sift out "the
wheat of real wisdom from the tares of unfounded speculation." Origen
reasoned in the 4th book of his treatise On First Principles that, ·
If the
Bible is inspired by God, then it cannot be irrelevant, ·
Unworthy
of God, ·
Or
simply crude Literalists. If
it ever appears to be in error then we have obviously missed its deeper
meaning. Origen
wrote that the "literalists" of his day " attack allegorical
interpretation and want to teach that divine Scripture has nothing deeper
than the text allows". "Literalists,"
he complained, "believe such things about [God] as would not be believed
of the most savage and unjust of men". These 'Literalists' misunderstood
the meaning of poetry, metaphors, parables and figures of speech and had no
concept of the need to understand what the original author of the text was
seeking to express to his audience. It is therefore not surprising that they
arrived at interpretations that Origen found offensive and caused him to
react against their definition of the 'literal meaning'. He was prepared to
tolerate these unintellectual believers, though he did find them an
embarrassment when explaining Christianity to sophisticated pagans.
Nonetheless, he believed that if they were genuine in their simplicity then
the literal meaning of the Gospels was sufficient for salvation. There was a
second group of 'literalists' whom Origen was much less tolerant towards: the
Judaisers. By means of a more sophisticated literalism this group
attempted to continue obedience to the Law within the Christian Church.
Unlike
the 'non-intellectual' believers of his day Origen believed that the Bible
contains three levels of meaning, corresponding to the threefold
Pauline (and Platonic) division of a person into body, soul and spirit.
·
The bodily level of Scripture, the bare letter, is normally
helpful as it stands to meet the needs of the more simple. ·
The psychic level, corresponding to the soul, is for making
progress in perfection. ·
[The] spiritual interpretation deals with 'unspeakable
mysteries' so as to make humanity a "partaker of all the doctrines of
the Spirit's counsel" It
has often been pointed out that Origen was not consistent in the distinction
he made between the three levels of Scripture. In reality he only discussed
two levels - those of the letter and the spirit. Most modern theologians and
Bible students seek to identify the meaning God intended a biblical text to
have to its original audience. From this they derive its contemporary
application, which (to be considered valid) must be linked to the text's
original meaning. For Origen the universal application – (what the text
teaches about Christ and how the reader can become like Him) - was the
original meaning of the text. If a text did not appear to be speaking about
how you might advance towards perfection then you had misunderstood it.
This was the key that showed Origen that he had interpreted a text correctly.
To put it simply: if he could make a passage speak in this way then he was
confident that he had uncovered its true 'spiritual'
meaning. Some passages yielded such an application easily; others required
more spiritual insight and, sometimes, the rejection of the historical
meaning. It was this 'insight' that the 'literalists' (those
who saw only the 'letter') lacked. There
are several specific reasons that we can deduce from Origen's writings that
led him to the conclusion that the straightforward historical meaning of many
passages of Scripture were simply not true. Most can be found in Book 4 of On
First Principles. ·
Where a passage contradicts his eschatology. (The
study of the doctrines of the life hereafter and of the expected second
coming of Jesus.) ... Origen's
rejection of some passages, such as; ·
Zech. 9:10; And I
will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the
battle bow shall be cut off: and He shall speak peace unto the Heathen: and
His dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the
ends of the earth. ‘I will cut off’, ‘and He will cut off’ This refers to the yet future second coming of Christ; the present Dispensation. There was nothing to tell them about the times or seasons. Whether the glory was to follow immediatley on the sufferings, or whether there was to be an interval, and whether that interval was to be long or short, no hint was given. Hence they searched as to what manner of time was signified. In the Old Testament, while this present Dispensation was kept secret (Matt 13::34-35, Rom 11:25, Eph 3:5, 9,) etc; there are remarkable breaks which can be explained only after we have the key placed into our hands. There are certain scriptures, which we cannot understand unless we use this key. He shall speak peace unto the Heathen = The nations,
Isa 2:4 And he
shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall
beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
Isa 9:6 For
unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be
upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty
GOD, The everlasting Father, The Prince of peace.
Isa. 7:15; Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know
torefuse the evil, and choose the good. Isa 11:6-7. 6. The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down
with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; 7. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down
together: and the lion shall eat straw like the fox. 'Obviously’ which cannot be
intended literally, (seems to have been based upon his understanding of
the end times (eschatology). This is all future even to us in this Dispensation, and
refers to the new millenium, The New Jerusalem, The New Heavens, and The New
Earth, and even today it is difficult for people to comprehend). If a text did not appear to be
speaking about how you might advance towards perfection then you had
misunderstood it. Most early Christian writers
were pre-millennialists and believed in a literal 1 000 year rule of Christ
on earth. Opposition to such an idea arose due to the excessive millennial
claims of the Montanists in the second century, attempts to calculate the
date of Christ's Return, and in response to Gnostic ridicule of the doctrine.
Origen rejected such a carnal belief, his views greatly influencing later
writers, notably Eusebius of Caesarea. We are faced with a 'chicken and the
egg' scenario in attempting to decide if his eschatology influenced his
choice of hermeneutic, (Biblical
hermeneutics is the
study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible.
It is part of the more broad field of hermeneutics which involves not just
the study of principles for the text, but includes all forms of
communication: verbal, nonverbal and written), or vice
versa. He used a defective translation
in the Septuagint. There are several examples of this in On First
Principles 4.1.17. Origen argues that as there is no such thing as a 'goat-stag', Deut. 14:5 The hart, (Deer) and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild
goat, and the pygarg, (Strongs Number 1787, Heb 1758, the leaper,
1.e. an antelope: pygarg) ox, and the chamois. Goat-stag is not even mentioned in the KJV Bible, And that a 'griffin' Cannot be subdued by man. Lev. 11:13; And these are they which ye shall have in abomination
among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle,
and the ossifrage, and the ospray. Fowls = flying thengs; which are very difficult to identify the English names; eagle – vulture. Ossifrage – A rendering of the Hebrew “bone-breaker”, from taking their prey up in the air and dropping it on a rock to break it. Ospray = or sea eagle. There are many more rendered in Leviticus, and the
Hebrew in the KJV, but not the ‘griffin’ Deut. 14:12 But these are they of which ye
shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray.
The correct translations for
these creatures are 'mountain goat' and 'vulture' respectively (see KJV).
He argues that it is impossible to observe, Exodus 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the Sabbath,
therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye
every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
Literally, "...for no
living being is able to sit throughout a whole day, and remain without moving
from the sitting position" The solution to this problem seems obvious to
us, the correct reading being: "stay where he is" rather than
"sit". In
his second Homily on Exodus Origen finds a problem with; Exodus
1:21 And it came to pass, because the midwives
feared (revered) God, that he made them houses. Which
reads in his Bible: "Because the midwives feared God, they made houses
for themselves." This leads him to comment: This statement makes no sense according to the letter. For what is the relationship that the text should say, "Because the midwives feared God, they made houses for themselves.” It is as if a house is built because God is feared. If this were taken, as it stands written, not only does it appear to lack logic, but also to be inane. But if you should see how the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, teaching the fear (Reverence) of God, make the houses of the Church and fill the whole earth with houses of prayer, then what is written will appear to have been written rationally." Of
course the solution becomes obvious when one translates the Greek word oikias
correctly in this context as "families" instead of
"houses". The verse then reads: "And because the midwives
feared God, he gave them families of their own." (NIV). ·
He
failed to place himself in the literal context: literally, psychologically or
morally. (A relatively rare occurrence and in my own study of Origen I have
found no clear examples.) ·
He
considered the text useless, contrary to Christ's precepts or impossible.
Origen rejects Matthew 5:29 & 39 in On First Principles 4.1.18
because they seem to him impossible. There he writes that the command that
the right cheek should be struck is most incredible, because every one who
strikes (unless he happens to have some bodily defect) strikes the left cheek
with his right hand. Matthew
5:29, 39. 29.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it
out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of the
members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Figure
of Speech: - Hypocatastasis
= An implied resemblance or representation. If thy right eye: i.e. thy
choicest posession. Offend
= causeth thee to
stumble morally. 1Cor 1:23. 39.
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the
other also. This
is a command from our Lord, ‘That ye resist
not evil’, lest by doing so we become as they. To this
end whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek; turn to him the
other also. Origen also fails to look beyond man’s limitations when it comes
to unlocking the words spoken by Christ, “whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him the other also” One
could be struck with a back right hand to the right cheek, or vice versa, but
it really does not warrant the the nit picking when studying God’s Holy Word
because one is putting oneself above God. Everything in God’s word is there
for a purpose. If a text did not appear to be speaking about how you might advance towards perfection then you had misunderstood it. Likewise in his Commentary
on, Romans 2:9 Tribulation
and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and
also to the Gentile. Origen rejects the Mosaic command of circumcision; Lev. 12:3 And in the eighth the flesh of
his foreskin shall be circumsised.
Now the law of nature can be in harmony with the law of Moses according to the spirit, not according to the letter. For what natural sense is there in, for example, the command to circumcise a child on the eighth day. There
are, however, good medical reasons why circumcision was to be carried out on
the eighth day that have only been recognised relatively recently with the
discovery of blood clotting agents. In similar vein Origen argued
"...what could be more irrational than (to take literally the
injunction), "Salute no man by the way," which simple persons think
the Saviour enjoined the apostles?" For
Jews male circumcision is the fulfilment of a Divine command, Gen.17.11 et seq And
ye shall circumsise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the token of
the covenant betwixt Me and you. It is designated 13 times as a Brith
(covenant), between the almighty and the
Jewish people. Unless there is a medical contraindication
(a sign that
someone should not continue with a particular medicine or treatment because
it is or might be harmful) it should take place
on the baby's eighth day even on the Sabbath or a holy day. ·
He has
inadequate knowledge of Hebrew civilisation. ·
He was
too literal in his thinking and rejected what are obviously figures of
speech, especially anthropomorphic language. For example: When
the psalmist declares that God's truth 'reaches to the clouds', Origen
feels constrained to insist that clouds cannot be intended literally in such
a saying; they must be interpreted spiritually of those who are obedient to
the word of God. The literal interpretation of; Zech.
4:10 For who hath despised the day of small
things? For they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet (Plumbbob and line) in
the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the
LORD, which run to and fro though the whole earth. Zech
3:9 For behold the stone that I have laid
before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will
engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the
iniquity of that land in one day. Would
imply that God had seven bodily eyes. When discussing… Exodus
21:22-25 22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child,
so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished,
according as the womans husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the
judges determine. 23
And if any mischeif follow, then thou shalt
give life for life, 24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot. 25
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe
for stripe. Where
Origen is at a loss to explain how an unborn child can lose an eye or have
his/her teeth knocked out. How, he asks, can a pregnant woman be burnt while
witnessing a fight between two men? His over-literal understanding does not
consider that it is the principle of just - but not excessive punishment -
that is being established here . ·
Because Paul apparently rejected a text's
'literal' meaning. Several instances in the New Testament are cited by Origen
as precedents for rejecting a text's historical meaning, e.g. 1 Corinthians 9:9-109 For it is written in the law of Moses,
“Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.” Doth
God take care for oxen?
The question begins
with mē, and expects the answer “No”. But He does care, (See job 38:41,
Matt 6:26, 10:29. So there is an ellipsis of the word “only” after “oxen”. 10 Or Saith He it
altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt, this is written: that he
that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should
be partaker of his hope. The texts read “
(Should do so)” upon the hope of partaking (of the fruit) Be partaker = share Deut. 25:4; Thou shalt
not muzzle the ox when he teadeth out the corn. 1 Corinthians 10:4,11, 4 And
did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock
that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5 But
with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the
wilderness. 6 Now
these things were our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after
evil things, as they also lusted. 7 Neither
be ye idolators, as were some of them; as it is written, “The people sat down
to eat and drink, and rose up tp play.” 8 Neither
let us commit fornication, as some of them commited, and fell in one day
three and twenty thousand. 9 Neither
let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destryed of
serpents, 10 Neither murmer ye, as some of them also murmered, and were destryed
of the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Galatians 4:21-24. ·
In all
these cases there are good reasons for arguing that Paul did not see the
Old Testament references as having no historic meaning. Origen then
extends this precedent to scriptures not mentioned by Paul, for example: Do
you think these are the only words related to wells? Jacob also goes to a
well and finds Rachel there. There Rachel becomes known to him as "good
in her eyes and beautiful in appearance." Gen.
29:17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was
beautiful and well favoured. But
Moses finds Sephora, the daughter of Raguel, at a well Exod.
2:15 Now when Pharoah heard this thing, he
sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in
the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.
1
Cor. 2:14 But the
natural man recieveth not the things of the spirit of God. But let
him who wishes remain in these understandings, let him remain "a sensual
man." I, following Paul the apostle, say that these things are
"allegories." Gal.
4:24 Which
things are an allegory: for these are the two covanants; the one from the mount
Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. And I say that the marriages of the saints
are the union of the soul with the word of God: "For he who joins
himself to the Lord is one spirit." ·
He had
an inadequate grasp of God's progressive self-revelation. How, he argues, can
even the simplest of believers explain literally the meaning of the account
of Lot lying with his daughters? How could Abraham have had two wives; two
sisters be married to Jacob, and two handmaids be given to him by his wives?
Are not all these things forbidden in the Law? Despite what Origen wrote
these events are explicable as historical events, not condoned by God, which
took place before the Law was given. None
of the errors listed above were restricted to Origen. Many other ancient, and
indeed some modern writers have made the same mistakes. Despite his
reservations regarding the historical meaning of a text, Origen was at times
prepared even to defend the literal meaning, such as that of Noah's Ark and
the Flood. However, he usually fails to connect the spiritual interpretation
to the straightforward historical sense. For him it was "almost
accidental that the Bible contained much true history. The soul within the
body of Scripture was the important thing." The
motivation behind Origen's exegesis was the desire that his audience see and
hear Christ in the Scriptures and be transformed through that experience. We
might quibble with his methodology, but surely not with his intention. It is
also worth noting that Origen believed that the passages of Scripture that
are historically true far outnumbered those, which have a purely spiritual
meaning. So when studying the word of God research, seek out the truth, and If a text did not appear to be speaking about how you might advance towards perfection then you had misunderstood it. Research some more and the Holy Spirit will help you. Rob Bradshaw, Webmaster
|