EVEN CHURCH FATHERS CAN BE CONTROVERSIAL - A LOOK AT ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA

 

 

Have you ever heard that there are many ways to interpret the Bible, almost implying that there's no way of knowing what it really means?

This is the halfway point in my 13 installment look at the Church Fathers, using Bryan Litfin's Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction as a guide. Today's subject is Origen. I was about to write "Today's saint," but Origen (like Tertullian) was never canonized. 

I believe I've mentioned in another blog (possibly the one I did for All Saints Day a couple of months ago) that I take the typical Biblicist view of sainthood, which is that all believers are saints. (In all except one of his letters to the churches, Paul addresses the recipients as being saints, including the carnal Corinthians; the exception was the Galatians, where they were on the verge of following "another gospel.") With that definition, I definitely consider Origen a saint (and the same for Tertullian, but you might remember me referring to that a couple of days ago).

Why do I unhesitatingly consider him a saint? Two reasons. He clearly loved the Lord, and he loved the church. He got carried away in trying to live out the passage of being a eunuch for God's sake (which he later realized was unwise), and lived a life of self-sacrifice which weakened him physically. He also taught others the Gospel during a time of severe persecution, and when his students were arrested, Origen risked his freedom visiting them in prison and shouting encouragement to them when they faced martyrdom (which Origen later did as well).

Some of you may not have known this about Origen. Those who are familiar with him probably associate him first of all with his allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Those who know my life story are aware I went to a Bible college that emphasized a literal interpretation of Scripture, and view symbolizing Scripture with wariness, afraid the interpreter will use that hermeneutic to justify any fanciful thing he would think of. On the other hand, though, is there an equally dangerous extreme of plain sense interpretation, where we believe that an unbeliever is able to read Scripture and understand what it means?

First of all, Origen believed the Bible was Spiritual, and thus there was more to it than the historical/literal words (which Origen did not reject). Also, being aware of the danger I mentioned above, he established three safeguards against his allegories taking us to la la land. They are:

1. The Catholic Church's Rule of Faith. The Rule of Faith is the precursor to the Apostle's Creed, and Origen was in agreement with other church fathers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian concerning what it taught.
2. The nature of Scripture. Origen believed Scripture was both about Christ and from Him. See John 5:39. If you've heard some say that Jesus is on every page of the Bible, you're repeating a concept that may have originated with Origen.
   
3. The upright character of the interpreter. To understand Scripture requires a pure heart. Godly maturity and wisdom prevent going into error.

Origen was definitely considered a Biblical scholar. His allegorical approach was not due to a lack of respect for Scripture but rather the opposite. Is it possible that, as Festus taunted Paul, that much learning made him mad? Should we be skeptical of Christian intellectuals and academians? Or are we going the other direction and promoting anti-intellectualism? 

There are ideas that Origen came up with which weren't completely orthodox. For example, he believed that Satan would eventually repent, and that our resurrection bodies won't be physical, neither view being accepted by the mainstream church. But anybody who's familiar with Pilgrim's Progress or the Chronicles of Narnia realize symbolism and story can effectively communicate truth.