Origen on the heterodox

[Peter Kirby]

Origen here is commenting on a biblical demiurgist proof text:

15.12 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" 15.13 He answered, "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up."

Commentary on Matthew 11.13-14.

And as in many cases we have to consider the astonishment of the Jews at the words of the Saviour, because they were spoken with authority, so also in regard to the words in this place. Having called the multitudes therefore, He said to them, Hear and understand, [Matthew 15:10] etc. And He said this, the Pharisees being offended at this saying, as, because of their evil opinions and their worthless interpretation of the law, they were not the plant of his own Father in heaven, and on this account were being rooted up; [Matthew 15:13] for they were rooted up as they did not receive the true vine, which was cultivated by the Father, even Jesus Christ. [John 15:1] For how could they be a plant of His Father who were offended at the words of Jesus, words which turn men away from the precept, Handle not, nor taste, nor touch — all which things were to perish in the using — after the precepts and doctrines of men, [Colossians 2:21-22] but induce the intelligent hearer of them to seek in regard to them the things which are above and not the things upon the earth as the Jews do? [Colossians 3:2] And since, because of their evil opinions, the Pharisees were not the plant of His Father in heaven, on this account, as about such as were incorrigible, He says to the disciple, Let them alone; [Matthew 15:14] Let them alone, He said for this reason, that as they were blind they ought to become conscious of their blindness and seek guides; but they, being unconscious of their own blindness, profess to guide the blind, not reckoning that they would fall into a pit ...

After this, it is worth while to look at the phrase which has been assailed in a sophistical way by those who say that the God of the law and the God of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the same; for they say that the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ is not the husbandman of those who think that they worship God according to the law of Moses. Jesus Himself said that the Pharisees, who were worshipping the God who created the world and the law, were not a plant which His heavenly Father had planted, and that for this reason it was being rooted up. [Matthew 15:13] But you might also say this, that even if it were the Father of Jesus who brought in and planted the people, when it came out of Egypt, to the mountain of His own inheritance, to the place which He had prepared for Himself to dwell in, [Exodus 15:17] yet Jesus would have said, in regard to the Pharisees, Every plant which My heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up. Now, to this we will say, that as many as on account of their perverse interpretation of the things in the law were not a plant of His Father in heaven, were blinded in their minds, as not believing the truth, but taking pleasure in unrighteousness, [2 Thessalonians 2:12] by him who is deified by the sons of this world, and on this account is called by Paul the god of this world. [2 Corinthians 4:4]

Mention is made of what would be another demiurgist proof text (2 Corinthians 4:4):

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Origen interprets both references differently: as poor interpretation of the law, as a reference to Satan and making false gods.

It's unclear whether "those who say that the God of the law and the God of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the same" applies to all of them including Marcionites (in which case the saying of Matthew 15:13 could be argued on this basis to be in Evangelion) or excluded Marcionites.

[Peter Kirby]

Origen also has an aside for "those who think that the divinity of the Saviour is not at all demonstrable from the Gospel of Matthew":

Commentary on Matthew 12.6

And moreover this also is to be observed, in view of those who think that the divinity of the Saviour is not at all demonstrable from the Gospel of Matthew, that the fact that, when the disciples were reasoning among themselves and saying, We have no loaves, Jesus knew their reasonings and said, Why reason ye among yourselves, O you of little faith, because ye took no loaves, [Matthew 16:8] was beyond the power of man; for the Lord alone, as Solomon says in the third Book of Kings, knows the hearts of men. [1 Kings 8:39]

It's possible that they did not use the very same Gospel of Matthew, but rather a different gospel attributed to Matthew (whether secondarily or in the text itself), which was therefore not considered to be a genuine version of the apostle Matthew's gospel, which is why Origen quotes freely from canonical Matthew itself against them.

Multiple gospels of "Matthew" are attested otherwise (e.g. by Epiphanius).

[mbuckley3]

Homily 1 on Ezekiel
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●


C) That the heavens were closed before Christ's descent might be a theme appropriated from the 'Marcionite nexus'. Certainly it sits very awkwardly with the adjacent arguments that there was a stream of inspired utterances from the OT prophets :

"'And the heavens were opened'. The heavens had been closed, and were opened at the arrival of Christ, so that once they had been thrown open, the Holy Spirit would come in the form of a dove over him. For <the Spirit> was not able to make his way to us either, without having first come down to the one who shared his nature...

"'The heavens were opened'. It is not enough for one heaven to be opened; very many are opened, so that not from one heaven but from all the heavens, angels may come down to those who are to be saved - the angels who ascended and descended upon the Son of Man, and came to him, and ministered to him. Moreover, the angels descended because Christ had descended earlier, fearing to descend before the Lord of all Powers and of <all> things went ahead of them. When they saw, however, the leader of the heavenly host lingering in earthly places, then they came out through the opened way, following their Lord, and obeying the will of the one who apportioned them as guardians of those who believe in his name. Yesterday you were subject to a demon; today you are under an angel". (6; 7.1)


D) Apparently Harnack used this as evidence that Marcion deleted Romans 8.19 from his edition of Paul's letters :

"All creation exults, rejoices together, and applauds those who are to be saved. For 'the expectation of the creation awaits the revealing of the children of God'. And although those who have altered [interpolaverunt] the apostolic scriptures do not wish there to be in their books statements of this sort, by which Jesus Christ could be proved to be the Creator, nevertheless... (7.2)


E) Origen is unafraid to reverse the basic Antithesis :

"Where can you find in the New Testament a promise of this kind ? If it were right to distinguish between the Testaments [instrumenta], and thus to speak of Gods disagreeing with each other - of course, it is abominable even to contemplate this, but I am speaking by way of rhetorically pressing the matter - then I tell you, I would say audaciously that much greater beneficence [humanitatem] is displayed in the Old Testament than in the New". (9)

[mbuckley3]

The way Origen writes about it, he is probably thinking of a written text expounding on the OT god's anger and wrath.

The Antitheses is a plausible source, then, for these remarks on Psalm 77:31.

Indeed very plausible, but it should be noted that the writer Origen actually names as deploying the argument about the OT God's anger is Celsus, a pagan.

C.Celsum 4.71 : "After this because Celsus failed to understand them, he ridicules passages in the Bible which speak of God as though he were subject to human passions, in which 'angry utterances' are spoken against the impious and 'threats' against people who have sinned."

Origen counters with the assertion that scriptural language is calibrated to accommodate the varying capabilities of its audience :

"I reply that, just as when we are talking with little children we do not aim to speak in the finest language possible to us, but say what is appropriate to the weakness of those whom we are addressing, and, further, do what seems to us to be of advantage for the conversion and correction of the children as such, so also the Logos of God seems to have arranged the scriptures, using the method of address which fitted the ability and benefit of the hearers. In fact, in Deuteronomy it is quite generally stated concerning this type of address which is attributed to God, in these words : 'The Lord thy God bare with thy ways, as a man might bear with his son.' The Logos speaks like this because he assumes, as it were, human characteristics for the advantage of men. There was no need for the multitude that the words put into God's mouth, which were intended to be addressed to them, should correspond to his real character. However, anyone interested in the exposition of the divine scriptures, by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, as it is said, will discover from them the meaning of the sayings addressed to the weak and of those spoken to the intelligent, while often both meanings lie in the same text for him who knows how to understand it."

This 'accommodation' argument has a long history in Alexandrian exegesis, as it is evident in Philo :

On Dreams 1.234-237 : "And the sacred word ever entertaining holier and more august conceptions of Him that Is, yet at the same time longing to provide instruction and teaching for the life of those who lack wisdom, likened God to man, not, however, to any particular man. For this reason it has ascribed to him face, hands, feet, mouth, voice, wrath and indignation, and, over and beyond these, weapons, entrances and exits, movements up and down and all ways,and in following this general principle in its language it is concerned not with truth, but with the profit accruing to its pupils. For some there are altogether dull in their natures, incapable of forming any conception whatever of God as without a body, people whom it is impossible to instruct otherwise than in this way, saying that as a man does so God arrives and departs, goes down and comes up, makes use of a voice, is displeased at wrongdoings, is inexorable in his anger, and in addition to all this has provided himself with shafts and swords and all other instruments of vengeance against the unrighteous. For it is something to be thankful for if they can be taught self-control by the terror held over them by these means. Broadly speaking the lines taken throughout the Law are these two only, one that which keeps truth in view and so provides the thought 'God is not as man' [Num.23.19], the other that which keeps in view the ways of thinking of the duller folk, of whom it is said 'the Lord God will chasten thee, as if a man should chasten his son' [Deut.8.5]".

On the Sacrifices of Abel & Cain 94-96,101 : "We are not able to cherish continually in our souls the thought which sums so worthily the nature of the Cause, that 'God is not as man', and thus rise superior to all the human conceptions of him. In us the mortal is the chief ingredient. We cannot get outside ourselves in forming our ideas; we cannot escape our inborn infirmities.We enter within our covering of mortality, like snails <into their shells>, or like the hedgehog we roll ourselves into a ball, and we think of the blessed and the incorruptible in terms of our own natures. We shun indeed in words the monstrosity of saying that God is of human form, but in actual fact we accept the impious thought that he is of human passions. And therefore we invent for him hands and feet, entrances and exits, enmities, aversions, estrangements, anger, in fact such parts and passions as can never belong to the Cause.....Thus even the phrase 'as a man' <cherishes his son> [Deut.1.31] is not used of God in its literal sense, but is a term used in figure, a word of help to our feeble apprehension."


The 'accommodation' argument is subsequently adopted by Clement of Alexandria, who does not disguise his source :

Strom.5.11.68 : "But the majority of men, clothed with what is mortal, like snails, and rolled all round in a ball in their excesses, like hedgehogs, entertain the same ideas of the blessed and incorruptible God as of themselves. But it has escaped their notice, though they be near us, that God has bestowed on us a myriad of things in which he does not share...Wherefore let no one imagine that hands, and feet, and mouth, and eyes, and entrances and exits, and anger and threats, are said by the Hebrews to be attributes [παθη] of God. By no means; but that certain of these appellations are used more sacredly in an allegorical sense, which, as the discourse proceeds, we shall explain at the proper time."


■■■■■


Philo was not arguing with himself. If, as it is perhaps reasonable to suppose, the Antitheses expatiated on the anger of the OT God, there was a long, presumably textual, tradition prior to it. And, at least in Alexandria, a settled form of rebuttal. But the form of the rebuttal discloses two assumptions shared by the 'allegorical project' and the 'Marcionites'.

Firstly, that the key to divine knowledge lay in exegesis of the Hebrew bible.

Secondly, that the ultimate 'good' God of established, quasi-Platonic philosophic understanding, was not apparent in that bible. He had to be sought 'elsewhere'.

The two 'schools' took very different routes to resolve the problem, but each arrived at a similar destination.

[RandyHelzerman]

Does anyone really believe the prophets had "holy spirit"? Even the Samaritans didn't.

The way I read Origin here is that its *the reader* who is lacking Holy Spirit, which I would gloss as they don't have the right hermeneutical mindset. How to interpret the stories about, say, genocide in the Septuagint? You can go one of three ways: 1) its an allegory, not literally true, 2) its literally true, and horrifying, or 3) use pious doublethink--its literally true because God wouldn't lie to us in his holy word, but nevertheless its not horrifying, because reasons.

Up to and including Origin, christians chose #1. E.g. if you look at how Paul uses the stories in the OT, he's allegorizing his talking points from it.

Marcion chose #2, Its a mistake to think Marcion rejected the OT because he thought it wasn't holy scripture, or that it was false---he rejected it because he thought it *was* holy scripture (holy for a different god) and literally true. He's the father of all those who take the OT literally.

If you look at christian pop apologetics these days, they have arrived at the compromise position of #3, alas.