In Book 1 of
his commentary on the Gospel of John, Origen argues that, in the New Covenant,
those who are "High Priests" offer their "sacrifice," but
by re-presenting the once-for-all propitiatory sacrifice of Christ on Calvary,
but to the study of the Scriptures. Had Origen a theology of the Eucharist that
we find in Roman Catholic dogma, he would have instead argued that the High
Priests of the New Covenant is their (both spiritual and propitiatory)
sacrifice they offered; such also flies in the face of the
abuse of his commentary on Exodus by the likes of Jurgens and Sungenis:
3. In the Spiritual Israel the High-Priests
are Those Who Devote Themselves to the Study of Scripture.
But what is the bearing of all this for us?
So you will ask when you read these words, Ambrosius, thou who art truly a man
of God, a man in Christ, and who seekest to be not a man only, but a spiritual
man. The bearing is this. Those of the tribes offer to God, through the levites
and priests, tithes and first fruits; not everything which they possess do they
regard as tithe or first fruit. The levites and priests, on the other hand,
have no possessions but tithes and first fruits; yet they also in turn offer
tithes to God through the high-priests, and, I believe, first fruits too. The
same is the case with those who approach Christian studies. Most of us devote
most of our time to the things of this life, and dedicate to God only a few
special acts, thus resembling those members of the tribes who had but few
transactions with the priest, and discharged their religious duties with no
great expense of time. But those who devote themselves to the divine word and
have no other employment but the service of God may not unnaturally, allowing
for the difference of occupation in the two cases, be called our levites and
priests. And those who fulfil a more distinguished office than their kinsmen
will perhaps be high-priests, according to the order of Aaron, not that of
Melchisedek. Here some one may object that it is somewhat too bold to apply the
name of high-priests to men, when Jesus Himself is spoken of in many a
prophetic passage as the one great priest, as "We have a great high-priest
who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God." But to this we
reply that the Apostle clearly defined his meaning, and declared the prophet to
have said about the Christ, "Thou art a priest for ever, according to the
order of Melchisedek," and not according to the order of Aaron. We say
accordingly that men can be high-priests according to the order of Aaron, but
according to the order of Melchisedek only the Christ of God.
4. The Study of the Gospels is the First
Fruits Offered by These Priests of Christianity.
Now our whole activity is devoted to God, and
our whole life, since we are bent on progress in divine things. If, then, it be
our desire to have the whole of those first fruits spoken of above which are
made up of the many first fruits, if we are not mistaken in this view, in what
must our first fruits consist, after the bodily separation we have undergone
from each other, but in the study of the Gospel? For we may venture to say that
the Gospel is the first fruits of all the Scriptures. Where, then, could be the
first fruits of our activity, since the time when we came to Alexandria, but in
the first fruits of the Scriptures? It must not be forgotten, however, that the
first fruits are not the same as the first growth. For the first fruits are
offered after all the fruits (are ripe), but the first growth before them all.
Now of the Scriptures which are current and are believed to be divine in all
the churches, one would not be wrong in saying that the first growth is the law
of Moses, but the first fruits the Gospel. For it was after all the fruits of
the prophets who prophesied till the Lord Jesus, that the perfect word shot
forth. (ANF 9:298)
One may
argue that this is an argument from silence and it does not prove Origen did not hold to the
Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice or the transformation of the bread and
wine into the substance of the blood, body, soul, and divinity of Jesus. True,
however, (1) Origen, being a Platonist, would not have had room for the
Aristotelian understandings of “accident” and “substance” which are essential
to making sense of Transubstantiation and (2) an argument from silence can serve as evidence in certain instances.
Consider the following very cogent example:
In Critical
Reasoning one has to remember that, not only content, but also context
determine whether an argument ex silentio is indeed
such. Granted, if Alexander the Great never claimed to have conquered
Pasargadae in Persia that would not prove that he didn’t, would it? Hardly! But
– and this is where the context tips the log – if Alexander were known to boast
over his conquests, especially ones that had him deified, having scribes write
down in detail what he said and did, with lists of cities he conquered,
complete with dates and heavenly phenomena…and his great conquest of Pasargadae was lacking
in every one of those accounts then the argument
from silence is admissible. It either implies that Pasargadae was not
conquered, or that someone else conquered it. (source)
In light of
this, if, as we are told by Rome, the Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice
and what would later be termed “Transubstantiation” are apostolic in origin,
and the New Covenant sacrifice is the sacrificial/propitiatory re-presentation
of Calvary with the New Covenant Priests (and High Priests/Bishops) acting
sacramentally as an alter Christus (“another
Christ”) and in persona Christi (“in
the person of Christ”), Origen blew it big time. If, however, Origen did not believe this, it makes perfect
sense. Indeed, such can also be seen in his comments on John 6 (see Origen
vs. the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6) elsewhere in his
commentary on John.
For more on
the Mass, see my listing of articles:
Responses
to Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone (2000/2009)
