Origen (Part One)

It is really only from this period [211 AD], when the pedagogic activity of previously independent teachers was placed at the service of a newly emerging monarchical style of episcopacy, that one can begin to speak of a “Catechetical School” in Alexandria.

The Way to Nicaea, John Behr

Origen visited Rome during the time of the many controversies and debates taking place there. While he was already a teacher of some importance in Alexandria, the situation in Alexandria at the time was not much different than the situation in Rome at the time: various groups gathering around fairly independent teachers.

According to Eusebius, there were a number of house-church communities in Alexandria, and the relationships between and among them were fluid and hazy. This situation prevailed until around the middle of the third century.

Persecutions were renewed in Alexandria in the period 206 – 211. While many of the teachers fled, Origen stayed behind, gaining many new students. Many of these were martyred, but, somehow, Origen – despite regularly being harassed – was always spared.

Origen’s relationship with the Alexandrian bishop, Demetrius, was rocky. The tension increased when Origen produced an allegorical interpretation of the creation narrative. He would leave Alexandria for Palestine in 230, taking refuge with Alexander of Jerusalem. Origen would eventually leave Alexandria for good in 232, eventually settling in Palestine.

Until his death (maybe martyred), Origen would produce somewhere between two thousand and six thousand works. Only a small number of these survive, certainly due to the quantity and the effort required to reproduce writing of any type, but also because some of it produced controversy even in his lifetime.

Ultimately, condemned a heretic in 553, there was little interest to preserve a meaningful quantity of his work. Some survived in Greek, more in the Latin translations of Jerome and Rufinus; the vast majority are simply lost.

Given the diversity of texts that have been preserved, it is not surprising that modern assessments of Origen have differed widely.

An early tendency was to see Origen as a systematic and speculative theologian; this has given way to a more sympathetic picture of him as an exegete. This contrast would have been unintelligible to Origen; for him, all theological reflection is exegetical in character.

Origen’s primary concern is that theological reflection should not remain at the level of the flesh, neither that of Jesus himself nor that of Scripture, its letters and their literal sense, but should penetrate these veils to discern the very Word of God.

Equally important for him: the Son of God should be affirmed to have His own distinct subsistence alongside the Father, from all eternity.

Origen’s exegetical framework began with an analysis of the relation between Scripture, the Law and the Prophets, and the Gospel. However, he presents that all of this is to be understood through the lens and teaching of Jesus Christ:

When Christ explained the mysteries hidden in the writings of the Law and the Prophets, he revealed the spiritual sense of Scripture, and as the true meaning of their words this is, according to Origen, the meaning truly intended by those who wrote the Scriptures.

The authors of the Law and Prophets may or may not have known it, but they were always writing of God as the Father, even if they didn’t use this language. But Jesus makes clear it was always there. And, as “Father” was always there, “Son” was also always there.

Hence, when Moses and Elijah appeared on Mount Tabor, we see the Law and the Prophets with Christ – they were always pointing to Him. And the disciples, after the bright light and after Jesus touched them, saw only Him.

The Law and the Prophets are the “basic discipline,” without the knowledge of which it is impossible to understand the Gospel.

Origen this secures two fundamental positions: first, it is the humanity of the Savior which allows for even the possibility that the Word of God can be made known. When Jesus says that those who have seen Me have also seen the Father, the “Me” He is referring to is the Word. Without the Incarnation, the mysteries of the Law and the Prophets would not have been properly revealed.

Second, that the Word of God is eternal, unchanging. The Word was there from the beginning, the Son always necessitating the Father, and vice versa.

Origen is particularly concerned about those who refrain from investigating “the meaning of what is indicated by the term ‘Word,’” so that they do not have to affirm the independent subsistence of the Son.

He goes further, with an interesting interpretation of the following passage:

Philippians 2: 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

Origen suggests here, that by dying on the Cross, “the goodness of Christ appeared greater and more divine and truly in accordance with the image of the Father” than if he remained equal to God and not come down. I am not so sure about such language; I guess it can be taken to say, “Oh, you want evidence of divinity? Try this.” Behr’s further comments seem to bear this out:

It is therefore by the “economy” of the Passion that Christ reveals the Father.

It is the Passion that opens up the hidden sense of Scripture: The Word of God is revealed, His divinity presented and further evidenced on the Cross.

Conclusion

The presence of Christ to Moses and the Prophets, sojourning in them and teaching them about God, is implied by the universal testimony of Scripture to Christ, as is the claim that when writing the books of Scripture they already saw the spiritual meaning that Christ would draw out from them.

Christ’s Incarnation holds tremendous retrospective power for Origen. Due to this, he finds Christ throughout the Scriptures. And, after His ascension, Christ continues to speak to the writers of the letters in the same sense and under the inspiration of the same Spirit.

Epilogue

Origen points out the many (supposed) discrepancies in the Gospel accounts. To this, he suggests that these “stumbling blocks” are purposely set there in order to make clear that there is a meaning far deeper than the literal meaning.

I find a truth here. Such supposed discrepancies have driven men to work to find the underlying meaning. This happens, of course, only because they stand on a firm belief that all of Scripture is true – and that there are no discrepancies!