Category — Origen

Some initial observations and/or basic presuppositions:

1. The unity of Scripture (a single covenant).
2. Variety of literary modes: narrative, poetry, etc.
3. Historical progress and development of expression.
4. Antithesis between Creator and creature.
5. Antithesis between Adam and Christ.
6. Antithesis between C-F-R and all other ground motives within Scripture.
7. Relative dialectic between 15 modal aspects within/ without text.
8. The historical content is formative in nature, not simply the record of “what happened”. Of all events that could possibly be recorded, these were to the exclusion of all the rest. 

As an aside, I have always been uncomfortable with the designation “literal”. It is ambiguous, imprecise. “Historical” is ambiguous as well, in that not all of Scripture is narrative. I have yet to read a good definition of “literal/historical” that takes into account our historical situation. Nicholas of Lyre wrote: “The literal teaches history”. But, what of the Proverbs? There are so many variations on the same ideas, it is time for some kind of real clarification. The ante-Nicean fathers are helpful in that they were not scholastics. 

Clement, commenting on Hellenic philosophy, said: “Sarah, sterile, gives Abraham over to the Egyptian Hagar; wisdom wants the faithful to be united first to the worldly culture” (Stromata, I, 19-20). Clement allegorises Moses, to support the notion that Hellenic philosophy and literature is a necessary element of wisdom. 

In contrast, Origen wrote: “…a cursed object that seduces by its brilliance and pollutes the entire assembly” (De Lubac, 98). Origen allegorised the story of Achan and the gold bar in order to argue for the antithesis between Hellenic and Biblical thought. 

Perhaps Clement perceived the aspectual/modal contribution of the Greeks (logic, rhetoric, poetry, tragedy, etc.), while Origen recognized the deeper ground motives that are antithetical to the Creation-Fall-Redemption motive of Scripture. In that case, both men were correct. 

Henri De Lubac writes:

“[Besides], the main question that comes up with respect to Origen is less of knowing whether he was an intellectualist or a mystic, or in what measure he was one or the other, than of knowing whether he was fundamentally “Hellenist” or Christian. “Hellenism”, in fact, can assume a mystical as well as an intellectualist color…in reality Origen’s mysticism– if one wishes to call it that– is closely dependent upon the Christian mystery” (p. 48). 

De Lubac points out the failure in the criticisms of Origen as being based in a false antithesis regarding the Christian life- mysticism v. intellectualism. These aspects are present as correlatives in any true expression of the Christian faith, as well as any approach to exegesis. The real antithesis exists at the level of the religious ground motive: is it a Hellenic or Christian expression of either aspect? As an informed Christian, Origen possessed both a mystic bent and an intellectual one. For the rationalist, the mystical (psychical) side is the problem; for the mystic, the intellectual (analytical) aspect is. Both radical approaches are mistaken, as they both dilate a legitimate aspect of our temporal experience as the predominate feature. 

I have always wondered at the polarity of discussion amongst Bible teachers in regards to the various approaches to exegetical theology, and in particular the negative attitude towards symbol or even typology. The two dominant polarities are usually classified according to the historical schools of Alexandria and Antioch. The former is generally viewed as mistaken, due to the allegorical studies of it’s most famous teacher Origen. Henri De Lubac has this to say:

“Origen is rarely read, except by fragments and without making an effort sufficient to understand him. Or else he is approached with prejudice. As by Du Perron, to whom all “spiritualism” was suspect as something that might serve Calvin’s cause– but who gave Calvin a weapon by his very lack of understanding. And as by many of our contemporaries in the preceding generations. Multiplying artificial antitheses, convinced that the letter and the spirit, reality and symbol, science and the mystical, can only be opposed to each other. Induced by the demands of their task to emphasize above all the historical reality and the literalness of the dogma, sharing also at times the incomprehension of the age for all that goes beyond the so-called “positive” data they were predestined to misunderstand the meaning of such a work” (History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen, italics mine).

Du Perron was a Roman Catholic and a member of the counter-Reformation. I find it fascinating that he took to emphasizing the literal and historical aspect of Scripture, downplaying the symbolic, as a means of combating Calvinism. Modern protestants have done the same in regards to the fight against secular science and Modernity. On the other hand, there is a school that wholly symbolizes or at best obfuscates the opening chapters of Genesis, so as to avoid “embarrassing” discussions in regards to reality. This sort of inter-Biblical antithesis is always mistaken, regardless of the intent. De Lubac is right in dismantling the “artificial antitheses”. A recognition of the unity of Scripture and the variety of literary modes within the text should be the basic informing principles for exegesis, not the dominant “need” of the times. Reality? Yes. Symbolic? Yes. All of the above. Not either/or but both/and.