Three levels of Bible interpretation

In class today I mentioned the idea of three levels of interpretation. I found the idea, actually in a writer from the Second Century, Origen of Alexandria. The following is an extract from an article in New Thought Magazine, "The Biblical Foundation of the New Thought Movement," by Mary A. Tumplin, in the Autumn 2009 issue:

Origen of Alexandria is generally recognized as the greatest figure in the Christian church in the period between Paul and Augustine. [He lived approximately 185–254 CE.] A genius whose productivity was astonishing, he was the first to be authorized by the Church to teach theology. Although much of his work has been lost, he authored more books than any other writer in Christian history.


Origen also believed in the doctrine of various senses. It is by grace that an individual is able to correctly interpret the scriptures. In the writings of Paul, human persona is divided into a threefold entity: body, soul and spirit. Origen applied the same categories to the senses found in the scriptures. There is a bodily or literal sense, a soul or moral sense, and a spiritual or mystical sense. Those who are unable to distinguish between various literary genres and take everything written to be factually true rely on the literal sense. The moral sense helps the believer conform to a more devotional lifestyle. Hidden in the words of the text, the spiritual sense can often be expressed in more than one way. Therefore the exegete must dejlend on divine guidance.

These ideas are further explained by Unity teacher, Tom Shepherd, in his book, Friends in High Places. Discussing Origen, Shepherd writes:


Allegory was Origen's mystical interpretation of biblical symbolism. Origen held that there is a threefold meaning in Scripture that corresponds to the threefold division he saw in human nature: body, soul, and spirit, which equates to literal, moral, and spiritual. George W. Anderson [see footnote] describes Origen's biblical interpretation:

The literal sense is what is understood by the ordinary, unenlightened Christian. The higher senses, the moral and spiritual, are appropriate to those further advanced in understanding and insight, though none can fathom the ultimate divine mystery concealed in scripture.

Is literalism valid? Yes, Origen said grudgingly, it is valid for those at that level of understanding. But absurdity will not pass as history, even if the Bible says so. When the book of Genesis allows three "days" to pass before God creates the sun, any sensible person can see Genesis cannot be taken literally without descending into illogic. In the creation account readers are encountering either fiction or metaphor. Anderson continues:

(Origen believed)...such difficult or offensive elements in the text were put there by God to incite the reader to search for the higher meanings. The moral sense is related not only to duty and obedience but to the entire range of the soul's experience. The spiritual sense conveys the divine nature and purpose.

...Origen [says of the difficult or offensive elements], "We must see whether it is not possible to find a more worthy interpretation for these passages."


Footnote: George W. Anderson, "The History of Biblical Interpretation," The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. Charles M. Layman (Nashville, TN:  Abingdon, 1971), 973.