ALLEGORICAL EXEGETICAL D

OF ORIGEN

ATHANASroS D. PAPANIKOLAOU

Origen stands the church as of its great figures. is per-

haps the greatest theologian, since he laid the foundations of chris-
tian Theology and developed it into a true science. And such was
his influence it, that after him there is almost theologian who can
do any WOl'k without taking into account Origen's writings. The hori-
zens \vhich he opened Theology embrace almost the entire Christian
thought and his teachings still guide the theologians their research.
But Origen was not a sterile theologian. was a philosopher;
he had studied Greek philosophy, which had impressed him a great deal.
Hov.'ever, his differed from the other philosophers that for him the
whole truth, which the other philosophers so painfully had sought
without result, might be found the Scriptures. them the entire
Logos was revealed and he therefore, turned to them to find the truth.
It was the Scriptures, that «the way knowledge opened out for
a Christian, there spoke the LOI'd through His Holy Spirit to the spirit
which had taken up a d\velling us; and without the revelation ofthe
10gos, it v.'as simply impossible to enter into God's preSenCe»l. But
matter how faithful a student of the Bible Origen was, he ccased
to be a philosopher; a man whose brilliant mind was an unemptiecl source
of ideas which he wanted to expound, not as a philosopher, not as
his own knowledge, but with the authority of divine inspira-
as 'the revelation of God, \vhich v.'as found the Scriptures. Thus
the latter became to him the instrument through \vhich he \vould ex-
press his own philosophy. the Holy Book he discovered his own
teaching, «an entire system of dogmas of which the sacrcd authors
dreamt»)2.

1. L et ma TI1e founding of the church universal, (New York, 1938),

413.
2. De F a Origen and his \vol'k, (New YOI'lt, 1929), 38.
3'<8 Athanasios D. Papanikolaou

But how could Scriptures help Origen in such a work? They were
fOI' both J ews and Greeks a «stumbling block». They were the national
history of a certain people with its materialistic views. The inconsisten-
cies in them appeared to be a disharmony and contradiction. And they
lacked the elegance of the texts of Greek literature. Were they then not
inferior to the Philosophers? response to such chaI'ges and in order
to overcome the difficulties which he faced in finding in each nanative
of the Bible a deep, mystical meaning Origen, like Philo, «embraced
the allegorical method Biblical interpretation. For by this ingenious
tool, it was possible to emulate the philosophers, solve all incon-
sistencies of text, and spiritualize and universalize the Biblical message
that it would be adequate for any people, time or place»3.
Thus the Christian philosopher applied himself to interpreting
the Scriptures allegorically in the belief that he was explaining them,
whereas «he wasexpliotingthem onbehalf his own dogmatic teaching»4.
After writing Lamentations Origen began the creation of a
great work which was the Genesis. He had serious rea-
sons to work this biblical book... First in it he might find most of
his theological views and secondly this book had been used by hereti-
cal theologians, like Hermogenes, who, \\unwillingly», as they were «to
allow allegory in Holy Scriptures, are therefore tied to the bare literal
narrative and invent legends and Thus they (the heretics)
developed a creed of belief in «a Creator-God often thought of in a very
material and corporeal way, in the resurrection of the flesh, in a judg-
ment, fear of which is the main motive in ethical behaviour, in a histo-
rical J eSUS who has destroyed by his Passion the cross the po,ver of
demons and fate, and in the enjoyment a hereafter envisaged mate-
rialistically»6. It ,vas the task Origen therefore by interpreting Gen-
esis to refute such heretics and repudiate their teachings 7 • Ho,vever,
Origen. was compelled to break this work before he reached Gen. 1,
268. The reasons were probably his cognizance of the scandal "vhich
might result from his totally allegorical interpretation all narrations

3. er first systematic tlleologian: Origen of Alexandria,

(Princeton, New Jersey, 1958), 12.
'<. De Faye, cit., 38.
5. Colnm. Ps. 18.4, 12, '12'<3.
6. W. V k e r, Das Vollkommen!leitsidea! des Origenes, (Tubingen, 1931),

7. cf. R. ra t, The letter and the spirit, (London, 1957), 92.

8. That did evident from De Principiis 2, 6.
 The aIIegorical exegetical method of Origen 349

Genesis and perhaps becanse the criticism against his method. He

therefore stopped and turned to another work by which to justify theo-
retically his theology and his eMgetical methocl 9 • This was his treatise
First Principles.
The allegorical method which Origen employed ,vas not an
novation; it was not an invention his own. It was practiced long be-
fore him. It had been used as a method discovel'ing one's own philo-
sophical understanding his master's The Stoics had employcd
it a large scale ancient Greek literature and es-
pecially the religious myths and sayings poets and thinkers the
ear1ier ages. Alexandria Philo had applied allegory to the J ewish
Scriptures, but for him, being a J ew, the main use it was chief1y «to
rid the Scriptures offensive matters and to get Biblical authority
for his own teachings 1 Living Alexandria Origen got acqnainted
with its philosophical school, the head which was Ammonios. Origen
was a student his and had personal contact with him. Porphyry,
his younger contemporary, pointed out this fact. He records that as a
young man l1e had met the famous Origen, the Ammonios, who
although a Christian his mode life,was al\vays company with Plato,
the Neoplatonists, and the Pythagorians; he became a Greek his doc-
trine about God and material things; and from the books Chaeremon
the Stoic and Cornutus he derived the metaphorical method the Greek
mysteries, applying it to the J ewish writings:

Thus ,ve may say that Origen was a those old gram-
marians, commentators and allegorists who through succeeding gen-
erations came down to his own times 12 and. who taught him this
principle and the mode feeling and thought, which passed as modern
learning at the beginning the third century,)13.
Before Ol'igen, Clement AJexandria following Phi10 carried the
same method allegorical exegesis his treatment the Old as well
as the New Testament. But distinction to Philo whose purpose was
to defend the Scriptures,Clement employed it order to discover in t.hem
hidden truths for the instruction and delectation the gnostic and

9. Grant, cit., 92.

10. C. c G f f e r t, history of christian thought, Early and
Eastern, (New York, 1932), 195.
11. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 19,8.
12. De F a cit., 169.
13. L et ma cit., 392.
350 Athanasios D. Papanikolaou'

thus «to support his contention that there is a higher stage of knowledge
to which Christians shonld aspire14 • Thus his USe of allegory Clement
set the fashion for his Origen. But the latter surpassed his teacher,
since he ,vas the first to enter into the genuine tradition of the philosoph-
ical school of Alexandria and by taking fnll possession of the Platon-
ic heritage to develop «a method of allegorical exegesis which was care-
fully thoug'ht out, and was based the Alexandrian
His method had such a strong influence posterity that it became the
model for biblical exegesis which was practiced the entire Greek

matter how close he adhered to the Alexandrian tradition

however, Origen had to defend his exegetical method against the va-
rious attacks from heretics, from laymen the church and from Cel-
sus who attacked the Christian writers because, being «ashamed of
these things (which are written the Bible), they take refuge alle-
gory»17. Celsus was the most violent critic of the a1legorical method, al-
though he quite inconsistently a110wed pagan allegorizing»18. Origen was
particularly sensitive to the attacks «of those who are unworthy and
indecent and who are unable to enter into the great thoughts and vener-
able nature of theology»19. He an,s"'ers with arguments taken from
the Bible itse1f; there are utterances the prophets which are evidently
inten.ded to be taken a figurative Sense. Thus of the prophets ex-
presses himse1f words like this: will open my mouth parables,
will utter hard sayings of old» (ps. 78,2). And of the Law it is said by
Scripture itself: «Open Thou mine eyes, that may behold wondrous
things out of Thy law» (Ps. 119,18)20. But for Origen the greatest alle-
gorist was the Apostle Paul. His interpretations of the Old Testament
texts are an argument to which he (Origen) constantly returns. his
Epistle to the Galatians he openly says that the 01d Testament should
be interpreted a1legorically2L and he «speaks terms of reproach to
those who believe that they are reading the law and yet do not under-
stand it», becanse they did not see the allegories contained the Old

14. McGiffert, cit., 195.

15. L et ma cit .• 413.
16. Ibid.
17. Contra Celsum 48.
18. Ibid. 20.
19. Ibid. 18.
20. Ibid. 6.
21. Ibid., 44.
 The alIegoricaI exegeticaI method Origen 351

Testament, but interpreted the Law «carnaI1y»22. It quite naturaI

therefore that those who adhere to the Ietter of the Law and miss the
spirit, should consider St. PauI as suspect account of his interpreta-
tionS 23 . Consequently the aI1egoricaI method was not relevant to the
Scriptures, but was aIso recommended by them.
That the aI1egoricaI method of interpretation is indispensable is
from the fact that the 1iteral understanding of the Old Testa-
ment resulted «impoverished notionS» which led tothree kinds of er-
rors: 1) The hard-hearted Jews because of their re1iance the 1iteral
meaning of the Messianic passages the OId Testament refused to be-
Saviour because He did not, the literal sellSe of tho words,
<cproclaim release to captives» (Is. 61,1 and Luke 4,18) buiId what
they consider to be a reaI <ceity of God» (Ps. 46,4). They rejected Christ
because the prophecies were not fulfiIled that IiteraI manner which
they thought they should be fulfiIIed. 2) The heretics, Marcion, and his
school, contrast the God of J esUs Christ and they consider him to be the
author of aII eviIs because theytake the hard words of the Scriptures
a Iiteral when, they read such passages as am a jealous God,
iting the sins of the fathers the children» (Exodus 20,5),
God, make peace and create (Is. 45,7), and elsewhere «There is
eviI a city, which the Lord did not do» (Deut. 32,22; Jer. 15,14). 3)
The simple be1ievers who do not differentiate between the God of
ses and the prophets, and the Heavenly Father of tlle Gospels; but as
they aIso misunderstand the Scripture, they naively attribute cruelty
and injustice to the supreme GOd 24 . Their fault a partiality for taking
literaIIy and an anthropomorphic sense things said figuratively
analogicaIIy about God.
We must therefore search under the surface of the letter and find
the deep, the mystical truths of the Scriptures, which are «concealed
under a poor and humble the Scriptures we shaII find the \vhole
truth, because it was inspired by God. Origen. had employed his Theo-
logy reason, logic and arguments of various kinds, but for him the final
authority is the Bible, because it is «divine». «We do rest satisfied
with common opinions and the evidence of things that are seen, but we
use addition, for the manifest proof of our statements, testimonies

22. D e r nc s, 2, 6. English translation by G. Buttenvorth,

(London, 1936).
23. Hom. Exod.
24. D e rinc i s, 2, 1.
25. Ibid., 7.
352 Athanasios D. PapanikolaotI

drawn from the Scriptures which we to be divine»26. prove his

theory the inspiration and authority the Scriptures, Origen uses two
arguments. These are the effectiveness and swift spread Christianity,
and the fulfillment by Christianity prophecy the Old Testament.
The first chapter of the fourtll book of the De Principiis is largely devoted
to this theme. That the Scriptures «are divine writings», is proved by
the fact that wl1ile many other lawgivers and teachers (<proclaimed doc-
trines which tlley professed to be the truth» without succeeding «in
implan.ting an enthusiasm for the acceptance of their teaching among
nation.s other than their own.... or even among any number persons
worth mentioning in a single nation»27, yet «all over Gl'eece an.d in the
barbarian part our world there are thousands of enthusiasts who have
abandoned their ancestral la\vs and their recognised gods for observance
the laws of Moses and the teaching contained in the \'lords of J e-
sus Christ»28. And all this happened «in spite of the fact that those who
submit to the law of Moses are hated by the worshippers of images an.d
that those who accept the word of J esus Christ are not only hated but
in danger death))29. Moreover, if we consider that Christianity prevailed
despite the persecution and that «Greeks and barbarians, wise and fool-
ish adopted the religion of J esus, we shall not hesitate to say that
this achievement is more than human.)) And the «daring venture the
Apostles), who being «sent by J esus to preach the Gospel sojourned
everywhere, was not merely humafi); «the command was from
GOd»3I.
The inspiration the prophecies the Old Testamen.t is proved
by their fulfiIJment: «For the charactristic of divinity is the announce-
ment of future events, predicted n.ot by human power, but shown by
the result to be due to a divine spirit in him who made the announ.ce-
ment»S2. The spiritual nature ofMoses' law comeS to light through Christ:
«Now the light which was contained within the law of Moses, but was
hidden a way under a veil, shone forth at the advent J esus, when. the
veil was taken away and there came at on.ce to men's kn.owledge those

26. De r n c i i s,
27. Ibid.,
28. Ibid.,
29. Ibid.,
30. Ibid., 2.
31. Ibid., 5.
32. Contra CelstIm, 10.
 The a11egorical exegetical method of Origen 353

good things of whichthe letter of the law held a shadow» (Heb. 10,1)33.
«The sacred bookS» therefore «are not the works of men, but they were
composed and have come down to us as a result of the inspiration of
the HoJy Spirlt by the will of the Father of the unlverse through J esus
Christ»34.
After having established the divine inspiration of the Scriptures
Origen proceeds to discuss «the manner in which they areto be read
and understood, since many mlstakes have been made in consequence
of the method by which the holy documents ought to be interpreted»35.
He will explaln therefore «the methods of lnterpretatlon that appear right
to US»36. Origen derives his «right way» of interpretation of the
Scriptures from the Scripture itseJf. «The right way, as it appears to US,
of approaching the Scriptures and gathering their meanlng, is the follow-
ing, which is extracted from the writings themse]ves. We find some such
rule as this laid down by Solomon in the Proverbs concerning the divine
doctrines written therein: «DO thou portray them threefold counsel
and knowledge, that thou mayest answer words of truth to those who
question thee» (Prov. 22,20-21). Then he goes to prescribe «three-
fold way» which corresponds to a traditional triple division of human
nature in body, soul, and spirit. «One must therefore portray the mean-
ing of the sacred writings in a threefold way upon one's own soul, so
that the simple man may be edified by what we may call the flesh of the
Scripture, this name being given to the obvious interpretation; while
the man who has made some progress may be edified by its soul, as it
were; and the man who is perfect may be edified by the spiritual law,
which has a shadow the good things to come (Heb. 10,1). For just
as man consists body, soul and spirit, so in the same way does the
Scripture, which has been prepared by God to be given for man's sal-
vation»37.
The Scriptures accordingly have three meanings-three senses:
the literal (or bodily) , the moral (or psychic) and the symbolic (or spi-
ritual). Sometimes all three would be found, «since some passages pos-
sess in addition to the soul meaning and the spiritual meaning, a
bodily sense as well, which is capable of edifying the hearers».

33. D ri c i i i 5, 6.
34. Ibid. 2, 2.
35. Ibid., 2,
36. Ibid., 2, 2.
37. Ibid., 2, 4.
2. 23
 354 Athanasios

But «since there are certain passages of Scripture which have bodily
sense at all, there are occasions when we must seek on]y for the soul and
the spirit»38. However, many passages even the bodily sense can be
useful and of a «helpful meaning», as it witnessed by the multitudes
of sincere and simple believers»3B.
Of the three senses or ways of interpretation, the highest and most
edifying is the spiritual, mystical, or allegorical. Indeed it is through
«the spiritual explanation» that can bring to light «the heavenly
tllingS» of which the J ews» «served a copy and a shadoWJ) and the «good
things» of which the law contains «a shadoWJ) (See Heb. 8,5; Rom. 8,5;
Heb. 10,1)40. The mystical sense gives the collective and universal
meaning of the mystery. «We» therefore, «have to transform the Gospel
known to sense-perception into one intellectual and spiritual. For what
would the narrative of the Gospel known to sense-perception amount to,
if it were not developed into a spiritual one? It would be of little account
or none. Anyone can read it and assure himself of the facts it tells-
nothing more. But our whole energy is now to be directed to the effort
to penetrate to the depths of the meaning of the Gospel and to search
out the truth that is in it when it is divested of its prefigurations»41. But
to achieve such a spiritual interpretation we must «lift
and allegorize» the literal expressions of the Scriptures 42 . For Origen the
understanding of the Scripture is a gift of grace: «Then there the doc-
trine that the Scriptures were composed through the Spirit of God and
that they have not only that meaning which is obvious, but also an-
other which is hidden from the majority of readers. For the contents of
Scripture are the outward forms of certain mysteries and the images of
divine things. this point the entire Church is unanimous, that while
the whole law is spiritual, the inspired meaning in not recognized by all,
but only bythose who are gifted with the grace of the Holy Spirit in the
word of wisdom and knowledge»43. It was to the Holy Spirit that Origen
used to lift his hands in pr;tyer when he was struggling to find a right
meaning, and he felt His grace descending him as a kiss of the lips

38. Ibid., 2, 5.
39. Ibid., 2,6.
40. Ibid., 2, 6.
41. J h n C mment ar 8. Origenes Werke, 4 (ed. Leipzig,
1903). 13.
42. Ibid., 26. Or. Werke, 33.
43. De Principiis,Preface,8 .

./
 The aJlegorical exegetical method of Origen 355

of the Logos when a divine secret was revealed to him without worldly
learning 44 .
According to the three senses of the Scripture there are three classes
Christians distinguished by their spiritual capacity of understanding
the meaning of the Scriptures. First «the simp1e be1ievers»4D who are
content with the 1etter «the flesh of the Scriptures». But even «those»
Origen admits, «who foJ1ow the 1etter of the Gospe1 (that is, its 1itera1
account) are saved, because even the bare litera1 narration of the Gos-
pel is adequate for salvation of the simp1er fold»46. Second, those (who
have made some progress and «may be edified by the sou1»47, that is
that mora1 sense. These are the more mature, the pious and ordinary
Christians. And third the <eperfect» ones «who are mentioned by the apos-
t1e» Cor. 2,6-7) who says: «we speak wisdom among the pel'fect;
a wisdom not of this world... but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery»48.
Those are the ones who have received» the higher gifts of the Spirit and
in particular... the graces of Janguage, wisdom and knowledge»; these
are the «lovers wisdom»49. They are «illuminated with more divine in-
spirations, by the spirit which surpasses the nature of the letter»; to them
«the Gospel is not vei1ed». They «see the veil of the Scriptures rent
twain from the top to the bottom and see what is inside» and are,
therefore, «filled with a greater knowledge»60.
However, the triple division of the Scriptures fades away Ori-
gen's later works. fact, it breaks down imnlediateJy after he has de-
fended the threefold way interpretation. Trying to allegorize the Shep-
herd of Hermas he is compelled to admit only two senses, the Jitera1
one rep1'esented by G1'apte and the spiritual which is by
Clement «who has already gone beyond the lette1'» and deals with «the
souls that a1'e outside all bodiJy and lower thoughts»61. It Is t1'ue that
his Homilies and occasionally in his Commentaries Origen comp1etes the
th1'eefold inte1'p1'etation by drawing out the moral sense as well a10ng
with the other two senses, but the who1e the forme1' «plays signi-

44. Commentary Canticum Canticorum, Patrologia Graeca, 13,

col. 63 and lib. P.G. 13,91.
45. De r nc i i s, IV, 2,6.
46. Matth. Commentary ser. 27. Or. Werke, (ed. Leipzig, 1933), 4.7
47. De r nc s, 1V, 2,4.
48. 1bid.
49. De r nc s, Preface, 3.
50. Matth. Comm. ser. 139, Or. Werke, 289.
51. De r nc s, IV, 2,4.
356 Athanasios D. Papanikolaou

fican.t part in his exegesis» and the reasons is, as anson. points out,
<mot because he had occasion to draw edifying or devotional lessons
from the text the Bible, but because in the practical work of expound-
ing Scripture he foun.d it impossible to maintain the distinction
bet'Neen the moral and the spiritual sense, and the former became
absorbed in the latter»62.
The spiritual sen.se the Scripture is identified with its a]]egor-
ical sense, since the inner meaning the biblical books is found only
through allegory. Allegory therefore is for Origen something distinct.
It is not an in.genious play with words or thoughts, n.or is it an. exe-
getical method aside from other methods. «In his eyes it is the only
method interpretation which is worthy the Holy Scriptures. It is
the conditio sinequa non for understanding the Scriptures, and those
who do not accept it, are excluded from grasping the contents the
divine sayings»63.
But why are the Scriptures supposed to be speaking allegories?
Why should we search everywhere for a mystical sense, as if their mean-
ings were not simple and clear? Origen answers these questions by
arguments taken from nature. For «he who beJieves the Scriptures to
have proceeded from the Author Nature, may well expect to fin.d the
same sort of difficulties them which he finds in Nature»64. While
nature there are things which «show themselves most plainly to be works
Providence», there are also other things «so obscure as to appear to
afford groun.ds for disbelief in the GOd»66. Nature therefore is an alle-
gory concealing the hidden operation of Providence. And «as Provi-
dence is not abolished because our ignoran.ce», in the same way «the
divine character Scripture, which extends through all it» is not
«abolished because our weakness cannot discern in. every sentence the
hidden splendour of its teachings, concealed under a poor and humble
style»60. And as in nature whose disorders by stimulating men to search
bring them from the creation to Creator, so in the Scriptures «the Word
of God has arranged for certain. stumbling-blocks, as it were, and hin.-
drances and impossibilities to be inserted the midst of the law an.d the

52. R. C. ans Allegory and Event, (Richmond, Virginia, 1959),

2lo3.
53. II a n d, The Conception of the Gospel the Alexandrian Theology,
(Oslo, 1938),
5lo. 23.
55. De Principiis, 7.
56. Ibid.
 The aIlegorica! exegetica! method of Origen 357

history»67 in order to stimulate for search, for «the man who capable
of being taught might, by searching out and devoting himself to the deep
things (See Cor. 2,10) revealed in the spiritual meaning of the words,
become partaker of all the doctrines of the Spirit's counsel»66. «The let-
ter of the Gospel is not simple and clear, as some think it is. It is only
simple to simple believers»,- a fact which we may see the providential
order of things. «But to those who are able and willing to hear the deep-
er sense of the words, they contain wisdom and things worthy of the
Word of GOd»69. Only the spiritual believers can penetrate into the deep
truth of the Scriptures. Only they can find the hidden sense of the words
which like the treasure hidden in the field, of which our Lord spoke
one of its parables 60 . The mystical truths are hidden everywhere in
the Scriptures even under the historical narratives, since the Logos used
history at those many points where it <ccould be harmonised with the
mystical events» order <<to conceal from the multitude their deeper
meaning». Where the narrative «did not correspond with the sequence
of the intellectual truths, the Scriptures wove into the story something
which did not happen, occasionally something which could not happen,
and occasionally something which might have happened but fact did
not»61. We must recognize therefore that «occasionally the records taken
a literal sense are not true, but actually absurd and impossible, and
even with the history that actually happened and the legislation that is
a literal sense useful there are other matters interwoven»62. The mystical
truths «have been concealed the narratives. For «the kingdom of
Heaven is like unto a treasure hid a field» (Matt. 13,44). The outward
aspect of Scripture «corresponds to the field as a whole... whereas the
truths that are stored away it and not seen by all, but lie as if buried
beneath the visible plants, are the hidden «treasures of wisdom and
knowledge» (Col. 2,3). «All the king's glory is within the «frail vessel»
of the poor letter» (2 Cor. 4,7). «If, however, a reader is more curious and
persists asking for an explanation of every detail», let him know that
«he will never be able to reach the final goal of his inquiries». Even the
apostle Paul «scanning by the aid of the Holy Spirit... and yet not being
able to reach the end and to attain, if may say so, an innermost know-
57. Ibid., 2,9.
58. Ibid., 2,7.
59. Matth. Or. Werke, 10, (ed. Leipzig, 1935), 2.
60. Matth. Comm. Ser. 18. Or. Werke, (ed. Leipzig, 1933), 32.
cf. Matth. 5. Or. Werke, 10 (ed. Leipzig, 1935), 5.
61. D e r c s, 2,9.
62. Ibid., 3,4.
358 Athanasios D. Papanikolaou

ledge, his despair and amazement at the task cries out and says:
the depth of the riches of the wisdom and lrnowledge of God. How un-
searchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out» (Rom
33). For created mind can by any means possess the capacity to Ull,-
derstand all». And «we may venture to declare that neither the armies
of the holy angels... can wholly kn.ow the beginnings of all things and the
end of the universe», although holy spirits and powers... are near-
est to the very beginnings of things and reach a point which the rest of
creation cannot attain tO»63.
For the discovery of the hidden treasures we need the help of
God, ,;yho alone is able to «break pieces the gates of brass» (Is. 45,2),
which conceal them, and... so to make lrnown a11 the We there-
fore ought to pray that we may see the hidden truths of the Scriptures:
«May J esus our Lord put His hand upon our eyes, that we may be-
gin to behold the things which are not seen, not the things which are
seen, and may He open those eyes which do not see the things present,
but the thing to come»6.. Thus the words which say: «Ye shall see
indeed, and not perceive» (Is. 6,9)66 may not be fulfilled for us.
Ho,;yever, one cannot say that Origen kept exclusively to the alle-
gorical method as the only proper for the interpretation of the Bi-
ble. He admits that the Scriptures along with the spiritual meaning
the real historical truth exists and therefore the literal interpretation is
not totally rejected. The law is to be interpreted spirituaHy. But this
does not mean that «because some of the history did not happen, there-
fore of it happened». For, regard to some things we are clearly
aware that the historical fact is true; as that Abraham was buried the
double cave at Hebron, together with Isaac and J acob ... (Gen. 49,29-
32; 50,13) and that J erusalem is the chief city of J udaea, which a tem-
ple of God was built by Solomon». Indeed «the passages which are histor-
ically true are far more numerous than those which are composed with
purely spiritual meanings». And commandments like «Honor thy father
and thy mother...» «thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adul-
tery; thou shalt not steaJ» (Exod. 20, 12-15) are of course to be observed
their literal sense. It is often difficult to decide <cwhether a par-
ticular incident, believed to be history, actuaHy happened not, and
whether the literal meaning of a particular law is to be observed not».
63. Ibid., 3, 14.
Ibid., 3, 11.
65. Hom. in Gen. 7. Or. Werke, 6, (ed. Leipzig, 1920), 135.
66. Hom. in Is. 3. Or. WeI'ke, 8, (ed. Leipzig), 273, 274.
 The allegorical exegetical method of Origen 359

«The exact reader» of Scripture, therefore, must «carefully investigate»

and distlngulsh the literal from the splrltual according to «the SaVlour's
precept which says «search the Scriptures» (J ohn 5,39). Orlgen's posi-
tion ls foun.d the following statement: «Our contention with regard to
the whole of Scrlpture ls that it all has a splrltual meaning, but
not all a bodily meaning; for the bodily meanlng ls often proved to be
an impossibility.Consequently the man who reads the divine books rever-
ently, belieVlng them to be divine writings, must exercise great care»67.
The main care thus of every in reading the Scriptures ls to
transcend from the literal meanlng to the spiritual, the deep and mysti-
cal one. This is what Orlgen did. He consldered the interpreter's duty
«to penetrate into the depths of the Gospel and to seek the bare truth of
the patterns contained in it»68. But for him, belng a philosopher, these
truths were his own speculations which he based passages of the Scrip-
ture8 by employing allegory; where the Bible did not obVlously mean
what he had in mlnd he had only to turn. the maglc rlng of allegory and
the deslred meaning appeared. But dolng so he did not \vant to de-
part from biblical truth or the teaching of the Church. the contrary
he always lntended to interpret the Bible and allegorize the Scrlptures
the Church's rule of faith. And to use Hanson's words «he was a legal
churchman, an encourager of martyrs, an adept prayer, a constant
preacher, and a reconciler of heretlcs»6D. means of the allegorlcal
method he managed to interpret the Scrlptures such a splrltual way as
to eliminate the accusations agalnst lt from the literalists J ews and the
Gnostics and at the same tlme to elevate it a posltlon of being a \vorthy
criterion of our faith. It true that the allegorlcal method several
cases led Orlgen into strange and dubious paths of interpretation. But
to do justlce to lts author «we must realize the number of difficulties
he faced this first effortto coordlnate the varlous elements the de-
posit of faith and mold them into a complete system»70. And he did all
this wlthout haVVlng any other source or evidence to draw except
Scrlpture. Moreover, the allegorlcal method was never mean.t to exclude
completely the literal or historlcal meaning. He never «saw the Sacred
Scriptures as a set of cryptograms, or as a collection of cabalistlc writ-
ings... The world of sense, which never leads us entlrely astray, thus
formed the first stage the application of the allegorlcal method»71.
67. De Principiis, 3,4-5.
68. John comm. 8. Or. Werke, 4, 13.
69. a s 372.
70. J. Q u a s t e Patrology, (Westminster, Maryland, 1964), 61 .
.71. R. C a d u, Origen, his life at Alexandria, (St. 1944), 34.