Origen of Alexandria - Part 2 - On First Principles: Cosmology and Interpretation of Scripture 

Love these. The 2 horseman of the church fathers.

Will enjoy this in full later as have to step out.

When speaking of spiritual exegesis, one of the texts that was quite influential in the early church was also the Epistle of Barnabas. The oldest complete version of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, actually included the Epistle of Barnabas alongside part of the Shepherd of Hermas. In keeping the Hebrew Scriptures as part of the Christian tradition and not tossing them aside like Marcion wanted to do, this spiritual method of interpretation was quite important. Anyhow, I would love to hear your thoughts on this Text as well. Such leaves me curious whether Origen ever commented on such.

Looking forward to the next one!

57:40 where’s ur evidence of the influence of Dr Heiser’s work on Fr Stephen ? I had the same sneaking suspicion.

First!

Origen's way of reading Scripture sounds a bit like the PaRDeS (4 level) reading of Scripture in Judaism. Pashat, or simple, is like his Flesh reading. Either the Remez (symbolic) or Drash (seeking) method is like his Soul reading. And then the Sod (hidden) reading is like the Spirit... But whereas Judaism relies on the Hebrew text (like the Sod reading which notices that Deut 18:4 employs unique words for grain, wine, etc that share roots with pagan deities) Origen widens the methodology for non-Hebrew-readers. Paul's spiritual reading of Hagar and Sarah seems at home in certain Rabbinic interpretations I've come across too. It does make me wonder how Paul would view Origen.

Origen holds that according to God’s Good Plan all things will be summed up in Christ (Eph 1:9-10), so that God might be “the all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). Where it is argued that Satan too will be included, Scripture does say “all things”. However, I think this is to misunderstand the parable in the garden, wherein the serpent dwells in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. What is the serpent, but that Prosecuting Attorney (ministers of the Law) that uses the letter of the Law to accuse and condemn (2 Cor 3:6-9). And thus who does Scripture refer to as a brood of vipers? Thus redeemed from the Law, sin and death no longer have any bite or sting (Rom 7:8, 1 Cor 15:54-56). Free from the Law, nothing can any longer separate us from the Love of God (Rom 8:38-39). And thus in Christ, there is now no condemnation (Rom 8:1).

Only someone like Baal of Tarsus could sarcastically dismiss the idea that G-d cares about animals.

25:14 Hank seems to be unaware of the opposition to Darwin's human evolution theory by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. He seems only to be aware of the more recent 20th century accommodation of the theory by many RC and EO theologians. Whether they are in the majority or not, I don't know, but that does not make them right. There are RC and EO theologians who emphatically reject Darwinism. It may be taught in RC schools, but it is not truly Catholic doctrine. I don't think it has been formally pronounced on as being required to be believed. Check out the Kolbe Center, named for St Maximilian Kolbe who opposed evolution theory.

9:03 so uh… righteous angels die?

Are comets evil souls, since they do not follow a rational, mathematical path?

1:01:06 Sam, I think you are mistaken both about standard Trinitarian theology and Paul Vanderklay. You should look into the Trinitarian teaching of the Inseparable Operations of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. PVK's God number 1 and God number 2 are both the one God the Holy Trinity. As for spiritual/allegorical exegesis that has always been a part of mainstream Protestantism, being found in New Testment Scripture itself, as you have noted. In his preface to the Old Testament, Luther criticized those who had little regard for the Old Testament because they thought ONLY a spiritual sense is to be sought in it. l am not aware of any denial by him of there being spiritual and allegorical sense. Do you have any evidence of that? He does say the natural meaning of the words is queen, transcending all subtle, acute sophistical fancy and criticizes Origen ("Against the Heavenly Prophets"), but, again, that does not entirely rule out spiritual and allegorical sense altogether. Luther and Calvin, being Augustinians, would I suppose hold to Augustine's reading of the Psalms as relating to Jesus Christ beyond their immediate application to David etc.

Blaming socioeconomics for Origen’s view is wrong , the Disciples didn’t understand the spiritual depths of scripture till Christ sent the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with education or economics. Also Bart Ehrman doesn’t truly understand the spiritual meaning of the text.