RSS
Home
Ending the myth that Origen and Saint Augustine believed solely in the allegorical method of interpr
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
So many writers, Bible critics, and even Christian scholars assert that both Origen and Augustine believed solely in the allegorical method of interpretation of Scripture, and yet their writings do not concur, if anyone would simply take the time to read them in their entirety and accurately report what both said. This article has been compiled to end that “myth” and provide the unwary internet scholar of certain of their writings which provide the truth about this matter.
In St. Augustine’s City of God, Book XVII, Chapter 3, paragraph 2, we read:
-- OF THE THREE-FOLD MEANING OF THE PROPHECIES, WHICH ARE TO BE REFERRED NOW TO THE EARTHLY, NOW TO THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, AND NOW AGAIN TO BOTH.
Wherefore just as that divine oracle to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the other prophetic signs or sayings which are given in the earlier sacred writings, so also the other prophecies from this time of the kings pertain partly to the nation of Abraham's flesh, and partly to that seed of his in which all nations are blessed as fellow-heirs of Christ by the New Testament, to the possessing of eternal life and the kingdom of the heavens. Therefore they pertain partly to the bond maid who gendereth to bondage, that is, the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children; but partly to the free city of God, that is, the true Jerusalem eternal in the heavens, whose children are all those that live according to God in the earth: but there are some things among them which are understood to pertain to both, -- to the bond maid properly, to the free woman figuratively. [REFERENCE: Proof that Augustine did not believe in ONLY the figurative, allegorical, and/or symbolic interpretation of Scripture!]
Therefore prophetic utterances of three kinds are to be found; forasmuch as there are some relating to the earthly Jerusalem, some to the heavenly, and some to both. I think it proper to prove what I say by examples. The prophet Nathan was sent to convict king David of heinous sin, and predict to him what future evils should be consequent on it. Who can question that this and the like pertain to the terrestrial city, whether publicly, that is, for the safety or help of the people, or privately, when there are given forth for each one's private good divine utterances whereby something of the future may be known for the use of temporal life? But where we read, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make for the house of Israel, and for the house of Judah, a new testament: not according to the testament that I settled for their fathers in the day when I laid hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my testament, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the testament that I will make for the house of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will give my laws in their mind, and will write them upon their hearts, and I will see to them; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people;" -- without doubt this is prophesied to the Jerusalem above, whose reward is God Himself, and whose chief and entire good it is to have Him, and to be His. But this pertains to both, that the city of God is called Jerusalem, and that it is prophesied the house of God shall be in it; and this prophecy seems to be fulfilled when king Solomon builds that most noble temple. For these things both happened in the earthly Jerusalem, as history shows, and were types of the heavenly Jerusalem. And this kind of prophecy, as it were compacted and commingled of both the others in the ancient canonical books, containing historical narratives, is of very great significance, and has exercised and exercises greatly the wits of those who search holy writ. For example, what we read of historically as predicted and fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to, the flesh, we must also inquire the allegorical meaning of, as it is to be fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to faith. And so much is this the case, that some have thought there is nothing in these books either foretold and effected, or effected although not foretold, that does not insinuate something else which is to be referred by figurative signification to the city of God on high, and to her children who are pilgrims in this life. But if this be so, then the utterances of the prophets, or rather the whole of those Scriptures that are reckoned under the title of the Old Testament, will be not of three, but of two different kinds. For there will be nothing there which pertains to the terrestrial Jerusalem only, if whatever is there said and fulfilled of or concerning her signifies something which also refers by allegorical prefiguration to the celestial Jerusalem; but there will be only two kinds one that pertains to the free Jerusalem, the other to both. But just as, I think, they err greatly who are of opinion that none of the records of affairs in that kind of writings mean anything more than that they so happened, so I think those very daring who contend that the whole gist of their contents lies in allegorical significations. Therefore I have said they are threefold, not two-fold. Yet, in holding this opinion, I do not blame those who may be able to draw out of everything there a spiritual meaning, only saving, first of all, the historical truth. For the rest, what believer can doubt that those things are spoken vainly which are such that, whether said to have been done or to be yet to come, they do not be-seem either human or divine affairs? Who would not recall these to spiritual understanding if he could, or confess that they should be recalled by him who is able? [REFERENCE: ]
And in Origen’s De Principiis, Book IV, paragraphs 19-20 (Greek Version) we read:
19. But that no one may suppose that we assert respecting the whole that no history is real[1] because a certain one is not; and that no law is to be literally observed, because a certain one, (understood) according to the letter, is absurd or impossible; or that the statements regarding the Saviour are not true in a manner perceptible to the senses;[2] or that no commandment and precept of His ought to be obeyed;--we have to answer that, with regard to certain things, it is perfectly clear to us that the historical account is true; as that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as also Isaac and Jacob, and the wives of each of them; and that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph;[4] and that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon; and innumerable other statements. For the passages that are true in their historical meaning are much more numerous than those which are interspersed with a purely spiritual signification. And again, who would not say that the command which enjoins to "honour thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee,"[5] is useful, apart from all allegorical meaning,[6] and ought to be observed, the Apostle Paul also having employed these very same words? And what need is there to speak of the (prohibitions), "Thou shall not commit adultery," "Thou shall not kill," "Thou shall not steal," "Thou shall not bear false witness?"[7] And again, there are commandments contained in the Gospel which admit of no doubt whether they are to be observed according to the letter or not; e.g., that which says, "But I say unto you, Whoever is angry with his brother,"[10] and so on. And again, "But I say unto you, Swear not at all."[11] And in the writings of the apostle the literal sense is to be retained: "Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men;"[12] although it is possible for those ambitious of a deeper meaning to retain the profundities of the wisdom of God, without setting aside the commandment in its literal meaning.[13] The careful (reader), however, will be in doubt[14] as to certain points, being unable to show without long investigation whether this history so deemed literally occurred or not, and whether the literal meaning of this law is to be observed or not. And therefore the exact reader must, in obedience to the Saviour's injunction to "search the Scriptures,"[1] [REFERENCE: John 5:39] carefully ascertain in how far the literal meaning is true, and in how far impossible; and so far as he can, trace out, by means of similar statements, the meaning everywhere scattered through Scripture of that which cannot be understood in a literal signification. [REFERENCE: How can the sacred books contain divine words and still be in error? In all of these who is to decide which are to be taken literally and which figuratively?]
20. Since, therefore, as will be clear to those who read, the connection taken literally is impossible, while the sense preferred[2] is not impossible, but even the true one, it must be our object to grasp the whole meaning, which connects the account of what is literally impossible in an intelligible manner with what is not only not impossible, but also historically true, and which is allegorically understood, in respect of its not having literally occurred.[3] For, with respect to holy Scripture, our opinion is that the whole of it has a "spiritual," but not the whole a "bodily" meaning, because the bodily meaning is in many places proved to be impossible. And therefore great attention must be bestowed by the cautious reader on the divine books, as being divine writings; the manner of understanding which appears to us to be as follows:--The Scriptures relate that God chose a certain nation upon the earth, which they call by several names. For the whole of this nation is termed Israel, and also Jacob. And when it was divided in the times of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the ten tribes related as being subject to him were called Israel; and the remaining two, along with the tribe of Levi, being ruled over by the descendants of David, were named Judah. And the whole of the territory which the people of this nation inhabited, being given them by God, receives the name of Judah, the metropolis of which is Jerusalem,--a metropolis, namely, of numerous cities, the names of which lie scattered about in many other passages (of Scripture), but are enumerated together in the book of Joshua the son of Nun.[5] [REFERENCE: Here is what Origen asserts is absolutely maintained.]
And in Origen’s De Principiis, Book IV, paragraphs 19-20 (Latin Version) we read:
19. Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place; or that no precepts of the law are to be taken literally, because we consider certain of them, in which either the nature or possibility of the case so requires, incapable of being observed; or that we do not believe those predictions which were written of the Saviour to have been fulfilled in a manner palpable to the senses; or that His commandments are not to be literally obeyed. We have therefore to state in answer, since we are manifestly so of opinion, that the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in the majority of instances. For who can deny that Abraham was buried in the double cave[3] at Hebron, as well as Isaac and Jacob, and each of their wives? Or who doubts that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph?[4] or that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, on which the temple of God was built by Solomon?--and countless other statements. For the passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning. [REFERENCE: ] Then, again, who would not maintain that the command to "honour thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee,"[5] is sufficient of itself without any spiritual meaning, and necessary for those who observe it? especially when Paul also has confirmed the command by repeating it in the same words. And what need is there to speak of the prohibitions, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not bear false witness,"[7] and others of the same kind? And with respect to the precepts enjoined in the Gospels, no doubt can be entertained that very many of these are to be literally observed, as e.g., when our Lord says, "But I say unto you, Swear not at all;"[8] and when He says, "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart;"[9] the admonitions also which are found in the writings of the Apostle Paul, "Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men,"[12] and very many others. And yet I have no doubt that an attentive reader will, in numerous instances, hesitate whether this or that history can be considered to be literally true or not; or whether this or that precept ought to be observed according to the letter or no. And therefore great pains and labour are to be employed, until every reader reverentially understand that he is dealing with divine and not human words inserted in the sacred books. [REFERENCE: How can the sacred books contain divine words and still be in error? In all of these who is to decide which are to be taken literally and which figuratively?]
20. The understanding, therefore, of holy Scripture which we consider ought to be deservedly and consistently maintained, is of the following kind. A certain nation is declared by holy Scripture to have been chosen by God upon the earth, which nation has received several names: for sometimes the whole of it is termed Israel, and sometimes Jacob; and it was divided by Jeroboam son of Nebat into two portions; and the ten tribes which were formed under him were called Israel, while the two remaining ones (with which were united the tribe of Levi, and that which was descended from the royal race of David) was named Judah. Now the whole of the country possessed by that nation, which it had received from God, was called Judea, in which was situated the metropolis, Jerusalem; and it is called metropolis, being as it were the mother of many cities, the names of which you will frequently find mentioned here and there in the other books of Scripture, but which are collected together into one catalogue in the book of Joshua the son of Nun.[4] [REFERENCE: Here is what Origen asserts is absolutely maintained.]
What is abundantly clear in both Origen’s and Augustine’s works is that neither discounted the literal and historical meanings of the Scriptures, although, both allowed for and warned about trying to interpret passages of Scripture literally which were obviously meant to be understood in some other manner such as figuratively, allegorically, symbolically, and/or spiritually.
It is the hope of this Examiner that these references assist other students and scholars in avoiding the error of being seduced into believing that both Origen and Augustine insisted that the Scriptures be interpreted allegorically.
========================================================================
If you enjoyed this article consider perusing this Examiner’s article archives for other articles at:
Article Archive 1:
Article Archive 2:
Article Archive 3:
Article Archive 4:
Article Archive 5:
Article Archive 6:
Article Archive 7:
Article Archive 8:
Article Archive 9:
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
