Origen (ca. 185-255) is one of the first theologians of the Church, and, according to Walter Kasper, “perhaps the greatest theologian of all time.”193 Origen’s contribution
to Christian thought is certainly not limited to his own time. In fact, although his name and theological edifice were attacked after his death, Origen’s theology represents one of the foundations of all traditional Christian doctrine.194 And, although Origen certainly
did not invent all of the characteristics of patristic Scriptural exegesis, he was the first to order the diverse features, thereby creating a truly scientific analysis of the Word of God in Scripture. Manlio Simonetti explains:
Origen organised and systematised these more or less traditional features, using an incomparably superior knowledge of the actual biblical text, a far greater depth of exegetical reflection, and an unprecedented critical intelligence sharpened by debate with the Gnostics. He not only widened and deepened all that he received, but he ordered it, for the first time on precise methodological criteria, into a total synthesis which would in many ways remain definitive. In short, Origen made biblical hermeneutics into a real science, and, in that sense, he conditioned decisively all subsequent patristic exegesis.195
192 De Lubac’s theological fingerprints can be found throughout the council documents. This will become more evident in chapter 4.
193 Walter Kasper, Transcending All Understanding: The Meaning of Christian Faith Today (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989), 37. See also G.L. Prestige, “Origen: Or, the Claims of Religious Intelligence,” in Fathers and Heretics (London: S.P.C.K, 1940), 43.
194 See Joseph Trigg, Origen (New York: Routledge, 1998), 62f.; Thomas P. Scheck, Origen and the History of
Justification: The Legacy of Origen’s Commentary on Romans (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2008).
Therefore, Origen has rightly merited the title “the father of Christian exegesis.”196 And,
as Thomas Scheck points out, what ancient and modern authors “sought in Origen was not so much his doctrine as his mentality and spirit, most of all, his way of interpreting Holy Scripture.”197 For, as one of the foremost scholars on Origen, Henri Crouzel, has
stated, “most of Origen’s writings have as their aim the interpretation of Scripture and that in those which are not directly exegetical Scripture still holds an important place.”198
For Origen, Scripture maintained pride of place in his theological endeavors.
Henri de Lubac sought to retrieve the important, but overlooked, thought of Origen because he wished to understand what Origen actually said, and he hoped to show, by uncovering Origen’s doctrine of the senses of Scripture, that the extreme prejudice against Origen and his allegorism is due to misunderstanding.199 As de Lubac
himself has indicated, Origen is often accused of being a foolish allegorist, an error so deeply rooted that “we find good historians reviving it without a closer look.”200 This
misconception often prevents Origen’s genius from being recognized. De Lubac has observed that “more than any other figure in the fields of hermeneutics, exegesis, and spirituality, he would be the grand master.”201 One of the first volumes published for
196 Origen, according to de Margerie (An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, 95), is “the first scientific exegete of the Catholic Church.” See also de Lubac, The Sources of Revelation (New York: Herder & Herder, 1968), 46-47.
197 Thomas P. Scheck, “General Introduction,” in Origen: Homilies 1-14 on Ezekiel (ACW:62.2), . 198 Crouzel, Origen, 55. See also de Lubac, History and Spirit, 42f.
199 De Lubac (At the Service of the Church, 10), states: “I have sought, not to ‘defend’ Origen, but simply to know what in fact he thought and said.” See also John Courtney Murray, et al., “Sources Chrétiennes”
Theological Studies 9, (1948): 262f.
200 De Lubac, History and Spirit, 9.
201 De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998), I:159. According to Louis Bouyer, (The
Spirituality of the New Testament and the Fathers (New York: The Seabury Press, 1960), 280-281), Origen
“produced lasting models for all the types of work and studies which have Holy Scripture as their object: from the establishment of the critical text, whether in the original or in its versions, with the Hexapla, to the great commentaries on St. Matthew, St. John, the Epistle to the Romans, or the Canticle of Canticles, going through the detailed studies on one or another particularly difficult passage to the Homilies which, on the contrary, make directly available to the faithful the spiritual fruit of scientific research.”
Sources chrétiennes (1944) dealt with Origen, specifically his homilies on Genesis, for which de Lubac provided the introduction.202 In his own investigation of Origen, de Lubac
uncovered the thought of a deeply humble man of the Church, firmly attached to Jesus Christ, unwilling to waver from the Church, especially in his exegetical-theological work.203
The retrieval of Origen’s doctrine of the spiritual senses is extremely significant for de Lubac’s theological thought and will contribute to de Lubac’s recovery of the One Table doctrine that permeates the council documents.204 In recovering Origen, de Lubac
uncovered not simply Origen’s exegesis, but an entire way of thinking about the divine mysteries that Christ has revealed to us and that are encountered within the communion of the Church, especially as celebrated in her liturgy.205 By his penetrating analysis of
Christian hermeneutics, de Lubac showed both that the traditional manner of entering into the Scriptures was simply the way theology was exercised, and expressed the intimate relation of exegesis, theology and spirituality, something that, to varying degrees, was also retrieved by the council.206 In Medieval Exegesis, de Lubac says: “theological science and
the explication of Scripture cannot but be one and the same thing. In its most profound
202 Murray, et al., “Sources Chrétiennes,” 262f.
203 See Prestige, “Origen,” 43; Thomas P. Scheck, “General Introduction,” 17f.
204 The paramount place of spiritual exegesis in de Lubac’s thought, especially as it is related to his
ecclesiology, is developed by Susan Wood in Spiritual Exegesis. Although my study is similar to Wood’s, I have explored how de Lubac’s retrieval of spiritual exegesis is related to the doctrine of the One Table of the Second Vatican Council.
205 See de Lubac, At the Service of the Church, 83-84.
206 For example, the council (Dei Verbum §24) will emphasis the primacy of Scripture in the life of theology: “sacred theology takes its stand on the written word of God, together with tradition, as its permanent foundation. By this word it is made firm and strong, and constantly renews its youth, as it investigates, by the light of faith, all the truth that is stored up in the mystery of Christ. The holy scriptures contain the word of God and, since they are inspired, really are the word of God; therefore the study of the ‘sacred page’ ought to be the very soul of theology. The same word of scripture is the source of healthy
nourishment and holy vitality for the ministry of the word—pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should have the highest place.” See also de Lubac,
and far-reaching sense this estimation of the situation remains true even to our own day. But in its stricter and more immediate sense, this idea flourished right to the eve of the thirteenth century.”207 De Lubac himself says that he wrote History and Spirit (1950) for the
express purpose of uncovering Origen’s understanding of Scripture and his exegetical method because he believed that contemporary exegesis should seek to reproduce the spiritual movement of patristic hermeneutics.208 De Lubac believed that the recovery of
spiritual exegesis was “essential not only for understanding early Christianity,” but also the “permanent foundations of Christianity.”209 Moreover, according to de Lubac, some
of the modern attacks against patristic or spiritual exegesis conceal criticism of the New Testament itself.210
The subject of scriptural interpretation in Origen is vast and complicated. Therefore, I will only highlight some of the more important aspects of Origen’s exegesis for the purpose of elucidating the doctrine of the One Table, which will occur below.211
This in turn, will aid in uncovering the doctrine of the One Table of Word and Eucharist, and both its reception in and its relationship to the Church. The following exegetical principles will allow us to apprehend better the essential connection and
207 De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, I:27.
208 See Boersma, Nouvelle Théologie, 154. Indeed, de Lubac believed that theology was essentially the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, an idea that was re-emphasized by the Second Vatican Council, especially in the Dei Verbum. See especially §24-25. See also de Lubac, The Splendor of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 246.
209 As de Lubac (History and Spirit, 431) states, “the question [concerning the importance of spiritual exegesis] is not only essential for understanding early Christianity. It reaches, as Möhler himself seems to imply toward the end, moreover, to the permanent foundations of Christian thought.”
210 See de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, I:150.
211 For a more thorough presentation of Origen’s exegetical method, in addition to de Lubac’s History and
Spirit, one may consult Crouzel, Origen, especially, 61-84, and de Margerie, An Introduction to the History of Exegesis, 95-116. See also Martens, “Revisiting the Typology/Allegory Distinction,” 283-317; Wright IV,
“The Literal Sense of Scripture According to Henri De Lubac,” 252-77; Dively Lauro, The Soul and Spirit of
relationship of Scripture, Eucharist, and Church, as it was retrieved by Henri de Lubac.212