Origen of Alexandria - Part 3 - Against Celsus 

I’ve very much enjoyed this series a lot. I think it’s important to note that with Origen (and other church fathers for that matter) that though the Jews are under judgment for the time, that there still is this expectation that they would come to faith in Christ at the eschaton.

I am so appreciating this deep dive into Origen. I’m processing your discussion of supercessionism in the moment. I think one thing that vexes me when we talk about Jesus as the Messiah, which is ultimately a kingly figure, right? Is how Jesus likewise states that his kingdom is not of this world. And yet, growing up Protestant like I did, I was taught how Jesus would return to function as king (of this world). Meanwhile God establishes His Kingdom within us. Christ in you, the hope of Glory. As such, Samuel grieved when the people wanted a king. And the parable of the bramble in Judges does not look favorably on those who want to usurp God’s place of kingship over His people. So personally I find the Christian hope of Jesus as a king misguided. Personally, I think Jesus modeled for us God’s Kingship. Not my will, but Yours. Likewise, I don’t think Christianity is meant to be a new religion, but rather the introduction of a “new covenant”, whereby we begin to comprehend by the Spirit of Wisdom what previously was understood only literally, by the letter. So a literal temple made of literal stones points to the Body of Christ being a Living Temple made of Living Stones. And a circumcision of the flesh is no longer of the flesh by the letter, but rather by the Spirit is understood as a transformation of heart as the old self is trimmed away (Rom 2:28-29, 2 Cor 3:6, Rom 7:6, Col 2:11). For me, Origen’s understanding of letter v spirit was thus an essential corrective to my Protestant upbringing in biblical literalism. For me, literalism is the “old covenant” or old way of relating to Scripture. And thus the “new covenant” I see as a new hermeneutic, not a new set of Scriptures. As such, how could Paul even be referring to a New Testament as a new set of Scriptures, when such didn’t even exist yet when he was teaching this principle (2 Cor 3:6)? Thus this new covenant was originally a new way to read the Hebrew Scriptures. Or perhaps more accurately a new way to read all Scripture. In other words, heavenly revelation requires interpretation! Just as Joseph and Daniel model. And thus rather ironically, we can read the so-called New Testament via an old covenant of literalism. Herein, the Word is not TRANSFIGURED by the Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation, but is understood by the natural mind as speaking of external things, rather than internal. Thus we mistake the SYMBOL for spiritual substance, and confuse the road sign for the destination. Origen hints at this in his Commentary on Matthew when he addresses the transfiguration, how the gospels must be transformed as well, not just the Law and the Prophets (represented by Moses and Elijah). Thus when the stone of the “dead letter” is rolled away, the Spirit of the Word breaks forth. A Word transfigured. This for me is part of what Origen helps restore…the gift of interpretation that as Protestants we have lost!

Fascinating conversation on "the Fall," and the pre-existence of souls (1:19:00). The Fall from Paradise, then clothed in skin (bodies). That’s interesting! In initial response to your question, a Fall from what? I might have responded with a "Fall from Grace”. Rather than a fall from heaven. Then again, I tend to see the Two Trees as representing the two covenants of Letter (Law) and Spirit (Wisdom). When we eat from the Tree of Law (the knowledge of good and evil), our shortcomings are exposed. In guilt and condemnation, we then hide from God, Who must then offer us some kind of atonement by which to approach. To cover our nakedness and shame. Hence, the sacrifices or skins. I think Paul is speaking from this same opening parable when stating, ”I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, and I died” (Rom 7:9). Thus, the eating of the Fruit of Law. What Paul thus refers to as a ministry of condemnation and death (2 Cor 3:6-9). As such, this parable is perhaps not about the past, but about the giving of the Law and our fall from grace. Thus the cross redeems us from the Law (Gal 4:5-7), by ending our old relationship to the letter in order to introduce a New Covenant of the Spirit (Rom 7:6). For Wisdom is a Tree of Life (Prov 3:18).

Christ is risen! I've just watched your first three videos on Origen (and reading his On First Principles in the Fr. John Behr translation). This is so informative and enjoyable to listen to. Thank you very much!

Made it to the end club here!

Wonderful as always Sam and Hank! Love the Church Fathers series.

tl;dr "Why JBP makes sense to sacramental traditions" is a touchy topic around these parts I took a break from podcasts for a while, and appreciating both yours & Hank's hot takes, especially with respect to the prominence of typological interpretation (real?) versus the extremely literal (nominal?) interpretation of scripture (to the point that some would balk at even the use of the word 'interpretation'). It's clearly one of the most important yet under-discussed topics in communities like our Discord, yet Hank is probably correct in his assessment that the early church would have dismissed 'a prominent evangelical preacher' for heresy for just this position. What a devastating critique.

Good stuff, and if you don't mind a little constructive criticism. When your guests are speaking, and this is not easy to do, don't look up stuff of your computer or move onto other quotes :) Practice presence with your guests, they have things to say that are relevant too, and would have been good points to dig into. Hope that makes sense. Love the Dillanhunty comparison 👌

First!