This paper will compare and contrast the theologies of Clement of Alexandria and Origen in regards to their views on different levels of maturity in the church, physical and spiritual senses of interpreting scripture and viewing the world, Christology, platonic influence, and Origen’s contradictory views on the suffering and changeability of God.
Within the theologies of both Origen and Clement of Alexandria is seen the idea there are different levels of maturity within those who make up the church. While all believers may share in the salvation of Christ, not all believers are at the same level when it comes their spiritual maturity or their level of wisdom and insight into spiritual matters. McGrath says, “The distinction between different levels of maturity and advancement on the part of Christians is characteristic of both Clement of Alexandria and Origen.”[1]
Origen believed that the scriptures ought to be interpreted on various levels according to the level of maturity of different believers. Origen divided the scriptures into categories that he referred to as “body, soul, and spirit.” Those believers who were at the lowest level of maturity were to receive instruction from scripture as interpreted in its lowest sense, that is, literally or bodily. Origen says that those who may interpret scripture spiritually are those who “are able to explain the way in which the worship of the ‘Jews after the flesh’ yields images and ‘shadows of heavenly things’ and how the ‘Law had the shadow of good things to come.’”[2]
Clement held to similar views to those of Origen on the interpretation of the Scriptures. However, he believed that there were four different possible interpretations. McGrath writes that Clement set out the “fundamental principal that there are four senses (or meanings) of Scripture: a literal sense, and three additional spiritual senses. This would later be formalized in what came to be known as the Quadriga…”[3] Clement writes of this idea in the Stromata, saying, “The meaning of the law is to be understood by us in three ways [in addition to its literal sense]: as displaying a sign, as establishing a command for right conduct, or as making known a prophecy.”[4]
The Christology of Origen is seen in his biblical commentaries. Origen saw Christ’s death as a ransom paid by God to devil in order to redeem mankind.[5] The Christology of Clement is best seen in the light of Clement’s recognition of the deep love of God for mankind. Clement views the death of Christ as the ultimate example of God’s deep love for humanity, and His desire that everyone should be saved. McGrath points out that this is just one view that Clement had on the death of Christ in order to make clear that Clement sees Christ’s crucifixion as more than just a demonstration of God’s love. However, he adds that “there is no doubt that this is a highly important aspect of Clement’s teaching…”[6]
Both Origen and Clement relied heavily upon Greek philosophy and applied it however they wished to their theology.[7] This is why both theologians tend to sound rather platonic in their arguments. There are passages in Clement’s exhortation to the Pagans where he calls upon Plato to aid him in his quest. Gonzales says of this, “Clement’s purpose in the passage is to show his pagan readers that a good part of Christian doctrine can be supported by Plato’s philosophy.”[8] These views of Clement were instrumental in Origen’s own theological development. Both theologians tended towards Gnosticism, though it would not be fair to say outright that they were Gnostics. They simply shared some similar beliefs to the Gnostic groups. The platonic influence has much to do with this, as well as their understanding that Scripture is to be read in more than just the literal sense, but there is a deeper spiritual meaning behind the literal sense that must be discovered.[9] The Gnostics believed that the physical world was evil and that we must escape it and become pure spirit. While Clement and Origen may have not gone quite to this extreme they were at times close to it. While they supported the literal sense of the scriptures, they saw that it was inferior to the spiritual sense.
Origen had a number of different beliefs that contradicted each other. For example, Origen believed that it was impossible for God to change because a perfect God is not affected by pain or does not suffer. Suffering and the ability to experience pain implies changeability, and according to Origen God does not at all change.[10] He makes this point clear in his work Against Celsus. However, Origen goes against this same belief that he defends in Against Celsus in his commentary on the book of Ezekiel. In that text Origen claims that God truly does suffer, and that the nature of God, especially in the incarnation of Christ was to suffer with mankind and be able to relate to the changeable experiences of humanity and in so doing be affected by the possibility of change itself.[11] He writes, “The savior descended to earth to grieve for the human race, and took our sufferings on himself before he endured the cross and deigned to assume our flesh. If he had not suffered, he would not have come to share in human life.”[12] Later he writes, “Therefore God has taken our ways upon himself, just as the Son of God bore our sufferings. The Father himself is not impassible.”[13] In saying this Origen indicates that it is not only the Son who is capable of change, but the Father himself. This would very much seem to contradict the argument he presents against Celsus where he claims that “the Word remains the Word in his essential being and does not suffer what the body or soul suffers…”[14] It may be that Origen was not aware that he was contradicting himself when he said this, and that he did actually believe that God suffered and changed as indicated in his other work, but that in order to refute Celsus he fell into the extremities, saying that God does not change at all in order to make a point that the essential character of God never changes.
___________________________________________________
[1] (ed.) Alister McGrath. The Christian Theology Reader. (Blackwell Pub.: Malden, MA), 2007.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Clement of Alexandria. Quoted in McGrath.
[5] Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. Vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
[6] McGrath.
[7] Justo L. Gonzalez. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. (Harper Collins Pub.: New York), 1984.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] McGrath.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Origen quoted in McGrath.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment