I have heard a lot of people say Origen rejected a literal view of the End Times, but am having a hard time finding a quote from someone who wants to prove that.  I found one source that gave a quote that didn't sound like he rejected the literal interpretation at all.  Here are some samples of what he said,

"But since Celsus rejects the statements concerning Antichrist, as it is termed, having neither read what is said of him in the book of Daniel, nor in the writings of Paul, nor what the Saviour in the Gospels has predicted about his coming....Paul, indeed, speaks of him who is called Antichrist, describing, though with a certain reserve, both the manner, and time, and cause of his coming to the human race.  And notice whether his language on this subject is not most becoming, and undeserving of being treated with even the slightest degree of ridicule" (Origen in Against Celsus, Book VI, Chapter XLV)

This sounds like he is defending the literal interpretation to me.

"The prophecy also regarding Antichrist is stated in the book of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world.  And any one who chooses may read it." (Origen in Against Celsus, Book VI, Chapter XLVI)

Now why would someone say, "any one who chooses may read it" unless he believed in the literal sense of what was written.  If he considered it spiritual, would he not think the average person to have a hard time understanding it?

If he changed his mind at some point, that might be an interesting thing to study.  But his comments here are certainly a defense of the literal sense of what Scripture says about the end times.

Shalom,

Joe