Origen’s theological and mystical

approach to the Scriptures

in the introduction to
his commentary on
John’s Gospel
P.B. Decock
School of Religion and Theology
University of KwaZulu-Natal
PIETERMARITZBURG
St. Joseph’s Theological Institute
CEDARA
E-mail: decock@sjti.ac.za

Abstract
Origen’s theological and mystical approach to the Scriptures
in the introduction to his commentary on John’s Gospel
This article explores Origen’s approach to interpreting John’s
Gospel as can be seen in the introduction to his commentary. It
deals with the points which were usually discussed in the
introductions to Aristotle and Plato. It was this educational aim
of the philosophical tradition that was Origen’s chief concern in
commenting on the Scriptures; an aim which was not seen as
merely becoming skilled or well-informed. Rather, it was about
developing in virtue, in wisdom, in conversion to the Good
(Plato); or as Origen understood it, development in love for
God. Origen perceived the development of love for God in three
basic steps: moral purification, by which the person is enabled
to appreciate moral values; enlightenment, by which the person
recognises God as the supreme and absolute value; and finally,
union with God in love, which is never fully achieved in this life.
The New Testament together with the Old Testament (under-
stood in the light of the New Testament), reveals the power of
the Gospel “in mirror darkly” while the “eternal gospel” will be
the full revelation of it at the eschaton. John’s Gospel is the
clearest expression of the divine Logos; but no one can
understand the text fully as expression of the Logos unless one

In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688 673

Origen’s theological and mystical approach to the Scriptures … on John’s Gospel

becomes like John – who was intimately related to the Logos,

as the Logos is related to the Father (John 13:23, 25; 1:18).
Opsomming
Die teologiese en mistieke benadering van die Skrif in die
inleiding tot Origenes se Johannes-kommentaar
Die artikel ondersoek die wyse waarop Origenes die Johannes-
evangelie benader soos dit tot uitdrukking kom in die inleiding
van sy kommentaar. Hier bespreek hy dieselfde vrae wat
gewoonlik in die inleidings tot die werke van Aristoteles of Plato
behandel word. Hierdie opvoedkundige bedoeling van die
filosofie was die sentrale oorweging vir Origenes in sy kommen-
taar op die Skrif. Dit gaan nie bloot om ingelig of geskoold te
wees nie, maar om te groei en te ontwikkel in wysheid en
deugsaamheid, jou tot die Goeie (Plato) te bekeer, of soos
Origenes dit beskou het, om liefde vir God te ontwikkel.
Origenes beskou die groei in die liefde vir God as bestaande uit
drie stappe: eers kom die morele suiwering wat die persoon in
staat stel om morele waardes op prys te stel; dan kom die
verligting waardeur die persoon God as die allerhoogste en
absolute waarde herken; en uiteindelik, die vereniging met God
in die liefde wat nie in hierdie lewe ten volle tot vervulling kom
nie. Die Nuwe Testament, asook die Ou Testament (verstaan in
die lig van die Nuwe Testament), maak die Evangelie “deur ’n
spieël in ’n raaisel” bekend, maar die “ewige evangelie” sal in
die eschaton tot volle openbaring kom. Die Johannesevangelie
is die mees duidelike openbaring van die goddelike Logos,
maar ’n mens verstaan die teks as openbaring van die Logos
slegs in die mate waarin jy soos Johannes word, wie intiem met
die Logos verenig was soos die Logos met die Vader verenig is
(Joh. 13:23, 25; 1:18).

1. Introduction
It may not be inappropriate to honour Professor Tjaart van der Walt
with a study on Origen’s interpretation of the Scriptures. Although
Origen has long been depicted as an allegoriser, a Platonist, even a
heretic; nevertheless, today it is increasingly broadly recognised that
he has been one of the best foundation members of Christian bib-
lical interpretation.1 With regard to the accusation that he was a
Platonist, most will agree that no interpreter of the Scriptures (then

1 Sixty years ago, De Lubac (1950) surveyed in some detail the common
complaints against Origen, but then continued by trying to understand what
Origen was really aiming at in his biblical interpretation.

674 In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688

 P.B. Decock

and now), can ignore contemporary philosophy if they want to

engage the people of their times. In any case, all interpreters are –
with lesser or greater awareness – influenced by philosophical cur-
rents. Such an interaction can be both enriching and challenging,
but Origen, a very well-trained philosopher himself, was not intimi-
dated by the various philosophical schools. In stead of feeling that
the Christian faith was threatened and besieged by the various
philosophies, he had the conviction of a conqueror. For instance, he
interpreted Jericho in the Book of Joshua as the city of philosophers,
besieged and conquered by the new Joshua (Hom. Jes. Nav. 7.1 &
7). However, after the victory, not everything has to be destroyed,
only perverse doctrines and idolatry, “but not philosophy in general.
So it is permitted for the disciples of Jesus to look for booty in the
Jericho of the philosophers, provided that they do it discreetly and
prudently” (Crouzel, 1989:159).2 He saw Christian teaching as the
true philosophy, the love for true wisdom – the Logos. As one of his
disciples, Gregory Thaumaturgus (Letter of Thanksgiving 15.173; cf.
Crouzel, 1969) witnessed: “On this subject he advised us not to
become attached to any philosophy, not even to one that enjoyed
among men a great reputation for wisdom, but to be attached to God
alone and his prophets.” (Crouzel, 1989:161.) In this article, I will
first draw attention to the way in which Origen’s introduction to the
Gospel of John is modelled after the contemporary philosophical
introductions to the works of Plato and Aristotle.3 It will become clear
that the understanding Origen is aiming at is educational, in the
sense of the Greek paideia; the aim of education was not seen as
merely becoming skilled or well-informed, but as developing in
virtue, in wisdom, in conversion to the Good (Plato), in love of God
(Origen).

2 Deuteronomy 21:10-13 and Exodus 11:2; 12:35 are explained in similar ways
(Crouzel,1989:159). As Crouzel (1989:156) points out:
So Origen takes his place in a tradition mainly centered in his native
city. But he is less enthusiastic than Clement for Hellenic philosophy:
he does not, like his predecessor, regard it as a Testament given to
the Greeks as the Bible to the Jews and he was more reticent about
the salvation it brings; many of his judgements on it are harsh.

3 Of course, Clement and Origen learnt from Philo how to relate Platonism to the
Scriptures. “… Origen’s own library is the source of the manuscript tradition of
all of Philo’s surviving works” (Trigg, 1998:11).

In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688 675

Origen’s theological and mystical approach to the Scriptures … on John’s Gospel

2. Origen’s introduction and the pattern of philosophical

introductions
After Hadot (1987) and Neuschäfer (1987), Heine (1995) considers
the topics discussed in the introductions to ancient philosophical
commentaries of Aristotle, as a means of understanding Origen’s
introductions. From the works of one of Origen’s contemporaries,
Alexander of Aphrodisias, he shows that there was an established
pattern to introductions in the philosophical schools of Alexandria
“as early as the beginning of the third century” (Heine, 1995:7), and
that they could have been part of Origen’s education. In Origen’s
Introduction to his Commentary on John (Comm. Jo.), Heine finds
four of the six standard topics discussed in the philosophical intro-
ductions: the order (τάξις), the division into heads, the aim of the
work (σκοπός, τέλος), and the reason for the title. As in the general
introductions to Aristotle, Origen also discusses “what sort of person
the interpreter must be, and perhaps also the qualities necessary in
the student” (Heine, 1995:12).
In this discussion of the Introduction, I will follow the divisions as
given by Heine (1995:8). According to him, Comm. Jo. 1.1-13
… may be Origen’s circuitous way of saying something about
the qualifications necessary in one who would study the Gospel
of John, i.e. he or she must be morally pure (capable of being
classed among ‘the virgins of the tribes’), and dedicated to ‘the
things which are superior’.

The second section (Comm. Jo. 2.14-23a) discusses the question of

order, the place of the Gospel of John within the entire Bible, and
concludes: “We might dare to say, then, that the Gospels are the
first fruits of all Scriptures, but that the first fruits of the Gospels is
that according to John” (Comm. Jo. 2.23) Heine (1995:9) comments:
Like his Christology, which begins from above and understands
the life of the earthly Jesus in the light of the divine Christ, so
his reading of the Bible begins from above, with the divinity of
Jesus presented most clearly in the Gospel of John, and seeks
this divine Jesus of John in all the other books of the Bible.

Origen has included two other common topics in his discussion on

the order, the division into heads and the aim or theme. The first can
be seen in Origen’s discussion of the distinction between the four
Gospels (Comm. Jo. 1.21-22); the second, the theme or τέλος, is
the fuller manifestation of Jesus’ divinity (Comm. Jo. 1.22; Heine,
1995:9-10). The third section (Comm. Jo. 1.23b-26), returns to the

676 In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688

 P.B. Decock

question “what kind of person the interpreter must be?” (Heine,

1995:10). The answer is that they must have the mind of Christ
(1 Cor. 2:12, 16). The final and longest section (Comm. Jo. 1.27-88)
discusses the question of the title, what is a “gospel”?

This introduction indicates how Origen approached his task as a

biblical commentator by drawing on the tradition of philosophical
commentaries, a field with which he was certainly familiar (cf. Runia,
2004:171-175). His approach to the study of the Scriptures can be
compared to that of the established approach to the study of the
works of a philosopher like Aristotle, whose oeuvre consisted of a
variety of works. It was a question of recognising this variety and to
know how each work was to be used in the process of introducing a
student to the ideas of Aristotle. Origen looked upon the Scriptures
in a similar way, as a body of literature coming from the one great
teacher, the Logos. Like the Aristotelian corpus, it also consists of a
variety of works, which needed to be carefully distinguished and
used in the correct way in the education process (παιδεία). Modern
biblical scholars recognise various opinions present in the Canon,
and some have elevated particular books as the Canon within the
Canon (Brown & Collins, 1990:1052-1054). Origen, however, tried to
accommodate this diversity in the form of a divine educational pro-
cess. This process of paideia was a lively concern in the Hellenistic
world (Marrou, 1950:139-313), and Origen clearly understood his
interpretation of the Scriptures as the Christian version of this
paideia. Before him, Philo, in his interpretation of Genesis 16, drew
attention to the Greek educational system and the specific order in
which various subjects had to be taught.4 According to Philo, the
ultimate aim of education is wisdom or virtue, but Abraham (the
soul) is unable to procreate with Sarah (virtue) until he has “know-
ledge” of the lower forms, represented by the concubine (Hagar):
grammar, music, mathematics, geometry, rhetoric, dialectics, and

4 For instance in Mating with preliminary studies:

For some have been ensnared by the love of the lures of the
handmaids and spurned the mistress, ... some doting on poetry, some
on geometrical figures, some on blending of musical colours, and a
host of other things, and have never been able to soar to the winning
of the lawful wife (Philo, 1932:77). ... Now philosophy teaches us
control of the belly and the parts below it, and control also of the
tongue. Such powers of control are said to be desirable in themselves,
but will assume a grander and loftier aspect if practiced for the honour
and service of God. (Philo, 1932:80.)

Origen follows this same line in Philocalia 13.

In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688 677

Origen’s theological and mystical approach to the Scriptures … on John’s Gospel

astronomy. However, these are only preliminary studies (handmai-

dens) and should never take the place of the true aim (the wife),
wisdom and virtue. Similarly, Origen draws our attention to the
established order of procedure in the study of philosophy, where the
sequence of ethics, physics and enoptics guides him to view the
sequence of the three books of Solomon in precisely that way:
Proverbs (ethics), Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) (physics) and Song of
Songs (enoptics). The aim of this paideia is to lead the believers to-
wards the highest goal, wisdom, or love of God (see Comm. Cant.
Prologue 3; Lawson, 1957:44-45).

Put differently, Origen approaches and interprets the biblical texts

within the perspective of Greek paideia, by which all subjects are
geared towards the highest goal of the human person, moral quality,
virtue or wisdom (Marrou, 1950:302-303). For Origen, as a Chris-
tian, this highest goal can only be love of God.

3. Origen’s vision of the Scriptures

First of all, Origen’s understanding of the Scriptures is theological.
All forms of knowledge must be made subservient to the one pur-
pose of guiding the love dynamism of the readers in the right
direction, that is, towards the love of God.
Moreover, when this passion of love is directed on to diverse
skills, whether manual crafts or occupations needful only for this
present life – the art of wrestling, for example, or track running –
or even when it is expended on the study of geometry or music
or arithmetic or similar branches of learning, neither in that case
does it seem to me to be used laudably. (Comm. Cant.
Prologue 2; Lawson, 1957:36.)

All skills as well as the entire study programme of the Greek

education system, must become the means by which to explore the
literal meaning of the Scriptures.5 However, all this should only be
seen as a preparation or a handmaiden to ascend to the full, spiri-
tual meaning of the Scriptures – the love of God.
Secondly, Origen’s approach to the Scriptures is theological, or even
mystical, in that they are understood as part and parcel of his
understanding of God, the universe, and the divine work of salva-

5 Origen compares this to the spoiling of the Egyptians by the Israelites during the
Exodus or the digging of wells in the land of the Philistines (cf. Crouzel,
1989:56-57, 61-62).

678 In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688

 P.B. Decock

tion.6 Central to this vision is the Logos as God’s Word and God’s
Wisdom, the true and perfect in image and likeness to God. God
created human intelligence in this image of God and humans were
given the potential to strive towards God’s likeness7 (cf. Crouzel,
1956). After the Fall from their ardent love for God, the present
material universe was created through the Logos as a means of
salvation, and therefore this material universe is also a reflection of
the Logos. Furthermore, the Logos is involved in the work of salva-
tion in history before the incarnation, and, therefore, the theophanies
of the Old Testament are, in fact, manifestations of the Logos.8 In
Jesus, the Logos has become incarnate and was presented to
human beings in a physically perceptible form, adapted to human
beings in their present-day condition. Jesus as the embodied Logos,
therefore becomes the key to understanding the presence of the
Logos in creation and in the history of Israel. In concert with these,
Jesus in his humanity is the visible manifestation, the symbol,
through which God draws human beings little by little closer to
Himself.9

6 Origen’s interpretation of the fall as the falling away of the intelligences from
union with the Logos in their contemplation of God and the new embodiment of
some of these intelligences, who have now become souls, as human beings is a
well known but complex aspect of Origen’s theology (cf. Crouzel, 1989:205-
218).

7 McGuckin, 2004:132-133 quotes:

The fact that Moses said ‘He made him in the image of God’ [Gen
1:27-28], and was then silent about the earlier issue of ‘likeness’ [Gen
1:26], points to nothing else but this, that man received the honour of
God’s image in his first creation, whereas the perfection of God’s
likeness was reserved for him at the consummation. The purpose for
this was that Man should acquire it for himself, by his own earnest
efforts to imitate God. In this way, while the possibility of attaining
perfection was given to Man in the beginning, through the honour of
the ‘image’, even so he should, in the end, obtain for himself ‘the
perfect likeness’ by the accomplishment of these works. (Princ. 3.6.1.)

8 Crouzel (1989:193) postulates:

… doctrine generally held by the ante-Nicenes ... it is in this context
that Origen declares that the Christ made Himself man among men
and an angel to angels [Hom. Gen. 8:8; Comm. Jo. 1:216-218]. The
explanation seems to be as follows: He then shows Himself in his
humanity, both angelic and human, since, not having sinned, He is not
affected by the distinction resulting from the fall.

9 As Crouzel (1989:107) expresses it:

It is of the nature of created things that they must be left behind: the
soul in its soaring must aim far beyond them. So it is in so far as we

In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688 679

Origen’s theological and mystical approach to the Scriptures … on John’s Gospel

The Scriptures are now the privileged “symbols”, the “embodi-

ment”10 of the Logos. They must be understood as symbols in that
they point beyond themselves and lead to the invisible God.11 The
Old Testament announces the future but not yet the present Logos,
and therefore it must be interpreted in the light of the New Testa-
ment.12 However, the New Testament itself is only the temporal
gospel, contrasted with the eternal gospel (Rev. 14:6).13 While in the
latter we will see the Logos “face to face”, in the temporal gospel,
the Logos is perceived through “a glass darkly” because He is
hidden in his humanity (cf. Crouzel, 1989:109-112). The full revela-
tion is still to come in the eschatological fulfilment of God’s work, on
that future seventh day, the great sabbath, the apokatastasis.14

will to get beyond them that the created things show the Creator and
arouse in us a desire for Him.

10 Simonetti (1994:41) writes:

He does not limit himself to thinking of Scripture as a book inspired by
the Holy Spirit, but as the divine word he effectively identifies with
Christ (= the Logos), the Word of God: the letter of the sacred text
functions, like the human body assumed by Christ, as the envelope
which encloses the divine Logos (C. Celsum VI 77; Comm. Ser. in Mt.
27): Sacred Scripture is the permanent incarnation of the Logos.

11 Crouzel (1989:109) states:

But if one stops at the symbol, ... if one makes the symbol an end in
itself, an autonomous entity, ... in that case the literal meaning,
although historically true, is myth, because it does not follow the will of
the Spirit, because it refuses to efface itself before that which it
represents.

12 The Old Testament as “symbol does not lie, so long as it participates in its
model” (Crouzel, 1989:109).

13 Comm. Jo. (1.40) states:

And that which John calls an eternal gospel, which would properly be
called a spiritual gospel, clearly presents both the mysteries presented
by Christ’s words and the things of which his acts were symbols, to
those who consider all things face to face [cf. Proverbs 8:9]
concerning the Son of God himself.

It is hard to understand how Keefer (2006:72) can refer to this passage and
claim that Origen calls John a spiritual Gospel.

14 This eschatological kairos is understood by Origen as the fulfilment of God’s

work on the seventh day, in terms of the popular model of God’s works provided
by the creation story (cf. King, 2005:234-240, where he discusses the kairos of
the Song of Songs). The eschaton is the moment when the “rational creature
enjoys the ‘power of restoring itself to that condition of fervour in which it was at
the beginning’ ...” [Princ. 2.8.3 = SC 252:346] (King, 2005:238); for a further
discussion on apokatastasis, see Norris (2004).

680 In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688

 P.B. Decock

However, it can already now be the object of a spiritual intuition; in

fact, the spiritual understanding is a kind of anticipation in the Spirit
of the perfect, eschatological understanding (Harl, 1958:140, 151;
Crouzel, 1989:112).

Origen has through this approach – in the tradition of the philo-

sophical teachers – attempted to explain the order of the various
books of the Old and New Testament for the sake of their proper
use in the process of divine education. The Old Testament is the
shadow of the New; the New Testament (and the Gospel of John in
an eminent way) is the image of the eternal gospel.15 One passage
in the Commentary also seems to see these three as beginning,
middle and end of one and the same gospel (Comm. Jo. 1.79-86).16

4. The order of the different works in the Scriptures and

the order of spiritual progress
Origen’s concern for the order of the different parts of the Scriptures
is guided by his understanding of the stages of the spiritual journey.
While the full revelation is given only at the apokatastasis, in the
present-day the reading of Scripture is meant to lead to an ever
deeper anticipation of that contemplation and love of God, which
was lost with the Fall.

All Christians are called to progress along the three stages of life.
Origen at times qualifies these as the body, the soul, and the spirit.
The first stage has as task moral purification (the body); the second
stage has as task illumination (which is about recognising the
difference between what is eternal and what is passing (the soul));
the final stage culminates in union with God in contemplation and
love (the spirit). Different parts of the Bible have special suitability for
each of the different stages (Torjesen, 1985). Origen’s stages of
spiritual progress have nothing to do with “elitism”, but with Origen’s

15 “Thus using Heb. 10:1, Origen sometimes distinguishes between the Old
Testament and the New Testament as being, respectively, the shadow and the
image of the heavenly realities (Hom. 38 Ps. 2:2)” (Simonetti, 1994:48). De
Lubac (1950:219-220) refers to the Homilies on Ps. 38:7, where the law is seen
as shadow and the New Testament as image. However, Harl (1958:144-145)
argues that most commonly Origen sees shadow and image as synonyms and
that the Old Testament and the revelation received by the apostles were both
qualified by him as shadow and image.

16 The perceptible (temporal) gospel and the spiritual (eternal) gospel are in fact
one and the same gospel with regard to its reality, but different with regard to
the human perception of it (Crouzel, 1989:111).

In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688 681

Origen’s theological and mystical approach to the Scriptures … on John’s Gospel

dynamic understanding of the Christian life, in opposition to the

gnostic “division” of people into fixed categories.17 The carnal ones
must be met at their own level in order to “lead them forth to better
and higher things” (Comm. Jo. 1.2). Nevertheless, whenever we find
those who are established in the Spirit and are bearing fruit in Him,
and desiring the heavenly wisdom, we ought to share with them the
Word who was restored from being made flesh18 to what “he was in
the beginning with God” (Comm. Jo. 1.43). Origen sees it, therefore,
as his task towards this last group of people to “translate the gospel
perceptible to the senses into the spiritual gospel” (Comm. Jo. 1.44;
Heine, 1989:45).
Even John’s Gospel, as it appears to us, is still a temporal gospel.
However, by considering the words and going beyond the words, as
they are symbols, we can anticipate our sharing in the spiritual or
eternal gospel. Leading people beyond the words is God’s work and
requires openness to God’s gift. Origen therefore concludes his
introduction with the exhortation: “Let us now ask God to work with
us through Christ in the Holy Spirit to explain the mystical meaning
stored up like a treasure in words” (Comm. Jo. 1.89). The goal is to
recover that burning love for God which has been lost. The means to
restore this love is Jesus, whom we should recognise as the many
“good things” (gospel):19 the way, the door, the truth, the light, the
life, ...:

17 Crouzel (1989:114-115) notes:

If he had really been the spiritual aristocrat he is accused of being
there would not have been in his homilies, preached to all comers
among the Christians at Ceasarea, so many exhortations to the moral
progress that would fit them to receive illumination from on high. The
vigour of his polemic against the ‘friends of the letter’ shows that he
was not resigned to seeing the mass of Christians stopping half-way
in this preparation and in this knowledge.

18 Origen here distinguishes Jesus in his earthly existence, subject to crucifixion,

from his heavenly existence after his resurrection (Comm. Jo. 1.43).

19 We have to bear in mind that in the last part of the introduction (Comm. Jo.
1.27-88), Origen is exploring the meaning of the word gospel as a title for John’s
work, and as a title which is even appropriate for the whole of the Scriptures,
even of the Old Testament, if one understands it well. “But since the Savior has
come, and has caused the gospel to be embodied in the gospel, he made all
things gospel, as it were.” (Comm. Jo. 1.33; see also 1.36-38.)
But just as Christ visited the perfect before his sojourn which was
visible and bodily [the patriarchs, Moses, the prophets], so also has he
not yet visited those who are still infants after his coming ... because
he awaits the preparation which must take place in men of God who
are about to receive his divinity. (Comm. Jo. 1.38.)

682 In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688

 P.B. Decock

... Isaias ... praises the ‘feet’ which proceed over the intelligible
way, which is Christ Jesus, and go in to God through the door
(Comm. Jo. 1.51).

Jesus is also Wisdom, in whom the father rejoiced,

… rejoicing in her manifold spiritual beauty which only spiritual
eyes can see. Wisdom’s divine heavenly beauty invites the one
who contemplates it to love. (Comm. Jo. 1.55.)

The beginner learns to die to sin:

… [he] should ... receive him who became man because of us,
he is at ‘the beginning’ of good things when he becomes a ‘man
of God’ by the man Jesus and dies to sin by his death, for he
too, ‘in that he died to sin, died once for all’ (Comm. Jo. 1.58).

Everyone, however, who has become conformed to his

resurrection receives power to live unto God from his life since
Jesus, ‘in that he lives, lives unto God’. (Comm. Jo. 1.59.)

In other words, being attracted by the beauty of Christ, the dedicated

reader becomes closely associated with Christ, the man; by which
he becomes a man of God, dies to sin, and receives the power to
live for God through this close association with Christ in his death
and in his resurrection.

Origen then reminds us of John 21:25: that no writings, not even the
whole world, would be able to contain the fullness of divinity which
dwelt bodily in Jesus (Col. 2:9; 1:19). The “good things” Origen con-
stantly refers to in this section is the gospel, the good news, which is
actually Jesus himself, the gift of the Father to us so that we may
“engage in good things”.
For he [Jesus] is the one who received from the good Father
that he be good things, in order that each one who received
through Jesus the thing or things he is capable of, might
engage in good things. (Comm. Jo. 1.62.)

5. Requirements to understand the Gospel of

John: 1:22-28
The following selection of passages illustrates the kind of under-
standing Origen is envisaging and how we are able to reach it.
... that according to John, whose meaning no one can un-
derstand who has not leaned on Jesus’ breast nor received
Mary from Jesus to be his mother also. But he who would be

In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688 683

Origen’s theological and mystical approach to the Scriptures … on John’s Gospel

another John must also become such as John, to be shown to

be Jesus, so to speak. For if Mary had no son except Jesus, ...
and Jesus says to his mother, ‘Behold your son’, and not,
‘Behold, this man is also your son’, but he said equally, ‘Behold
this is Jesus whom you bore’. For indeed everyone who has
been perfected ‘no longer lives, but Christ lives in him’, and
since ‘Christ lives’ in him, it is said that of him to Mary, ‘Behold
your son’, the Christ (Comm. Jo. 1.23).

How great, then, must be our understanding, that we may be

able to understand in a worthy manner the word which is stored
in the earthen treasures of paltry language, whose written
character is read by all who happen upon it, and whose sound
is heard by all who present their physical ears? What also must
we say? For who will understand these matters accurately must
say truthfully, “But we have the mind of Christ, that we may
know the graces that have been given us by God.” (Comm. Jo.
1.24.)

But if the writings of Paul were gospel, it is consistent with that

to say that Peter’s writings also were gospel and, in general,
those which present the sojourn of Christ and prepare for his
coming and produce it in the souls of those who are willing to
receive the Word of God who stands at the door and knocks
and wishes to enter their souls. (Comm. Jo. 1.26.)

Each gospel teaches about the saving sojourn with men of

Christ Jesus, ‘the firstborn of every creature,’ a sojourn which
occurred on account of men. But it is clear to everyone who
believes, that each gospel is a discourse which teaches about
the sojourn of the good Father in his Son with those who are
willing to receive him. (Comm. Jo. 1.28.)

The text of John is the fruit of the working of the Logos in John and
no one can understand the text fully as expression of the Logos
unless one becomes like John, who was intimately related to the
Logos as the Logos is related to the Father (John 13:23, 25 recall
1:18; Comm. Jo. 32.264). Furthermore, becoming John-like means
in fact even to become Jesus,20 as Jesus gave John to his mother
as Mary’s son, and his mother to John as his mother. Origen first

20 The theme of Christ living in us (Gal. 2:20) is very important for Origen.
According to him, Christ must be born and develop in each of us: “If the soul is
to give birth to the Word, then Mary is the model: ‘And every soul, virgin and
uncorrupted, which conceives by the Holy Spirit, so as to give birth to the Will of
the Father, is the mother of Jesus’ (Fr. Matt. 281).” (Crouzel, 1989:124.)

684 In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688

 P.B. Decock

explains this kind of identity by referring to Galatians 2:20: “It is no

longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” In the next paragraph
he adduces 1 Corinthians 2:16 and 12, where Paul speaks of us
having the “mind of Christ” which enables us to know the gifts of
God. The understanding of which Origen speaks is not a question of
understanding certain ideas about the Logos, but of communion with
the Logos, as he sojourns in the soul (Comm. Jo. 1.26).

We see this process of transformation first of all in the inspired

writers of the Scriptures and this same process has to be repeated
in the readers of the inspired writings. For instance, in the Prologue
to Commentary on the Song of Songs, Origen presents Solomon as
the inspired writer of the Song of Songs, as one who has been fully
transformed into a full participant in the love song of the Logos.
And the fact that in the Song of Songs, where now perfection is
shown forth, he [Solomon] describes himself neither as Son of
David, nor as king, enables us to say further that, since the
servant has been made the lord, and the disciple as the master,
the servant obviously is such no longer: he has become as the
lord. Neither does the disciple figure as a disciple when he has
been made as the master; rather, the sometime disciple is in
truth as the master now, and the sometime servant as the lord.
(Lawson, 1957:54; SC 375, 166.)

This transformation into the likeness of the Logos as a result of the

indwelling in the believing readers must be understood in the light of
the eschatological fulfilment, which Origen understands by means of
1 Corinthians 15:28, “so that God may be all in all”. In On first prin-
ciples (3.6.2 and 4), he emphasises that “this condition ... in which
God is said not only to be in all things but even to be all things”, “or
in other words, when they have been rendered capable of receiving
God, then God will be to them ‘all in all’” (King, 2005:237).

6. Conclusion
In line with the traditional philosophical introductions Origen was
concerned to situate the Gospel of John in the whole corpus of the
Scriptures. The concern was not only to find a central issue (like our
modern Canon within the Canon), but to place all the works in their
proper order – not a chronological order but a pedagogical order.
The emphasis is not on the origin of the books but on their use-
fulness and effectiveness in the educational enterprise (the Paideia).
This concern for the pedagogical order and interpretation of the
books can be clearly seen in Origen’s guiding principle. He works

In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688 685

Origen’s theological and mystical approach to the Scriptures … on John’s Gospel

with a precise view of the stages of spiritual development: from mo-

ral quality (purification), through discernment of what is absolute
(God) and what is relative (enlightenment), to total commitment to,
and love for, God (union).

The order of spiritual progress of the person is embedded in a

perspective on the order of God’s work of salvation through the
Logos: from the creation of human intelligences (later to become
souls); through the creation of the material universe; the Old
Testament (as shadow) and the New Testament (as image); to the
eternal (spiritual) gospel. This last stage refers to the full presence of
human beings to the Logos and to God at the apokatastasis (face to
face knowledge of God).

The Old Testament is the beginning of the gospel (the firstling of the
harvest). The New Testament writings are the first fruits, and the
Gospel of John is the first fruits of the Gospels, as the Logos is most
clearly expressed in it. However, even John’s Gospel cannot contain
all (John 21:25).

While the spiritual gospel is an eschatological reality, human beings

can already now anticipate this face to face knowledge through a
spiritual reading of the Old and New Testament: an ever deeper
contemplation of the Logos through the veil of the letter of the
Scriptures, a contemplation which transforms the persons more and
more to the likeness of the Logos, into whose image they were
created (2 Cor. 3:18).
Origen pays very close attention to the texts and uses all the
methods at his disposal, but all these human methods are only
preparation for the translation (μεταλαμβάνω) of the gospel percept-
ible to the senses into the spiritual gospel (Comm. Jo. 1.44-46). This
translation is a “mystical” process (Comm. Jo. 1.89) in that it is ulti-
mately the work of God who leads us (through Christ and the Spirit)
to an ever deeper encounter with the transcendent Logos, and a
corresponding transformation of the person into the likeness of the
Logos.

List of references
BROWN, R.E. & COLLINS, R.F. 1990. Canonicity. (In Brown, R.E., Fitzmyer,
J.A. & Murphy, R.E., eds. The new Jerome Biblical commentary. London:
Chapman. p. 1034-1054.)
CROUZEL, H. 1956. Théologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origène. Paris:
Éditions Montaigne.

686 In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688

 P.B. Decock

CROUZEL, H. 1969. Grégoire le thaumaturge: remerciement à Origène, suivi

de la lettre d’Origène a Grégoire: texte Grec, introduction, traduction et
notes. Paris: Cerf. (SC = Sources Chrétiennes 148.)
CROUZEL, H. 1989. Origen. Trans. by A.S. Worall. Edinburgh: Clark.
DE LUBAC, H. 1950. Histoire et esprit: l’intelligence de l’écriture d’après
Origène. Paris: Éditions Montaigne.
HADOT, I. 1987. Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les
auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens. (In Tardieu, M., ed. Les
règles de l’interprétation. Paris: Cerf. p. 99-122.) (Patrimoines religion du
livre.)
HARL, M. 1958. Origène et la fonction révélatrice du verbe incarné. Paris: Seuil.
(Patristica Sorbonensia 2.)
HEINE, R.E. 1989. Origen: commentary on the Gospel of John according to
John, Books 1-10. Washington: Catholic University of America. (The
Fathers of the Church.)
HEINE, R.E. 1995. The introduction to Origen’s commentary on John compared
with the Introductions to the ancient philosophical commentaries on
Aristotle. (In Dorival, G. & Le Boulluec, A., eds. Origeniana Sexta: Origène
et la Bible/Origen and the Bible. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum
Sextum, Chantilly, 30 Août-3 Septembre, 1993. Leuven: Peeters. p. 3-12.)
(Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium = BEThL 118.)
KEEFER, K. 2006. The branches of the Gospel of John: the reception of the
Fourth Gospel in Early Church. London: Clark. (Library of New Testament
Studies, 332.)
KING, J.C. 2005. Origen on the Song of Songs as the spirit of Scripture: the
bridegroom’s perfect marriage-song. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(Oxford Theological Monographs.)
LAWSON, R.P. 1957. Origen: the Song of Songs: commentary and homilies.
Westminster: Newman. (Ancient Christian Writers = ACW 26.)
MARROU, H-I. 1950. Histoire de l’ éducation dans l’antiquité. 2nd ed. Paris:
Seuil.
MCGUCKIN, J.A. 2004. Image of God. (In McGuckin, J.A., ed. The Westminster
handbook to Origen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. p. 131-134.)
(Westminster Handbooks to Christian Theology.)
NEUSCHÄFER, B. 1987. Origenes als philologe. Basel: Reinhardt. (Schwei-
zerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 18.)
NORRIS, F.W. 2004. Apokatastasis. (In McGuckin, J.A., ed. The Westminster
handbook to Origen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. p. 59-62.)
(Westminster Handbooks to Christian Theology.)
PHILO. 1932. On mating with preliminary studies. Vol. 4. 10 vols. Trans. by F.
E. Colson & G. H. Whitaker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Loeb
Classical Library = LCL.)
RUNIA, D.T. 2004. Philosophy. (In McGuckin, J.A., ed. The Westminster hand-
book to Origen. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. p. 171-175.) (West-
minster Handbooks to Christian Theology.)
SIMONETTI, M. 1994. Biblical interpretation in the Early Church: an historical
introduction to patristic exegesis. Edinburgh: Clark.
TORJESEN, K.J. 1985. “Body”, “Soul” and “Spirit” in Origen’s theory of
exegesis. Anglican theological review, 67:17-30.
TRIGG, J.W. 1998. Origen. London: Routledge.

In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688 687

Origen’s theological and mystical approach to the Scriptures … on John’s Gospel

Key concepts:
church fathers
exegesis, history of
Gospel of John
Origen

Kernbegrippe:
eksegese, geskiedenis van
Johannesevangelie
kerkvaders
Origenes

688 In die Skriflig 45(2 & 3) 2011:673-688