Day 1: ANF09 Book I.1-3 or FC80 Book I.1-11

[Nemo]

ANF09 Book I.1-3 is FC80 Book I.1-11

The focus of this section is the priesthood in the spiritual Israel:

1. Who are the spiritual Israel?
2. Who are the priests in the spiritual Israel?
3. Which order do these priests belong to?

Other questions for consideration:
1. Why does Origen start the Commentary on John with an exposition of the spiritual Israel?
2. Why does he assert in ch2 that the number of Jewish believers are less than 144,000?
3. What is the difference between the order of Aaron and the order of Melchizedek?

[Clark]

I read using certain principles that aren't shared by most others. If I explain the principles up front then y'all can understand what may seem odd behaviors. Feel free to ignore any post of mine that doesn't work for you.

First, before I read a text I don't read any introduction that is not by the author of the text. After I've finished reading the text I may read introductions by someone other than the author.

Second, I actively ignore headings that are not by the author of the text. They are statements of what some person other than the author thought other people needed to think the author was saying at that point. Likewise, I distrust and try to ignore the section boundaries introduced by people other than the author.

Third, I ignore notes in the text or commentary on the text that summarize or explain the text's meaning. I do read notes about simple historical facts or about allusions or about details of the language used in the text. I may read paragraphs from an introduction that merely list historical facts.

A by-product of all these practices of mine is that if someone comments that "so-and-so says that Origen means X here" or "scholarly consensus is that Origen means X here" then I will cheerfully and silently ignore the comment or ask the poster to support the assertion by directly quoting from the text.

Obviously, people should feel free to prompt me for textual support for claims I make.

[Clark]

Nemo asked, "1. Why does Origen start the Commentary on John with an exposition of the spiritual Israel?"

The question seems to me an immediate and narrower version of: "What does Origen judge necessary to be done before beginning to read the text of John itself?"

At the very end of "15" in the ANF numbering, Origen says, "Here, then, let us bring to a close what has to be said before proceeding to read the work itself. And now let us ask God to assist us through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit, so that we may be able to unfold the mystical sense which is treasured up in the words before us." In the next sentence after that he starts to comment on the text.

It seems that everything up to there is "what has to be said before proceeding to read the work itself." It seems to him important or necessary to do all the work of 1-15 before reading the work itself. What kinds of work does he do in 1-15? Why does he at the end of 15 think that the preparatory work is complete?

[Clark]

The invitation in the group here is to learn what people think (or at least what the 19th-century translator thought) "the spiritual Israel" is and inquire how Origen fills in that concept.

I'm gonna try to sneak up on it from the other side: What does Origen say? How does he proceed? What seems most important to him? What is his enterprise? What's he trying to accomplish?

It does seem that "the 144,000" is a key to this section and to what Origen is doing. Origen repeats that term many times. It's his own term, not the translator's.

It seems the discussion of the 144,000 isn't done until the end of chapter 2. After that I don't see any more instances of "the 144,000". Origen opens chapter 3, "But what is the bearing of all this for us? So you will ask when you read these words, Ambrosius, ..." So it seems it's a transition to a new (sub)topic.

[Rex]

I find it a little surprising that Origen leans so much on the Apocalypse at the beginning of his commentary. If I understand correctly, that book may have been embraced in Alexandria by this time as authentically Johannine, but many Christians still found it questionable.

My initial assumption would be that Origen, like the later tradition, sees Melchizedek as a Christophanic figure. But supposedly (i.e., according to Jerome) Origen believed Melchizedek was an angel, so perhaps he interprets his priesthood as heavenly in a broad sense in comparison to the earthly Aaronic line.

[Nemo]

Rex wrote: "I find it a little surprising that Origen leans so much on the Apocalypse at the beginning of his commentary. If I understand correctly, that book may have been embraced in Alexandria by this time ..."

I find that interesting as well. Origen seemed to believe that John was the author of both the Gospel and the Apocalypse, whereas his student Dionysius thought the Apocalypse was written by a different author, although he didn't question its status as inspired Scripture.

[Nemo]

From FC80 Book 1:

(10)Most of us who approach the teachings of Christ, since
we have much time for the activities of life and offer a few
acts to God, would perhaps be those from the tribes who have
a little fellowship with the priests and support the service of
God in a few things. But those who devote themselves to the
divine Word and truly exist by the service of God alone will
properly be said to be Levites and priests in accordance with
the excellence of their activities in this work.
( 1 1) And, perhaps, those who excel all others and who
hold, as it were, the first places of their generation will be
high priests according to the order of Aaron, but not according
to the order of Melchisedech.

If I understand Origen correctly, believers are the spiritual Israel, those devoted to the Word are priests according the order of Aaron, in the spiritual sense. Jesus alone is priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

I had thought the believers were priests according to the order of Melchizedek, in which Jesus is High Priest, but the order of Aaron was reserved for the nation of Israel, which became obsolete after the destruction of the Temple.

It's unclear to me at this point what Origen sees as the difference between Melchizedek and Aaron (in the spiritual sense). Is it that only the former is forever?

[Clark]

At the very beginning, Origen says:

'JUST AS THE PEOPLE of old, who were called the people of God, were divided into twelve tribes plus the Levitical order, and this order itself, which engaged in service of the Divine, was divided into additional priestly and Levitical orders, so, I think, all the people of Christ according to “the hidden man of the heart,” who bear the name “Jew inwardly” and who have been circumcised “in spirit,” possess the characteristics of the tribes in a more mystical manner.'

This sentence is indeed a textual basis for the concept of a "mystical Israel," which I had questioned as being imported. I'm not 100% sure that *all* (baptized?) Christians are people of Christ according to the hidden man of of the hear, bearing the name "Jew inwardly," and have been circumcised "in spirit." But it seems a good working assumption, to be tested as we go along.

By talking about the twelve tribes plus the Levitical order, with the latter being itself divided, Origen telegraphs what he will talk about in chapters 1-3.

[Clark]

Origen says in chapter 2, "Now these taken from the tribes are, as we showed before, the same persons as the virgins. But the number of believers is small who belong to Israel according to the flesh; one might venture to assert that they would not nearly make up the number of a hundred and forty-four thousand. It is clear, therefore, that the hundred and forty-four thousand who have not defiled themselves with women must be made up of those who have come to the divine word out of the Gentile world."

In my earlier post I made explicit the tentative assumption that the mystical Israel, the 144,000, included all (baptized?) Christians. Here, Origen seems to be excluding from the 144,000 the Christian believers "who belong to Israel according to the flesh."

He seems to do the exclusion in order to handle the word "virgins". I'd be pleased to hear other explanations / readings of this.

Why is this detail of interest?

1. My naïve understanding of something called the "mystical Israel" would include all Christians, not just non-Jews. So perhaps my initial suspicion of the simple application of the term was justified.

2. We want to learn how Origen interprets Scripture. Well, here in front of us is an extended example of him interpreting Scripture. And (it seems) in order to cope with the Scriptural word "virgins" he comes up with a non-Scriptural idea, on his own. (The "virgins" must mean the Gentiles.)

[Nemo]

Clark wrote: "Origen says in chapter 2, "Now these taken from the tribes are, as we showed before, the same persons as the virgins. But the number of believers is small who belong to Israel according to the fles..."

I take that passage to mean that believers "who belong to Israel according to the flesh" are Jewish believers, e.g. Matthew, Peter, Paul, and the number of these don't "nearly make up" 144,000, and so the latter must include Gentile believers, not to the exclusion of Jewish believers.

[Genni]

(10)Most of us who approach the teachings of Christ, since
we have much time for the activities of life and offer a few
acts to God, would perhaps be those from the tribes who have
a little fellowship with the priests and support the service of
God in a few things. But those who devote themselves to the
divine Word and truly exist by the service of God alone will
properly be said to be Levites and priests in accordance with
the excellence of their activities in this work.

Honestly, this whole idea of a spiritual Israel makes me cringe a bit. It is used to extremes today to prop up replacement theology in the US, which licenses all kinds of behavior from Christians here.

I do like the parallel he draws between "regular Christians" today and those tribes of old who went about their daily business with the exception of "the service of God in a few things". I had not thought about it quite like that before. It is also something of a reminder that those Christians who do not seem to be as committed in church attendance or daily devotions are still part of the body, just as the ancient Israelites were considered to be, regardless of tribe.