Origen
Origen’s baptismal
teaching as a whole will be presented in chapter 25. He refers to infant
baptism in three interrelated passages. All three respond to questions asking
for a justification of baptizing infants for the forgiveness of sins and offer
a defense in terms of a stain attached to birth, citing the same Old Testament
passages. The Homilies on Luke were
preached in Caesarea between 231 and 244.
Christian brethren
often ask a question. The passage from Scripture read today encourages me to
treat it again. Little children are baptized “for the remission of sins.” Whose
sins are they? When did they sin? Or how can this explanation of the baptismal
washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the
interpretation we spoke of a little earlier? “No man is clean of stain, not
even if his life upon the earth had lasted but a single day” [Job 14:4–5].
Through the mystery of baptism, the stains of birth are put aside. For this
reason, even small children are baptized. For “Unless born of water and the
Spirit one cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Homilies on Luke 14.5 on Luke 2:22)
The Homilies on Leviticus were preached in
Caesarea between 238 and 244; they survive in a Latin translation by Rufinus.
[After quotation
of Ps. 51:5 and Job 14:4:] These verses may be adduced when it is asked why,
since the baptism of the church is given for the remission of sins, baptism
according to the practice of the church is given even to infants; since indeed
if there is in infants nothing which ought to pertain to forgiveness and mercy,
the grace of baptism would be superfluous. (Homily
on Leviticus 8.3.5 on Lev. 12:2–7)
The Commentary on Romans belongs to Origen’s
mature works in Caesarea, about 246; it is preserved in the Latin translation
of Rufinus.
[After reference
to Lev. 12:8:] For which sin is this one dove offered? Was a newborn child able
to sin? And yet it has a sin for which sacrifices are commanded to be offered,
and from which it is denied that anyone is pure, even if his life should be one
day long [Job 14:4–5]. It has to be believed, therefore, that concerning this
David also said what we quoted above, “in sins my mother conceived me” [Ps.
51:5]. According to the historical narrative no sin of his mother is revealed.
On this account also the church had a tradition from the apostles to give
baptism even to infants. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries
were given knew that there are in all persons the natural stains of sin which
must be washed away by the water and the Spirit. On account of these stains the
body itself is called the “body of sin.” (Commentary
on Romans 5.9.11 on Rom. 6:5–6, the “body of sin”)
Origen reaffirms
the usual Christian understanding of baptism as for the forgiveness of sins,
and that understanding presented a problem for the practice of baptizing
infants. Origen witnesses to questions about the practice of infant baptism and
the argument that was urged against it, namely that infants had no sins to be
forgiven by baptism. The subject of discussion may have been more a matter of why baptize infants than whether to do so. In response, Origen
offers a modification of the earlier affirmations of the innocence of children.
Before the reader jumps to the conclusion that Origen is an early witness to
the doctrine of original sin (inheritance of the guilt of Adam’s
transgression), note should be taken of the larger context of the passage in the
Homilies on Luke. Earlier in the same
homily Origen contrasts sin (of which Jesus had none) and stain and explains
that Jesus needed the purification recorded in Luke 2:22 because of the stain
involved in his taking a human body for human salvation (Homilies on Luke 14.3). “Every soul that has been clothed with a
human body has its own ‘stain’ ” (14.4). Origen, therefore, is working
with the category of ceremonial, bodily defilement from the Old Testament
ritual law. The same impurity that attached to Jesus’ birth applies to all
human beings. The Commentary on Romans
makes clear that Origen is applying the same understanding of “sin” as a
physical “stain” in all three of the Old Testament passages to which he refers.
Origen’s innovation is to extend the baptismal forgiveness of sins to
ceremonial impurity, particularly that associated with childbirth. It remained
for a later age to extend the concept to inherited sin (chap. 52).
That the
interpretation advanced in the preceding paragraph is correct is evident from
Origen’s commentary on Matthew 18:2–4. There he elaborates on the condition of
the child as not having tasted sensual pleasures; not having fully attained
reason so not knowing anger, grief, pleasure of passions, or fear; being
forgetful of evils; being humble. In these respects, being converted means an
adult attains the condition of the child (Commentary
on Matthew 13.16).
Origen’s
statements indicate that infant baptism preceded this justification for the
practice. As has often been true in Christian history, the practice preceded
its doctrinal defense.
Origen’s further
defense of infant baptism appealed to a “tradition from the apostles.” He
offers no further evidence for this claim. His citation of John 3:5 in the
first passage quoted above and allusion to it in the third passage may mean
that the understanding of this passage as excluding from the kingdom anyone
(infants as well) who had not received the new birth was the basis of his
statement. John 3:5 was a common baptismal text of the second century (chaps.
8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18). The idea of apostolic origin may also be based on the
baptismal interpretation of Matthew 19:14 that Tertullian sought to counter.
Origen’s Commentary on John does not
survive for John 3:5, and his Commentary
on Matthew 15.6–9 (on Matt. 19:13–15) does not bring in baptism. Or, the
claim of apostolic tradition may rest on some teaching not dependent on
scriptural interpretation.
The Commentary on Matthew 15.36 (on Matt.
20:1–16) refers to those “called from childhood” and “faithful from childhood,”
but, as in the passages cited at the beginning of this chapter, these
expressions say nothing about the age of baptism. Origen’s Homilies on Joshua 9.4 (on Josh. 8:32) has been cited in support of
infant baptism, but Origen addresses adults here. (Everett
Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the
First Five Centuries [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009], 367-70)
Further Reading:
Listing of articles responding to "Breaking the Mormon Code"