The Eucharist, Part 10: Origen of Alexandria

Note: This is part of this series on the Eucharistic liturgy found in the patristics. The series is an expanded response to FishEaters’ “What the Earliest Christians Wrote About the Eucharist.”

The original liturgy:

The Roman liturgy:

Origen

Let’s start with the final quote before examining the others. There Origen is very clear:

Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says:

‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ — John 6:56

Origen identifies the flesh of Christ as the Word of God and cites John 6—on the bread of life from heaven—to illustrate the metaphor. This is just as we examined in Part 7: Clement of Alexandria and Part 9: Tertullian. This explanation was the reason behind this series.

For Origen, manna from heaven as a symbol of the Word of God was obscure. There was nothing obscure about manna as literal food to be eaten. The Hebrews were not confused about whether or not manna—literal bread from heaven—could be eaten. Origen clearly believes that manna was a figure, symbol, or type of Christ’s flesh, that is, the Word of God.

Now, let’s move to the first quote. Origin simply calling it “a sacred body” does not tell us whether or not we are dealing with a metaphor, as the grammatical construction is equivalent either way. Fortunately, we have a lot of context that we can look at.

In an earlier chapter, Origen speaks of the pure sacrifices made by Christians…

Against Celsus

Celsus then proceeds to say that we shrink from raising altars, statues, and temples; and this, he thinks, has been agreed upon among us as the badge or distinctive mark of a secret and forbidden society. He does not perceive that we regard the spirit of every good man as an altar from which arises an incense which is truly and spiritually sweet-smelling, namely, the prayers ascending from a pure conscience. Therefore it is said by John in the Revelation,

The odours are the prayers of saints;

and by the Psalmist,

Let my prayer come up before You as incense.

And the statues and gifts which are fit offerings to God are the work of no common mechanics, but are wrought and fashioned in us by the Word of God, to wit, the virtues in which we imitate the First-born of all creation, who has set us an example of justice, of temperance, of courage, of wisdom, of piety, and of the other virtues.

Citation: Origen of Alexandria. “Against Celsus.” Book 8. §17

…alluding to the pure and true sacrifice spoken of by Malachi and by Jesus to the Samaritan woman (as we discussed in Part 8, Interlude). Indeed, elsewhere Origen spoke of both together:

Homilies on Genesis

He opened, therefore, the wells and taught us, that we might not seek God in some one place, but might know that

‘sacrifice is offered to his name in every land.’ [Malachi 1:11]

For it is now that time ‘when the true worshippers worship the Father’ neither in Jerusalem nor on mount Garizim, ‘but in spirit and truth.’ [John 4:20-23]

God, therefore, dwells neither in a place nor in a land, but he dwells in the heart. And if you are seeking the place of God, a pure heart is his place. For he says that he will dwell in this place when he says through the prophet:

‘I will dwell in them and walk in them; and they shall be my people and I will be their God,’ says the Lord.’ [2 Corinthians 6:16, Leviticus 26:12]

Citation: Origen of Alexandria, “Homilies on Genesis.” Homily 13, §3)

Our sacrifice is from the heart. We do not offer Christ’s body as sacrifice, we offer prayers of thanksgiving from a pure heart:

Against Celsus

From this it is evident that we have already met the next statement of Celsus, which is as follows: We must either not live, and indeed not come into this life at all, or we must do so on condition that we give thanks and first-fruits and prayers to demons, who have been set over the things of this world: and that we must do as long as we live, that they may prove good and kind. We must surely live, and we must live according to the word of God, as far as we are enabled to do so. And we are thus enabled to live, when, whether we eat or drink, we do all to the glory of God; and we are not to refuse to enjoy those things which have been created for our use, but must receive them with thanksgiving to the Creator.

…

For this reason, then, let Celsus, as one who knows not God, give thank-offerings to demons. But we give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving (εὐχαριστίας) and prayer (εὐχής) for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer (εὐχήν) a sacred body, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.

Citations:

Origen of Alexandria. “Against Celsus.” Book 8. §33
J.P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca (1857–1866) in vol XI, col 1565

I’ve expanded the scope from FishEaters’ original citation because it is clearer that the (2-3) giving of thanks is the offering of the first fruits—the Eucharist—for the benefit of the church. The subsequent (4) prayer that turns the bread into a sacred body is the consecration or epiclesis.

For Origen, the tithe offering is the Eucharist that is offered to God by prayer, while the Lord’s Supper begins with a prayed consecration over the elements from the Eucharist that were previously offered to God. This is further confirmed in the very next chapter:

Against Celsus

Celsus would also have us to offer first-fruits to demons. But we would offer them to Him who said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth. And to Him to whom we offer first-fruits we also send up our prayers, having a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, and we hold fast this profession as long as we live; for we find God and His only-begotten Son, manifested to us in Jesus, to be gracious and kind to us.

Citation: Origen of Alexandria. “Against Celsus.” Book 8. §34

And again later in the same work:

Against Celsus

…We are much more concerned lest we should be ungrateful to God, who has loaded us with His benefits, whose workmanship we are, who cares for us in whatever condition we may be, and who has given us hopes of things beyond this present life. And we have a symbol of gratitude (εὐχαριστίας) to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist (εὐχαριστία). Besides, as we have shown before, the demons have not the control of those things which have been created for our use; we commit no wrong, therefore, when we partake of created things, and yet refuse to offer sacrifices to beings who have no concern with them…

Citations:

Origen of Alexandria. “Against Celsus.” Book 8. §57
J.P. Migne’s Patrologia Graeca (1857–1866) in vol XI, col 1604

As have various other patristic writers, Origen speaks of the (1-3) sacrifice of the Eucharist—as tithes, firstfruits, thanksgivings, and prayers—while making no mention of either the (4) consecration or the (5) Lord’s Supper.

Now, let’s look at the middle quotation by FishEaters. It is notable that as Origen speaks of the (4-5) celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the (1-3) sacrifice of thanksgiving is conspicuously absent. Whether or not Origen thought the body and blood of Christ were literally present, he isn’t describing a sacrifice or offering. This is true not only in his Homily on Numbers, but the separation in the liturgy is even more clear in his Homily on 1 Corinthians:

The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 3

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:5 Origen notes that when it is time for the meal, the consecration is performed by the invocation (έπικέκληται) of the Trinitarian name of God over the elements

Origen: Fragment 34 on 1 Corinthians — Robertson, A., D.D., LL.D. and Plummer, A., M.A., D.D., The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments: First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Briggs, Charles Augustus, D.D., ed (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons (1911)) 135

There is no mention of thanksgiving. It is the consecration. The invocation. It is the Epiclesis.

…

When Origen then describes the distribution of the bread which “becomes by prayer (εὐχήν) a sacred body,” it is also clear from his own commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:5 that he is referring to the Epiclesis, or the “invocation (έπικέκληται) of the name of God and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit” over the elements that have just been used in the Eucharist offering (Fragment 34, Robertson & Plummer, 135).

…

So obvious are Origen’s two separate liturgical acts —”thanksgiving and prayer” as the Eucharist, and a “prayer” as the Epiclesis—that the Latin translator (Roman Catholic Basilios Bessarion, d. 1472) rendered the first reference to “prayer” as “precibus,” or “supplication,” and the second reference to “prayer” as “orationem,” as in “spoken words” (Migne, P.G. vol XI, col 1666). Likewise, Dr. Franz Weiland (1906), in his Mensa und Confessio: Studies on the Altar of the Early Christian Liturgy stated plainly that Origen “precisely distinguishes between ‘offering’ and ‘consecration’,” which is to say, between the Eucharist and the Epiclesis. (Weiland, Mensa und Confessio (Munich: Verlag der J. J. Lentner’schen Buchhandlung (1906) 56).

Citation: Timothy F. Kauffman “The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 3.”

As we see many times throughout the series, there is no evidence of the Roman liturgy in the testimony of the patristic writers. But, as with Part 3: Justin Martyr, Part 5: Clement of Rome, and Part 6: Irenaeus of Lyons we find that once again translators and commentators have obscured or mistranslated the text in order to give it a Roman twist. Kauffman explains:

But that has not stopped the translators, who have been especially interested in proving that Origen’s Eucharist was in fact Consecratory. Maurice De La Taille, S.J., in his Mystery of Faith: Regarding The Most August Sacrament And Sacrifice Of The Body And Blood Of Christ, lacking any evidence at all from Origen, simply insists,

“even if Origen never affirmed it, that is no reason for saying that he denied that thanksgiving is contained in the consecrative prayer.”

Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., of Weston College School of Theology, likewise insisted that

“Origen … views the prayer of thanksgiving as the occasion for the consecration of the elements,”

and adds this footnote as evidence:

“[In Fragment 34] Origen speaks of the ‘loaves over which is invoked the name of God and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit.’ He probably refers to the prayer as a whole.”

(Theological Studies, “Sacrificium Laudis: Content and Function of Early Eucharistic Prayers,” Volume: 35 issue: 2, page(s): 268-287 (May 1, 1974), emphasis added).

Now, regarding the second quote, here is the selected quotation that FishEaters provided:

Homilies on Exodus

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting His body?

Citation: Origen, “Homilies on Exodus.” Homily 13, §3

First, many Roman Catholics argue that it is only proper to receive bread on the tongue. But for Origen, the bread is handled by the hands of the laity! As the bread is received (or passed?) among the faithful, those that hold (or pass?) it should be slow and careful, so as not to drop any on the floor. As we’ve seen throughout this series, not only were the consecrated elements holy, but so too was the entire unconsecrated eucharist holy. A reverent mode of conduct is correct in the ancient liturgy.

Second, since Origen’s eucharist sacrifice is separate from his Lord’s Supper, even if Origen should be interpreted here as referring to a literal body—and it should not, as we will see below—the Roman liturgy would still not be present, for in Origen’s Eucharist, Christ’s body was not offered as a sacrifice. Indeed, early in that same document, Origen notes that…

Homilies on Exodus

Let that soul which

will not give ‘sleep to its eyes’ nor ‘sleep to its eyelids’ nor ‘rest to its hours, ‘until it find a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the God of Jacob,’ [Psalms 132:4-5]

let that soul, I say, have further in itself also an immovable altar on which it may offer sacrifices of prayers and victims of mercy to God, on which it may sacrifice pride as a bull with the knife of temperance, on which it may slay wrath as a ram and offer all luxury and lust like he-goats and kids. But let him know how to separate for the priests even from these ‘the right arm’ and ‘the small breast’ and the jaws, that is, good works and works of the right hand (for let him preserve nothing evil); the whole small breast, which is an upright heart and a mind dedicated to God and jaws for speaking the word of God.

Citation: Origen, “Homilies on Exodus.” Homily 9, §4

…what we offer as sacrifice is prayers from a pure and upright heart.

Third, since this is from Origen’s Homilies on Exodus, to what in Exodus is Origen referencing? How does it pertain to the Lord’s Supper? Timothy F. Kauffman’s comment helpfully provides that context:

Origen was expounding Exodus 35:5-10,

“Take ye from among you an offering unto the LORD: whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD; gold, and silver, and brass, And blue, and purple, and scarlet [literally scarlet scarlet], and fine linen, and goats’ hair, And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins, and shittim wood, And oil for the light, and spices for anointing oil, and for the sweet incense, And onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod, and for the breastplate. And every wise hearted among you shall come, and make all that the LORD hath commanded;” (Exodus 35:5-10)

Noting that scarlet receives the double emphasis in this verse, Origen goes on, saying,

Have you lived so irreligiously, so unfaithfully that you have desired to have no memorial of your own in God’s tabernacle?

…

I wish to admonish you with examples from your religious practices. You who are accustomed to take part in divine mysteries know, when you receive the body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration lest any part fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost. For you believe, and correctly, that you are answerable if anything falls from there by neglect. But if you are so careful to preserve his body, and rightly so, how do you think that there is less guilt to have neglected God’s word than to have neglected his body?

Yes, it is good that you take care of the elements, he says, but you have neglected God’s Word. Does Origen go an and say, “Scripture should be held in as great honor as the sacrament of Christ’s body”? No he does not. He says,

It is asked, therefore, why he spoke simply about the other materials by which the other elements are indicated, but with scarlet alone, by which fire is designated, he placed “doubled.”

…

Let us see, therefore, why he said “scarlet doubled.” That color, as we said, indicates the element of fire. Fire, however, has a double power: one by which it enlightens, another by which it burns.

…

Let us see, therefore, how we can offer that doubled fire for the building of the tabernacle. … God, therefore, says to you also what he said to Jeremiah: “Behold I have made my words in your mouth as fire.”

In other words, you show reverence and caution when you distribute the element, but what deserves double that veneration and care is the preaching of the Word of God. So no, Origen does not say, as your source has made him to say, “the Scripture was held in as great honor as the sacrament of Christ’s body.” In fact it received double the honor.

FishEaters’ shortened quotation completely inverts the actual meaning of the passage, even as Origen was making the point that the bread—which Christ identified as the Word of God—represents a double portion of the power of the Word of God.

Of all the Words of God, what could be more powerful than the Gospel itself, of which the bread and cup are symbols? While all scripture is God-breathed, it is specifically the Words of Christ from the Father that lead to eternal life.

With this in mind, we should all consider the consequences of what happened to Christianity when the bread and body changed from Origen’s double portion of the Word of God to Roman Catholicism’s literal flesh and blood of Christ.

The Eucharist, Part 10: Origen of Alexandria

Origen

9 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply