Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶςKatholikon

Library › Origen › On Prayer

On Prayer

Origen, tr. Oulton, 1954

“And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors”; or, as Luke, “And …

FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS
(Chapter XXVIII)

“And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven1 our debtors”2; or, as Luke, “And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also have forgiven3 every one that is indebted to us.”4 Concerning “debts” the apostle also says, “Render to all their debts, tribute to whom tribute is due; fear to whom fear; custom to whom custom; honour to whom honour; owe no man anything save to love one another.”5 We “owe” therefore, having certain duties not only in the matter of giving but also in gentle speech6 and in certain particular actions, and we also “owe” it to others to have a certain kind of disposition towards them. “Owing” these things we either repay them by fulfilling what is commanded by the divine law, or by despising the wholesome word and failing to repay we remain in “debt.”

A similar thing must be observed in our “debts” to the brethren, that is to say, to those who have been born again7 with us in Christ according to the word of godliness and share with us fathers and mothers. There is also a “debt” to citizens, and another, common, “debt” to all men, particularly strangers and also those who have attained the age of fathers,8 and still another to certain whom it is reasonable to honour as sons or as brethren. He therefore who omits to pay “debts” to the brethren remains a “debtor” in respect of what he has not done. And so, if even we fail in anything that is due from us to men as concerning the spirit of kindly wisdom, our “debt” becomes greater. Moreover, “we are debtors” in what we owe to ourselves in so using the body that we do not waste its strength through love of pleasure; and we are debtors to observe this care also for the soul, and to show forethought for the acuteness of the mind, and for the word, that it may be without sting and helpful and in no way “idle.”9 In fact whenever we fail to pay what is owing to us by ourselves, our debt becomes heavier.

And above all, since we are the “workmanship”10 and “thing formed”11 of God that surpasses all else, “we owe” it to maintain a certain disposition towards him, and that love which is “with all the heart, and with all the strength, and with all the mind”12; which things if we do not rightly perform, we remain “debtors” to God, sinning towards the Lord. And who in that case will pray for us? For “if a man sinning sin against a man, they will even pray for him. But if he sin against the Lord, who will pray for him?”13 as Eli says in the first [book] of the Kingdoms. Moreover, since Christ bought us “with his own blood,”14 “we are debtors,” even as every servant is the “debtor” of him who bought him for so much a sum of money as was given for him. We also incur a debt to “the Holy Spirit,” which is paid when we do not “grieve” him, “in whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption,”15 and if we do not “grieve” him we bear the fruits which are demanded of us, since he is present with us and “quickeneth”16 our soul. And even though we do not know precisely, who is “the angel” of each of us who “beholds the face of the Father in heaven,”17 at any rate it is manifest to each one of us when he reflects upon it that we are “debtors” to him also for certain things. And moreover, if we are in “a theatre” of “the world and angels and men,”18 we ought to know that, as he who is in “a theatre” is a debtor to say or do such and such things in the sight of the spectators, which if he fails to do he is punished for having insulted the whole “house,”19 so also we “owe” to the whole “world, and to” all the “angels, and to” the race of “men” those things which, if we are willing, we shall learn from wisdom.

But apart from these more general considerations, there is a certain “debt” due from a widow20 for whom the Church provides, and another due from a deacon, and another from a presbyter, but the “debt” due from a bishop is the heaviest, since it is demanded of him by the Saviour of the whole Church, and retribution follows if it be not paid. Also, the apostle speaks of a certain “debt” common to husband and wife, saying, “Let the husband render unto the wife her debt: and likewise the wife unto the husband.”21 And he goes on to say, “Defraud ye not one another.”22 And what need is there for me to speak, when the readers of this book can make up their own reckonings from what has been said previously—which “debts” if we fail to pay we shall be kept in prison, or if we pay shall be set free? Howbeit, in life there is not an hour of the night or the day that we do not “owe” something.

Now, in “owing” a debt either a man pays or else refuses payment. And he can pay during his lifetime, and he can also refuse payment. And some indeed “owe no man anything”23; while others pay the greater part and owe a little, and others again pay a little and owe the greater part. And there may be a man who pays up nothing and owes everything. Of course, he who pays all, so as to owe nothing,24 achieves this result at some time or another, and he needs a period of grace2526 concerning his former debts: which grace can reasonably be obtained by a man who has made it his aim to be in the position at a certain date of not owing anything which has not been paid when the debt falls due. But actual transgressions, being engraved upon our reason,27 become of themselves28 “the written bond29 against us,”30 by which we shall be judged, like books testified under the hand of all, so to speak, which shall be brought forward when “we shall all stand before the judgment-seat”31 “of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”32 As concerning these debts it is also said in Proverbs, “Do not give thyself for security, thou who respectest thy person: for if thou hast not whence to pay, they will take thy bed from under thy ribs.”33

Now, if we “are in debt” to so many, assuredly some “are” also “in debt” to us. Some “are in debt” to us as to men, others as to citizens, others again as to fathers and some as to sons, and, yet again, as wives to husbands or as friends to friends. Whenever, therefore, out of our numerous “debtors” some show remissness about paying back what is due to us, we shall act with fellow-feeling and not bear malice towards them, remembering our own debts, how often we have failed to pay them, not only to men but also to God himself. For when we remember those to whom we were in debt yet did not pay, but refused payment as the time went on during which we ought to have done this or that to our neighbour, we shall be gentler towards those who have incurred a debt to us and have not paid what is due: and especially will this be so if we do not forget our transgressions against God and the “iniquity” we “have spoken on high,”34 either in ignorance of the truth or in discontent at the misfortunes which have fallen to our lot.

If we are unwilling to be gentler towards those who have incurred a debt with us, we shall suffer what he did who would not concede the “hundred pence” to his “fellow-servant.”35 This man, who had himself previously received a concession, according to the parable in the Gospel,36 his master reproached,3738 and exacted from him what had been previously conceded, saying to him, “‘Thou wicked and slothful servant,’3940 ‘shouldest not thou have had mercy on thy fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on thee?’41 Cast ye him into prison, ‘till he pay all that is due.’” And then the Lord went on to say, “So shall also my heavenly Father do unto you, if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.”42 Certainly, those who say that they repent of the sins they have committed against us must be forgiven, even though the debtor does this frequently: for “if,” he says, “thy brother sin against thee seven times in a day, and seven times turn, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.”43 It is not we who are harsh towards those who do not repent; rather, such persons are wicked to their own hurt: for “he that refuseth correction hateth himself.”44 And even in the case of such persons, every means must be sought to care for him who is so completely perverted that he does not even perceive his own wicked deeds, but is drunk with a drunkenness more deadly than that of wine—that which comes from the darkening power of wickedness.

When Luke says, “Forgive us our sins”45 (since the sins arise from our being in debt and not paying), he says the same thing as Matthew;46 but Luke seems not to give room47 for him who wishes to forgive repentant debtors only, saying that it has been laid down by the Saviour that we ought in the prayer to add: “for we ourselves also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.”45 Certainly, we all have power “to forgive” the sins committed against us: this is clear from the words “for we ourselves also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.”45 But he who is inspired by Jesus, as the apostles were,48 and can be known “by the fruits,”49 as one who has received the Holy Spirit and has become “spiritual”50 by being “led by the Spirit” as a “son of God”51 to do everything in accordance with reason—such a one “forgives” whatever God forgives and “retains”52 such sins as are incurable; and even as the prophets serve God in speaking not the things of their own53 but of the divine will, so also he serves him who alone “hath power to forgive,”54 even God.

In the Gospel according to John the following is said concerning the forgiveness of sins by the apostles: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”52 If one were to take these words without due consideration, one might lay a charge against the apostles for not “forgiving” all, in order that sins might “be forgiven” to all, but “retaining the sins” of some, so that they are “retained” on their account and with God. But it is useful to take an illustration from the Law so as to understand the forgiveness of sins that comes from God to men through men. The priests according to the Law are prohibited55 in the case of certain sins from offering a sacrifice that the faults may be forgiven those for whom the sacrifices are made. And though the priest has power56 to offer as concerning certain involuntary or voluntary faults,57 he actually does not offer “burnt offering and sin offering”58 for adultery or voluntary murder or any other more grievous transgression. In like manner, therefore, the apostles also, and those likened to the apostles, being priests of the “great high priest,”59 having received knowledge of the healing that comes from God, know, being taught by the Holy Spirit, concerning what sins they ought to offer sacrifices, and when, and in what manner, and they understand concerning what sins they ought not to do this. Eli the priest, for example, learning that his sons Hophni and Phinehas were sinning, since he was unable to help them to secure forgiveness of their sins, acknowledged in these words the hopelessness of achieving it: “for if a man sinning sin against a man, they will even pray for him: but if a man sin against the Lord, who will pray for him?”60

Certain persons,61 I know not how, arrogating to themselves powers beyond the priestly office, perhaps because they have no accurate grasp of the knowledge62 that a priest should possess, boast that they are able to pardon63 even idolatry and to forgive adultery and fornication,64 on the ground that by means of the prayer offered for those who have committed these deeds even “the sin unto death” is absolved. For they do not read the words: “There is a sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request.”65 And we must not pass over in silence that bravest of men, Job, who said as he was offering “sacrifice for” his “sons”: “It may be that my sons have thought evil of God in their mind.”66 For he offered the sacrifice in a case where it was doubtful if sins had been committed, and that too where the sins had not even reached as far as the lips.

Notes

  1. XXVIII, 1. “have forgiven”] ἀφήκαμεν: probably from Matt. 6:12: for in XVIII, 2, where he gives the whole prayer from Luke he reads ἀφίεμεν.
  2. Matt. 6:12.
  3. So the text here: but see XVIII, 2.
  4. Luke 11:4.
  5. Rom. 13:7, 8.
  6. XXVIII, 1. in gentle speech, etc.] Origen’s emphasis upon the law of love in this treatise is noteworthy in view of the bitter experiences he had recently passed through in the fracas with Demetrius of Alexandria. See Introduction, p. 176.
  7. XXVIII, 2. those who have been born again] Cf. XV, 4 (Christ speaks) “having received the spirit of adoption through the being born again in me.”
  8. Reading text as emended by Klostermann.
  9. Matt. 12:36.
  10. Eph. 2:10.
  11. Rom. 9:20.
  12. Cf. Mark 12:30.
  13. I Sam. 2:25.
  14. Cf. Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9; I Peter 1:18, 19.
  15. Eph. 4:30.
  16. John 6:63; cf. II Cor. 3:6.
  17. Matt. 18:10.
  18. I Cor. 4:9.
  19. XXVIII, 3. the whole “house”] i.e., the whole body of spectators.
  20. XXVIII, 4. “debt” due from a widow] Cf. I Tim. 5:3–16.
  21. I Cor. 7:3.
  22. I Cor. 7:5.
  23. Rom. 13:8.
  24. XXVIII, 5. so as to owe nothing] Cf. In Jerem. hom., XIV, 4.
  25. See note.
  26. XXVIII, 5. period of grace] This seems to be the sense required from the Greek ἀφέσεως, which signifies rather “remission.”
  27. XXVIII, 5. being engraved upon the reason] Cf. In Jerem. hom., XVI, 10: “Having committed the sin, I have its stamp [τύπον], and the stamp of the sin which has been sinned is written in my soul.”
  28. Reading αὐταί for αὗται.
  29. XXVIII, 5. the written bond] The same expression is used of the debt incurred by sinners in In Jerem. hom., XV, 5.
  30. Col. 2:14.
  31. Rom. 14:10.
  32. II Cor. 5:10.
  33. Prov. 22:26, 27.
  34. Ps. 73:8.
  35. Matt. 18:28.
  36. Matt. 18:23–35.
  37. Reading ὀνείδισας: see note.
  38. XXVIII, 7. reproached] T reads ἐνειλήσας, which according to the unsupported statement of Hesychius may mean “fined” or “punished.” The Anonymous prefers ἀπειλήσας, “threatened.” Neither of these gives the required sense. I suggest ὀνείδισας, “reproached.”
  39. Matt. 25:26.
  40. XXVIII, 7. “Thou wicked and slothful servant”] A slip on the part of Origen. These words occur in the parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:26), not in the parable of the Unmerciful Servant.
  41. Matt. 18:33.
  42. Matt. 18:34, 35.
  43. Luke 17:3, 4.
  44. Prov. 15:32.
  45. Luke 11:4.
  46. XXVIII, 8. he says the same thing as Matthew] i.e., “forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12).
  47. XXVIII, 8. but Luke seems not to give room] The Greek is “who seems not to give room.” To refer the “who” to Matthew, as some commentators have done, leads to confusion. Origen’s point is that Luke says, “we ourselves also forgive everyone that is indebted to us,” thereby seeming to exclude those who wish, in accordance with other passages of Scripture, to forgive repentant sinners only.
  48. XXVIII, 8. as the apostles were] Similarly in XIV, 6, he speaks of saints who may be regarded as “a Paul or a Peter.”
  49. Matt. 7:16, 20.
  50. I Cor. 2:15.
  51. Rom. 8:14.
  52. John 20:23.
  53. XXVIII, 8. in speaking not the things of their own] Cf. II Peter 1:21.
  54. Matt. 9:6.
  55. XXVIII, 9. The priests according to the Law are prohibited] A distinction between voluntary and involuntary faults is a familiar feature of the law. See Leviticus, ch. 4, and Numbers, ch. 15. For “presumptuous sins” (Ps. 19:13) no sacrifice was available. “The soul that doeth aught with a high hand, whether he be homeborn or a stranger, the same blasphemeth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among the people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment; that soul shall be utterly cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him” (Num. 15:30, 31).
  56. XXVIII, 9. though the priest has power, etc.] A difficult sentence. Translated as in the text, it simply outlines the distinction above. But the negative may be taken with both clauses: “the priest having no power to offer . . . actually does not offer.” This means that in certain cases of voluntary or trivial sins no offering is prescribed: but in the graver transgressions the absence of a sacrifice is explicitly indicated. Regarding such trivial sins undealt with by the law, two opinions obtained among the Rabbis: the majority holding that no sacrifice was required; one Rabbi (Levi Barcinonensis), however, maintaining that there were three faults, namely, blasphemy, neglect of circumcision, and failure to observe the Passover rightly, which though incurred involuntarily could not be expiated by sacrifice. See Reading, note, pp. 177, 178.
  57. Adopting an emendation of Koetschau.
  58. Ps. 40:6.
  59. Heb. 4:14.
  60. I Sam. 2:25.
  61. XXVIII, 10. Certain persons, etc.] At the general background of this passage lies the disciplinary action of the early Church, with its varying degrees of severity. The more rigorous view, which Origen from temperament and training would obviously support, found its Scriptural warrant in such passages as I John 5:16 (quoted here), Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:26–30, and possibly also II Peter 2:20–22, but this epistle from its late date and weak attestation can scarcely have exerted much influence (it is, however, referred to by Hippolytus in Philosophumena, IX, 7, of lapses on the part of Christians). It also finds expression in the Shepherd of Hermas, which, however, allows one post-baptismal fall, but not a second, and in Irenaeus, Haer., IV, 42:4, Tertullian De Baptismo, 8. Clearly, the more rigorous view concerning post-baptismal sin must have had regard to major offences only, and so a distinction between “deadly” and “venial” sins became soon apparent. Origen’s own view on this matter is indicated in several passages in his writings, e.g., In Lev. hom., XV, 2 (end): “In gravioribus enim criminibus semel tantum poenitentiae conceditur locus; ista vero communia, quae frequenter incurrimus, semper poenitentiam recipiunt, et sine intermissione redimuntur” (C.B., XXIX, 489); contra Celsum, III, 51: “They [sc. the Christians] lament as dead those who have been vanquished by licentiousness or some foul wickedness, since they are lost and dead to God”; and in In Matt., XIII, 30 Origen distinguishes between lesser and graver sins (“murder, or poisoning, or pederasty, or anything of that sort”), the latter being such as those which the law in Numbers 18:22 describes as “death-bearing.” But, quite clearly, a particular instance of disciplinary laxity is referred to in this passage (“certain persons”), and this has been usually identified (see Introduction, p. 180) with the controversy that took place at the end of the second and the beginning of the third century, and is associated in the first instance with the name of Pope Zephyrinus (197–217), but more particularly with his successor Callistus (217–223), who apparently went much further in the matter of laxity than Zephyrinus had done. The “rigorist” champion at Rome was Hippolytus, whose Philosophumena or Omnium haereseum refutatio refers disparagingly to Zephyrinus and contains a scathing description of the career of Callistus before he became Pope, and of his disciplinary action after it. It has in fact been held that the controversy produced a schism in the Roman Church with Hippolytus as anti-pope of the opposite faction. The difficulty in holding this view is that Jerome, though he knew Hippolytus was “bishop of some church” adds “the name of the city I have not been able to learn” (De Viris Illustribus, 61). Origen could not have been unaware of this controversy, for Jerome (ibid.) also says that in one of his works, On the praise of our Lord and Saviour, Hippolytus “indicates that he is speaking in the Church in the presence of Origen.” (The Greek version has it that Hippolytus was speaking in church after the manner of Origen and in his presence.) Origen paid his visit to Rome about 212 (see H. J. Lawlor, Eusebius, II, 201), and we cannot suppose that his contact with Hippolytus consisted merely in hearing him preach in church. Zephyrinus was then Pope; but as we have noted Hippolytus’s criticism did not leave him unspared—on the contrary he represents him as deceived by Callistus and in close connection with him (Philosoph. IX, 6, 7,). Further, the controversy (and the schism, if it existed) continued after the death of Callistus, for Hippolytus says that his “school continues, preserving its customs and traditions, not discerning with whom they ought to communicate, but indiscriminately offering communion to all.” This subsequent period would involve the episcopate of Urban (223–230) and probably also that of his successor Pontianus.
  62. XXVIII, 10. perhaps because they have no accurate knowledge] Hippolytus says that Zephyrinus was “an ignorant and unlearned man and unskilled in ecclesiastical definitions” (Philosoph., IX, 11)—the passage referring more particularly to theological definition concerning the godhead. This opinion is supported by a remark of Rufinus in his translation (or paraphrase) of Eusebius, H.E., VI, 29:4. This chapter recounts a “surprise” election to the bishopric of Rome. A certain Fabian had come from the country for the election. No one thought of him as the future bishop; but during the proceedings a dove lighted on his head, and this omen secured his election “by acclamation.” Rufinus adds, from his own stock of knowledge, to this account: “Some tell this story of Fabian, others of Zephyrinus”; and the coupling of the two in this connection suggests that Zephyrinus, like Fabian, had no great reputation for learning.
  63. XXVIII, 10. boast that they are able to pardon] Tertullian De Pudicitia, 1 (P.L., II, 98of.) speaks of something much more definite than a boast: “Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium. Pontifex scilicet maximus, quod est, episcopus episcoporum, edicit: ‘Ego et moechia et fornicationis delicta poenitentia functis demitto.’ O edictum, cui adscribi non poterit, Bonum factum.”
  64. XXVIII, 10. idolatry . . . adultery and fornication] In the Decian persecution, which took place later, “idolatry” on the part of Christians consisted in offering incense at a pagan altar (see J. E. B. Mayor on Tertullian, Apol., p. 351), or in taking part in pagan sacrifices by tasting the victim’s flesh, or in producing a certificate, often procured by collusion, that such an act had been performed (see Benson, Cyprian, 80, 81). Cyprian (Ep., 8:2) and Dionysius of Alexandria (ap. Eusebius, H.E., VI, 45) use the word in this sense, and there is no reason to think that any other meaning should be attached to it here: indeed, since the time of Trajan the approved form of profession of paganism was to take part in sacrifice. The conditions on which such lapsed Christians should be re-admitted, if at all, to communion was one of the major disciplinary problems with which the Church of the middle of the third century had to wrestle. But this was subsequent to Zephyrinus or Callistus, and there is no suggestion by Hippolytus that they made concessions to such offenders. The De Pudicitia of Tertullian, whether directed against Zephyrinus or Callistus, argues that adultery and fornication ought to exclude from communion equally with idolatry and murder (chs. 5, 12), and therefore seems to imply that the Pope’s laxity consisted in this only, that he was willing to re-admit to communion, in peace, the adulterer and the fornicator. But Tertullian’s treatise is dated between 217 and 222; and in the interval between the date of its composition and that of the De Oratione (233–234) wider concessions may have been made by subsequent Popes (note that Origen uses the plural in this connection—“certain persons”), involving those guilty of “idolatry.” With regard to the concessions made by Callistus concerning adultery and fornication, G. Dix argues (The Apostolic Tradition, XVIII) with plausibility that all that the Pope did was to recognize as marriage in the sight of the Church something that could not be so recognized in the eyes of the law, namely, a permanent union between a woman and a slave.
  65. I John 5:16.
  66. Job. 1:5.

· Contents ·