Origen and the History of Justification

The Legacy of Origen's Commentary on Romans

Thomas P. Scheck

• Publisher: University of Notre Dame Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780268041533, 9780268041281
• eBook ISBN: 9780268093020
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Standard accounts of the history of interpretation of Paul's Letter to the Romans often begin with St. Augustine. As Thomas P. Scheck demonstrates, however, the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans by Origen of Alexandria (185-254 CE) was a major work of Pauline exegesis which, by means of the Latin translation preserved in the West, had a significant influence on the Christian exegetical tradition.

Scheck begins by exploring Origen's views on justification and on the intimate connection of faith and post-baptismal good works as essential to justification. He traces the enormous influence Origen's Commentary on Romans had on later theologians in the Latin West, including the ways in which theologians often appropriated Origen's exegesis in their own work. Scheck analyzes in particular the reception of Origen by Pelagius, Augustine, William of St. Thierry, Erasmus, Cornelius Jansen, the Anglican Bishop Richard Montagu, and the Catholic lay apologist John Heigham, as well as Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and other Protestant Reformers who harshly attacked Origen's interpretation as fatally flawed. But as Scheck shows, theologians through the post-Reformation controversies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries studied and engaged Origen extensively, even if not always in agreement.

An important work in patristics, biblical interpretation, and historical theology, Origen and the History of Justification establishes the formative role played by Origen's Pauline exegesis, while also contributing to our understanding of the theological issues surrounding justification in the western Christian tradition.

Chapter 1

Origen’s Doctrine of Justification

Introduction

Since the sixteenth century, and primarily on account of the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine of justification has been the subject of an enormous body of theological literature. This pattern has continued through the twentieth century down to the present day and shows no signs of abating.1 In the literature of the early ages of the Catholic Church, however, this doctrine was not made the object of direct study. The thoughts of the Fathers on this theme are more or less scattered and occasional. However, one work from Christian antiquity constitutes an exception to this pattern: Origen’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. In this work, originally written between 244 and 246, the author responds to numerous statements of the Apostle Paul in Romans with detailed discussions and explanations of the meaning of justification in Paul and in the rest of the Bible. This makes Origen’s CRm a work of unique importance in the history of theology, and particularly with respect to the doctrine of justification.2 Its significance in this respect has not been entirely neglected by modern theologians.3

Survey of Modern Scholarship

Rivière and Verfaillie

In his important article “Justification,” Rivière remarked that Origen’s treatment of this doctrine in his CRm is the best and most complete expression of the Catholic teaching in the pre-Augustinian Church Fathers.4 This prominent Catholic theologian5 argued that Origen’s discussions cleared a path for later theologians who would attempt to demonstrate harmony between the ideas of Paul and James on justification; for Origen had showed the intimate connection of faith and good works as the two complementary conditions of salvation that must not be separated.6 Rivière also commended Origen for keeping himself from the excess of one of his disciples, Hieracas, who attached so much importance to the necessity of good works for salvation that he excluded from heaven infants who die after baptism because they had been unable to accomplish any works.7 Epiphanius reports that Hieracas’s followers believed “that children who have not reached the age of puberty have no part in the kingdom, since they have not engaged in the struggle.”8 Clear texts in Origen’s CRm show that while he affirms the necessity both of good works for salvation and of infant baptism for the forgiveness of sins,9 he does not draw the negative inferences from these affirmations, as Hieracas had apparently done. If Rivière had a text in Origen in mind where Origen shows such restraint, he may be referring to the passage in the CRm where Origen seems to mitigate the responsibility of little children and the mentally incompetent by asking whether they are exempt from the precepts of natural law, since the judgment of right and wrong does not yet exist in them.10 Origen also explains how death in Rom 5.12–14 stands in a variety of relationships to human beings. It affects children under the age of reason in the least degree, in such a way that although spiritual death affects all human beings, it is final only for those who of their own choice persist in transgression.11

Inspired by Rivière’s commendation of Origen’s discussions, Verfaillie devoted a dissertation to fleshing out Origen’s doctrine of justification.12 Verfaillie was partly reacting to what he considered to be the Protestant exploitation of Origen’s statements about justification “by faith alone,” an apologetical usage he considered to be entirely naive. In response he crafted a dissertation with a somewhat reactionary and apologetic purpose.13 Verfaillie concluded that, on the contrary, Origen’s understanding of justification in fact anticipates the principal affirmations of the Council of Trent’s decree on justification. This applies to several points of fundamental importance: an original Fall but not a total corruption of humanity, the necessity and efficaciousness of Christ’s redemptive work, the application of Christ’s redemption through the indivisible cooperation of God and the human being, the effective sanctification of the soul through grace, and the meritorious value of the soul’s actions in view of glory. “Such are the doctrines opposed by the Church to the Reformation. Yet they are all already found clearly in Origen.”14

Verfaillie’s defense of Origen’s Catholic orthodoxy on the matter of justification confirmed Rivière’s thesis, that Origen’s understanding of justification was essentially Catholic in how it treats the relation of faith and works as an organic and inseparable unity. Both Rivière and Verfaillie argued that in spite of the claims of certain Protestant dogmaticians who had naively tried to depict Origen as a proto-Protestant by exploiting certain isolated statements where Origen had used the formulation “justification by faith alone,” Origen was not in fact a Protestant on this issue.15 It is certainly interesting to note that Origen’s explanation of the Pauline phrase “justification by faith” in CRm 3.9 was read aloud at the Council of Trent, alongside citations from other orthodox Fathers.16 It is also remarkable that the magisterial Protestants, Luther and Melanchthon, vehemently accused Origen of corruption on this exact point. They even crafted a decadence theory of Church history in which Origen’s doctrine of justification plays a decisive role in the ensuing theological darkness and constitutes a compelling justification for the Lutheran revolt.17 It seems that any attempt completely to dismiss Verfaillie’s main thesis will have to give an account for Luther and Melanchthon’s intense hostility to Origen’s Pauline exegesis.

Molland and Seeberg

As a secondary thesis, Verfaillie argued that justification occupies a central place in Origen’s theology. This assertion is provocative. The Lutheran Molland, for example, claims that justification is a peripheral doctrine to Origen and not related to his core understanding of the gospel.18 On the other hand, Osborn agrees in principle with Verfaillie and argues that justification occupies a central position in Origen’s thought.19 It will not be possible to explore this particular question here. Molland articulates the difference between Origen, on the one hand, and Luther/Marcion on the other, in these terms:

In all the works of Origen there is hardly a passage where he conceives of the relation of the Law and Gospel in the Pauline terms of νόμος and χάρις, the role of the Law being to convince mankind of sin and bring all men under the judgment of God, whereas redemption comes by Grace through the Gospel. Of this idea, which is so central in theological thinkers like Marcion and Luther and has determined their whole conception of the Gospel, there are but very faint traces in Origen. To him it is of little interest to contrast Law and Grace, because Grace is found in the Law if it is rightly understood.20

Molland rightly identifies their law/gospel definitions as fundamental differences between Luther and Origen. He exemplifies the point that law and grace are not contraries in Origen by referring to Origen’s interpretation of Paul’s words in Rom 6.14, “You are not under law but under grace.” Here law for Origen must mean the law that is reigning in our members, of which Paul speaks in Rom 7.23. It cannot be the law of God that is put in contrast to grace. Origen continues, “But if anybody will find the law of Moses in Rom 6.14, he must say that the meaning of the phrase is: We are not under the letter of the law that kills, but under the law of the Spirit that makes alive and is called grace.”21 Origen’s nuanced understanding of the Pauline term law is one of the distinctive features of his CRm.

Based on such statements, Molland concludes that Origen conceives of the difference and contrast of the law and the gospel in terms quite other than those of judgment and grace, as is found in the theology of Luther and Marcion. For Origen the difference is defined in terms of imperfect and perfect religion. Here appears an essential element of Origen’s understanding of salvation history and the relation between law and gospel, namely that for Origen law and grace are not contraries; and it is the incarnation of God’s Son that determines the transition point from shadow to reality, from imperfect to perfect religion.

The assertion that Origen understands the Pauline terms of law, gospel, and justification in a way that conflicts with the standard Protestant perspective on these terms is admitted by most Protestant scholars. Among modern historians of dogma, the Lutheran Seeberg gives what appears to be a fairly balanced Protestant critique of Origen:

Origen, in his commentary upon Romans, reproduced the Pauline doctrine of justification, but was not able to maintain himself at the altitude of that conception. Faith is sufficient, indeed, for righteousness, but it finds its consummation in works, and suffices only because it has ever works in view. “Righteousness cannot be imputed to an unrighteous man. Christ justifies only those who have received new life from the example of his resurrection.”22

Seeberg refers to other texts in Origen’s writings where similar views are found, namely where the forgiveness of sins and the salvation and eternal happiness of the human being depend not only upon faith but more upon repentance and good works.23 Seeberg also cites Commentary on the Song of Songs 3.12: “The salvation of believers is accomplished in two ways, through the acknowledgment (agnitionem) of faith and through the perfection of works.” The essential point of Seeberg’s criticism of Origen seems to be that Origen viewed faith and postbaptismal good works as complementary causes of justification that, from a salvific point of view, belong inseparably together. In other words, the criticism states that Origen in his deepest teaching did not locate in faith alone the sole and exclusive condition of salvation. Thus he failed “to maintain himself at the altitude” of the “Pauline” (sc. “Lutheran”) conception. It is certainly striking that what for Rivière and Verfaillie is the badge of honor for Origen’s conception of justification in the CRm—namely, the way it views faith and good works as equally constitutive of justification—is for Molland and Seeberg the grounds for reproaching Origen.

Wiles, Heither, and Reasoner

More recent discussions of Origen’s doctrine of justification in his CRm by Protestants and Catholics have reached conclusions that in some ways reverse the reader’s expectations, but in other ways do not.24 The Protestant M. Wiles claims that there is a clear and radical difference of spirit between the ways in which Paul and Origen speak about faith.25 Generally, Wiles thinks that Origen has “tamed” and domesticated Paul. One way he has done this is by mitigating the apparent absoluteness of Paul’s “attack” on the law.26 Wiles repeatedly accuses Origen of incoherence, and, for example, he finds it hard to reconcile Origen’s statements on the relation between faith and works in his CRm. He is especially puzzled by texts where Origen says, on the one hand, that the judgment on believers’ works may amount to assigning him a place with the unbelievers,27 and yet, on the other hand, that faith alone saves.28 Wiles assesses this as follows:

We might say that Origen appears to assert that faith without any ensuing works will save a man, whereas faith followed by evil works will not be reckoned as faith at all. No doubt there is an element of inconsistency in Origen’s thought at this point, but the most significant fact is that at his best Origen is not really prepared to accept the problem at all in the precise form in which it is here posed.29

Wiles later says that Origen’s comments on Rom 10.9 represent his most fundamental resolution of the problem of faith and works. Here Origen states that the one who confesses Jesus with his mouth must similarly confess himself to be subject to the lordship of wisdom, righteousness, truth, and everything else that Christ is. For Origen, Christ did not merely possess the various virtues accidentally or contingently; Christ is his attributes. Origen makes this point clear not only by John but also by Paul, especially in 1 Cor 1.30. What this indicates is that for Origen our relationship to Christ is automatically our relationship to wisdom, righteousness, truth, and all the other virtues. To be “in Christ” is to be “in” all the virtues; to have Christ in us is to have them in us. To be “in Christ” is the same as to serve him, and to be his servant is to be the servant of all the virtues. To put on Christ is to put on all the virtues, and conversely to put on the armor of God is to put on Christ. Wiles’s conclusion from this is the following: “Clearly therefore according to this analysis t...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments and Dedication
• Introduction
• Chapter 1. Origen’s Doctrine of Justification
• Chapter 2. Pelagius’s Reception of Origen’s Exegesis of Romans
• Chapter 3. Augustine’s Reception of Origen’s Exegesis of Romans
• Chapter 4. William of St. Thierry’s Reception of Origen’s Exegesis of Romans
• Chapter 5. Erasmus’s Reception of Origen’s Exegesis of Romans
• Chapter 6. Luther and Melanchthon’s Reception of Origen’s Exegesis of Romans
• Chapter 7. Post-Reformation Controversies over Origen’s Exegesis of Romans
• Conclusion: Origen and Modern Exegesis
• List of Abbreviations and Short Titles of Frequently Cited Works
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index of Passages Cited from Origen’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans