II. Allegorizing Substituted for Literalism

But we repeat, the foundation of it all was the concept of the inalienable immortality of all souls—and this the pagan Platonic philosophy had provided. The next essential, according to Origen, was liberty to alter the obvious intent, or application, of Scripture to support his view, which he also exercised. Thus he rendered the Bible worthless as an authoritative source of truth by applying its strictures against the sinner merely to his sin.CFF1 1015.2

1. LITERALISM OF CREATION NARRATIVE SWEPT ASIDE

According to Origen the purpose of the Holy Spirit is to “preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning” of Scripture. The literal words, he declares, must be understood in their “spiritual meaning,” elsewhere in the chapter called the “mystical meaning,” or “inner meaning.” As they stand, the “ordinary meaning” is “always concealing the hidden meaning” within the historical narrative. Thus, he asserts, many of the “events which lie on the surface can neither be true nor useful.” Consequently, we must seek for the truth that is “concealed,” but which is “worthy” and “inspired.” Otherwise they are of little use if taken as written. ^{1313) Ibid., book 4, chap. 1, secs. 10, 14, 15, 23, pp. 358, 359, 364, 365, 368, 373.}CFF1 1015.3

“Stumbling-blocks,” Origen maintained, have been introduced, and “certain impossibilities and incongruities” interspersed as obstacles to any “ordinary meaning.” By this means the truth seeker is led into the “narrow path” of a “loftier and more sublime road” of understanding. Passing from such hazy generalities to specifics, Origen urges, for instance, that the historical narrative of Creation week be searched for its “inner meaning.”CFF1 1016.1

“Who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that any one eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it.” ^{1414) Ibid., sec. 16, p. 365. (Italics supplied.) is Ibid.}CFF1 1016.2

So in the literal record “there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.” ^{1515) Ibid.} Thus the literalism of Creation week, with its vital declarations on the origin and nature of man, sin, and the fall, death, and the destiny of man, are totally swept aside. Such a position has a vital bearing on our quest.CFF1 1016.3

2. DENIES LITERAL TRUTH OF BIBLICAL RECORDS

It is essential that we understand the basis upon which the whole structure of Origen’s allegorical system is built, and which was responsible for turning a large segment of the church away from her historic positions. Its seriousness is indicated by the historian Milner, who declared that “no man, not altogether unsound and hypocritical, ever injured the church of Christ more than Origen,” by introducing his “complicated scheme of fanciful interpretation” which for many centuries”—obscured the light of Scripture.” ^{1616) Joseph Milner, The History of the Church of Christ, cent. 3, chaps. 15, 5, vol. 1, pp. 221, 156.}CFF1 1016.4

And Killen adds that Origen made the Sacred Writings say anything or nothing, according to his caprice, often maintaining conflicting views. ^{1717) W. D. Killen, The Ancient Church, pp. 345, 346.} In so doing Origen constantly refers to the hidden, covered, concealed, and spiritual meanings that “need the key of knowledge” to unlock and uncover them. ^{1818) Origen, De Principhs, book 4, chap. 1, sees. 10, 14, 23, in ANF, vol. 4, pp. 358, 363, 373; see book 1, chap. 3, sec. 3, p. 252.}CFF1 1017.1

Origen not only denied the Old Testament declarations concerning Creation week and the fall of man, already noted, but challenged the trustworthiness of the New Testament records, as well. As we have seen, he boldly declared that various historical narratives are “wrapped up,” “concealed,” and covered as with a veil, ^{1919) Ibid., book 4, chap. 1, sec. 14, p 363.} in order to stimulate closer investigation and thus to bring out their “mystical” meaning.CFF1 1017.2

For example, the heading of section 2 in his Commentary on John, book ten, states: “Literally Read, the Narratives Cannot Be Harmonized: They Must Be Interpreted Spiritually.” ^{2020) Origen, Commentary on John, book 10, sec. 2, in ANF, vol. 9, p. 382.} Section 4 is headed, “Scripture Contains Many Contradictions, and Many Statements Which Are Not Literally True, but Must Be Read Spiritually and Mystically.” ^{2121) Ibid., sec. 4, p. 383.} Again, in section 5 he says, “Paul Also Makes Contradictory Statements About Himself.” ^{2323) Ibid., sec. 17, p. 395.} And still again, in section 17, “Matthew’s Story of the Entry Into Jerusalem. Difficulties Involved in It for Those Who Take It Literally.”CFF1 1017.3