DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Brainoship - Stimulating intelligent conversation
and a bit of fellowship
HTML https://christianbrainoship.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: All topics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2--------------------------------------------------
Origen (182-254 AD) on the non-literal interpretation of the bib
le
By: TheyCallethMeJeff Date: March 7, 2015, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I came across this today and found it very interesting. The
Church Father Origen (182-254 AD) said,
"Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit
of God, and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at
first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most.
For those (words) which are written are the forms of certain
mysteries, and the images of divine things. Respecting which
there is one opinion throughout the whole Church, that the whole
law is indeed spiritual; but that the spiritual meaning which
the law conveys is not known to all, but to those only on whom
the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word of wisdom
and knowledge."
Origen might be a little on the radical end when he interprets
scripture, but this it is really interesting that he cited
non-literal interpretation as a main Christian belief at the
time.
#Post#: 7--------------------------------------------------
Re: Origen (182-254 AD) on the non-literal interpretation of the
bible
By: TheyCallethMeJeff Date: March 7, 2015, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I want this thread to be at the top, lol.
#Post#: 8--------------------------------------------------
Re: Origen (182-254 AD) on the non-literal interpretation of the
bible
By: Soyeong Date: March 8, 2015, 1:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
I think the greatest tragedy of the Church is that it failed to
understand the role of the law and the role of the Jews, and
Origen had a big hand in that (though it had its start with the
expulsion of the Jews from Rome). The law was given to point
out our sin, to provide a temporary remedy for our sin, and to
point to our need for a permanent remedy. The law was never
given as a means for us to obtain justification, but rather it
was given as a guide for how the righteous should behave.
In distancing itself from its Jewish roots, as Origen took part
in, the Church lost much of the cultural context needed to
correctly interpret the Bible. For instance, many Christians
are not aware of what the oral law is, the distinction between
it and the written law, what the Jews thought of the oral law,
what Jesus thought of the it, that Jesus kept some of it, that
Jesus and Paul gave oral laws, and that Jesus and Paul rejected
some them. As such, it can become very easy to misunderstand a
criticism of the way in which the written law is being kept as a
criticism of the written law itself and to completely
misinterpret what was being said.
The authority of the NT is established by the OT and the authors
of it did this by quoting or alluding to as many as 4,105 times.
The Bereans checked everything Paul said against the OT and
would have rejected him if he had said anything that disagreed
with it. If we interpret Paul as rejecting the law, then we
understand him in the opposite way that the Bereans did.
Rather, Paul upheld the law and thought it was holy, righteous,
and good (Romans 3:31, 7:12). Christians often think that the
Jews thought that law was a heavy burden, but nothing could be
further from the truth. You will not find anyone in the OT
expressing that opinion, and in fact, they expressed just the
opposite.
I think it would be worth doing to interpret Paul as though he
were in full agreement with Psalm 1:1-2 and Psalm 119 (which I
think he was) and thought the law was a delight to keep. It is
a delight to express our love to God in righteous obedience to
His commands.
#Post#: 9--------------------------------------------------
Re: Origen (182-254 AD) on the non-literal interpretation of the
bible
By: TheyCallethMeJeff Date: March 8, 2015, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Soyeong, I appreciate the well thought out response. I think you
are right that it would be a mistake to throw out the OT law
entirely. I love that you mentioned how many times the OT law
was quoted or alluded to in the NT, that is very interesting. I
also agree that it is important not to forget the Jewish roots
of Christianity. And I wonder if Origen taking non-literal
interpretations of OT is in some ways faithful to how
Pre-Christian Jews interpreted the OT. Modern western people
tend to interpret the bible as it were a science textbook or
history textbook, but I don't think it was so in the 1st
century. Just looking at how Paul uses allegorical
interpretation of the OT is a good example. "These things are
being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One
covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be
slaves: This is Hagar." (Galatians 4:24)
I also liked how you say that the law was not seen as a "heavy
burden." In fact, the Hebrew word Torah gives a picture of
(something like) a father gently instructing his child. However,
I think there is a double meaning sometimes. The "spirit" of the
law" and the "letter" of it. And these two are not always the
same. I think some of the negative things that we read relate to
the "letter" rather than the spirit. I do think that Jesus did
criticize following the written law above the spirit of the law.
#Post#: 10--------------------------------------------------
Re: Origen (182-254 AD) on the non-literal interpretation of the
bible
By: Soyeong Date: March 8, 2015, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]I think you are right that it would be a mistake to throw
out the OT law entirely. [/quote]
That "entirely" implies that there are parts of the OT law that
you would throw out, but that's not something that Jesus would
have gone along with:
Matthew 5:17-19 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the
Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to
fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth
disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a
pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything
is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the
least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be
called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and
teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of
heaven.
Note that it's not a salvation issue because people who set
aside one of the least of these commands will still be in the
kingdom of heaven, but that's not something that we should
settle for.
[quote] And I wonder if Origen taking non-literal
interpretations of OT is in some ways faithful to how
Pre-Christian Jews interpreted the OT.[/quote]
One of the biggest reasons why Jews reject Christianity today is
because Christians teach (I think mistakenly) that Jesus did
away with the law. If Jesus had done that, then he would have
been a false prophet, disqualified himself from being the
Messiah, and been rightfully executed, as per Deuteronomy 13.
So perhaps there were some Pre-Christians Jews who held a
non-literal interpretation of the OT, but I'm not sure how
likely that is. Furthermore, Origen was responsible for a lot
of anti-Semitism that resulted from his assertion that the Jews
were responsible for killing Jesus.
[quote]I also liked how you say that the law was not seen as a
"heavy burden." In fact, the Hebrew word Torah gives a picture
of (something like) a father gently instructing his child.
However, I think there is a double meaning sometimes. The
"spirit" of the law" and the "letter" of it. And these two are
not always the same. I think some of the negative things that we
read relate to the "letter" rather than the spirit.[/quote]
I think, for instance, with the command not to work on the
Sabbath, it was only natural and with good intentions to want to
know what exactly counted as work to do a better job of obeying
it, but it became easy to focus on obeying all of those rules
while losing track of the fact that it was supposed to be a day
of rest. These sort of man-made regulations about how how to
properly keep the law was one of the biggest sources of conflict
between Jesus and the Pharisees (Though they weren't all bad
because Jesus followed some of them).
Mark 7:6-9 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you
hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of
men.”
9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the
commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
Jesus did not criticize anyone for following the law, which he
gave at Sinai, but for not following it correctly, which he said
he came to explain how to follow, so while I agree that we
should not lose track of the spirit of the law, we should not
lose track of the letter of the law either. I think God accepts
all forms of worship, but He has particular ways in which He
wants to be worshiped, or else He wouldn't have given very
specific instructions in regard to the construction of the
Temple. If people had thought that all God really wanted was a
temple and that they were free to build it in whatever way they
thought was best, then I think they would have been disobedient.
Likewise, I think it people think that God just wanted us to
take one day a week off to rest and we take any day off we see
fit, then we're being disobedient. Our attitude should not be
that we can worship God in whatever way we want and God should
be happy with it, but rather, we should seek to worship God in
the way that He wants.
#Post#: 15--------------------------------------------------
Re: Origen (182-254 AD) on the non-literal interpretation of the
bible
By: Larkin Date: March 8, 2015, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jesus once for all sacrifice means that Christians don't need to
sacrifice animals etc in the temple. In fact the rabbis at
Jamnia used a verse in Hosea to justify the cessation of Temple
sacrifices ("I require mercy not sacrifice"). So one has to
interpret Mt 5 with this in mind.
#Post#: 18--------------------------------------------------
Re: Origen (182-254 AD) on the non-literal interpretation of the
bible
By: TheyCallethMeJeff Date: March 8, 2015, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Soyeong link=topic=2.msg10#msg10 date=1425839294]
[quote]I think you are right that it would be a mistake to throw
out the OT law entirely. [/quote]
That "entirely" implies that there are parts of the OT law that
you would throw out, but that's not something that Jesus would
have gone along with:
Matthew 5:17-19 “Do not think that I have come to abolish
the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to
fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth
disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a
pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything
is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the
least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be
called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and
teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of
heaven.
Note that it's not a salvation issue because people who set
aside one of the least of these commands will still be in the
kingdom of heaven, but that's not something that we should
settle for.
[quote] And I wonder if Origen taking non-literal
interpretations of OT is in some ways faithful to how
Pre-Christian Jews interpreted the OT.[/quote]
One of the biggest reasons why Jews reject Christianity today is
because Christians teach (I think mistakenly) that Jesus did
away with the law. If Jesus had done that, then he would have
been a false prophet, disqualified himself from being the
Messiah, and been rightfully executed, as per Deuteronomy 13.
So perhaps there were some Pre-Christians Jews who held a
non-literal interpretation of the OT, but I'm not sure how
likely that is. Furthermore, Origen was responsible for a lot
of anti-Semitism that resulted from his assertion that the Jews
were responsible for killing Jesus.
[quote]I also liked how you say that the law was not seen as a
"heavy burden." In fact, the Hebrew word Torah gives a picture
of (something like) a father gently instructing his child.
However, I think there is a double meaning sometimes. The
"spirit" of the law" and the "letter" of it. And these two are
not always the same. I think some of the negative things that we
read relate to the "letter" rather than the spirit.[/quote]
I think, for instance, with the command not to work on the
Sabbath, it was only natural and with good intentions to want to
know what exactly counted as work to do a better job of obeying
it, but it became easy to focus on obeying all of those rules
while losing track of the fact that it was supposed to be a day
of rest. These sort of man-made regulations about how how to
properly keep the law was one of the biggest sources of conflict
between Jesus and the Pharisees (Though they weren't all bad
because Jesus followed some of them).
Mark 7:6-9 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy
of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of
men.”
9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting
the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!
Jesus did not criticize anyone for following the law, which he
gave at Sinai, but for not following it correctly, which he said
he came to explain how to follow, so while I agree that we
should not lose track of the spirit of the law, we should not
lose track of the letter of the law either. I think God accepts
all forms of worship, but He has particular ways in which He
wants to be worshiped, or else He wouldn't have given very
specific instructions in regard to the construction of the
Temple. If people had thought that all God really wanted was a
temple and that they were free to build it in whatever way they
thought was best, then I think they would have been disobedient.
Likewise, I think it people think that God just wanted us to
take one day a week off to rest and we take any day off we see
fit, then we're being disobedient. Our attitude should not be
that we can worship God in whatever way we want and God should
be happy with it, but rather, we should seek to worship God in
the way that He wants.
[/quote]
Soyeong, I think you are misunderstanding me. I wasn't trying to
imply that we should "throw out" parts of the bible. I was
advocating something that has been in Judaism and Christianity
for a long time which is allowing for allegorical
interpretation. As for the Law, I would say that scripture
teaches that it is a complex term. It can refer to either
ceremonial Jewish law (such as forbidding to eat pork), the
Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew and Jewish bibles), or
perhaps the moral spiritual law of God. I do actually sympathize
with people who teach that the ceremonial Jewish law can or
should still be kept by Jewish people today. I had a long
conversation with an Orthodox Jewish man once and he was
relieved to hear this. However, putting that issue aside,
gentiles operate in a different zone and are not under the
Jewish ceremonial law. I am not advocating everyone worshipping
God according to their own imagination.
#Post#: 19--------------------------------------------------
Re: Origen (182-254 AD) on the non-literal interpretation of the
bible
By: Soyeong Date: March 8, 2015, 8:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Jesus once for all sacrifice means that Christians don't
need to sacrifice animals etc in the temple. In fact the rabbis
at Jamnia used a verse in Hosea to justify the cessation of
Temple sacrifices ("I require mercy not sacrifice"). So one has
to interpret Mt 5 with this in mind.[/quote]
Regardless of whether you think the Millenium happened in the
past or will happen in the future, it takes place after Jesus'
sacrifice and during it we will be keeping Kosher, the Sabbath,
God's Feasts, and we will be doing sacrifices. So if Jesus'
sacrifice did away with all that, then why will we be doing them
afterwards? And if it's good to be doing them afterwards, then
why shouldn't we be doing them now?
God clearly wants sacrifices or He wouldn't have asked for them,
so I think that verse in Hosea is contrasting the two to say one
is more important than the other rather than to say that
sacrifices are completely unwanted. A sin sacrifice was about a
change of heart, not about killing an animal. And even it that
verse was intended to say that sacrifices were now unwanted, why
didn't it cause the cessation of Temple sacrifices when it was
originally spoken?
#Post#: 21--------------------------------------------------
Re: Origen (182-254 AD) on the non-literal interpretation of the
bible
By: Soyeong Date: March 8, 2015, 9:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]However, putting that issue aside, gentiles operate in a
different zone and are not under the Jewish ceremonial law.
[/quote]
Even when the laws were first given to Moses, not all of the
laws applied to everyone. Some were for the High Priest,
priests, judges, people living in the land, foreigners living
among them, men, women, and for everyone. Even today, we have
different laws that govern how the PoTUS, police, judges,
immigrants, or people who live in a different state. Gentiles
were not allowed to enter the Temple, so the ceremonial Temple
purity laws don't apply to them in the same way that someone who
is not in California doesn't have to follow California State
laws. Nevertheless, the law is God's instructions for how to
live righteously and it is no less important for Gentiles to
live righteously in obedience to God than it is for Jews.
The Jews saw breaking the law and sinning as essentially the
same thing:
Romans 7:7a What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful?
Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was
had it not been for the law.
1 John 3:4-6 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is
lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might
take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either
seen him or known him.
So if it is important for Gentiles not to sin, then it is
important for them not to break the law. When Jesus paid the
penalty for our sins, he only free us from the penalty for
breaking the law, not from the law itself. If he had freed us
from the law, then we would be free to sin, but Paul
emphatically stated that being under this grace doesn't mean
that we are to sin/break the law. Rather we are set free from
sin to become slaves of obedience, which leads to righteousness
and sanctification.
Romans 6:15-19 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under
law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you
present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are
slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to
death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But
thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have
become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to
which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin,
have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human
terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once
presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness
leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as
slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
[quote]I am not advocating everyone worshipping God according to
their own imagination.[/quote]
The Catholic Church admits that they changed the Sabbath to
Sunday. However they have no scriptural foundation for that
change and no authority to contradict God's commands, or to tell
Him that He blessed the wrong day. As Jesus lamented in Mark
7:6-9, this is an instance of them rejecting the commandment of
God in order to establish their own tradition. I don't know
your position on this, but I know many Christians (I used to
hold this belief myself) who hold that it doesn't really matter
which day we rest, God just wanted us to rest one day as week,
but I've come to see that that is me caring more about how I
wanted to worship God than about how God wanted to be worshiped.
#Post#: 27--------------------------------------------------
Re: Origen (182-254 AD) on the non-literal interpretation of the
bible
By: Larkin Date: March 9, 2015, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Soyeong]Regardless of whether you think the
Millenium happened in the past or will happen in the future, it
takes place after Jesus' sacrifice and during it we will be
keeping Kosher, the Sabbath, God's Feasts, and we will be doing
sacrifices. So if Jesus' sacrifice did away with all that, then
why will we be doing them afterwards? And if it's good to be
doing them afterwards, then why shouldn't we be doing them now?
[/quote]
What is this based on? A particular and disputed interpretation
of Ezekiel? Jesus sacrifice was once for all time. There 's no
if Jesus sacrifice did away with all that. Jesus' sacrifice did
away for the need for further sacrifice for all time. There are
no animal sacrifices in the new heaven or the new earth.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page