When reading Origen, however, one is acutely aware that the issues of his day are entirely different from those that plague discussions of science and the Bible today. He knows nothing of Charles Darwin. What he does know is that even by the standards of his day, Genesis 1 does not make sense if read according to the letter.
In this two part series, I will show that twenty-first century Christians are not the first to struggle with the ancient science of Genesis. Christian thinkers in every century have been commissioned to make sense of the Bible’s creation account in light of changing perceptions of how the universe works. Out of his Platonic worldview, Origen is driven to the conclusion that our creaturely origins are inseparable from the task of finding the true meaning of the Bible.
While the temptation may be to read through ancient Christian literature to produce a litany of historical support for a particular Christian cosmology, this is not my intention here, as that leads to disaster. Instead, if we cut away all of the theological differences of one historical Christian figure over another, what we find is a common theme—each new Christian generation reads Scripture within the accepted cosmology of the culture or sub-culture to which they belong. A reader's response is always filtered by a worldview. Origen’s world is a prime example of this enculturation, but by no means the only example.
Origen’s Problem with the Bible
Origen is an impressive historical figure; he read everything, wrote incessantly, and was loved or hated by just about everyone. His many quirks—he castrated himself to remain pure, an action he later regretted—make him interesting for historians, and his unfettered theological imagination has made him a pariah for nervous theologians.
His assessment of Genesis 1-3 shows that Origen is not afraid to say what many are only willing to think. “What man of intelligence,” writes Origen, “…will consider it a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars…?” (First Principles 4.3.1). On the face of it, this is a good question and just about anyone willing to rethink Genesis has asked it at one point or another.
The idea that God would plant a garden as a farmer or that Adam could hide from God behind a tree appeared fraught with difficulty to Origen. These ideas are, as he put it, “instances that are recorded as actual events, but which it would be inappropriate and unreasonable to believe could possibly have happened in history” (First Principles 4.3.1).
Even the Gospels are not immune to Origen’s scrutiny. The idea of Satan leading Jesus “into a high mountain” to show him “all the kingdoms of the earth” was highly questionable. “How could it possibly have happened literally,” asks Origen, “…as if they [all the kingdoms of the earth] were lying close to the foot of a single mountain…?” (First Principles 4.3.1)
In his day, Origen faced opponents like Celsus, who turned the language of Scripture into a tool for rejecting it altogether. God adapts Scripture to the capacity of those that read it, argues Origen in response (Contra Celsus 4.71). In its base form, the plain reading of Scripture is akin to baby talk, and anyone who opposed Scripture based on its literal and plain reading misses its multiple layers of meaning hidden in the spiritual message.
Reading Scripture as containing layers of meaning helps Origen to move beyond its less-than-desirable literal reading. An example of this method can be seen in Origen’s interpretation of the creation days and of the creation of human bodies. As Origen sees it, the days of creation are merely an allegorical tool for understanding the text. We lowly humans understand the world in categories of time, so the Bible explains it that way. God, as an all-powerful divine being, does not need time to create the world—it all happened in an instant (CM Matt.14.9; First Principles 2.2.1). But why then does Genesis use the word “days”?
The physical world is merely a shadow of the eternal, heavenly world, says Origen. Consistent with his Platonism, Origen argued that our immaterial souls are pre-existent to the created world, which was made as a punishment for our sins (First Principles 1.8.1). Human beings were never naturally made for the material universe; they were intended to live with God in undefiled by corruption. As a result, our origins belong to two worlds, the heavenly and the earthly.
This duality between the immaterial and the material has a particular benefit when reading Scripture. Human beings who are still bound up in a tired cycle of sin are tied to the baseness of the material creation—the baby talk. They are unable to transcend the world intellectually and so the most literal reading of the Bible is theirs until the Spirit transforms them.
Those more spiritually-minded people, whose spiritual intellects seek to go beyond this world and back to their immaterial origins, can read Scripture and find better, spiritual, and even allegorical interpretations (First Principles 4.2.4). The immaterial and material origins of humanity are inseparable from the material or immaterial layers of Scripture. For this reason, the spiritually-inclined person transcends the literal creation days.
Origen fancies himself to be one such spiritually-minded person, so when he reads the creation account or the history of Genesis, he is inclined to think that there must be more than the literal reading; there must be a greater spiritual message. However, what Origen provides for us is not a philosophical model or an interpretive method to follow. Rather, Origen’s handling of the biblical text is a helpful reminder that human beings, no matter when they lived, will attempt to solve the intellectual difficulties created by Genesis 1 using the worldview they accept.
Behind all of this is a perspective that is driven first by a Platonic cosmology. This worldview is the basis for Origen’s questioning of Scripture and it is the subject of “Part 2.”
Editor's note: Text corrected on 9/25/2010.