HOCNA ON THE DOGMA = OF REDEMPTION

THE=20 MYSTERY OF REDEMPTION

Vladimir = Moss

=A9 = Vladimir=20 Moss =

CONTENTS

Introduction=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85..= 3

1. =20 The=20 =93Juridical = Theory=94=85=85=85=85=85..=85=85=85=85.10

2. =20 The=20 Meaning of = =93Justification=94=85=85..=85=85=85..28

3. =20 The=20 Sacrifice for = Sin=85=85=85=85=85=85=85..=85=85=85.40

4. =20 The=20 Prayer in the = Garden=85=85=85=85=85=85..=85=8560

5. =20 Gethsemane=20 or Golgotha?=85=85=85=85.=85=85=85=8579

6. =20 The=20 Theory of =93Moral = Monism=94=85=85=85=85..=8591

7. =20 Original=20 Sin=85=85=85=85=85=85=85..=85=85=85=85=85=85..104

Conclusion:=20 Love and = Justice=85=85=85=85=85=85=85..=85..122

Appendix=20 1: Life of Archbishop Theophanes of=20 Poltava=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85140<= /o:p>

Appendix=20 2: Archbishop Theophanes of Poltava on=20 Redemption=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85=85...=85...222

INTRODUCTION

He=20 wiped out our debt, by paying for us a most admirable and precious = ransom. We=20 are all made free through the blood of the Son, which pleads for us to = the=20 Father.

St. John of Damascus, First = Word on the=20 Divine Images, 21.

     Two works by = Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), The Dogma of Redemption and = the=20 Catechism, have been a subject of controversy in the Orthodox = Church for=20 nearly a century. The controversy consists in the fact that in these = works=20 Metropolitan Anthony attacks the Orthodox Christian teaching on = redemption as=20 expounded by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (+1867), labeling it = =93scholastic=94.=20 The purpose of this little book is to defend Metropolitan Philaret=92s = teaching as=20 being indeed the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church by an = examination=20 and refutation of Metropolitan Anthony=92s thesis, especially as it is = reiterated=20 in a document recently written by the Bishops of the =93Holy Orthodox = Church in=20 North America=94 (HOCNA), and entitled =93Resolution of the Sacred Synod = of the True=20 Orthodox Church of Greece concerning The Dogma of Redemption by=20 Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky=94.[1]

     Metropolitan = Anthony=92s=20 Catechism, which expressed the same theology as The Dogma of=20 Redemption in a more concise form, was at first accepted by the = Synod of the=20 Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) in 1926 as a substitute = for=20 Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow=92s Catechism in schools. The = Synod did not=20 call Metropolitan Philaret=92s Catechism heretical, simply saying = that=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s was =93shorter and more convenient for = assimilation=94. And=20 Metropolitan Anthony himself did not ask for Metropolitan Philaret=92s=20 Catechism to be removed from use in favour of his own, writing = only=20 (in a = report to the=20 Synod dated April 9/22, 1926): =93In my foreword to An Attempt at an = Orthodox=20 Christian Catechism I wrote: =91In publishing my work as material, I = in no way=20 wished that it should completely overshadow the Catechism = of=20 [Metropolitan] Philaret in schools, but I have nothing against the idea = that=20 this or that teacher of the Law of God should sometimes, in his = interpretation=20 of the dogmas and commandments, use my thoughts and references to Holy = Scripture=20 and Holy Tradition, thereby filling in the gaps in the textbook = catechism with=20 regard to various religious questions, of which very many have arisen in = the=20 time since the death of the author=92=94.[2]

     All this = sounds=20 innocent and cautious enough. And yet the fact is, as Metropolitan = Anthony made=20 clear on many occasions, the real motive for the writing of his = Catechism=20 and Dogma of Redemption was that he considered Metropolitan=20 Philaret=92s Catechism =93scholastic=94 and heretical, being = identical with the=20 Roman Catholic teaching on redemption of Anselm and Aquinas. Thus in his = letters=20 to the Russian Athonite monk and theologian, Hieromonk Theophan (later=20 Hieroschemamonk Theodosius of Karoulia), a firm opponent of Metropolitan = Anthony=92s thesis, he expressed fundamental disagreement =93with the = juridical=20 theory of Anselm and Aquinas, which was completely accepted by P[eter] = Moghila=20 and Metropolitan Philaret=94[3]=20 And again he wrote: =93We must not quickly return to Peter Moghila, = Philaret and=20 Macarius: they will remain subjects for historians=94[4]=20 And again: =93Apparently you together with your namesake [Archbishop = Theophan of=20 Poltava, the main opponent of Metropolitan Anthony=92s teaching in the = ROCOR=20 Synod] have fallen into spiritual deception=94.[5]=20 So it is clear that, for Metropolitan Anthony, as for his opponents, = this was a=20 fundamental matter of doctrine. Either Metropolitan Philaret=92s = Catechism=20 was heretical and Metropolitan Anthony=92s was Orthodox, or = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=92s was heretical and Metropolitan Philaret=92s was Orthodox. = And whoever=20 was wrong was =93in spiritual deception=94.

     But the = consequences=20 of =93victory=94 for either side would have been unthinkable; it would = have meant=20 condemning as a heretic either the greatest Russian hierarch of the=20 19^th century or, in many people=92s opinion, the greatest = Russian=20 hierarch of the 20^th century, and would quite simply have = torn the=20 Russian Church Abroad apart at a time when it was fighting for its life = against=20 communism, sergianism and sophianism.

     So it is not = surprising that both sides exhibited signs of trying to =93cool=94 the = conflict. On=20 the one hand, Metropolitan Anthony=92s Catechism did not replace = that of=20 Metropolitan Philaret, and the Synod under Metropolitan Anastasy refused = to=20 review the question again. And on the other, Metropolitan Anthony=92s = chief=20 opponent, Archbishop Theophan departed to live a hermit=92s life in=20 France=85

     But the = conflict has=20 resurfaced in the 1990s, both in Russia and in = America.

     Now the = HOCNA=20 hierarchs refrain from directly calling any of the major players in this = controversy a heretic. At the same time, however, they extend the label=20 =93scholastic=94 to all those who espouse what they call =93the = juridical theory=94 of=20 redemption, including even such renowned hierarchs as Bishop Ignaty=20 Brianchaninov and Bishop Theophan the Recluse. Thus for the sake of = defending=20 the complete correctness of Metropolitan Anthony=92s Dogma of = Redemption,=20 they are prepared to condemn the three most famous and revered hierarchs = of the=20 Russian Church in the 19^th century as heretics! Where will it = stop?=20 How many more =93juridical theorists=94 will be found in the annals of = Orthodox=20 Church history and among the ranks of the Orthodox saints? As will be = shown=20 here, a consistent witch-hunt in search of =93scholastic=94 heretics = will go much=20 further than the HOCNA hierarchs may realise, to include most of the = greatest=20 Fathers of the Orthodox Church!

     So what is = the=20 alternative? Continue to bury the question again as it was buried in the = course=20 of several decades by the ROCOR? Or thrash it out once and for all? In = our=20 opinion, it is no longer possible to bury this conflict, for it has = extended=20 beyond the boundaries of the ROCOR and is debated in Russia and in other = countries. Moreover, it is not in the nature of the Orthodox Church, = which is=20 =93the pillar and ground of the truth=94 (I Timothy 3.15), to = leave=20 fundamental questions of dogma unresolved when conflict has arisen over = them.=20 One may hope that the issue will simply =93fade away=94; but time and = again, after a=20 brief quiescence it re-emerges with renewed vigour. On the other hand, = while the=20 issue of truth cannot be deferred forever, it is reasonable to hope that = at the=20 end of the process those who are in the wrong will not be labelled = heretics and=20 condemned as such. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Blessed Augustine of Hippo and = others=20 were found to be wrong on certain important issues; but the Church has = accepted=20 them, without accepting their errors (as St. Photius the Great said of = St.=20 Augustine). We may hope that the same will be concluded concerning the = errors=20 contained in Metropolitan Anthony=92s Dogma of Redemption.=20

     For, on the = one hand,=20 he did not publicly insist on their acceptance.[6]=20 And on the other, as one of his fairest critics, Fr. Seraphim Rose, = writes, =93it=20 is a question not of heresy (in his most sympathetic critics and we = won=92t be=20 examining others), but rather of imperfection, of theology not thought = through=20 and consistent. He is not known as a careful theologian, rather as a = great=20 pastor whose theology was one of fits and starts. The question of = =91heresy=92 arises when his critics try to make him strictly = accountable for every=20 expression and when they place him above all the Holy Fathers of the = Church, for=20 in several points the teaching of Metropolitan Anthony clearly = contradicts the=20 Fathers. His theology is at times closer to expressionism. Almost = all but=20 a few of his absolute devotees admit that Dogma of Redemption = especially=20 is very loose=94.[7]

     One of=20 the earliest critics of Metropolitan Anthony was New Hieromartyr = Archbishop=20 Victor of Vyatka. He noted already in 1912 that the =93new theology=94 = of=20 Metropolitan Anthony and his pupil, Metropolitan (and future = =93Patriarch=94)=20 Sergius (Stragorodsky) =93would shake the Church=94. And he saw in = Metropolitan=20 Sergius=92 disastrous =93Declaration=94 of 1927 a direct result of his = teaching on=20 salvation =96 which teaching was openly praised by Metropolitan Anthony = in The=20 Dogma of Redemption.[8]=20 Hieromartyr Victor was not the only critic of Metropolitan Anthony=92s = theory in=20 the Catacomb Church. According to the witness of Hieromartyr Paul = Borotinsky,=20 the Petrograd Hieromartyrs Bishop Demetrius of Gdov and Fr. Theodore = Andreyev=20 were also critical of it.[9]

     Nor was = criticism of=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s work confined to the Russian Church. Thus = immediately=20 after the publication of The Dogma of Redemption in 1926, = Protopriest=20 Milosh Parenta wrote in the Serbian Church=92s official organ: =93The = tragedy of=20 Metropolitan Anthony is amazing! A pillar of the faith in soul, a great = Orthodox=20 in his heart, a strict fulfiller and preserver of Church discipline to = the=20 smallest details. But when he approaches a scientific-theological = examination=20 and explanation of the dogmas, then he either insufficiently comprehends = them,=20 or he cannot avoid the temptation of, and enthusiasm for, modernism. The = explanation of the dogma of redemption offered by the author in this = work openly=20 destroys the teaching on this truth faithfully preserved by the Orthodox = Church,=20 and with it the Christian Religion itself, because the truth of the = redemption=20 together with the truth of Christ=92s incarnation is its base and = essence.=20 However, it is necessary to recognize that it is very difficult to = analyse this=20 work of the author, because in it there are often no definite and clear=20 concepts, although there are many extended speeches which hide the = concepts or=20 say nothing, and because in part there are no logical connections in it, = nor any=20 strictly scientific exposition, nor systematic unity=94.[10] =

     However, in = spite of=20 these obstacles, an attempt will be made to undertake such an analysis = in this=20 work; for, whatever the dangers of criticising such a revered figure, = the danger=20 of allowing his mistaken opinions to spread and be exalted to the status = of=20 Orthodox dogma are still greater=85=20

1.=20 THE =93JURIDICAL THEORY=94

In=20 essence the wrath of God is one of the manifestations of the love of = God, but of=20 the love of God in its relation to the moral evil in the heart of = rational=20 creatures in general, and in the heart of man in=20 particular.

Archbishop=20 Theophan of Poltava, On=20 Redemption.=20

     Metropolitan = Anthony=92s=20 ambitious claims to originality in his teaching on redemption put us on = our=20 guard right from the beginning of his work. Thus he writes: =93No one = has as yet=20 given a direct and at least somewhat clear answer to the question, why = Christ=92s=20 incarnation, sufferings and resurrection are saving for us, unless we = take into=20 consideration the small leading article published in the = Ecclesiastical=20 Herald of 1890 and the little article in the Theological Herald = of=20 1894 composed by the author of the present work. But let not the reader = not=20 think that we force our solution to this inquiry upon him as something=20 irrefutable. Supposing it were entirely incorrect, we nevertheless = maintain that=20 it is still the only direct and positive answer to the above-mentioned = dogmatic=20 query yet formulated.=94[11] =

     The=20 question arises: why should it be given to Metropolitan Anthony, nearly = 1900=20 years after the Death and Resurrection of Christ, to expound for the = first=20 time =93the only direct and positive answer=94 to the question of = the meaning of=20 redemption? Why were the Holy Fathers silent (if they were indeed = silent)?=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s answer to this is that =93the contemporaries of = the Fathers=20 so clearly understood the Saviour=92s redeeming grace that it was = unnecessary to=20 elucidate upon it. In the same way, in our days there is no need to = explain to=20 rural Christians what humility, compunction, and repentance are, yet the = intellectual class is in great need of an explanation of these virtues = since=20 they have alienated themselves from them. Thus, educated Christians who = from=20 medieval times have been caught in the mire of juridical religious = concepts,=20 have lost that direct consciousness or spiritual awareness of their = unity with=20 Christ Who suffers with us in our struggle for salvation, a unity which = the=20 early Christians kept so fervently in their hearts that it never = occurred to the=20 interpreters of the sacred dogmas and the commentators on the words of = the New=20 Testament to explain what everyone perceived so clearly=94.[12] =

     This is = unconvincing.=20 The problem of semi-believing intellectuals did not appear for the first = time=20 towards the end of the second millennium of Christian history. Nor did = the Holy=20 Fathers fail to explain the significance of Christ=92s death and = resurrection.=20 Such explanations involved the development and exploration of those = images and=20 metaphors to be found in the New Testament, of which the juridical = metaphor is=20 undoubtedly the chief. This metaphor was evidently not to Metropolitan = Anthony=92s=20 liking, for =93the juridical theory=94 forms the chief target of his = attack; but=20 there is no evidence that the Apostles had some more =93positive=94 = explanation=20 which they were hiding from the general Christian public and which was = revealed=20 to the Church some 1900 years later. After all, the Church has no = esoteric=20 teaching like that of the Gnostics. The whole truth was revealed to, and = handed=20 down by, the Apostles, and the task of subsequent generations is to = explicate=20 and explore that heritage, not speculate about hidden=20 teachings.

     What, then, = is the=20 so-called =93juridical theory=94? If we reply: =93An understanding of = the redemption=20 of mankind expressed in legal or juridical terms or metaphors=94, this = hardly=20 implies heresy, for many passages of Holy Scripture, as is well-known to = both=20 sides in this debate, use juridical terms when speaking about our = redemption. If=20 we add to this definition the words: =93combined with terms of a = passionately=20 negative or pagan connotation, such as =91wrath=92, =91curse=92, = =91sacrifice=92,=20 =91propitiation=92,=94 then we are no nearer to the definition of a = heresy, for these=20 phrases, too, are to be found in abundance in Holy Scripture. Since the = critics=20 of the juridical theory often describe it as =93scholastic=94, we might = expect that=20 the Catholic scholastic theory of redemption as found in the works of = Anselm and=20 Aquinas, is meant. Certainly this is part of the meaning. And yet the=20 metropolitan offers no serious analysis of this theory, and no = quotations from=20 Catholic sources.

     The real = targets of=20 Metropolitan Anthony and his supporters are the works of certain = Orthodox=20 writers who supposedly embrace the scholastic theory, especially=20 Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. Metropolitan Anthony adds the names of = Peter=20 Moghila, metropolitan of Kiev in the seventeenth century, and Macarius = Bulgakov,=20 author of a standard textbook of Orthodox dogmatics in the nineteenth = century.=20 The HOCNA bishops, as we have seen, add Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov and = Bishop=20 Theophan the Recluse to the list (Metropolitan Anthony, however, is very = careful=20 to exclude Bishop Theophan[13]),=20 while labelling as =93scholastic=94 all Metropolitan Anthony=92s = twentieth-century=20 critics, especially Fr. Seraphim Rose.

     The strange = thing,=20 however, is that Metropolitan Anthony does not quote at all from=20 Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, with the exception of a short excerpt = from his=20 Catechism on original sin and another, even smaller one from a = sermon of=20 his on Great Friday. And the HOCNA bishops do not correct this glaring=20 deficiency. Instead we are provided with a summary =96 more precisely, a = caricature - of the scholastic theory in the following words: =93The = Supreme=20 Being, God, was offended by Adam=92s disobedience and man=92s disbelief = in the=20 Divine injunction regarding the tree of knowledge. This was an extreme = offense,=20 and was punished by the curse not merely laid upon the transgressors, = but also=20 upon their entire posterity. Nevertheless, Adam=92s sufferings and the = agonizing=20 death which befell Adam=92s descendants were not sufficient to expunge = that=20 dreadful affront. The shedding of a servant=92s blood could not effect = this; only=20 the Blood of a Being equal in rank with the outraged Divinity, that is, = the Son=20 of God, Who of His own good will took the penalty upon Himself in = man=92s stead.=20 By this means the Son of God obtained mankind=92s forgiveness from the = wrathful=20 Creator Who received satisfaction in the shedding of the Blood and the = death of=20 His Son. Thus, the Lord has manifested both His mercy and His equity! = With good=20 reason do the skeptics affirm that if such an interpretation corresponds = to=20 Revelation, the conclusion would be the contrary: the Lord would have = manifested=20 here both mercilessness and injustice=94.[14] =

     Since = neither=20 Metropolitan Anthony nor the HOCNA bishops provide us with the = opportunity of=20 comparing this summary with the actual writings of the so-called = Orthodox=20 scholastics, we shall attempt to supply this deficiency for them. Here = is a=20 passage from Metropolitan Philaret=92s Catechism on redemption: = =93204. Q. In=20 what sense is Jesus Christ said to have been crucified for us? A. In the = sense=20 that by His death on the Cross He delivered us from sin, the curse and = death.=20 205. Q. What do the Holy Scriptures say about it? A. The Holy Scriptures = say the=20 following about it. About deliverance from sin: =91In whom we have = redemption=20 through His blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of = His grace=92=20 (Ephesians=20 1.7). About deliverance from the curse: =91Christ has redeemed us from = the curse=20 of the law, being made a curse for us=92 (Galatians=20 3.13). About deliverance from death: =91Forasmuch then as the children = are=20 partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself took part of the same; = that=20 through death He might destroy the power of death, that is, the devil; = and=20 deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject = to=20 bondage=92 (Hebrews=20 2.14-15) 206. Q. How does the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross deliver = us from=20 sin, the curse and death? A. The death of Jesus Christ on the Cross = delivers us=20 from sin, the curse and death. And so that we may more easily understand = this=20 mystery, the word of God enlightens us about it, as far as we can = accommodate=20 it, through the comparison of Jesus Christ with Adam. Adam naturally (by = nature)=20 is the head of the whole of humanity, which is one with him through = natural=20 descent from him. Jesus Christ, in Whom Divinity is united with = Humanity, by=20 grace became the new, all-powerful Head of the people whom He unites = with=20 Himself by means of faith. Therefore just as through Adam we fell under = the=20 power of sin, the curse and death, so we are delivered from sin, the = curse and=20 death through Jesus Christ. His voluntary sufferings and death on the = Cross for=20 us, being of infinite value and worth, as being the death of Him Who is = without=20 sin and the God-Man, is complete satisfaction of the justice of God, Who = condemned us for sin to death, and immeasurable merit, which has = acquired for=20 Him the right, without offending justice, to give us sinners forgiveness = of sins=20 and grace for the victory over sin and death=85=94[15] =

     It will be = noted that=20 Metropolitan Philaret, as is usual with him, stays very close to the = words of=20 Holy Scripture, so that it is very difficult to find fault with his = exposition=20 without finding fault at the same time with the scriptural words that he = quotes.=20 It will also be noted that his explanation has none of the emotionality = of the=20 scholastic theory as expounded by Metropolitan Anthony, none of its=20 bloodthirstiness. True, there are the =93juridical=94 words =93curse=94, = =93satisfaction=94,=20 =93merit=94; but these are used in a calm, measured way which hardly = invites the=20 mockery assailed at the scholastic theory.

     Let us now = turn to one=20 of the most famous of the Holy Fathers, whom no Orthodox theologian = would dare=20 to accuse of scholasticism, since he was one of the earliest and = greatest=20 opponents of scholasticism, St. Gregory Palamas. It is striking how many = =93scholastic=94 words, such as =93wrath=94, =93sacrifice=94, = =93victim=94, =93reconciliation=94,=20 and =93ransom=94 he uses: =93Man was led into his captivity when he = experienced God=92s=20 wrath, this wrath being the good God=92s just abandonment of man. God = had to be=20 reconciled with the human race, for otherwise mankind could not be set = free from=20 the servitude.

     =93A = sacrifice was=20 needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since = we had=20 been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice = which=20 both cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest=85. God = overturned the=20 devil through suffering and His Flesh which He offered as a sacrifice to = God the=20 Father, as a pure and altogether holy victim =96 how great is His gift! = =96 and=20 reconciled God to the human race=85

     =93Since He = gave His=20 Blood, which was sinless and therefore guiltless, as a ransom for us who = were=20 liable to punishment because of our sins, He redeemed us from our guilt. = He=20 forgave us our sins, tore up the record of them on the Cross and = delivered us=20 from the devil=92s tyranny. The devil was caught by the bait. It was as = if he=20 opened his mouth and hastened to pour out for himself our ransom, the = Master=92s=20 Blood, which was not only guiltless but full of divine power. Then = instead of=20 being enriched by it he was strongly bound and made an example in the = Cross of=20 Christ. So we were rescued from his slavery and transformed into the = kingdom of=20 the Son of God. Before we had been vessels of wrath, but we were made = vessels of=20 mercy by Him Who bound the one who was strong compared to us, and seized = his=20 goods.=94[16]

     = Finally, let us now = turn to=20 Bishop Theophan the Recluse: "We have fallen through the sin of = our first=20 parents and we have been plunged into inescapable=20 destruction. Our=20 salvation can only come by deliverance from this destruction. Our = destruction=20 comes from two different evils: from the wrath of God in the face of our = disobedience and from the loss of His grace and from submission to the = law, on=20 the one hand; and on the other, from the alteration of our nature by = sin, from=20 the loss of true life, and from submission to death. That is why there = were=20 required for our salvation: first, that God should take pity on us, = deliver us=20 from the curse of the law and restore to us His grace; and then that He = make us=20 live again, we who were dead through sin, and give us a new=20 life.

     "Both the = one and the=20 other are necessary: both that we should be delivered from the curse, = and that=20 our nature should be renewed. If God does not show Himself full of pity = for us,=20 we cannot receive any pardon from Him, and if we receive no pardon, we = are not=20 worthy of His grace; and if we are not worthy of His grace, we cannot = receive=20 the new life. And even if we had received pardon and remission in some = fashion,=20 we would remain in our corrupted state, unrenewed, and we would derive = no profit=20 from it; for without renewal of our nature, we would remain in a = permanent state=20 of sin and we would constantly commit sins, sins which would bring down = upon us=20 again our condemnation and disgrace - and so everything would be = maintained in=20 the same state of corruption.

     "Both the = one and the=20 other have been accomplished by the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. By = His Death=20 on the Cross He offered a propitiatory sacrifice for the human race. He = lifted=20 the curse of sin and reconciled us to God. And by His pure life, by = which in a=20 perfect manner He accomplished the will of God in all its fullness, He = has=20 revealed and given to us, in His Person, an unfailing source of = righteousness=20 and sanctification for the whole human race."[17]

     And let us = now compare=20 this exposition with the words of the HOCNA bishops: =93The proponents = of the=20 heretical, Scholastic theories of atonement insist that God=92s honor or = majesty=20 or justice had to be =91satisfied=92 or =91appeased=92 before God=92s = love and compassion=20 could be shown to mankind. God could not forgive mankind until His wrath = had=20 been propitiated. These beliefs attribute a division, opposition, and=20 contradiction within the simplicity of the Divinity. Furthermore, they, = like the=20 pagan Greek philosophers, subject the superessential and almighty God to = a=20 necessity of His nature=94 (p. 3).

     So there = would appear=20 to be three reasons for the rejection of the juridical theory by the = HOCNA=20 bishops: (1) a vaguely expressed emotional distaste for the emotional=20 connotations of certain words such as =93satisfied=94 and = =93appeased=94, (2) the=20 supposed division it creates in the simplicity of the Divinity, and (3) = its=20 attribution to God of a certain pagan concept of=20 necessity.

     (1), though = an=20 emotional rather than a strictly intellectual accusation, actually = represents,=20 in our opinion, the real motivation for the opposition to the so-called=20 juridical theory, and will consequently be discussed at some length = below. (2)=20 presumably refers (although it is not clearly stated in this passage) to = the=20 supposed contradiction between love and =93wrath=94 as attributes of = God, and will=20 also be discussed at length. (3) is simply a misunderstanding, in our = view, and=20 will therefore be briefly discussed now before going on to the more = serious=20 accusations.

     Bishop = Theophan does=20 use the word =93necessary=94, but it is obvious that no pagan = Greek kind=20 of necessity is implied. The thought is simply that in order to be saved = we had=20 to be both cleansed from sin and renewed in nature. And it = had to=20 be in that order. Indeed it makes no sense to think that human nature = can be=20 renewed and deified before it has been cleansed from sin. Thus we read:=20 =93Now = this He said=20 about the Spirit, which those who believed on Him were to receive; for = as yet=20 the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified=94 = (John=20 7.39). In other words, Jesus had to be glorified, i.e. crucified and die = on=20 Golgotha, thereby cleansing mankind from sin, before the Spirit could = descend=20 and renew our nature at Pentecost. It goes without saying that the word = =93had=94=20 here in no way implies any kind of pagan =93fate=94 or =93necessity=94. = All the acts of=20 God are free. But they are also not arbitrary. That is, they are in a = certain=20 order, according to a certain plan, a perfect order and a perfect plan = that=20 cannot be improved upon and in that sense have to be realised.=20 In = exactly the same=20 way, on the personal level, we have to confess our sins and receive = absolution=20 before receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.

     Turning now = to the=20 other charges against the juridical theory, it is necessary to = understand, first=20 of all, that all attempts to describe the mystery of our redemption in = human=20 terms are necessarily metaphorical. As such, they cannot be taken = to=20 their logical conclusion without absurdity. Therefore when reading them = we must=20 always bear in mind their metaphorical character, and offset the = absurdity that=20 results from concentrating too closely on one metaphor alone by = considering=20 other metaphors as well.[18] = Thus the juridical metaphor needs to be supplemented with, for example, = the=20 metaphor of the strong man (God) despoiling the goods of the brigand = (the devil)=20 (Matthew=20 12.29) or the patristic metaphor of the devil like a fish being caught = on the=20 hook of Christ=92s Divinity and the worm of His Humanity.[19] = And such a mixing of metaphors is displayed, as we have seen, by St. = Gregory=20 Palamas. Each metaphor illumines a part of the truth; one metaphor = complements=20 another, correcting its misleading emphases.

     For, as = Vladimir=20 Lossky writes: =93The immensity of this work of Christ, a work = incomprehensible to=20 the angels, as St. Paul tells us, cannot be enclosed in a single = explanation nor=20 in a single metaphor. The very idea of redemption assumes a plainly = legal=20 aspect: it is the atonement of the slave, the debt paid for those who = remained=20 in prison because they could not discharge it. Legal also is the theme = of the=20 mediator who reunited man to God through the cross. But these two = Pauline=20 images, stressed again by the Fathers, must not be allowed to harden, = for this=20 would be to build an indefensible relationship of rights between God and = humanity. Rather must we relocate them among the almost infinite number = of other=20 images, each like a facet of an event ineffable in itself=94[20].<= /P>

     At the heart = of the=20 controversy surrounding the juridical model of redemption, and closely = related=20 to the point just made about its metaphorical nature, lies the question = of the=20 emotional connotations of the language used in it =96 and of the = emotional=20 reaction to those connotations on the part of some of its critics. = Metropolitan=20 Anthony chooses to see in the language of the juridical model =96 even = in the very=20 sober form in which is presented by Metropolitan Philaret =96 the = expression of=20 fallen human emotions =93unworthy=94 of God and the great mystery of = God=92s salvation=20 of mankind. Words such as =93curse=94, =93vengeance=94, =93wrath=94, = =93ransom=94 all have the=20 wrong connotations for him, even disgust him; he would like to replace = them by=20 more =93positive=94 words such as =93love=94 and =93compassion=94. What = he apparently fails=20 to realize is that all words used to explain the mystery, = including=20 =93love=94 and =93compassion=94, are more or less tainted by their = association with=20 fallen human emotions and have to be purified in our understanding when = applied=20 to God.

     But such = purification=20 cannot be accomplished through abstraction simply, by replacing the = vivid words=20 of Scripture with the dry categories of secular philosophy. The Word of = God is=20 above all philosophy. And to attempt to =93improve on=94 the words and = concepts=20 given to us by the Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture can only lead to a = sinful=20 distortion of the mystery itself. If the Holy Scriptures, adapting to = our=20 infirmity, use this language, then all the more should we not expect = that we can=20 find any better words to explain the mystery than those provided by the = Holy=20 Spirit Himself.

     The best we = can do,=20 therefore, is to accept with gratitude the metaphors and explanations = given to=20 us in the Holy Scriptures, understanding, on the one hand, that there is = no=20 better explanation of the mystery in question in human language (for if = there=20 were, God would have provided it), and on the other hand that this = explanation=20 needs to be purified in our minds of all elements suggestive of fallen = human=20 passion.

     Instead of = rejecting=20 or belittling the terms given us in Holy Scripture, we must accept them = with=20 reverence, probe as deeply as possible into their meaning, while purging = them of=20 all fallen connotations. Thus when considering the curse that God placed = on=20 mankind at the fall, we must exclude from our minds all images of = bloodthirsty=20 men cursing their enemies out of frenzied hatred and a desire for = vengeance. At=20 the same time, the concept of the curse must not become so abstract that = the=20 sense of awe and fear and horror that it elicits is lost. The = curse was=20 not imposed on mankind by God out of hatred of mankind, but out of a = pure and=20 dispassionate love of justice =96 and this justice, far from being a = =93cold=94,=20 =93abstract=94 idea is a living and powerful energy of God Himself. = Similarly, God=20 did not demand the Sacrifice of the Son out of a lust for blood, out of = the=20 fallen passion of vengefulness, but in order to restore justice and = peace=20 between Himself and His creatures, than which there can be nothing more=20 desirable and necessary.

     God neither = loves nor=20 hates as human beings do; both the love and the wrath of God are not to = be=20 understood in a human way. For, as St. John of Damascus says: =93God, = being good,=20 is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any = passion=94.[21]=20 And,=20 as St. Gregory the Theologian says, by virtue of our limitations and=20 imperfection as human beings we introduce =93something human even into = such lofty=20 moral definitions of the Divine essence as righteousness and love=94.[22] =

     Archbishop = Theophan of=20 Poltava assembled a number of patristic quotations, of which the = following are a=20 selection, in order to demonstrate this vitally important=20 point:

(i)           = ;     =20 St.=20 Gregory of Nyssa: =93That it is impious to consider that the nature of = God is=20 subject to any passion of pleasure or mercy or wrath will be denied by = none of=20 those who are even a little attentive to the knowledge of the truth of=20 existence. But although it is said that God rejoices in His servants and = is=20 stirred up with wrath against the fallen people, and then that He = =91will show=20 mercy on whom He will show mercy=92 (Exodus=20 33.19), nevertheless I think that in the case of each of these = utterances the=20 commonly accepted interpretation loudly teaches us that by means of our=20 properties the Providence of God adapts itself to our infirmity, so that = those=20 inclined to sin may through fear of punishment restrain themselves form = evil,=20 and that those formerly carried away by sin may not despair of returning = through=20 repentance when they contemplate His mercy=94.[23] =

(ii)           = ;  =20 St.=20 Gregory of Nyssa: =93Theological science cannot avoid using this = language, even=20 about Divine things. We must always have this fact in mind both when we = read the=20 Holy Scriptures and when studying the works of the Holy = Fathers.=20 And=20 so as to avoid possible misunderstandings and mistakes in the one or the = other=20 sphere, it is necessary for us in such cases to transpose the words and = names=20 relating to God which are taken from the existence here below to mean = that which=20 is higher, loftier=94.[24]

(iii)           = ;=20 St.=20 John Chrysostom: =93The same expressions are used about God and about = man; but the=20 former should be understood in one way, and the latter in another. We = should not=20 accept in the same sense that which is spoken about us and about God, = even if=20 the manner of speaking is the same; but we must ascribe to God a certain = special=20 privilege which is proper to God; otherwise much stupidity will be the=20 result=94.[25] =

(iv)           = ;=20 St.=20 John of Damascus: =93Many of the things relating to God =85 cannot be = put into=20 fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express = ourselves=20 according to our limited capacity; as, for instance, when we speak of = God we use=20 the terms sleep and wrath, =85 and suchlike expressions=85 = It is not=20 within our capacity, therefore, to say anything about God or even to = think of=20 Him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us, whether = by word=20 or by manifestation, by the divine oracles at once of the Old Testament = and of=20 the New.=94[26]
(v)           = ;   =20 St.=20 John Chrysostom: =93When you hear the words =91wrath=92 and =91anger=92 = in relation to=20 God, do not understand anything human by them: this is a word of = condescension.=20 The Divinity is foreign to everything of the sort; but it is said like = this in=20 order to bring the matter closer to the understanding of people of the = cruder=20 sort. In the same way we, when we speak with barbarians, use their = language; or=20 when we speak with an infant, we lisp like him, even if we ourselves are = wise=20 men, in condescension to his youth. And what is it to be wondered at if = we act=20 in this way both in words and in deeds, biting our hands and giving the=20 appearance of wrath, in order to correct the child? In exactly the same = way God=20 used similar expressions in order to act of people of the cruder sort. = When He=20 spoke He cared not for His dignity, but about the profit of those who = listened=20 to Him. In another place He indicated that wrath was not proper to God = when He=20 said: =91Is it I Whom they provoke? Is it not themselves?=92 = (Jeremiah=20 7.19) Would you really want Him, when speaking with the Jews, to say = that He was=20 not angry with them and did not hate them, since hatred is a passion? Or = that He=20 does not look on the works of men, since sight is a property of bodies? = Or that=20 He does not hear, since hearing belongs to the flesh? But from this they = would=20 have extracted another dishonourable doctrine, as if everything takes = place=20 without the Providence of God. In avoiding such expressions about God, = many=20 would then have been completely ignorant of the fact that God exists; = and if=20 they had been ignorant of that, then everything would have perished. But = when=20 the teaching about God was introduced in such a way, the correction of = it=20 followed swiftly. He who is convinced that God exists, although he has = an=20 unfitting conception of God and puts something sensual into it, = nevertheless=20 with time he becomes convinced that there is nothing of the sort in God. = But he=20 who is convinced that God does not have providential oversight, that He = does not=20 care about that which exists, that He does not exist, what benefit will = he gain=20 from passionless expressions?=94[27]=20

(vi)           = ;=20 St.=20 John Chrysostom: =93When it is said of God that He is angry, he is angry = not in=20 order to avenge Himself, but in order to correct us=94.[28] =

(vii)         =20 St.=20 Gregory the Theologian: =93He punishes, and we have made out of this: He = is angry,=20 because with us punishment follows anger=94.[29] =

(viii)      =20 St.=20 John of Damascus: =93By wrath and anger are understood His hatred and = disgust in=20 relation to sin, since we also hate that which does not accord with our = thought=20 and are angry with it=94.[30] =

     Thus,=20 as Archbishop Theophan writes, =93if one understands the properties of = the wrath=20 of God in the sense in which the just-mentioned Fathers and Teachers of = the=20 Church understand it, then it is evident that it involves nothing = contrary to=20 the Christian understanding of God as the God of love. But in essence = the wrath=20 of God, with such an understanding, is one of the manifestations of = the love=20 of God, but of the love of God in its relation to the moral evil in = the=20 heart of rational creatures in general, and in the heart of man in=20 particular.=94[31] =

     So=20 God=92s love and wrath are two sides of the same coin; the one cannot = exist=20 without the other. For as the love of God is limitless, so is His wrath = against=20 injustice, that is, against that which denies love and seeks to destroy = the=20 beloved.

     Archbishop = Theophan=20 concludes: =93The objection to the Church=92s teaching that the death of = Christ the=20 Saviour on the Cross is a Sacrifice on the grounds that it supposedly=20 presupposes an understanding of God that is unworthy of His true = greatness=20 insofar as it speaks of God as being angry for an insult to His dignity, = is=20 based on an incorrect understanding of the so-called moral attributes of = God,=20 and in particular the Righteousness of God. The true reason for the = Sacrifice on=20 Golgotha for the sins of the human race is the love of God for the human = race.=94[32] =

2.=20 THE MEANING OF =93JUSTIFICATION=94

All these things were done with = justice,=20 without which God does not act.

St. Gregory Palamas, Homily=20 16.

     Metropolitan = Anthony=20 makes a particular point of rejecting the traditional, juridical = understanding=20 of the word =93justification=94 (=EE=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0=ED=E8=E5 in Russian, = dikaiosunh in Greek), which, he = claims,=20 =93does not have such a specific meaning. Rather, it means = righteousness, that is,=20 blamelessness, dispassion and virtue. This is the translation of the = Greek=20 dikaiosunh which has the same = meaning as=20 agiwsunh, areth, etc.=94[33] =

     More = recently, in his=20 famous article, =93The River of Fire=94, the Greek Old Calendarist and = associate of=20 the HOCNA bishops Alexander Kalomiros also attempts to give a different = meaning=20 to the word =93justification=94. He writes that the Greek word = dikaiosunh, is a translation of = the Hebrew=20 tsedaka, which means "the Divine energy that accomplishes the = salvation=20 of man". "This term," he writes, "is parallel and almost synonymous with = the=20 words hesed (pity, compassion, love) and emeth = (faithfulness,=20 truth). This is a quite different conception of=20 justice..."

     But is it? = Even if we=20 accept the conjectural Hebrew word rather than the word chosen by the = Holy=20 Spirit in the Greek Septuagint, the version of the Old Testament = Scriptures=20 which is blessed for use in the services of the Orthodox Church, there = is surely=20 no contradiction here with the usual meaning of the word "justice". "The = Divine=20 energy that accomplishes the salvation of man" pursues this end through = the=20 restoration of a state of sinlessness and justice in man's relationship = to God.=20 Sin upset the balance in this relationship, creating injustice. Justice = is=20 restored through the destruction of sin: on the part of God, by His = perfect=20 Sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of all men, and on the part of = man by=20 tears of repentance and good works carried out for the love of God and=20 neighbour.

     As we have = seen above,=20 according to Bishop Theophan the Recluse, there are two aspects to our=20 redemption: freedom from sin, or justification, and renewal of life, or=20 holiness. By reducing justification to holiness, Metropolitan Anthony = appears to=20 reduce the first aspect of our redemption to the second. =

     But this = means,=20 according to Archbishop Seraphim of Lubny, a member of the ROCOR Synod = in the=20 1920s and 30s, =93that Metr. Anthony has an incorrect understanding of = salvation.=20 The latter he reduces to personal holiness alone. While justification, = which is=20 the same as our deliverance from the punitive sentence laid by the = Divine=20 justice on Adam for his sin, is so excluded by Metr. Anthony from the = concept of=20 salvation that he identifies this justification of ours accomplished by = the Lord=20 on the Cross with personal holiness, for the concepts of justification = and=20 righteousness, in his opinion, are equivalent=94.

     =93But we = could not=20 attain personal holiness if the Lord had not communicated to us the = inner,=20 regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of baptism and=20 chrismation. And this grace is given to us exclusively by virtue of the=20 sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and is its fruit (John 16.7).=20 Consequently, our salvation is composed, first, from our justification = from=20 original sin by the blood of the Saviour on the Cross, and secondly, = from the=20 regenerating grace that is communicated to us, which destroys all = personal sins=20 and makes us possessors of holiness =96 it goes without saying, with the = most=20 active participation of our free will=94[34] =

     In support = of his=20 thesis, Metropolitan Anthony points out that =93even [in] the Russian = text of the=20 Bible, which bears the traces of Protestant influence=85 the word = =91justification=92=20 is placed only seven times in St. Paul=92s mouth whereas = =91righteousness=92 is=20 employed sixty-one times=94[35] =

     However, as = Archbishop Seraphim=20 writes, =93our Church had never recognized the quantitative principle in = the=20 understanding of Sacred Scripture. The holy Fathers of the Church from = the=20 beginning never saw such a criterion in their grace-filled = interpretation of the=20 Divine Revelation. And if we pay attention to the holy Fathers, we shall = see=20 that their understanding of =91Paul=92s righteousness=92 overthrows = Metr. Anthony=92s=20 view of this righteousness as meaning only holiness. =

     =93We shall = not cite the=20 patristic interpretation of all the 61 utterances of the Apostle Paul = that=20 include the word =91righteousness=92, which would constitute a whole = book. For=20 Orthodox believers it is important to know what they must understand by = this=20 =91righteousness=92 in the light of the patristic mind. To this end we = shall cite=20 the interpretation of Bishop Theophan the Recluse of several of the = utterances=20 of the Apostle Paul in which the word =91righteousness=92 figures, since = this=20 interpretation, being based on the teaching of the holy Fathers of the = Church,=20 is patristic.

     =93Having in = mind the=20 words of Romans 3.25: =91Whom God has set forth as a propitiation = [ilasthrion] through faith in = His blood, to=20 declare His righteousness [for the remission of past sins]=92, Bishop = Theophan the=20 Recluse gives it this interpretation: =91By faith everyone draws on = himself the=20 propitiatory blood of Christ. The blood of Christ by its power has = already=20 cleansed the sins of the whole world=92 but everyone becomes personally = cleansed=20 by it when by faith receives on himself sprinkling or bedewing by the = blood of=20 Christ. This is accomplished mystically in the water font of baptism and = afterwards in the tears font of repentance=85

     =93=92God = saw that people=20 =85 could not=85 start on the right path; which is why He decided to = pour His=20 righteousness into them, as fresh blood is admitted into a corrupted = organism =96=20 and declare it [His righteousness] in them in this way. And in order = that this=20 might be accomplished, He gave His Only-begotten Son as a propitiation = for all=20 believers =96 not only so that for His sake their sins might be = forgiven, but in=20 order that the believers might become pure and holy within through = receiving the=20 grace of the Holy Spirit by faith=92.[36]

     =93In his = explanation of=20 [Romans] 9.30: =91What shall we say? That the Gentiles who = followed not=20 after righteousness have attained to righteousness, the righteousness = which is=20 of faith=92, Bishop Theophan writes: =91By righteousness we must = understand here all=20 the spiritual good things in Christ Jesus: the remission of sins, the = reception=20 of grace, the good direction of the heart through it and all the = virtues, by all=20 of which righteousness was restored, the righteousness that was = imprinted in=20 human nature at its creation and trampled on thereafter=92.[37]

     =93Dwelling = on the words=20 of the Apostle Paul: =91The Kingdom of God is [not eating and drinking, = but]=20 righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit=92 (Romans = 14.17),=20 Bishop Theophan explains the word =91righteousness=92 thus: = =91=94Righteousness=94 is not=20 justification only and the remission of sins, but inner righteousness=85 = holiness=92.[38]

     =93In his = explanation of=20 Romans 5.18: =91Therefore as by the transgression of one man = condemnation=20 came upon all men, so by the righteous act [dikaiwmatoV] of One man [the = free gift] came=20 upon all men to justification [dikaiwsin] of life=92, Bishop = Theophan=20 writes: =91as by the transgression of one man condemnation =96 that is, = condemnation=20 to death =96 came upon all me, so by the justification of One man = justification to=20 life came upon all men. Blessed Theodoret writes: =93Looking at Adam, = says the=20 Apostle, do not doubt in what I have said (that is, that God saves all = in the=20 one Lord Jesus Christ). For if it is true, as it is indeed true, that = when Adam=20 transgressed the commandment, the whole race received on itself the = sentence of=20 death, then it is clear that the righteousness of the Saviour provides = life for=20 all men.=94=92 =91The apostle,=92 explains Bishop Theophan, =91said: = =93justification of=20 life came upon=94, which leads us to understand that the saving forces = of grace=20 had already entered into humanity, had been received by it and had begun = their=20 restorative work=85 Do not doubt that this grace has already entered, = and hasten=20 only to make use of it, so as to destroy the destructive consequences of = the=20 first sin=92.[39]

     =93In his = interpretation=20 of I Corinthians 1.30, we find the following words in Bishop = Theophan:=20 =91The Lord Jesus Christ is our =93righteousness=94 because in His name = we are given=20 the remission of sins and grace that strengthens us to every good = work=92.[40]

     =93As we = see, Bishop=20 Theophan by the righteousness about which the Apostle Paul teaches in = the cited=20 places in his epistles understands our propitiation or justification = from=20 original sin based on the Saviour=92s sacrifice on the Cross, and then = from all=20 our personal sins and our attainment of holiness through the = regenerating grace=20 of the Holy Spirit.=94[41]

     Bishop = Theophan=92s=20 interpretation of three other disputed passages from St. Paul are cited = by=20 Archbishop Seraphim: =93=91Being justified freely by His grace through = the=20 deliverance that is in Christ Jesus=92 (Romans 3.24)=85 = =91Through the=20 deliverance [dia thV apolutrwsewV], that is, through = the=20 redemption. Redemption is the only means of justification! Someone is = redeemed=20 when people pay money for him and he is delivered from the bonds of = slavery.=20 Through the fall of the first parents the human race fell into slavery = to sin=20 and the devil, who had possession of man by dint of his guiltiness, = which drew=20 upon him and upon him that had power over him the curse of God. For his=20 salvation the curse had to be removed, which would give a righteous = basis for=20 clearing him of guilt, and then new strength had to be poured into him = to=20 destroy the power of sin, and through this overthrow the power of the = devil. All=20 this was accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of = God and=20 God, Who took upon Himself human nature, died in it upon the Cross, was=20 resurrected, ascended into the heavens, sat at the right hand of the = Father, and=20 sent the Holy Spirit on the holy Apostles and through them to the whole = of=20 humanity. All this taken together constitutes the economy of our = salvation, or=20 the redemption of the human race. Those who approach it with faith = receive the=20 remission of sins, and then the grace of the Spirit through the = sacraments, and=20 are not only guiltless, but also righteous=85By redemption is sometimes = signified=20 not the whole economy of salvation, but only that action by which the = Lord=20 through His death on the Cross delivered us from the condemnation that = lay upon=20 us and the curse of God that weighed upon us. As ransom for us =96 for = our unpaid=20 debts =96 He gave His own blood. It cries out more than the blood of = Abel, but it=20 calls down not punishment from on high, but complete justification for = every=20 believer.=92[42]

     =93From the = cited=20 interpretation of Bishop Theophan it is clearly evident that by the=20 justification [=EE=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0=EDi=E5] of which the = Apostle Paul=20 speaks we must not understand only the righteousness [=EF=F0=E0=E2=E5=E4=ED=EE=F1=F2=FC] acquired by us = through the=20 grace of the Holy Spirit. This justification includes in itself the = removal from=20 mankind of the guilt for original sin and its consequence, the curse of = God, by=20 means of the justice of God through the death of Christ on the=20 Cross=85=92

     =93This = interpretation=20 of the Slavonic word =91=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0=92 (in the Russian = translation,=20 =91=EE=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0=EDi=E5=92) according to = Bishop Theophan=92s=20 interpretation is witnessed to by two other texts among those indicated = by Metr.=20 Anthony: =91For if the ministry of condemnation be glory, much more doth = the=20 ministration of righteousness exceed in glory=92 (II Corinthians = 3.9) [and]=20 =91For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ died in vain=92=20 (Galatians 2.21).

     =93Having in = mind the=20 first text, Bishop Theophan says: =91The Old Testament institution was = the=20 ministry of condemnation because it only reproached sin and condemned = the=20 sinner=85 it did not lead him further=85 The testament of grace, by = contrast,=20 although it is also revealed by the universal condemnation of those who = are=20 called to it, nevertheless says: =91Repent and be baptized every one of = you for=20 the remission of sins and ye shall receive the Holy Spirit=92 = (Acts 2.38).=20 That is, in it the remission of sins is given from the first step=85 and = new life=20 that is powerful to keep one walking without deviating in the = commandments of=20 God is communicated =96 a right spirit is renewed in the reins, a spirit = that=20 communicates to him who receives it inner probity or righteousness = [=EF=F0=E0=E2=E5=E4=ED=EE=F1=F2=FC]. That is why it is = the ministry=20 of righteousness [=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0] - dikaiosunhV =85 not in name, but = in=20 essence=92.[43]

     =93As we = see, in the=20 given apostolic words, too, we must understand by justification not only = righteousness or holiness, but also the remission of sins, of course, in = the=20 sense of deliverance both from original sin, and also from all our = personal sins=20 by the grace of the Holy Spirit for the sake of the death of Christ on = the=20 Cross.

     =93The same = thought is=20 expressed in Bishop Theophan=92s interpretation of the word = =91righteousness=92=20 [=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4=E0] (in the Russian = translation=20 =91=EE=EF=F0=E0=E2=E4a=EDi=E5=92] in the last = apostolic text.=20 Lingering on this text, Bishop Theophan says: =91If righteousness=92 - = dikaiosunh, a God-pleasing, = saving life =96=20 =91come by the law, then Christ died in vain=92. If the law provided = both=20 forgiveness of sins and inner probity and sanctification, then there = would be no=20 reason for Christ to die. He died in order to provide us with these two=20 essential good things =96 the forgiveness of sins and sanctifying grace. = Nobody=20 except He could provide us with these, and without them there would be = no=20 salvation for us=85 The Lord Saviour died for us and nailed our sins to = the Cross.=20 Then, after His ascension into heaven, He sent down the Holy Spirit from = the=20 Father. That is why believers are given in Him both the forgiveness of = sins and=20 sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit. Without these two things there = would be no=20 salvation for us. Consequently Christ, in providing us with them, did = not die in=20 vain=85 Consequently righteousness is not through the law.=92[44]=85

     =93Thus from all = the apostolic=20 utterances that we have examined in which the Apostle Paul speaks about=20 righteousness, it is clear that by this righteousness we must understand = not=20 only holiness, but also our justification from original sin and all our = personal=20 sins.=94[45]

     The other = passages=20 whose correct interpretation is disputed by Metropolitan Anthony are = discussed=20 in a similar way by Archbishop Seraphim, relying, as always, on the=20 interpretation of Bishop Theophan. We shall leave the interested reader = to look=20 these up on his own. Instead, we shall end this section by citing two = patristic=20 passages from two of the greatest Fathers of the Church, which = demonstrate how=20 central the language of justice and justification is to their = understanding of=20 the mystery of redemption.

     First, St. = John=20 Chrysostom: =93=92Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having = become a=20 curse for us=92 (Galatians 3.13). In reality, the people were = subject to=20 another curse, which says, =91Cursed is every man who continueth not in = all the=20 words of the law to do them=92 (Deuteronomy 27.26). To this = curse, I say,=20 people were subject, for none had continued in, or was a keep of, the = whole law;=20 but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, =91Cursed by God is = everyone who is=20 hanged on a tree=92 (Deuteronomy 21.23). And then both he who = hanged on a=20 tree, and he who transgresses the law, is cursed, and as it was = necessary for=20 him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be loosed from it, = but to=20 receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such = another, and=20 thereby loosed us from the curse. It was like an innocent man=92s = undertaking=20 to die for another condemned to death, and so rescuing him from = punishment.=20 For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other = curse, in=20 order to remove that of others. For, =91He practiced no iniquity, nor = was craft in=20 His mouth=92 (Isaiah 53.9; I Peter 2.22). And as by dying = He rescued=20 from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He = delivered them from it.=94[46] =

     And = secondly, St.=20 Gregory Palamas: =93The pre-eternal, uncircumscribed and almighty Word = and=20 omnipotent Son of God could clearly have saved man from mortality and = servitude=20 to the devil without Himself becoming man. He upholds all things by the = word of=20 His power and everything is subject to His divine authority. According = to Job,=20 He can do everything and nothing is impossible for Him. The strength of = a=20 created being cannot withstand the power of the Creator, and nothing is = more=20 powerful than the Almighty. But the incarnation of the Word of God was = the=20 method of deliverance most in keeping with our nature and weakness, and = most=20 appropriate for Him Who carried it out, for this method had justice = on its=20 side, and God does not act without justice. As the Psalmist and = Prophet=20 says, =91God is righteous and loveth righteousness=92 (Psalm=20 11.7), =91and there is no unrighteousness in Him=92 (Psalm=20 92.15). Man was justly abandoned by God in the beginning as he had first = abandoned God. He had voluntarily approached the originator of evil, = obeyed him=20 when he treacherously advised the opposite of what God had commanded, = and was=20 justly given over to him. In this way, through the evil one=92s envy and = the good=20 Lord=92s just consent, death came into the world. Because of the = devil=92s=20 overwhelming evil, death became twofold, for he brought about not just = physical=20 but also eternal death.

     =93As we had = been justly=20 handed over to the devil=92s service and subjection to death, it was = clearly=20 necessary that the human race=92s return to freedom and life should be=20 accomplished by God in a just way. Not only had man been = surrendered to=20 the envious devil by divine righteousness, but the devil had rejected=20 righteousness and become wrongly enamoured of authority, arbitrary power = and,=20 above all, tyranny. He took up arms against justice and used his might = against=20 mankind. It pleased God that the devil be overcome first by the justice = against=20 which he continuously fought, then afterwards by power, through the = Resurrection=20 and the future Judgement. Justice before power is the best order of=20 events, and that force should come after justice is the work of a = truly=20 divine and good Lord, not of a tyrant=85.

     =93A = sacrifice was=20 needed to reconcile the Father on High with us and to sanctify us, since = we had=20 been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice = which=20 both cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest=85 It was = clearly=20 necessary for Christ to descend to Hades, but all these things were = done with=20 justice, without which God does not act.=94[47]

     =93Justice = before=20 power=94, the Cross before the Resurrection. And =93all things done with = justice,=20 without which God does not act.=94 Clearly, justice is no secondary = aspect of the=20 Divine economy, but the very heart, the very essence of our=20 salvation.

3.=20 THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN

O=20 my Saviour, the living and unslain Sacrifice, when as God Thou of Thine = own will=20 hadst offered up Thyself unto the Father=85

Pentecostarion,=20 Sunday=20 of Pascha, Mattins, Canon, Canticle 6, troparion.

     = Another bone of = contention=20 between Metropolitan Anthony and his critics is the concept of = sacrifice.=20

     The Holy = Scriptures=20 say that =93the Son of Man came=85 to give His life as a ransom for = many=94=20 (Matthew 20.28), =93as a ransom for all=94 (I Timothy = 2.6), =93as a=20 merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make=20 propitiation for the sins of the people=94 (Hebrews 2.17).=20

     The Holy = Fathers use=20 such language no less frequently. Thus St. Cyprian of Carthage writes: = =93If Jesus=20 Christ our Lord and God, is Himself the Chief Priest of God the Father, = and has=20 first offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded = this to be=20 done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges = the=20 office of Christ who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers = a true=20 and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father=94.[48] = Again, Blessed Theophylact writes: =93Since the Lord offered Himself up = for us in=20 sacrifice to the Father, having propitiated Him by His death as High = Priest and=20 then, after the destruction of sin and cessation of enmity, sent unto us = the=20 Spirit, He says: =91I will beseech the Father and will give you a = Comforter, that=20 is, I will propitiate the Father for you and reconcile Him with you, who = were at=20 enmity with Him because of sin, and He, having been propitiated by My = death for=20 you and been reconciled with you, will send you the Spirit.=94[49] = But the language of =93ransom=94, =93propitiation=94 and =93sacrifice=94 = is rejected by=20 Metropolitan Anthony.

     Archbishop = Theophan=20 writes: =93[Metropolitan Anthony] gives a metaphorical, purely moral = meaning to=20 the Sacrifice on Golgotha, interpreting it in the sense of his own = world-view,=20 which he calls the world-view of moral monism.[50] = But he decisively rejects the usual understanding of the Sacrifice on = Golgotha,=20 as a sacrifice in the proper meaning of the word, offered out of love = for us by=20 our Saviour to the justice of God, for the sin of the whole human race. = He=20 recognizes it to be the invention of the juridical mind of the Catholic = and=20 Protestant theologians. It goes without saying that with this = understanding of=20 the redemptive feat of the Saviour the author had to establish a point = of view=20 with regard to the Old Testament sacrifices, the teaching on which has = up to now=20 been a major foundation for the teaching on the Saviour=92s Sacrifice on = Golgotha.=20 And that is what we see in fact. The author rejects the generally = accepted view=20 of the sacrifices as the killing of an innocent being in exchange for a = sinful=20 person or people that is subject to execution. =91In the eyes of the = people of the=20 Old Testament=92, in the words of the author, =91a sacrifice meant only = a=20 contribution[51],=20 just as Christians now offer [candles, kutiya=20 and eggs] in church=85 But nowhere [in the Old Testament] will one = encounter the=20 idea that the animal being sacrificed was thought of as taking upon = itself the=20 punishment due to man.=92[52]

     =93Our = author points to=20 St. Gregory the Theologian as being one of the Fathers of the Church who = was a=20 decisive opponent of the teaching on sacrifice, in the general sense of = the=20 word. In the given case he has in mind the following, truly remarkable = (but not=20 to the advantage of the author) words of the great Theologian on the = Sacrifice=20 on Golgotha:

     =93=92We = were detained in=20 bondage by the evil one, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in = exchange for=20 wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in = bondage, I ask=20 to whom this was offered, and for what cause? If to the evil one, fie = upon the=20 outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom = which=20 consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his = tyranny, a=20 payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us = alone=20 altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by = Him that=20 we were being oppressed; and next, on what principle did the Blood of = His=20 Only-begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, = when he=20 was being offered up by his father, but changed his sacrifice, putting a = ram in=20 the place of his human victim?=92[53]=94[54]=20

     However,=20 St. Gregory, unlike Metropolitan Anthony, does not reject the juridical = model,=20 but rather embraced its essence. If the metropolitan had started quoting = the=20 saint a little earlier, then he would have read that the blood shed for = us is=20 =93the precious and famous Blood of our God and High-priest and = Sacrifice=94.=20 And if he had continued the quotation just one sentence more, he would = have read=20 that =93the Father accepts the sacrifice, but neither asked for it, nor = felt any=20 need of it, but on account of the oeconomy?=94=20

     =93Evidently,=94=20 writes Archbishop Theophan, =93the author understood that this quotation = in its=20 fullness witnesses against his assertion and therefore in the 1926 = edition of=20 The Dogma of Redemption he does not give a reference to St. = Gregory the=20 Theologian=94[55] =

     The = archbishop=20 continues: =93From the cited words of St. Gregory it is evident that he = by no=20 means rejects the teaching that the death of Christ the Saviour on = Golgotha was=20 a sacrifice; he only rejects the theory created in order to explain it = that this=20 sacrifice was to be seen as offered by Christ the Saviour as a ransom = for the=20 sinful race of men to the devil[56].=20 As is well known, such a theory did exist and was developed by Origen = and in=20 part by St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Gregory the Theologian with complete=20 justification recognizes this theory to be without foundation, as did = St. John=20 of Damascus later (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, book = III, ch.=20 27). He thought it just and well-founded to consider the sacrifice as = offered to=20 God the Father, but not in the sense that the Father =91demanded or = needed=92 it,=20 but according to the economy of salvation, that is, because, in the plan = of=20 Divine Providence, it was necessary for the salvation of the human = race.[57] = Besides, although it is said that the Father receives the Sacrifice, = while the=20 Son offers it, the thought behind it is that the Son offers it as High = Priest,=20 that is, according to His human nature, while the Father receives it = indivisibly=20 with the Son and the Holy Spirit, as the Triune God, according to the = oneness=20 and indivisibility of the Divine Essence.=94[58] =

     Still=20 further proof of St. Gregory=92s real views is provided by his writing = that=20 =93Christ Himself offers Himself to God [the Father], so that He Himself = might=20 snatch us from him who possessed us, and so that the Anointed One should = be=20 received instead of the one who had fallen, because the Anointer cannot = be=20 caught=94.[59] =

     Returning=20 now to the question of the Old Testament sacrifices, Metropolitan = Anthony=20 rejects their prefigurative significance. However, as Archbishop = Theophan=20 writes, =93in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, these sacrifices = were, on=20 the one hand, concessions to Israel=92s childishness, and were designed = to draw=20 him away from pagan sacrifices; but on the other hand, in these victims = the Old=20 Testament law prefigured the future Sacrifice on Golgotha[60].=20 In particular, the Old Testament paschal Lamb had this mystically = prefigurative=20 significance[61].<= /P>

     = =93=92Everything that took=20 place in the time of the worship of God in the Old Testament,=92 says = John=20 Chrysostom, =91in the final analysis refers to the Saviour, whether it = is prophecy=20 or the priesthood, or the royal dignity, or the temple, or the altar of=20 sacrifice, or the veil of the temple, or the ark, or the place of = purification,=20 or the manna, or the rod, or anything else =96 everything relates to=20 Him.

     =93=92God = from ancient=20 times allowed the sons of Israel to carry out a sacrificial service to = Him not=20 because He took pleasure in sacrifices, but because he wanted to draw = the Jews=20 away from pagan vanities=85. Making a concession to the will of the = Jews, He, as=20 One wise and great, by this very permission to offer sacrifices prepared = an=20 image of future things, so that the victim, though in itself useless, = should=20 nevertheless be useful as such an image. Pay attention, because this is = a deep=20 thought. The sacrifices were not pleasing to God, as having been carried = out not=20 in accordance with His will, but only in accordance with His = condescension. He=20 gave to the sacrifices an image corresponding to the future oeconomy of = Christ,=20 so that if in themselves they were not worthy to be accepted, they at = least=20 became welcome by virtue of the image they expressed. By all these = sacrifices He=20 expresses the image of Christ and foreshadows future events=85=92[62]=94[63]

     After = quoting from St.=20 Athanasius the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria to similar effect, = Archbishop=20 Theophan continues: =93But if the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the = Church look at=20 the Old Testament sacrifices in this way, then still more significance = must they=20 give to the redemptive death of Christ the Saviour for the human race on = Golgotha. And this is indeed what we see. They all recognize the death = of Christ=20 the Saviour on Golgotha to be a sacrifice offered by Him as propitiation = for the=20 human race, and that, moreover, in the most literal, not at all = metaphorical=20 meaning of this word. And from this point of view the death of Christ = the=20 Saviour on Golgotha is for them =20 =91the great mystery=92 of the redemption of the human race from = sin, the=20 curse and death and =91the great mystery=92 of the reconciliation of = sinful humanity=20 with God.

     =93St. = Gregory the=20 Theologian, in expounding his view on the Old Testament sacrifices as = being=20 prefigurations of the great New Testament Sacrifice, notes: =91But in = order that=20 you should understand the depth of the wisdom and the wealth of the = unsearchable=20 judgements of God, God did not leave even the [Old Testament] sacrifices = completely unsanctified, unperfected and limited only to the shedding of = blood,=20 but to the sacrifices under the law is united the great and in relation = to the=20 Primary Essence, so to speak, untempered Sacrifice =96 the purification = not of a=20 small part of the universe, and not for a short time, but of the whole = world for=20 eternity=92.

     =93By this = great=20 Sacrifice he understands the Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, Who shed His = blood=20 for the salvation of the human race on Golgotha, which is why he often = calls Him=20 =91God,=20 High Priest and Victim=92. =91He gave Himself for us for redemption, for = a purifying=20 sacrifice for the universe=92.[64]

     =93=92For us = He became man=20 and took on the form of a servant, he was led to death for our = iniquities=92.[65]

     =93=92He is = God, High=20 Priest and Victim=92.[66]

     =93=92He was = Victim, but=20 also High Priest; Priest, but also God; He offered as a gift to God [His = own]=20 blood, but [by It] He cleansed the whole world; He was raised onto the = Cross,=20 but to the Cross was nailed the sin of all mankind=92.[67]

     =93He = redeems the world=20 by His own blood=92.[68]

    =93St. Athanasius of Alexandria = says about=20 the Sacrifice of the Saviour on Golgotha: =91He, being the true Son of = the Father,=20 later became man for us so as to give Himself for us as a sacrifice to = the=20 Father and redeem us through His sacrifice and offering (Ephesians=20 5.2). He was the same Who in ancient times led the people out of Egypt, = and=20 later redeemed all of us, or rather, the whole human race, from death, = and=20 raised us from hell. He is the same Who from the age was offered as a = sacrifice,=20 as a Lamb, and in the Lamb was represented prefiguratively. And finally = He=20 offered Himself as a sacrifice for us. =93For even Christ our Pascha is = sacrificed=20 for us=94 (I=20 Corinthians=20 5.7).=92[69] =

     =93=92By His = death was=20 accomplished the salvation of all, and the whole of creation was = redeemed. He is=20 the common Life of all, and He gave His body to death as a sheep for a=20 redemptive sacrifice for the salvation of all, though the Jews do not = believe=20 this.=92[70]

     =93St. = Gregory of Nyssa=20 reasons in a similar way.

     =93=91Jesus, = as Zachariah=20 says, is the Great High Priest (Zachariah=20 3.1), Who offered His Lamb, that is, His flesh, in sacrifice for the = sins of the=20 world, and for the sake of the children who partake of flesh and blood = Himself=20 partook of blood (Hebrews=20 11.14). This Jesus became High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, = not in=20 respect of what He was before, being the Word and God and in the form of = God and=20 equal to God, but in respect of that fact that He spent Himself in the = form of a=20 servant and offered an offering and sacrifice for us=92.[71]

     =93=92He is = our Pascha=20 (I=20 Corinthians=20 5.6) and High Priest (Hebrews=20 12.11). For in truth Christ the Pascha was consumed for us; but the = priest who=20 offers to God the Sacrifice is none other than the Same Christ. For in = Himself,=20 as the [Apostle] says, =93He hath given Himself for us as an offering = and=20 sacrifice to God=94 (Ephesians=20 5.2).=92[72]

      = =93=92By means of=20 priestly acts He in an ineffable manner unseen by men offers an offering = and=20 sacrifice for us, being at the same time the Priest and the Lamb that = takes away=20 the sins of the world=92.[73]

     =93We find = much material=20 on the given question in the same spirit in the works of St. John=20 Chrysostom.

     =93=92The = oeconomy that=20 was to be accomplished in the New Testament,=92 says this Holy Father in = his=20 interpretation on the Gospel of John, =91was foreshadowed beforehand in=20 prefigurative images; while Christ by His Coming accomplished it. What = then does=20 the type say? =93Take ye a lamb for an house, and kill it, and do as He = commanded=20 and ordained=92 (Exodus=20 12). But Christ did not do that; He did not command this, but Himself = became as=20 a Lamb, offering Himself to the Father as a sacrifice and offering=92.[74]

     =93=92When = John the=20 Forerunner saw Christ, he said to his disciples: =93Behold the Lamb of = God=94=20 (John=20 1.35). By this he showed them all the gift which He came to give, and = the manner=20 of purification. For =93the Lamb=94 declares both these things. And John = did not=20 say, =93Who shall take=94, or =93Who hath taken=94, but =93Who taketh = away the sins of the=20 world=94, because Christ always does this. In fact, he took them away = not only=20 then when He suffered, but from that time even to the present He takes = away=20 sins, not as if He were always being crucified (for He at one time = offered=20 sacrifice for sins), but since by that one sacrifice He is continually = purging=20 them.=92[75]

     =93=92This = blood was ever=20 typified of old in the altars and sacrifices determined by the law. It = is the=20 price of the world, by it Christ redeemed the Church, by it He adorned = the whole=20 of her.=92[76] = =91This blood in types cleansed sins. But if it had such power in the = types, if=20 death so shuddered at the shadow, tell me how would it not have dreaded = the very=20 reality?=92[77]

     =93=92David = after the=20 words: =93Sacrifice and offering hast Thou not desired=94, added: =93but = a body hast=20 Thou perfected for me=94 (Psalm=20 39.9), understanding by this the body of the Master, a sacrifice for the = whole=20 universe, which cleansed our souls, absolved our sins, destroyed death, = opened=20 the heavens, showed us many great hopes and ordered all the rest=92.[78]

    =93St.=20 John Chrysostom=92s reasoning on the mystery of the Sacrifice on = Golgotha is=20 particularly remarkable in his discourse, On the Cross and the = Thief,=20 which he delivered, as is evident from the discourse itself, on Great = Friday in=20 Holy Week. =92Today our Lord Jesus Christ is on the Cross, and we = celebrate, so=20 that you should know that the Cross is a feast and a spiritual triumph. = Formerly=20 the Cross was the name of a punishment, but now it has become an = honourable=20 work; before it was a symbol of condemnation, but now it has become the = sign of=20 salvation=85 It has enlightened those sitting in darkness, it has = reconciled us,=20 who were in enmity with God=85 Thanks to the Cross we do not tremble = before the=20 tyrant, because we are near the King. That is why we celebrate in = commemorating=20 the Cross=85. In fact, one and the same was both victim and priest: the = victim was=20 the flesh, and the priest was the spirit. One and the same offers and = was=20 offered in the flesh. Listen to how Paul explained both the one and the = other.=20 =93For every high priest,=94 he says, =93chosen from among men is = appointed to act on=20 behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for = sins=85 Hence=20 it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer=94 = (Hebrews=20 5.1, 8.3). So He Himself offers Himself. And in another place he says = that=20 =93Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will = appear a second=20 time for salvation=94 (Hebrews=20 9.28)=85.=92[79]

     =94St. Cyril = of=20 Alexandria reasons as follows with regard to the words of John the = Forerunner on=20 the Saviour: =91=94Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of = the world=94=20 (John=20 1.29). It was necessary to reveal Who was the One Who came to us and why = He=20 descends from heaven to us. And so =93Behold=94, he says, =93the Lamb of = God that=20 taketh away the sins of the world=94, to Whom the Prophet Isaiah pointed = in the=20 words: =93As a sheep for the slaughter is he led and as a lamb before = the shearers=20 is he silent=94 (Isaiah=20 53.7) and Who was prefigured in the law of Moses. But then He saved only = in=20 part, without extending His mercy on all, for it was a figure and a = shadow. But=20 now He Who once was depicted by means of enigmas, the True Lamb, the = Spotless=20 Victim, is led to the slaughter for all, so as to expel the sin of the = world and=20 cast down the destroyer of the universe, so that by His death for all He = might=20 abolish death and lift the curse that was on us, so that, finally, the=20 punishment that was expressed in the words: =93Dust thou art, and unto = dust shalt=20 thou return=94 (Genesis=20 3.19) might cease and the second Adam might appear =96 not from the = earth, but=20 from the heaven (I=20 Corinthians=20 15.47) =96 and become for human nature the beginning of a great good, = the=20 destruction of the corruption wrought [by sin], the author of eternal = life, the=20 founder of the transformation [of man] according to God, the beginning = of piety=20 and righteousness, the way to the Heavenly Kingdom. One Lamb died for = all,=20 saving for God and the Father a whole host of men, One for all so that = all might=20 be subjected to God, One for all so as to acquire all, =93that those who = live=20 might live no longer for themselves but from Him Who for their sake died = and was=20 raised=94 (II=20 Corinthians=20 5.15). Insofar as we were in many sins and therefore subject to death = and=20 corruption, the Father gave the son to deliver us (I=20 Timothy=20 2.6), One for all, since all are in Him and He is above all. One died = for all so=20 that all should live in Him.=92[80] = St. Cyril=92s general view of the death of Christ the Saviour on = Golgotha is such=20 that on Golgotha Emmanuel =91offered Himself as a sacrifice to the = Father not for=20 Himself, according to the irreproachable teaching, but for us who were = under the=20 yoke and guilt of sin=92.[81] = =91He offered Himself as a holy sacrifice to God and the Father, having = bought by=20 His own blood the salvation of all=92.[82] = =91For our sakes he was subjected to death, and we were redeemed from = our former=20 sins by reason of the slaughter which He suffered for us=92.[83] = =91In Him we have been justified, freed from a great accusation and = condemnation,=20 our lawlessness has been taken from us: for such was the aim of the = oeconomy=20 towards us of Him Who because of us, for our sakes and in our place was = subject=20 to death=92.[84]

     =93St. Basil = the Great=20 in his epistle to Bishop Optimus writes: =91The Lord had to taste death = for each,=20 and having become a propitiatory sacrifice for the world, justify all by = His=20 blood=92.[85] = He develops his thought on the death on the Cross of Christ the Saviour = in more=20 detail as a redeeming sacrifice for the sins of the human race in his=20 interpretation of Psalm 48, at the words: =93There be some that trust in = their=20 strength, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches. A = brother=20 cannot redeem; shall a man redeem? He shall not give to God a ransom=20 [exilasma]=20 for himself, nor the price of the redemption of his own soul=94 = (Psalm=20 48.7-9): =91This sentence is directed by the prophet to two types of = persons: to=20 the earthborn and to the rich=85. You, he says, who trust in your own = strength=85.=20 And you, he says, who trust in the uncertainty of riches, listen=85. You = have need=20 of ransoms that you may be transferred to the freedom of which you were = deprived=20 when conquered by the power of the devil, who, taking you under his = control,=20 does not free you from his tyranny until, persuaded by some worthwhile = ransom,=20 he wishes to exchange you. And the ransom must not be of the same kind = as the=20 things which are held in his control, but must differ greatly, if he = would=20 willingly free the captives from slavery. Therefore a brother is not = able to=20 ransom you. For no man can persuade the devil to remove from his power = him who=20 has once been subject to him, not he, at any rate, who is incapable of = giving=20 God a propitiatory offering even for his own sins=85. But one thing was = found=20 worth as much as all men together. This was given for the price of = ransom for=20 our souls, the holy and highly honoured blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, = which He=20 poured out for all of us; therefore we were bought at a great price=20 (I=20 Corinthians=20 6.20)=85. No one is sufficient to redeem himself, unless He comes who = turns away=20 =93the captivity of the people=94 (Exodus=20 13.8), not with ransoms nor with gifts, as it is written in Isaiah = (52.3), but=20 with His own blood=85 He Who =93shall not give to God His own ransom=94, = but that of=20 the whole world. He does not need a ransom, but He Himself is the = propitiation.=20 =93For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, = innocent,=20 undefiled, set apart from sinners, and become higher than the heavens. = He does=20 not need to offer sacrifices daily (as the other priests did), first for = his own=20 sins, and then for the sins of the people=94 (Hebrews=20 7.26-27).=92[86]

     =93=92The = Scriptures do=20 not reject all sacrifices in general,=92 writes St. Basil the Great in = his=20 interpretation on the book of the Prophet Isaiah, =91but the Jewish = sacrifices.=20 For he says: =93What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices?=94 = (Isaiah=20 1.11). He does not approve of the many, but demands the one sacrifice. = Every=20 person offers himself as a sacrifice to God, presenting himself as =93a = living=20 sacrifice, pleasing to God=94, through =93rational service=94 he has = offered to God=20 the sacrifice of praise (Romans=20 12.1). But insofar as the many sacrifices under the law have been = rejected as=20 useless, the one sacrifice offered in the last times is accepted. For = the Lamb=20 of God took upon Himself the sin of the world, =93gave Himself up for = us, a=20 fragrant offering and sacrifice to God=94 (Ephesians=20 5.2)=85 There are no longer the =93continual=94 sacrifices (Exodus=20 29.42), there are no sacrifices on the day of atonement, no ashes of the = heifer=20 cleansing =93the defiled persons=94 (Hebrews=20 9.13). For there is one sacrifice of Christ and the mortification of the = saints=20 in Christ; one sprinkling =96 =93the washing of regeneration=94 = (Titus=20 3.5); one propitiation for sin =96 the Blood poured out for the = salvation of the=20 world.=92[87]

     =93Finally, = St. John of=20 Damascus says the following about the mystery of the sacrifice on = Golgotha:=20 =93Every action and performance of miracles by Christ are most great and = divine=20 and marvelous: but the most marvelous of all is His precious Cross. For = no other=20 thing has subdued death, expiated the sin of the first parent = [propatoroV=20 amartia],=20 despoiled Hades, bestowed the resurrection, granted the power to us of=20 condemning the present and even death itself, prepared the return to our = former=20 blessedness, opened the gates of Paradise, given our nature a seat at = the right=20 hand of God, and made us children and heirs of God, save the Cross of = our Lord=20 Jesus Christ=92.[88] = Therefore, according to the words of the holy father, =91we must bow = down to the=20 very Wood on which Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for us, since = it is=20 sanctified through contact with the body and blood=92.[89]

     =93This is = what the Holy=20 Fathers and Teachers of the Church teach about the mystery of the = sacrifice of=20 the Saviour on Golgotha for the sins of the human race. But that is not = all.=20 This teaching was even formally confirmed by a whole local council of = the Church=20 of Constantinople in 1156. This council was convened because of = different=20 understandings of the well-known words in the liturgical prayer, where = it is=20 said of Christ the Saviour: =91Thou art He that offereth and is offered, = that=20 accepteth and is distributed=92.[90] = The initial reasons for this difference, according to the account of a=20 contemporary historian, Kinnamas, was the following circumstance. A = certain=20 Deacon Basil during Divine service in the Church of St. John the = Theologian=20 declared while giving a sermon on the daily Gospel reading that =91the = one Son of=20 God Himself became a sacrifice and accepted the sacrifice together with = the=20 Father=92. Two deacons of the Great Church who were present at this = found in the=20 words of Basil an incorrect thought, as if two hypostases were thereby = admitted=20 in Jesus Christ, of which one was offered in sacrifice and the other = accepted=20 the sacrifice. Together with the others who thought like them they = spread the=20 idea that the Saviour=92s sacrifice for us was offered only to God the = Father. In=20 order to obtain a more exact explanation and definition of the Orthodox=20 teaching, the conciliar sessions took place, at the will of the Emperor = Manuel=20 Comnenus, on January 26 and May 12, 1156. The first conciliar session = took place=20 in the hall attached to the Great Church as a result of the inquiry of = the=20 just-appointed Metropolitan Constantine of Russia, who was hastening to = leave:=20 was it truly necessary to understand the words of the prayer as he = understood=20 them, that the sacrifice was offered and is offered to the whole of the = Holy=20 Trinity? The council, under the presidency of the Patriarch of = Constantinople=20 Constantine Kliarenos, confirmed the teaching expressed of old by the = Fathers=20 and Teachers of the Church, whose works were read at the council, that = both at=20 the beginning, during the Master=92s sufferings, the life-creating flesh = and blood=20 of Christ was offered, not to the Father only, but also to the whole of = the Holy=20 Trinity, and now, during the daily performed rites of the Eucharist, the = bloodless sacrifice is offered to the Trihypostatic Trinity=94, and laid = an=20 anathema on the defenders of the error, whoever they might be, if they = still=20 adhered to their heresy and did not repent. =94[91][92]

     =93From this = historical=20 note it is evident that the council of 1156 considered it indisputable = that the=20 death of Christ the Saviour on Golgotha is a propitiatory sacrifice for = the=20 human race. It was occupied only with the question to which this = sacrifice was=20 offered and decided it in the sense that the sacrifice was offered by = Christ the=20 Saviour to the All-Holy Trinity. Moreover, Christ the Saviour Himself = was at the=20 same time both the sacrifice and High Priest offering the sacrifice in=20 accordance with His human nature, and God receiving the sacrifice, = together with=20 the Father and the Holy Spirit. According to the resolution of the = council, the=20 eucharistic sacrifice is the same sacrifice, by its link with the = sacrifice on=20 Golgotha. Those who thought otherwise were subjected by the council to=20 anathema.=94[93]

     As St. = Gregory of=20 Nyssa writes: =93He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and = Priest as=20 well, and =91Lamb of God Who taketh away the sins of the world=92. When = did He do=20 this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His = disciples,=20 for this much is clear to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man = unless=20 its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His = own=20 Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of = the=20 Lamb has now been completed.=94 [94]

     The HOCNA = bishops=20 write: =93In Archbishop Nikon=92s Life and Works of Metropolitan = Anthony=20 (vol. 5, pp. 171-172), Bishop Gabriel quotes Archbishop Theophan of=20 Poltava=92s objections to The Dogma of Redemption. Archbishop = Theophan=20 writes: =91The death of Christ the Saviour on the Cross on Golgotha, = according to=20 the teaching of the Holy Fathers, undoubtedly is a redemptive and = propitiating=20 sacrifice for the sins of the race of man.=92 Opposite this passage, in = the=20 margin, Metropolitan Anthony has written: =91I accept and do not = deny=92.=94 (p.=20 13)

     But if = Metropolitan=20 Anthony accepts and does not deny this clear statement of the = =93juridical=20 theory=94, including such a purely juridical phrase as =93propitiating = sacrifice=94,=20 why does he still consider Metropolitan Philaret a scholastic? In what = way was=20 Archbishop Theophan=92s statement Orthodox while Metropolitan = Philaret=92s in his=20 Catechism (which we have quoted above) was heretical? Nowhere to = our=20 knowledge are we given answers to these questions, neither in = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=92s works, nor in those of his = supporters=85

     =93Let our = lives, then,=94=20 chants the Holy Church, =93be worthy of the loving Father Who has = offered=20 sacrifice, and of the glorious Victim Who is the Saviour of our = souls=94.[95]

4.=20 THE PRAYER IN THE GARDEN

The natural and innocent passions = [include]=20 the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the = succour=20 at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other = such=20 like passions which belong by nature to every = man.

St. John of Damascus, Exact = Exposition of=20 the Orthodox Faith, III, 24.

     = The HOCNA bishops = write next to=20 nothing about the topics discussed in the previous sections =96 that is, = the=20 language of the =93juridical theory=94, especially the concepts of the = wrath of God,=20 justification and sacrifice for sin. They take it as read that this = language is=20 somehow illegitimate and =93scholastic=94, although, as we have shown, = it is in fact=20 perfectly patristic and scriptural and in no way incompatible with right = doctrine if properly understood. And so, rejecting the =93negative=94 = juridical=20 theory, they turn to what Metropolitan Anthony calls his =93positive=94 = theory,=20 =93moral monism=94, and in particular to his interpretation of the = prayer in the=20 Garden of Gethsemane in the context of that theory. =

     Since this = is the most=20 famous part of the metropolitan=92s=20 theory, we shall quote him at some length: =93The word of instruction is = good,=20 still better is a good example, but what shall we call a power = incomparably=20 superior to either of these? This, which we have delayed to define, is=20 compassionate love, this power is suffering for another=92s sake which = sets a=20 beginning to his regeneration. It is a mystery, yet not so far removed = from us;=20 we can see it working before our very eyes, sometimes even through us, = though we=20 do not always understand it. As a power of regeneration we find it = constantly=20 mentioned not only in stories of the lives of the Saints and the = vitae of=20 virtuous shepherds of the Church, but also in the tales of secular = literature=20 which are at times wonderfully profound and accurate. Both recognize in=20 compassionate love an active, revolutionary and often irresistible = power; yet=20 the former do not explain wherein lies its connection with Christ as our = Redeemer, and the latter do not even understand = it=85

     =93Such = strength of=20 compassionate love is the grace-filled fruit of a godly life and of = nature=20 (e.g., the love of a Christian mother). This is within the reach of the = laity=20 who live in God, but their sphere of action is limited to near = relatives, or to=20 students (of a pious teacher), or to companions in work or companions by = circumstance=85 However, when all men in question, the earnest of this = gift is=20 imparted by the mystery of Holy Orders. Our Scholastic theology has = overlooked=20 this fact, which is very clearly expressed by Saint John Chrysostom,=85 = who says,=20 =91Spiritual love is not born of anything earthly; it comes from above, = from=20 Heaven, and is imparted in the mystery of Holy Orders; but the = assimilation and=20 retention of the gift depends on the aspirations of the spirit of=20 man=92=85

     =93The = compassionate=20 love of a mother, a friend, a spiritual shepherd, or an apostle is = operative=20 only if it attracts Christ, the true Shepherd. When it acts within the = limits of=20 mere human relations, it can call forth a kindly attitude and repentive=20 [penitent] sentiments, but it cannot work radical regeneration. The = latter is so=20 hard for our corrupt nature that not unjustly did Nicodemus, talking = with=20 Christ, compare it to an adult person entering again into his mother=92s = womb and=20 being born for a second time. To this our Lord replied that what is = impossible=20 in the life of the flesh is possible in the life of grace, where the = Holy=20 Spirit, Who descends from Heaven, operates. In order to grant us this = life,=20 Christ had to be crucified and raised, as the serpent was raised by = Moses in the=20 wilderness, that all who believe in Him should not perish, but have = eternal life=20 (John 3.13-15). So what those who possess grace can do to some extent = only and=20 for some people only, our Heavenly Redeemer can do fully and for all. = Throughout=20 the course of His earthly life, filled with the most profound compassion = for=20 sinful humanity, He often exclaimed, =91O faithless and perverse = generation, how=20 long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer with you?=92 (Matthew = 17.17). He=20 was oppressed with the greatest sorrows on the night when the greatest = crime in=20 the history of mankind was committed, when the ministers of God, with = the help=20 of Christ=92s disciple, some because of envy, some because of avarice, = decided to=20 put the Son of God to death.

     =93And a = second time the=20 same oppressing sorrow possessed His pure soul on the Cross, when the = cruel=20 masses, far from being moved to pity by His terrible physical = sufferings,=20 maliciously ridiculed the Sufferer; and as to His moral suffering, they = were=20 unable even to surmise it. One must suppose that during that night in=20 Gethsemane, the thought and feeling of the God-Man embraced fallen = humanity=20 numbering many, many millions, and He wept with loving sorrow over each=20 individual separately, as only the omniscient heart of God could do. = In this=20 did our redemption consist. This is why God, the God-Man, and only = He, could=20 be our Redeemer. Not an angel, nor a man. And not at all because the=20 satisfaction of Divine wrath demanded the most costly sacrifice. Ever = since the=20 night in Gethsemane and that day on Golgotha, every believer, even he = who is=20 just beginning to believe, recognizes his inner bond with Christ and = turns to=20 Him in his prayers as to the inexhaustible source of moral regenerating = force.=20 Very few are able to explain why they so simply acquired faith in the=20 possibility of deriving new moral energy and sanctification from calling = on=20 Christ, but no believer doubts it, nor even do = heretics.

     =93Having = mourned with=20 His loving soul over our imperfection and our corrupt wills, the Lord = has added=20 to our nature the well-spring of new vital power, accessible to all who = have=20 wished or ever shall wish for it, beginning with the wise=20 thief=85

     =93=85 I = have always been=20 dissatisfied when someone to whom I have explained redeeming grace = retorts from=20 a Scholastic, theological viewpoint in this manner, =91You have spoken = only of the=20 subjective, the moral aspect of the dogma, leaving out the objective and = metaphysical (that is to say, the juridical).=92 To all this I answer, = =91No, a=20 purely objective law of our spiritual nature is revealed in the = transmission of=20 the compassionate, supremely loving energy of the Redeemer to the = spiritual=20 nature of the man who believes and calls for this help, a law which is = revealed=20 in our dogmas, but of which our dogmatic science has taken no = notice.=92=94[96]

     At this = point,=20 however, the metropolitan chooses to delay the elucidation of his = positive=20 theory=20 in order to =93refute the current understanding that our Lord=92s prayer = in=20 Gethsemane was inspired by fear of the approaching physical suffering = and death.=20 This would be entirely unworthy of the Lord, whose servants in later = days (as=20 well as in earlier times, as for instance, the Maccabees) gladly met = torture and=20 rejoiced when their flesh was torn and longed to die for Christ as it = were the=20 greatest felicity. Moreover, the Saviour knew well that His spirit was = to leave=20 His body for less than two days, and for this reason alone the death of = the body=20 could not hold any terror for Him.

     = =93I=20 am=20 perfectly=20 convinced that the bitter sufferings of Christ in Gethsemane came from=20 contemplation of the sinful life and the wicked inclinations of all the=20 generations of men, beginning with His enemies and betrayers of that = time, and=20 that when our Lord said, =91Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup = from Me,=92=20 He referred not to the approaching crucifixion and death but to the = overwhelming=20 state of profound sorrow which He felt for the human race He loved so=20 dearly=94.[97]

     Now there is = some=20 patristic evidence for this view (it is quoted by the HOCNA bishops). = But there=20 is still more evidence for the view, contested by Metropolitan Anthony, = that=20 Christ allowed His human nature to experience the fear of death that is = natural=20 to it and in no way sinful, in order to demonstrate the reality of that=20 nature.[98] = Moreover, this latter interpretation became particularly firmly = established=20 after the Sixth Ecumenical Council had finally elucidated the doctrine = of the=20 two wills of Christ, the locus=20 classicus=20 for which is precisely the prayer in the Garden.

     Thus the = great=20 champion of the two-wills doctrine, St. Maximus the Confessor, whose = teaching=20 was confirmed at the Sixth Council, writes in his Dispute with = Pyrrhus:=20 =93Since the God of all Himself became man without [undergoing any] = change, then=20 [it follows] that the same Person not only willed in a manner = appropriate to His=20 Godhead, but also willed as man in a manner appropriate to His humanity. = For the=20 things that exist came to be out of nothing, and have therefore a power = that=20 draws them to hold fast to being, and not to non-being; and the natural=20 characteristic of this power is an inclination to that which maintains = them in=20 being, and a drawing back from things destructive [to them]. Thus the=20 super-essential Word, existing essentially in a human manner, also had = in His=20 humanity this self-preserving power that clings to existence. And He [in = fact]=20 showed both [aspects of this power], willing the inclination and the = drawing=20 back through His human energy. He displayed the inclination to cling to=20 existence in His use of natural and innocent things, to such an extent = that=20 unbelievers thought He was not God; and He displayed the drawing back at = the=20 time of the Passion when He voluntarily balked at death.=94[99]

     The = important word=20 here is =93voluntarily=94. Although it was natural, and not sinful, for = Christ to=20 fear death, since He was truly man, He did not have to; He could = have=20 overcome that fear through the power of the grace that was natural to = Him as=20 being truly God, which grace also overcame the fear of death in the holy = martyrs. But He chose not to overcome the fear that is in accordance = with nature=20 (and which is to be clearly distinguished from that irrational dread = which is=20 contrary to nature[100]),=20 in order to demonstrate the reality of that = nature.

     However, in = case=20 anyone should think that there was a conflict between His human will and = His=20 Divine will, Christ immediately demonstrated the complete obedience of = His human=20 will to the Divine will by the words: =93Nevertheless, not as I will, = but as Thou=20 wilt=94, which sentence, as St. Maximus explains, =93excludes all = opposition, and=20 demonstrates the union of the [human] will of the Saviour with the = Divine will=20 of the Father, since the whole Word has united Himself essentially to = the=20 entirely of [human] nature, and has deified it in its entirety by = uniting=20 Himself essentially to it=94.[101]

     St. John of = Damascus=20 sums up the patristic consensus on this point: =93He had by nature, both = as God=20 and as man, the power of will. But His human will was obedient and = subordinate=20 to His Divine will, not being guided by its own inclination, but willing = those=20 things which the Divine will willed. For it was with the permission of = the=20 Divine will that He suffered by nature what was proper to Him. For when = He=20 prayed that He might escape the death, it was with His Divine will = naturally=20 willing and permitting it that He did so pray and agonize and fear, and = again=20 when His Divine will willed that His human will should choose the death, = the=20 passion became voluntary to Him. For it was not as God only, but also as = man,=20 that He voluntarily surrendered Himself to the death. And thus He = bestowed on us=20 also courage in the face of death. So, indeed, He said before His saving = passion, =91Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me=92 = (Matthew=20 26.39; Luke=20 22.22), manifestly as though He were to drink the cup as man and not as = God. It=20 was as man, then, that He wished the cup to pass from Him: but these are = the=20 words of natural timidity. =91Nevertheless,=92 He said, =91not My = will=92, that is to=20 say, not in so far as I am of a different essence from Thee, =91but Thy = will be=20 done=92, that is to say, My will and Thy will, in so far as I am of the = same=20 essence as Thou. Now these are the words of a brave heart. For the = Spirit of the=20 Lord, since He truly became man in His good pleasure, on first testing = its=20 natural weakness was sensible of the natural fellow-suffering involved = in its=20 separation from the body, but being strengthened by the Divine will it = again=20 grew bold in the face of death. For since He was Himself wholly God = although=20 also man, and wholly man although also God, He Himself as man subjected = in=20 Himself and by Himself His human nature to God and the Father, and = became=20 obedient to the Father, thus making Himself the most excellent type and = example=20 for us=94.[102]<= /P>

     Still more = clearly,=20 Theophylact of Bulgaria writes: =93To confirm that He was truly man, He = permitted=20 His human nature to do what is natural to it. Christ, as man, desires = life and=20 prays for the cup [that is, death[103]]=20 to pass, for man has a keen desire for life. By doing these things, the = Lord=20 confutes those heretics who say that He became man in appearance only. = If they=20 found a way to utter such nonsense even though the Lord showed here such = clear=20 signs of His human nature, what would they not have dared to invent if = He had=20 not done these things? To want the cup removed is human. By saying = without=20 hesitation, =91Nevertheless not My will, but Thine, be done=92, the Lord = shows that=20 we too must have the same disposition and the same degree of equanimity, = yielding in all things to the will of God. The Lord also teaches here = that when=20 our human nature pulls us in a different direction, we ought not to = yield to=20 that temptation. =91Not My human will be done, but Thine, yet Thy will = is not=20 separate from My Divine will=92. Because the one Christ has two natures, = He also=20 had two natural wills, or volitions, one Divine and the other human. His = human=20 nature wanted to live, for that is its nature. But then, yielding to the = Divine=20 will common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit =96 namely, that all men = be saved=20 =96 His human nature accepted death. Thus His two wills willed one and = the same=20 thing: Christ=92s salvific death. The praying in Gethsemane was from His = human=20 nature which was permitted to suffer the human passion of love of = life=85 His=20 human nature was permitted to suffer these things, and consequently did = suffer=20 them, to prove that the Lord was truly human, and not a man in = appearance only.=20 And, in a more mystical sense, the Lord voluntarily suffered these = things in=20 order to heal human nature of its cowardice. He did this by using it all = up=20 Himself, and then making cowardice obedient to the Divine will. It could = be said=20 that the sweat which came out from the Lord=92s Body and fell from Him = indicates=20 that our cowardice flows out of us and is gone as our nature is made = strong and=20 brave in Christ. Had He not desired to heal the fear and cowardice of = mankind,=20 the Lord would not have sweated as He did, so profusely and beyond even = what the=20 most craven coward would do. =91There appeared an angel unto Him=92, = strengthening=20 Him, and this too was for our encouragement, that we might learn the = power of=20 prayer to strengthen us, and having learned this, use it as our defense = in=20 dangers and sufferings. Thus is fulfilled the prophecy of Moses, =91And = let all=20 the sons of God be strengthened in Him=92 [Deuteronomy=20 32.43]=94.[104]<= /P>

     Returning = now to=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s thesis, we may agree that the=20 positive idea here =96 that the Lord suffered so terribly in = contemplation of all=20 the sins of all generations of mankind =96 is illuminating and, if not = developed=20 in ancient patristic thought, is nevertheless not contrary to it. = However, the=20 negative idea =96 that He did not suffer in fear of death =96 is = explicitly=20 contradicted by several of the Holy Fathers, as we have seen.=20

     Moreover, = contrary to=20 the assertion of the HOCNA bishops, this negative idea is contradicted = also by=20 some modern Fathers of the Russian Church who knew and respected = Metropolitan=20 Anthony, but who in a tactful manner (as Fr. Seraphim Rose noted) = corrected his=20 mistake while preserving his genuine insight.

     Thus = Archbishop Averky=20 of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery writes: =93Who among us sinful = people can=20 dare to affirm that he really knows everything that took place in the = pure and=20 holy soul of the God-Man at that minute when the decisive hour of His = betrayal=20 to death on the Cross for the sake of mankind drew near? But attempts = were made=20 in the past, and continue to be made now, to explain the reasons for = these moral=20 torments of the Lord, which He experienced in the garden of Gethsemane = in those=20 hours before His death. The most natural suggestion is that His human = nature was=20 in sorrow and fear. =91Death entered into the human race unnaturally,=92 = says=20 Blessed Theophylact: =91therefore human nature fears it and runs from = it=92. Death=20 is the consequence of sin (Romans=20 5.12,15), and so the sinless nature of the God-Man should not have = submitted to=20 death: death for it was an unnatural phenomenon: which is why the = sinless nature=20 of Christ is indignant at death, and sorrows and pines at its sight. = These moral=20 sufferings of Christ prove the presence of the two natures in Him: the = Divine=20 and the human, which the heretical Monophysites deny, as well as the=20 Monothelites who deny the two wills.

     =93Besides,=20 these moral sufferings undoubtedly also took place because the Lord took = upon=20 Himself all the sins of the whole world and went to death for them: = that=20 which the whole world was bound to suffer for its sins was now = concentrated, so=20 to speak, on Him alone.=94[105]=20

     Again,=20 St. John Maximovich writes: =93It was necessary that the sinless Saviour = should=20 take upon Himself all human sin, so that He, Who had no sins of His own, = should=20 feel the weight of the sin of all humanity and sorrow over it in such a = way as=20 was possible only for complete holiness, which clearly feels even the = slightest=20 deviation from the commandments and Will of God. It was necessary that = He, in=20 Whom Divinity and humanity were hypostatically united, should in His = holy,=20 sinless humanity experience the full horror of the distancing of man = from his=20 Creator, of the split between sinful humanity and the source of holiness = and=20 light =96 God. The depth of the fall of mankind must have stood before = His eyes at=20 that moment; for man, who in paradise did not want to obey God and who = listened=20 to the devil=92s slander against Him, would now rise up against his = Divine=20 Saviour, slander Him, and, having declared Him unworthy to live upon the = earth,=20 would hang Him on a tree between heaven and earth, thereby subjecting = Him to the=20 curse of the God-given law (Deuteronomy=20 21.22-23). It was necessary that the sinless Righteous One, rejected by = the=20 sinful world for which and at the hands of which He was suffering should = forgive=20 mankind this evil deed and turn to the Heavenly Father with a prayer = that His=20 Divine righteousness should forgive mankind, blinded by the devil, this=20 rejection of its Creator and Saviour...

     =93However,=20 this sacrifice would not be saving if He would experience only His = personal=20 sufferings =96 He had to be tormented by the wounds of sin from which = mankind was=20 suffering. The heart of the God-Man was filled with inexpressible = sorrow. All=20 the sins of men, beginning from the transgression of Adam and ending = with those=20 which would be done at the moment of the sounding of the last trumpet = =96 all the=20 great and small sins of all men stood before His mental gaze. They were = always=20 revealed to God =96 =91all things are manifest before Him=92 =96 but now = their whole=20 weight and iniquity was experienced also by His human nature. His holy, = sinless=20 soul was filled with horror. He suffered as the sinners themselves do = not=20 suffer, whose coarse hearts do not feel how the sin of man defiles and = how it=20 separates him from the Creator=85

     =93However, = the spirit=20 is willing, but the flesh is weak. The spirit of Jesus now burns = (Romans=20 12.11), wishing only one thing =96 the fulfillment of the Will of God. = But by its=20 nature human nature abhors sufferings and death (St. John of Damascus, = An=20 Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, book 3, chapters 18, 20, 23, = 24;=20 Blessed Theodoret; St. John of the Ladder, The Ladder, word 6, = =93On the=20 remembrance of death=94). = The Son of=20 God willingly accepted this weak nature. He gives Himself up to death = for the=20 salvation of the world. And He conquers, although He feels the = approaching fear=20 of death and abhorrence of suffering=85. Now these sufferings will be = especially=20 terrible, terrible not so much in themselves, as from the fact that the = soul of=20 the God-Man was shaken to the depths=85

     =93He = offered up prayers=20 and supplications to Him Who was able to save Him from death = (Hebrews=20 5.7), but He did not pray for deliverance from death. It is as if the = Lord Jesus=20 Christ spoke as follows to His Father: =91=85 Deliver Me from the = necessity of=20 experiencing the consequences of the crime of Adam. However, this = request is=20 dictated to Me by the frailty of My human nature; but let it be as is = pleasing=20 to Thee, let not the will of frail human nature be fulfilled, but Our = common,=20 pre-eternal Council. My Father! If according to Thy wise economy it is = necessary=20 that I offer this sacrifice, I do not reject It. But I ask only one = thing: may=20 Thy will be done. May Thy will be done always and in all things. As in = heaven=20 with Me, Thine Only-Begotten Son, and Thee there is one will, so may My = human=20 will here on earth not wish anything contrary to Our common will for one = moment.=20 May that which was decided by us before the creation of the world be = fulfilled,=20 may the salvation of the human race be accomplished. May the sons of men = be=20 redeemed from slavery to the devil, may they be redeemed at the high = price of=20 the sufferings and self-sacrifice of the God-Man. And may all the weight = of=20 men=92s sins, which I have accepted on Myself, and all My mental and = physical=20 sufferings, not be able to make My human will waver in its thirst that = Thy holy=20 will be done. May I do Thy will with joy. Thy will be=20 done...

     =93=92The = Lord prayed=20 about the cup of His voluntary saving passion as if it was = involuntary=92 (Sunday=20 service of the fifth tone, canon, eighth irmos), showing by this the two = wills=20 of the two natures, and beseeching God the Father that His human will = would not=20 waver in its obedience to the Divine will (Exact Exposition of the = Orthodox=20 Faith, book 3, 24). An angel appeared to Him from the heavens and=20 strengthened His human nature (Luke=20 22.43), while Jesus Who was accomplishing the exploit of His = self-sacrifice=20 prayed still more earnestly, being covered in a bloody sweat. And for = His=20 reverence =94[106]=20

     We=20 see here that while St. John accepts Metropolitan Anthony=92s thought = that Christ=20 suffered for the sins of the whole world in Gethsemane, he nevertheless, = contrary to the HOCNA bishops=92 assertion, does not agree that = He was not=20 fearful at the prospect of death, considering it in no way = =93unworthy=94 of the=20 Saviour. For, as Archbishop Theophan writes: =93The manifestation of = this=20 infirmity of the human nature of the Saviour represents nothing unworthy = of His=20 Most Holy Person, since it took place in accordance with the free = permission of=20 His Divine will and had its economical significance. The economical = significance=20 of this feat of the Saviour consists in the fact that He witnessed = thereby that=20 the Saviour took upon Himself, not illusory, but real human nature with = all its=20 sinless infirmities and conquered one of the most important of these = infirmities=20 [the fear of death] in His Person=94.[107]=20

     Perhaps the = best=20 summary of the significance of the Prayer in the Garden comes from Holy = New=20 Hieromartyr John Vostorgov (+1918), who in a sermon in 1901 said: = =93When=20 contemplating the Gethsemane struggle there are two main themes to keep = in mind.=20 First, Jesus Christ is not only perfect God, but perfect and complete = man, as=20 the Church has always clearly confessed. He is a man pure in body and = sinless in=20 spirit, =91in all things like us save sin=92. The second point is that = Jesus Christ=20 is the Redeemer of mankind Who bore our sins and the punishment for them = =96 our=20 afflictions (Isaiah=20 53.4; see whole chapter). Therefore, the soul of Jesus was not only = oppressed by=20 the knowledge of His impending, agonizing death, but by an incomparably = greater=20 burden =96 that of being the Redeemer. This weight so overwhelmed Him = that He=20 sweated blood and was brought to a state of complete exhaustion.=20

     =93As a man, = the Saviour=20 could not be completely indifferent towards death; if the thought of = death is=20 terrifying and unnatural for a sinner, how much more so for the sinless = Jesus,=20 the most perfect man. =91God did not create death=92 and man was created = =91for=20 incorruption=92 (Wisdom=20 2.23). Death appeared as a result of sin, as a punishment, and passed = upon all=20 men (cf. Romans=20 5.12-15). The early Gospel commentator, Saint John Chrysostom, as well = as Saint=20 Theophylact of Ochrid (who draws heavily on the works of Saint John) = remark:=20 =91Death did not enter into mankind by nature, therefore human nature is = afraid of=20 it and flees from it=92. A more recent commentator, the well-known = theologian=20 Bishop Michael, clarifies this idea with respect to the person of Jesus = Christ.=20 =91Death,=92 he writes, =91is the result of sin, hence the sinless = nature of the=20 God-man should not have been subject to it. For [His nature] death was = an=20 unnatural phenomenon, so it stands to reason that the pure nature of = Christ is=20 troubled by death, and is sorrowed and anguished in the face of=20 it.=92=85

     =93It would = be a grave=20 mistake to explain the sufferings of the Saviour in Gethsemane solely in = terms=20 of His anticipation of Golgotha, that is, from the perspective of Jesus = Christ=20 only as a man, and forgetting about Him as Redeemer. This view is not = only=20 unworthy of Jesus but is a misleading and inadequate explanation: He Who = experienced such fear at only the anticipation of death, yet the same = One Who=20 possessed such divine tranquility and maintained it throughout His = suffering =96=20 during the trial, in the midst of mockery, and on the cross, here even = refusing=20 to drink the gall that might numb His pain=85 But there are experiences = even more=20 trying than death; such was the cup the Saviour drank from in the garden = of=20 Gethsemane. In order to fully comprehend this we must recall the point = raised=20 earlier together with the recognition of the humanity of Jesus Christ, = namely,=20 that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer.

     =93The = Sinless One had=20 to bear all the wrath of God for sinners, all the punishments which the = sinful=20 nature of mankind merited. All of the chastisements and heavenly wrath = which the=20 world should have endured for its sins were taken on by the Redeemer of = mankind=20 alone. Seven hundred years before the birth of Christ the Prophet Isaiah = spoke=20 of this redeeming ministry: =91the chastisement of our peace was upon = Him=92=20 (Isaiah=20 53.5). The punishment which would return to us the peace with God which = we had=20 lost was borne by Him. This peace was broken by the sin of Adam, the=20 first-created man, and magnified and repeated over and over again by the = individual sins of each man born on earth. The righteousness of God = demanded=20 punishment for the sins, and the Redeemer, the Son of God, took that = punishment=20 on Himself (Archbishop Innocent of Kherson, The Final Days in the = Life of=20 Christ). Punishment for sins manifests itself in two ways: = internally, in=20 the conscience of the sinner, and externally through physical = afflictions. Inner=20 torments, such as those experienced by Christ in Gethsemane, are more = agonizing=20 and torturous. The accumulated sins of every age, of every man, placed = an=20 inexplicably great burden on the conscience of Jesus. He had to bear the = pangs=20 of conscience as if He Himself were guilty of each sin. In the words of = the=20 Apostle, =91For He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that = we might=20 be made the righteousness of God in Him=92 (II=20 Corinthians=20 5.21). All atheism and unbelief, all pride and wickedness, all malice = and=20 ingratitude, lies, deceptions, sensuality, and every sort of offensive=20 self-love, every vile and ignominious characteristic of sin past, = present, and=20 future, from the fall of Adam until the last moment of the earth=92s = existence =96=20 and all of this pressed on the sinless soul of the God-man. Without a = doubt, He=20 envisioned the assault on virtue, the persecution of His followers, the = rivers=20 of blood of the martyrs, the mocking of believers, the enmity against = the=20 Church; He beheld the entire abyss of wickedness, passions, and vices = which=20 until the end of time would pervert and distort the divinely given and = redeemed=20 human soul, which would =91crucify=85 the Son of God afresh, and put Him = to an open=20 shame=92 (Hebrews=20 6.6). All of this amassed evil, all the sins of mankind were poured into = the=20 bitter, dreaded cup which the Son of God was called upon to drink. This = is=20 something far beyond our comprehension. =91It was something more deadly = than=20 death=92 (Farrar). =91It would not be an exaggeration to say that it was = the=20 culmination of all the sufferings and deaths of all mankind. This inner = anguish=20 must have been as fierce as the torments of hell, for if even the most = base of=20 men are exhausted by the burden of their tortured conscience (e.g., Cain = and=20 Judas), tormently only the thought of their own sinful life, how = excruciating it=20 must have been for the most pure soul of the God-man to endure the = weight of all=20 the sins of the world, and in such a condition, to ascend the cross and = bring=20 redemption through His blood=92 (Archbishop Innocent, The Final Days = in the=20 Life of Christ).

     = =93But=20 sin is difficult not only because of the gnawing conscience: sin gave = birth to=20 the curse, to being banished from God, toward Whom, nevertheless, = mankind has=20 always strived and will strive. The Gethsemane Passion-bearer = experienced this=20 exile, this abandonment by the Father. For His sinless soul, which was=20 accustomed to continuous union with God, which tasted and knew the = sweetness,=20 beauty and completeness of this union, this separation was, of course,=20 inexpressibly difficult. It was the hell with which God threatens the = impious,=20 the hell which we simply cannot begin to imagine, the deprivation of = life with=20 God. It was this separation which produced the soul-shattering lament of = the=20 Sufferer on the cross: =91My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?=92=20 (Matthew=20 27.46). Thus, =91Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, He = being made=20 a curse for us=85=92 (Galatians=20 3.13).=94[108]<= /P>

     Hieromartyr = John, like=20 St. John of Shanghai, disagrees with Metropolitan Anthony that Christ = was not=20 fearful at the prospect of death, while agreeing with him that there was = more to=20 his suffering than that. To show that He was truly and completely man, = He=20 suffered the fear of death which is natural to fallen mankind. But to = accomplish=20 the redemption of mankind, He also suffered for the sins of all men, = suffering=20 not as man only, but as Redeemer.

     However =96 = and this is=20 the most important point =96 Hieromartyr John describes the suffering of = Christ=20 for the sins of all men completely in the terms of the juridical = theory.=20 Thus it goes without saying that Christ suffered out of = compassionate love=20 for man. But His suffering consisted also and primarily in His taking = on the=20 curse and =93all the punishments which the sinful nature of mankind = merited=94=20 in order to restore peace with God the Father.

     And, as we = shall now=20 see, the taking on and blotting out of the curse, =93the bond which = stood against=20 us with its legal demands=94, was accomplished, not through the = suffering in=20 Gethsemane, but through the Death on Golgotha, by =93nailing it to the=20 Cross=94 (Colossians=20 2.15).

5.=20 GETHSEMANE OR GOLGOTHA?

Thou=20 hast redeemed us from the curse of the law by Thy precious Blood: nailed = to the=20 Cross and pierced by the spear, Thou hast poured forth immortality upon=20 mankind.

Triodion,=20 Great=20 Friday, Mattins, Sessional hymn.

     Metropolitan = Anthony=20 calls the night in Gethsemane =93the night of redemption=94.[109]=20 According to his critics, this shifts the focus of salvation from = Golgotha to=20 Gethsemane, which is foreign to the mind of the Church as expressed in = her=20 liturgical services. Moreover, to assert, as does Metropolitan Anthony = of the=20 Lord=92s suffering in Gethsemane, that =93in=20 this did our redemption consist=94=20 would appear to some to imply that it did not consist in the = suffering=20 and death of Christ on Golgotha.=20

     In defence = of=20 Metropolitan Anthony, Bishop Gregory Grabbe writes that =93his words, = =91In this did=20 our redemption consist=92 referred not only to Gethsemene, but to = Golgotha also=94=20 because he wrote: =93And a second time also [Grabbe=92s emphasis] = the same=20 oppressing sorrow possessed His pure soul on the Cross=94.[110]=20 This is true, and is sufficient to refute the extreme suggestion that=20 Metropolitan Anthony somehow =93rejected the Cross of Christ=94 or = denied its saving=20 significance altogether. We believe, therefore, that talk about a = =93stavroclastic=94 heresy is exaggerated in this context. However, = Bishop Gregory=92s=20 words are not sufficient to deflect the charge that the = metropolitan=20 placed undue emphasis on Gethsemane and thereby distorted the = significance of=20 Golgotha. Moreover, as we shall see, the metropolitan=92s explanation of = the=20 unique significance of Golgotha =96 that is, the significance of = Golgotha that was=20 not shared by Gethsemane =96 is inadequate.

     The HOCNA = bishops=20 quote Metropolitan Anthony: =93We do not doubt for a moment that men = could not=20 have been saved unless the Lord suffered and arose from the dead, yet = the bond=20 between His suffering and our salvation is quite a different one [from = the=20 juridical teaching]=94.[111]=20 However, if this =93other=94 bond was compassionate love, which = manifested itself,=20 as the metropolitan contends, supremely in Gethsemane, and if it was in = that=20 love =93that our redemption consists=94, what need was there for Him to = die?=20

     The = metropolitan=92s=20 answer to this question is: =93Christ=92s bodily suffering and death = were primarily=20 necessary so that believers would value His spiritual suffering = as=20 incomparably greater than His bodily tortures=94.[112]=20 Again he writes: =93The Lord=92s crucifixion and death are not without = meaning for=20 our salvation, for, by bringing men to compunction, they reveal at least = some=20 portion of the redemptive sacrifice, and, by leading them to love for = Christ,=20 they prove saving for them and for all of us=94.[113]=20

     In other = words,=20 Golgotha was a repetition of Gethsemane with the addition of bodily = suffering,=20 which bodily suffering, though far less valuable than his spiritual = sufferings,=20 had a certain didactic value in heightening the awareness of the far = more=20 important spiritual suffering (although for the Catholics, it would = seem, the=20 bodily suffering distracted attention away from the spiritual = suffering).=20 But then Golgotha added nothing essential, by which we mean = dogmatically=20 or ontologically or soteriologically essential. = Indeed, if our=20 redemption consists, as the metropolitan explicitly asserts, in = =D1hrist=92s=20 compassionate suffering for the whole of sinful mankind in Gethsemane, = it was=20 not necessary for Him to die, but only to suffer.=20

     And yet it = was only=20 when He voluntarily gave up His soul in death that He declared: =93It is = finished=94, Consummatum est, that is, My redemptive work for the = salvation=20 of men is completed, consummated. As St. John of Damascus writes: = =93[The Cross]=20 is the crown of the Incarnation of the Word of God.=94[114]=20 =93Every act and miraculous energy of Christ is very great and divine = and=20 marvelous, but the most amazing of all is His precious Cross. For death = was not=20 abolished by any other means; the sin of our forefathers was not = forgiven; Hades=20 was not emptied and robbed; the resurrection was not given to us; the = power to=20 despise the present and even death itself has not been given to us; our = return=20 to the ancient blessedness was not accomplished; the gates of Paradise = have not=20 been opened; human nature was not given the place of honor at the right = hand of=20 God; we did not become children and inheritors of God, except by the = Cross of=20 our Lord Jesus Christ alone. All these have been achieved by the death = of the=20 Lord on the Cross.=94[115]<= /P>

     It is = important to=20 stress the word voluntary nature of Christ=92s death on the Cross. = Sinful men=20 cannot avoid death since it is the wages of sin. But for Christ, Who had = no sin,=20 it was by no means inevitable. He could have chosen to suffer but not to = die,=20 and to come off the Cross, presenting His body completely healed from = wounds and=20 invulnerable to death, as some of the holy martyrs emerged fully healthy = after=20 their tortures. This would have involved no lessening of the = significance of His=20 suffering in Gethsemane and Golgotha. But it would have meant that His=20 redemptive work was incomplete.

     For Christ = came to=20 save men not only from sin, but also from death, not only from the = perversion of=20 their wills, but also from the division of their nature. And in order to = do that=20 He had to take on both their sin and their death. For, in=20 accordance with the patristic dictum, that which is not assumed is not = saved. So=20 Christ allowed His human soul to be separated from His body. But since = His=20 Divinity was still united to both His soul and His body, death could not = hold=20 them, and they were reunited in the resurrection. Thus did He trample = down=20 death, as the Paschal troparion chants, =96 the death of men, which is = the wages=20 of sin and which is involuntary by His own Death, which took place in = spite=20 of His sinlessness and was voluntary.

     Another = Paschal=20 troparion declares, =93In the grave bodily, but in hades with Thy soul = as God; in=20 Paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the = Spirit wast=20 Thou Who fillest all things, O Christ the Inexpressible=94. It was this = continuing=20 union of God the Life with death which destroyed death. For the = unnatural union=20 of life with death, the perfect expression of holiness with the penalty = decreed=20 for sin, could not be sustained; in fact, it could not continue even for = one=20 moment. And so at the very moment of Christ=92s Death, our death was = destroyed,=20 hades was burst asunder =93and many bodies of the saints arose=94 = (Matthew=20 27.53). At that moment truly, and not a moment before, could He = say: =93It=20 is finished=94=85

     Moreover, as = St. Paul=20 points out, the sealing of the New Testament was impossible without the = death of=20 the testator: =93He is the Mediator of the New Testament, so that by = means of the=20 death which took place for redemption from the transgressions under the = first=20 Testament, they who have been called might receive the promise of the = eternal=20 inheritance. For where a testament is, it is necessary for the death of = the one=20 who made a disposition for himself to be brought forward. For a = testament is=20 confirmed over those who are dead, since it never hath strength when the = one who=20 maketh the disposition liveth. Wherefore neither hath the first been = inaugurated=20 without blood=94 (Hebrews=20 9.15-18).

     Bishop = Theophan the=20 Recluse comments on this passage: =93Evidently the death of Jesus Christ = disturbed=20 many of the weaker ones: if He was dead, they said, how is He the = eternal=20 Intercessor for people and how can He deliver that which He promises? = St. Paul=20 in removing this doubt shows that it is precisely by dint of the fact = that He=20 died that His Testament is firm: for people do not talk about a = testament (will)=20 in the case of those who are alive (St. Chrysostom).=94[116]<= /P>

     In answer to = this the=20 defenders of Metropolitan Anthony point out that we are redeemed not = only by the=20 death of Christ, but by the whole of His life on earth. This is true, = but does=20 not annul the other truth that the death of Christ was absolutely = essential for=20 our salvation as its climax and crown. As St. Gregory the Theologian = puts it:=20 =93We needed an Incarnate God, God put to death, that we might = live=94.[117]=20

     For if = Christ had not=20 tasted death in the flesh He would not have plumbed the very depths of = sinful=20 man=92s condition, He would not have destroyed =93the last enemy=94 of = mankind, which=20 is death (I=20 Corinthians=20 15.26). For without the death of Christ there would have been no = Sacrifice for=20 sin, no descent into hades, and no resurrection from the dead. =93And if = Christ is=20 not risen, your faith is in vain; ye are still in your sins=94 = (I=20 Corinthians=20 15.17).

     As Fr. = George=20 Florovsky writes: =93Suffering is not yet the whole Cross. The Cross is = more than=20 merely suffering Good. The sacrifice of Christ is not yet exhausted by = His=20 obedience and endurance, forbearance, compassion, all-forgivingness. The = one=20 redeeming work of Christ cannot be separated into parts. Our Lord=92s = earthly life=20 is one organic whole, and His redeeming action cannot be exclusively = connected=20 with any one particular moment in that life. However, the climax of this = life=20 was its death. And the Lord plainly bore witness to the hour of death: = =93For this=20 cause came I unto this hour=94 (John=20 12.27)... Redemption was accomplished on = the=20 Cross, =91by the blood of His Cross=92 (Colossians=20 1.20; cf. Acts=20 20.28, Romans=20 5.9, Ephesians=20 1.7, Colossians=20 1.14, Hebrews=20 9.22, I=20 John=20 1.7, Revelation=20 1.5-6, 5.9). Not by the suffering of the Cross only, but precisely by = the death=20 on the Cross. And the ultimate victory is wrought, not by sufferings or=20 endurance, but by death and resurrection=85=94[118]<= /P>

     And Fr. = George adds: =93=20 Usually these two facts are not sufficiently distinguished: the = sufferings and=20 the death. This hinders one from drawing the right conclusions. In = particular=20 this can be seen in the theological reasonings of his Eminence = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=85 He opposes Gethsemane to Golgotha precisely because he with = reason=20 considers the =91spiritual sufferings=92 to be more valuable than the = =91bodily=20 sufferings=92. But death needs to be explained, and not only the = sufferings of=20 death...=94[119]<= /P>

     As Hieromonk = Augustine=20 (Lim) has pointed out, the Nicene Creed says of the Lord that He =93was = crucified,=20 suffered and was buried=94, not =93suffered, was crucified and = was buried=94.=20 This order of words shows that the critical, so to speak, suffering of = Christ=20 was the suffering after His Crucifixion, the suffering precisely = of His=20 death on Golgotha. If, on the other hand, Gethsemane had been the = place=20 of our redemption, we would have expected the reverse order: = =93suffered,=20 crucified and was buried=94.[120]<= /P>

     And if it be = objected=20 that death came rather as a relief from His sufferings, so that = the real=20 exploit consisted in His sufferings before death, we should = remind=20 ourselves what death meant for Him Who is Life: something = inconceivable=20 to the human mind. For us death, though unnatural in essence, has = nevertheless=20 become in a certain sense natural =96 in the same sense that sin has = become=20 natural or =93second nature=94 to us since the fall. But =93God did not = create death=94,=20 and if it seemed =93folly to the Greeks=94 for the Creator to become His = creature,=20 it must have seemed worse than folly to them for Life to undergo death.=20 Moreover, both life and death in our fallen, human condition were an=20 immeasurable torment for the Sinless One, infinitely more painful than = the life=20 and death of sinners; for every aspect of that life and death, together = with=20 every suffering in it, was undertaken = voluntarily.

     As Vladimir = Lossky=20 writes, interpreting the thought of St. Maximus the Confessor, "by = assimilating=20 the historic reality in which the Incarnation had to take place He = introduced=20 into His Divine Person all sin-scarred, fallen human nature. That is why = the=20 earthly life of Christ was a continual humiliation. His human will = unceasingly=20 renounced what naturally belonged to it, and accepted what was contrary = to=20 incorruptible and deified humanity: hunger, thirst, weariness, grief,=20 sufferings, and finally, death on the cross. Thus, one could say that = the Person=20 of Christ, before the end of His redemptive work, before the = Resurrection,=20 possessed in His Humanity as it were two different poles - the = incorruptibility=20 and impassibility proper to a perfect and deified nature, as well as the = corruptibility and passibility voluntarily assumed, under which = conditions His=20 kenotic Person submitted and continued to submit His sin-free = Humanity."[121]=20

     = This horrific and = continual=20 struggle, which had reached one climax in Gethsemane, reached a still = higher one=20 at Golgotha. For if it was utterly unnatural and a continual torment for = Sinless=20 Life to live the life of sinners (in St. Paul's striking and paradoxical = words,=20 "God hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin" (II = Corinthians=20 5.21), experiencing all the horror of sin in His sinless soul, in which, = in the=20 words of Metropolitan Philaret of New York, =93every sin burned with the = unbearable fire of hell=94,[122]=20 it was still more unnatural and tormenting for Him to die the = death of=20 sinners. This death meant the voluntary rending apart of His own most = perfect=20 creation, His human nature, separating the soul and the body which, = unlike the=20 souls and bodies of sinners, had lived in perfect harmony together. It = meant a=20 schism in the life of God Himself, a schism so metaphysically and = ontologically=20 unthinkable that even the sun hid its rays and the rocks were burst = asunder. It=20 meant a schism, so to speak, of God from God, eliciting the cry: =93My = God, my=20 God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?=94 (Matthew 27.46). =

     As = God, of=20 course, He was not, and never could be, separated from His Father, as = was=20 triumphantly demonstrated at the Resurrection. But as Man, He = allowed=20 Himself to feel the full accursedness of men in their separation = from God=20 - an accursedness unspeakably the greater for Him Who said: "I and the = Father=20 are one" (John 10.30).[123]=20 As St. Basil the Great says, He =93redeemed us from being accursed by = becoming=20 Himself a curse and suffering the most dishonourable death in order to = lead us=20 again to the glorious life.=94[124]=20 Thus the atonement (at-one-ment) of man by God and with = God was=20 accomplished by the disjunction, if it were possible, of God from = God =96=20 not as God, but as Man. =20

     Moreover, as = the Head=20 of the Body of Israel which at this very moment fell away from God, He = felt=20 her accursedness, too. St. Augustine has developed this point in = a very=20 illuminating way in his commentary on the Psalm from which the Lord was = quoting:=20 "The full and perfect Christ=85 is Head and Body. When Christ speaks, = sometimes He=20 speaks in the Person of the Head alone, our Saviour Himself, born of the = Virgin=20 Mary, at other times in the person of His Body, which is the holy Church = spread=20 throughout the world... Now if Christ I s in very truth without sin and = without=20 transgression, we begin to doubt whether these words of the Psalm = ['There is no=20 peace for my bones because of My sins'] can be His. Yet it would be very = unfortunate and contradictory if the Psalm just quoted did not refer to = Christ,=20 when we find His passion set forth there as clearly as it is related in = the=20 Gospel. For there we find: 'They parted My garments amongst them, and = upon My=20 vesture they cast lots.' Why did our Lord Himself as He hung on the = cross recite=20 with His own lips the first verse of this very Psalm, saying: 'My God, = My God,=20 why hast Thou forsaken Me?' What did He mean us to understand, but that = this=20 Psalm refers to Him in its entirety, since He Himself uttered the = opening words?=20 Where, again, it goes on to speak of 'the words of My sins', the voice = is=20 undoubtedly that of Christ. How 'sins', I ask, unless sins of His Body = which is=20 the Church? For here the Body is speaking as well as the Head. How do = they speak=20 as one Person? Because 'they shall be', He says, 'two in one flesh'... = So we=20 must listen as to one Person speaking, but the Head as Head and the Body = as=20 Body. We are not separating two Persons but drawing a distinction in = dignity:=20 the Head saves, the Body is saved. The Head must show mercy, the Body = bewail its=20 misery. The office of the Head is the purgation of sins, that of the = Body the=20 confession of them; yet there is but one voice, and no written = instructions to=20 inform us when the Body speaks and when the Head. We can tell the = difference=20 when we listen; but He speaks as one individual... You may never exclude = the=20 Head when you hear the Body speaking, nor the Body when you hear the = Head; for=20 now they are not two but one flesh."[125]<= /P>

     Let us = return to the=20 point that Christ=92s sufferings in Gethsemane were caused by His = (perfectly=20 natural and innocent) fear of death. This is evident also from His use = of the=20 word =93cup=94, which, as we have seen, means =93death=94. Now the cup = of death is also=20 the cup of the Eucharist; that is, the cup of Golgotha is the cup of the = Mystical Supper; for both cups contain blood, the blood of the Sacrifice = already=20 accomplished in death.[126]=20

     This shows, = on the one=20 hand, that the redeeming Sacrifice had already been mystically = accomplished even=20 before the prayer in the Garden, in the Upper Room. For as St. = Gregory of=20 Nyssa writes, =93By offering His Body as food, He clearly showed that = the=20 Sacrificial Offering of the Lamb had already been accomplished. For the=20 Sacrificial Body would not have been suitable for food if it were still=20 animated=94.[127]=20 But on the other hand it shows that our redemption consists precisely in = Christ=92s Death, and that if there had been no Death there would = have been=20 no Sacrifice and no redemption. So to concentrate on the sufferings in=20 Gethsemane while ignoring the mystery that was accomplished both before = and=20 after them, in the Upper Room and on Golgotha, is to ignore the very = Dogma of=20 Redemption=85

6.=20 THE THEORY OF =93MORAL MONISM=94

For=20 us the monarchy is formed by equality of nature, harmony of will, and = identity=20 of activity, and the concurrence with the One of the Beings which derive = from=20 the One, a unity impossible among created = beings.

St.=20 Gregory the Theologian, Sermon=20 29,=20 2.

     Let us = recall the=20 metropolitan=92s words: =93a=20 purely objective law of our spiritual nature is revealed in the = transmission of=20 the compassionate, supremely loving energy of the Redeemer to the = spiritual=20 nature of the man who believes and calls for this help, a law which is = revealed=20 in our dogmas, but of which our dogmatic science has taken no notice.=94 = The=20 problem is: if dogmatic science has taken no notice of this law, which = was=20 supposedly revealed explicitly for the first time by Metropolitan = Anthony, it is=20 hardly surprising that the metropolitan can find few, if any, patristic=20 statements to support it. It is not that the Fathers deny the great = power and=20 significance of Christ=92s compassionate love for the salvation of = mankind. On the=20 contrary: the greatness of that love, and its overwhelming significance = for our=20 salvation is not disputed by anyone. But the motivation for the saving = work of=20 Christ, love, must not be confused with the work itself, the restoration = of=20 justice in the relations between God and man, the justification of = mankind, nor=20 with the fruit of that justification in the individual believer, which = consists=20 in his renewal and deification by ascetic endeavour and the communion of = the=20 Holy Spirit.

     How, = according to=20 Metropolitan Anthony, is the =93compassionate, supremely loving energy = of the=20 Redeemer=94 transmitted to the believer? His answer turns on the = distinction,=20 familiar from Trinitarian theology, between the concepts of "nature" and = "person". Just as in the Holy Trinity there is one Divine nature but = three=20 Divine Persons, so in our created race there is one human nature but = many human=20 persons. Or rather: originally, before the entrance of sin, there was a = single=20 human nature, but since the fall sin has divided this nature into many = pieces,=20 as it were, each piece being the jealously guarded possession of a = single=20 egotistical individual. However, the original unity of human nature = still exists=20 in each person, and it is this original unity which Christ restored on = the Cross=20 (or rather, in Metropolitan Anthony=92s thought: in Gethsemane).=20

     =93By = nature,=94 he=20 writes, =93especially the human nature, we are accustomed to mean only = the=20 abstraction and the summing up of properties present in every man = separately and=20 therefore composing one general abstract idea, and nothing else. But = Divine=20 revelation and the dogmas of our Church teach differently concerning the = nature=85=20 the nature is not an abstraction of the common attributes of different = objects=20 of persons made by our minds, but a certain real, essence, real will and = force,=20 acting in separate persons=85.=94[128]<= /P>

     There is a = certain=20 confusion of concepts here; for, as Archbishop Theophan of Poltava = writes, =93in=20 patristic literature power and will are only properties of human nature, = they do=20 not constitute the nature itself (St. John of Damascus, Exact = Exposition of=20 the Orthodox Faith, book II, chapters 22 and 23)=94.[129]<= /P>

     However, let = us=20 continue with Metropolitan Anthony=92s exposition: =93In spite of all = our human=20 separateness,=85 we cannot fail to notice within ourselves the = manifestations of=20 the collective universal human will; a will which is not of me, but in = me, which=20 I can only partially renounce, with much labor and struggle. This will = is given=20 to me from without, and yet at the same time it is mine. This is = pre-eminently=20 the common human nature. First, we must place here our = conscience, which=20 was given to us, and which almost no man can completely resist; also our = direct=20 involvement and compassion with our neighbor, parental affections and = much else.=20 Among these attributes are also evil desires, likewise seemingly imposed = on us=20 from without: self-love, revengefulness, lust and so on. These are the=20 manifestations of our fallen nature, against which we can and must = struggle. And=20 so the nature of all men is the same: it is the impersonal but powerful = will=20 which every human person is obliged to take into account, whichever way = the=20 personal free will may be turned: toward good or toward evil. It is to = this also=20 that we must ascribe the law of existence whereby only through the union = of a=20 father and mother can a man be born into the world=85 If you cannot = imagine that=20 you hold your soul in common with others, then read in the book of Acts, = =91One=20 was the heart and the soul of the multitude of them that believed=92 = (4.32). And=20 another record taken from life is given by Saint Basil the Great. = Describing the=20 unanimity and victory over self-love of the monks of his day, Saint = Basil=20 continues, =91These men restore the primal goodness in eclipsing the sin = of our=20 forefather Adam; for there would be no divisions, no strife, no war = among men,=20 if sin had not made cleavages in the nature=85 they gather the (one) human = nature,=20 which had been torn and cloven into thousands of pieces, once = more to=20 itself and to God. And this is the chief in the Saviour=92s incarnate = oeconomy:=20 to gather human nature to itself and to Himself and, having abolished = this=20 evil cleavage, to restore the original unity=94.[130]<= /P>

     At=20 this point the question arises: can such diverse phenomena as = conscience, the=20 fallen passions, the natural (innocent) passions, and the grace-created = unity of=20 the early Christians and of the true monastic communities be united = under a=20 single heading or concept of human nature? And this leads to the further = question: would such an understanding of human nature be patristic? = However,=20 before attempting to answer these questions, let us follow the = metropolitan=92s=20 argument to the end:

      =93The = Lord also=20 teaches of a new Being, in whom He will be, and in whom He is already = united to=20 the faithful, like a tree which remains the same plant in all of its = branches=20 (John 15.1-9). And so the unity of the human nature, undone by the sin = of Adam=20 and his descendants, is to be gradually restored through Christ and His=20 redeeming love with such power, that in the future life this oneness = will be=20 expressed more strongly than it can now be by the multitude of human = persons,=20 and Christ, united with us all into one Being, shall be called the New = Man, or=20 the One Church, being (in particular) its Head.

     =93It=20 appears to me that we have, according to our power, cleared the way to a = more=20 perfect understanding of the mystery of redemption, of its essential, = its=20 objective side. The salvation which Christ brought to humanity consists = not only=20 of the conscious assimilation of Christ=92s principle truths and of His = love, but=20 also of the fact that by means of His compassionate love Christ = demolishes the=20 partition which sin sets up between men, restores the original oneness = of=20 nature, so that the man who has subjected himself to this action of = Christ finds=20 new dispositions, new feelings and longings, not only in his thoughts, = but also=20 in his very character, these being created not by himself, but coming = from=20 Christ who has united Himself to him. It then remains for the free will = either=20 to call all these to life or wickedly to reject them. The influence of = the=20 compassionate love a mother, a friend, a spiritual shepherd, consists = (though to=20 a much lesser degree) in this same penetration into the very nature=20 (fusiV),=20 the very soul of a man=85. The direct entrance of Christ=92s nature, of = His good=20 volitions into our nature is called grace, which is invisibly poured = into us in=20 the various inner states and outer incidents of our life, and especially = in the=20 Holy Mysteries=85 The subjective feeling of compassionate love becomes = an=20 objective power which restores the oneness of human nature that had been = destroyed by sin, and which is transmitted from one human soul to = others=94.[131]=20

     The=20 confusion of concepts here is startling. Thus the metropolitan writes: = =93The=20 salvation which Christ brought to humanity consists not only of the = conscious=20 assimilation of Christ=92s principle truths and of His love, but also of = the fact=20 that by means of His compassionate love Christ demolishes the partition = which=20 sin sets up between men=94 But what is the difference between =93the = conscious=20 assimilation of Christ=92s love=94, on the one hand, and =93His = compassionate love=94=20 whereby He destroys the partition set up by sin? What is the distinction = between=20 the two loves?

     Again, we = have already=20 noted the very wide range of phenomena that the metropolitan includes = under the=20 heading of human nature: conscience, fallen and natural passions, the = unity of=20 the Church=85 Here he broadens the concept still further, but in an = altogether=20 inadmissible direction, defining it as grace: =93The direct = entrance of=20 Christ=92s nature, of His good volitions into our nature is called = grace=94 But=20 grace is not human at all: according to the teaching of the = Orthodox=20 Church, it is the uncreated energies of God, the =93actions=94, = so to speak,=20 of the Divine nature.

     It is indeed = grace =96=20 that is, the Divine energies of Christ =96 that unites and = reunites men.=20 But not only is grace not human nature =96 neither Christ=92s nor = anyone=20 else=92s. It also does not =93reunite human nature=94 in the sense that = the=20 metropolitan would have it, for the simple reason that human nature, as = opposed=20 to human persons and wills, has never been divided. As persons we have = been=20 divided by sin, but we remain one in our common human=20 nature.

     It is = important to be=20 precise about that in which men are divided by sin and are reunited by = grace.=20 They cannot be divided, according to St. Maximus the Confessor, by=20 nature. They are divided in their moral capabilities =96 = goodness and=20 wisdom - which are not nature itself, but movements or = modalities=20 of nature: =93Evil is perceived not in the nature of = creatures, but in=20 their sinful and irrational movement=94.[132]=20 Again, St. Maximus writes: =93[The devil] separated our will from God = and us from=20 each other. Diverting [man] from the straight path, [he] divided the = image of=20 his nature, splitting it up into a multitude of opinions and ideas=94.[133]=20 Thus it is our wills, meaning our free choices, that are divided; = it is=20 not the nature of man that is divided, but the =93image=94 of his = nature, his=20 =93opinions and ideas=94.

     This point = is well=20 made by St. Maximus the Confessor in his Dispute with Pyrrhus:-=20

     = =93Pyrrhus.=20 Virtues, then, are natural things? Maximus. Yes, natural = things.=20 Pyrrhus. If they are natural things, why [then] do they not exist = in all=20 men equally, since all men have an identical nature? Maximus. But = they=20 do exist equally in all men because of the identical nature. = Pyrrhus.=20 Then why is there such a great inequality [of virtues] in us? = Maximus.=20 Because we do not all practise what is natural to us to an equal = degree;=20 indeed, if we did practise to an equal degree [those virtues] natural to = us, as=20 we were created to do, then one could be able to perceive one virtue in = us all=20 just as there is one nature [in us all], and that one virtue would not = admit of=20 a =91more=92 or a =91less=92.=94[134]<= /P>

      Only = in one=20 sense can we talk about human nature =96 as opposed to human persons or = wills =96=20 being in a real sense divided. And that is in the sense of death. = Death=20 is the division of human nature =96 first the division of the spirit, = God=92s grace,=20 from the soul and the body, and then the division of the soul from the = body. If=20 human nature is understood as being unitary (and not as a composite of = two=20 natures, spiritual and material), then the division of the soul from the = body at=20 death does indeed constitute a division of human nature. (But our death = was=20 destroyed, as we have seen, not by the sufferings of Christ in = Gethsemane, but=20 by His Death on the Cross=85)

     =

     How, then, = are we to=20 understand the quotations cited by Metropolitan Anthony, which appear to = assert=20 that our human nature was divided =96 really, and not metaphorically. It = will be=20 sufficient to reconsider the quotation from St. Basil in order to see = that a=20 division of persons and not of nature was in = question here.=20 The monks who practise the coenobitic life do not literally = reunite their=20 cloven human natures: rather, they reestablish unanimity, unity of will, = through=20 the subjection of all their individual free wills to the will of the = abbot.=20

     =93Of this = we will=20 become convinced,=94 writes Archbishop Theophan, =93if we reproduce the = passage in=20 question in a fuller form. =91That communion of life we call the most = perfect,=92=20 says St. Basil here, =91means the ascetics living according to the = coenobitic rule=20 that excludes private property and drives out contrariness of = dispositions, by=20 which all disturbances, quarrels and arguments are destroyed at the = root, having=20 everything in common, both souls and dispositions and bodily powers, and = what is=20 necessary for the nourishment of the body and for its service, in which = there is=20 a common God, a common purchase of piety, a common salvation, common = ascetic=20 exploits, common labours, common crowns, in which many constitute one = and each=20 person is not one but one among many. What is equal to this life? What = is more=20 perfect than this closeness and this unity? What is more pleasant than = this=20 merging of manners and souls? People who have come from various tribes = and=20 countries have brought themselves into such complete identity that in = many=20 bodies we see one soul, and many bodies are the instruments of one = will.=20 It was God=92s will that we should be like that at the beginning; it was = with this=20 aim that He created us. These men restore the primal goodness in = eclipsing the=20 sin of our forefather Adam; for there would be no divisions, no strife, = no war=20 among men, if sin had not made cleavages in the nature=85 As far as they are able, they = once again=20 gather the human nature, which had been torn and cloven into thousands = of=20 pieces, into unity both with themselves and with God. For this is the main thing in = the=20 Saviour=92s economy in the flesh =96 to bring human nature into unity = with itself=20 and with the Saviour and, having destroyed the evil cutting up [into = parts],=20 restore the original unity; just as the best doctor by healing medicines = binds=20 up the body that was torn into many parts=92.

     =93To every = unprejudiced=20 reader it is clear that in this passage the subject is the moral, or, = more=20 exactly, the grace-filled moral unity of the members of the ascetic = coenobium=20 with themselves and with God through the medium of one will, which in = the=20 present case is the will of the superior, who incarnates in himself the = will of=20 God. =91Every good order and agreement among many,=92 says St. Basil in = his sermon=20 On the Judgement of God, =91is successfully maintained as long as = all are=20 obedient to one leader. And all discord and disharmony and = multiplicity=20 of authorities is the consequence of lack of authority=92. Apart from = anything=20 else, we are forbidden from understanding the restoration of the = original unity=20 of human nature in the metaphysical sense in which Metropolitan Anthony = thinks=20 of it, by the fact that we are here talking about the restoration of the = original unity of human nature not only with itself but also with God. = But not=20 only not St. Basil the Great, but also not one of the Fathers of the = Church ever=20 permitted and could not permit any thought of an original unity of human = nature=20 with the nature of God, in the sense of a metaphysical, essential unity. = Such a=20 unity is possible only in the pantheistic world-view.=94[135]<= /P>

     In any case, = writes=20 Archbishop Theophan, =93Only in relation to the absolute Divine [nature] = is the=20 concept of nature used by the Fathers of the Church in an absolute = sense,=20 insofar as the Divine nature is absolutely one both in concept and in = reality.=20 But in relation to the units of created nature, and in particular to = people, the=20 concept of one nature is understood in the sense of complete unity only=20 abstractly, insofar as every concept of genus or species is one, but in=20 application to reality it indicates only the oneness of the nature of = all the=20 units of the given genus.=94[136]<= /P>

    And he quotes St. = John of=20 Damascus: =93One must know that it is one thing to perceive in deed, and = another=20 in mind and thought. In all created beings the difference between = persons is=20 seen in deed. For in (very) deed we see that Peter is different from = Paul. But=20 communality and connection and oneness are seen in mind and thought. For = in mind=20 we notice that Peter and Paul are of one and the same nature and have = one common=20 nature. For each of them is a living, rational, mortal being; and each = is flesh=20 enlivened by a soul which is both rational and endowed with = discrimination. And=20 so this common nature can be perceived in the mind, for the hypostases = are not=20 in each other, but each is a separate individual, that is, taken = separately by=20 itself, there is very much distinguishing it from the others. For they = are=20 distinct and different in time, in mind and in strength, in external = appearance=20 (that is, in form), and in condition, temperament, dignity, manner of = life and=20 every distinguishing characteristic. Most of all they differ in that = they do not=20 exist in each other, but separately. Hence it comes that we can speak of = two,=20 three or many men. And this may be perceived throughout the whole of=20 creation.

     =93But in = the case of=20 the holy and superessential and incomprehensible Trinity, far above = everything,=20 it is quite the reverse. For there the community and unity are perceived = in=20 deed, because of the co-eternity [of the Persons] and the identity of = their=20 essence and activity and will, and because of the agreement of their = cognitive=20 faculty, and identity of power and strength and grace. I did not say:=20 similarity, but: identity, and also of the unity of the origin of their=20 movement. For one is the essence, and one the grace, and one the = strength, and=20 one the desire and one the activity and one the power =96 one and the = same, not=20 three similar to each other, but one and the same movement of the three = Persons.=20 For each of them is no less one with Itself as with each other, because = the=20 Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects except the=20 unbegottenness [of the Father], the begottenness [of the Son] and the = procession=20 [of the Holy Spirit]. But it is by thought that the difference is = perceived. For=20 we know one God; but in thought we recognize the difference =96 only in = the=20 attributes of fatherhood and sonship and procession, both in relation to = cause,=20 and to effect, and to the fulfillment, that is, form of existence, of = the=20 Hypostasis. For in relation to the indescribable Divinity we cannot = speak of=20 separation in space, as we can about ourselves, because the Hypostases = are in=20 each other, not so as to be confused, but so as to be closely united, = according=20 to the word of the Lord Who said: =91I am in the Father, and the Father = in Me=92=20 (John=20 14.11). Nor can we speak of a difference of will or reason or activity = or=20 strength or anything else, which may produce a real and complete = separation in=20 us=94.[137]<= /P>

     Our = conclusion, then,=20 is that human nature is one, even in the fall, although only relatively, = not in=20 the absolute sense appropriate only to the Divine nature possessed by = the Three=20 Persons of the Holy Trinity.[138]=20 Sin is not a part of nature, but is a movement of the will of the = individual=20 person in a direction contrary to nature. Therefore it is our wills = that=20 have to be reunited by redirecting them in a direction in accordance = with our=20 nature, which redirection will bring them into unity with each other and = with=20 the will of God. This redirection is accomplished by our wills working = in=20 synergy with the grace of God, which is communicated to us in the = sacraments of=20 the Church, especially the Body and Blood of Christ. =

     Metropolitan = Anthony=92s=20 theory is acceptable only if we interpret his term =93nature=94 to mean = the deified=20 Body and Blood of Christ communicated to us in the Eucharist, and only = if we=20 interpret =93the restoration of the unity of human nature=94 to mean the = re-establishment of the unity of the wills of men both with each = other=20 and with the will of God. In the Eucharist the compassionate love of = Christ is=20 indeed transmitted to us through His deified human nature; and if our = wills=20 respond to this sacred gift (which is by no means =93irresistible=94, = and never=20 violates the free will of any of its recipients), then we will = experience the=20 truth of the words: =93If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature=94=20 (II=20 Corinthians=20 5.17). But once again: this gift is the fruit, not of Gethsemane, but of = Golgotha, not (or rather: not primarily) of the purely spiritual = sufferings of=20 Christ in the Garden, but of the Sacrifice of His soul and body = on the=20 altar of the Cross=85

7.=20 ORIGINAL SIN

What=20 mystery is this concerning us? How have we been delivered to corruption? = How=20 have we been yoked to death? All this, so it is written, is by the = command of=20 God.

Triodion,=20 Saturday of Souls, Vespers, =93Lord, I have cried=85=94, = Glory=85

     An integral = part of=20 Metropolitan Anthony=92s critique of the so-called =93juridical = theory=94 is his=20 onslaught on the doctrine of original sin. The HOCNA bishops summarise = his=20 critique as follows:

     =931) The = Scholastic=20 dogma of our inherited guilt of =91Original Sin=92 is false. We are = not=20 morally responsible for Adam=92s sin, we do not bear any guilt for = his sin,=20 (nor, in reverse, is he responsible for all our own subsequent=20 sins).

     =932) From = Adam we do=20 inherit mortality and a proclivity towards sinning. By his sin, Adam = was=20 exiled from Paradise to this corruptible world. We are his children born = in=20 exile.

     =933) God is = not unjust=20 in allowing us to receive this fallen nature as descendants of Adam, = because He=20 foreknew that each of us would sin, and that even if we ourselves had = been in=20 Adam=92s stead in Paradise, we nevertheless would have transgressed in = like manner=20 as he. Thus, our fallen nature is neither a burden unfairly placed upon = us by=20 God, nor is it an excuse for our personal sins. Man is free and morally=20 responsible.

    =93Many of = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=92s critics, including Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, seem to = have=20 utterly failed to comprehend the great gulf that separates the patristic = Orthodox doctrine concerning the Ancestral Sin of Adam from the = heretical=20 Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin.=94 (p. 18).

    Unfortunately, it = is not=20 Archbishop Theophan, but the HOCNA bishops who have =93utterly failed to = comprehend=94 the essence of this matter, as we shall now try to=20 demonstrate.

     Much of the = argument=20 has revolved around the correct translation and interpretation of the = words: =93By=20 one man sin entered into the world, and so death entered all men by sin, = because =96 or, according to another translation: for in = him - all=20 have sinned=92 (Romans=20 5.12).

     Archbishop = Theophan=20 writes: =93His=20 Eminence Metropolitan Anthony in his = Catechism=20 gives a = new=20 interpretation of the cited words of the Apostle Paul, and, in = accordance with=20 this interpretation, put forwards a new teaching on original sin, which=20 essentially almost completely overthrows the Orthodox teaching on = original=20 sin.=94[139]=20

     In the = opinion of=20 Metropolitan Anthony, these words from the Apostle Paul are translated=20 incorrectly in the Slavonic translation: =93Let us consider the original = Greek=20 text: the words =91in that=92 translate the Greek =91ej=92=20 w=92,=20 which means: =91because=92, =91since=92 (Latin tamen, quod)=85 = Therefore, the=20 correct translation of these words of the Apostle Paul is: =91and so = death passed=20 upon all men, because all have sinned=92 (and not just Adam alone)=94.[140]=20

     Now we may = agree with=20 Metropolitan Anthony that the strictly correct translation of = Romans=20 5.12 is: =93death passed upon all men, because all have sinned=94 = rather=20 than: =93death passed upon all men, for in him [i.e. in Adam] all = have=20 sinned=94. Nevertheless, the fact that not only all the Orthodox Latin=20 translations and Latin fathers read =93in him=94, but also the famous = Greek=20 translators of the Bible into Slavonic, Saints Cyril and Methodius, = should make=20 us pause before accusing these very distinguished Fathers of error. = Indeed,=20 Bishop Theophan the Recluse, for reasons which will become clear later,=20 considered that the translation =93in him=94, though freer and less = literally=20 accurate, in fact conveyed the underlying meaning more=20 accurately.

     If we follow = the=20 correct translation, according to Metropolitan Anthony, =93Adam was not = so much=20 the cause of our sinfulness as he was the first to sin, and even if we = were not=20 his sons, we still would sin just the same. Thus one should think that = we are=20 all sinners, even though our will be well directed, not because we are=20 descendants of Adam, but because the All-knowing God gives us life in = the human=20 condition (and not as angels, for example), and He foresaw that the will = of each=20 of us would be like that of Adam and Eve. This will is not evil by = nature, but=20 disobedient and prideful, and consequently it needs a school to correct = it, and=20 this is what our earthly life in the body is, for it constantly humbles = our=20 stubbornness. In this matter this school attains success in almost all = its=20 pupils who are permitted to complete their whole course, that is, live a = long=20 life; but some of God=92s chosen ones attain this wisdom at an early = age, namely=20 those whom Providence leads to the Heavenly Teacher or to His = =91co-workers=92=94.[141]=20

     As he put it = in=20 another place: =93God knew that each of us would sin in the same way as = Adam, and=20 for that reason we are his descendants=85 Knowing beforehand that every = man would=20 display Adam=92s self-will, the Lord allows us to inherit Adam=92s weak, = ill, mortal=20 nature endowed with sinful tendencies, in the struggle with which, and = still=20 more in submitting to which, we become conscious of our nothingness and = humble=20 ourselves.=94[142]=20

     Metropolitan=20 Anthony objects to the Russian Church=92s traditional teaching on = original sin as=20 expounded in, for example, the Catechism of Metropolitan Philaret = of=20 Moscow, which he regards as Latin and scholastic in origin: =93=91As = from a polluted=20 spring,=92 we read in our textbook, =91there flows corrupted water,=92 = etc. But, if=20 you will, a spring and water are one thing, whereas living, morally = responsible=20 human beings are something else. It is not by our own will that we are=20 descendants of Adam, so why should we bear the guilt for his = disobedience?=20 Indeed, we must struggle greatly in order to appropriate Christ=92s = redemption:=20 can it be that the condemnation of each man because of Adam befell men = despite=20 each one=92s own guilt? After all, the Apostle says here =91that the = gift was poured=20 out more richly than the condemnation=92 (cf. Romans=20 5.15), but with the juridical interpretation the result is rather the=20 opposite=94.[143]=20

     Here=20 again we may agree with Metropolitan Anthony that Adam, and Adam alone, = was=20 personally responsible for his transgression. However, while we = do not=20 inherit personal responsibility for Adam=92s sin, we do inherit = the=20 person of Adam himself! For, as St. Basil the Great writes, what = we=20 inherit from Adam =93is not the personal sin of Adam, but the original = human being=20 himself=94, who =93exists in us by necessity=94.[144]<= /P>

     Again, St. = Cyril of=20 Alexandria says: =93What has Adam=92s guilt to do with us? Why are we = held=20 responsible for his sin when we were not even born when he committed it? = Did not=20 God say: =91The parents will not die for the children, nor the children = for the=20 parents, but the soul which has sinned, it shall die=92 (Deuteronomy=20 24.16). How then shall we defend this doctrine? The soul, I say, which = has=20 sinned, it shall die. We have become sinners because of Adam=92s = disobedience in=20 the following manner=85 After he fell into sin and surrendered to = corruption,=20 impure lusts invaded the nature of his flesh, and at the same time the = evil law=20 of our members was born. For our nature contracted the disease of sin = because of=20 the disobedience of one man, that is, Adam, and thus many became = sinners. This=20 was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then = exist,=20 but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law = of sin.=20 Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam = because=20 of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was = later set=20 free by Christ, Who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit = sin.=94[145]=20

     Again, St. = John=20 Chrysostom writes: =93=92Through the wrong-doing of one man many became = sinners=92.=20 There is nothing improbable about the proposition that when Adam sinned = and=20 became mortal, those who were descended from him should become mortal = also. But=20 how should it follow that from his disobedience anyone else should = become a=20 sinner? For unless a man becomes a sinner on his own responsibility, = he will=20 not be found to merit punishment. Then what does =91sinner=92 mean = here? I think=20 it means liable to punishment, that is, condemned to death=94.[146]=20

     However, = while this=20 appears to dispel one paradox and apparent injustice =96 that we should = be guilty=20 for a sin we did not commit =96 it by no means dispels other, no less = difficult=20 ones. For is it not unjust that we should inherit a nature inclined to = sin and=20 doomed to death before we have done anything worthy of death? = Metropolitan=20 Anthony=92s explanation is that God, foreseeing that we would sin like = Adam, gave=20 us a corrupt and mortal nature in anticipation of that. But this implies = that=20 whereas in the case of Adam death is clearly the wages of sin and the = just=20 punishment for the crime he committed, in our case the punishment=20 precedes the crime, and therefore cannot be perceived as the = wages of=20 sin. Is this not just as unjust? Nor is it convincing to argue, as does = the=20 metropolitan, that we are encumbered with a sinful and mortal nature, = not as a=20 punishment for sin, but in order to humble us, that is, in order to = prevent=20 worse sin in the future. For first: if we needed to be humbled, we = clearly were=20 already in sin =96 the sin of pride. And secondly: how can sin be = reduced by=20 endowing us with a nature inclined to sin?! Why not provide us with a = sinless=20 nature to begin with?

     But God = did=20 provide us with a sinless nature to begin with, and it is we, not God, = who have=20 caused its corruption. Metropolitan Anthony, however, is forced by the = logic of=20 his argument, which denies that our sinfulness was caused by Adam=92s = original=20 sin, to attribute to God Himself the corruption of our nature. As he = writes:=20 =93Let us now ask: Who was responsible for fashioning human nature so = that a good=20 desire and repentance are, nevertheless, powerless to renew a man in = actuality=20 and so that he falls helplessly under the burden of his passions if he = does not=20 have grace assisting him? God the Creator, of course.=94[147]=20 This is perilously close to the assertion that God is the author of evil = =96 or,=20 at any rate, of the evil of human nature since Adam, which is clearly = contrary=20 to the Orthodox teaching that God created everything good in the = beginning, and=20 that there is nothing that He has created that is not good. Even those = things,=20 such as the differentiation of the sexes, which, in the opinion of a = small=20 minority of the Holy Fathers, were created in prevision of the fall, are = nevertheless good in themselves. God did not create death: death is the=20 consequence of the sin of man, which in turn is the consequence of the = envy of=20 the devil. So the idea that God created sinful natures, natures subject = to=20 death, is contrary to Orthodox teaching. The only possible reason why = human=20 beings should come into the world already tainted by corruption is that = their=20 corrupt nature is the product of sin. And if not of their own personal = sin, then=20 the sin of an ancestor. That is, the forefather=92s or the ancestral or = the=20 original sin=85

     Thus St. = Cyril of=20 Alexandria writes: =93[All men] have been condemned to death by the = transgression=20 of Adam. For the whole of human nature has suffered this in him, who was = the=20 beginning of the human race.=94[148]=20 Again, St. Symeon the Theologian writes: =93When our Master descended = from on high=20 He by His own death destroyed the death that awaited us. The = condemnation=20 that was the consequence of our forefather=92s transgression he = completely=20 annihilated.=94[149]=20 Again, St. Gregory Palamas confirms that the ancestral sin was Adam=92s = and nobody=20 else=92s: =93Before Christ we all shared the same ancestral curse and = condemnation=20 poured out on all of us from our single Forefather, as if it had sprung = from the=20 root of the human race and was the common lot of our nature. Each = person=92s=20 individual action attracted either reproof or praise from God, but no = one could=20 do anything about the shared curse and condemnation, or the evil = inheritance=20 that had been passed down to him and through him would pass to his=20 descendants.=94[150]

     Some = clarification can=20 be introduced here by distinguishing two senses of the English word = =93sin=94: sin=20 as the act of a human person, and sin as the state = or=20 condition or law of human nature. This distinction = is in=20 fact made by St. Paul in the passage in question, as Archbishop Theophan = points=20 out: =93The holy apostle clearly distinguishes in his teaching on = original sin=20 between two points: paraptwma or transgression, = and=20 amartia or sin. By the first = he=20 understood the personal transgression by our forefathers of the will of = God that=20 they should not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, = by the=20 second =96 the law of sinful disorder that entered human nature as the = consequence=20 of this transgression. [=93I delight in the law of God in my inmost = self, but I=20 see in my members another law at work with the law of my mind and making = me=20 captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members=94 = (Romans=20 7.22-23).] When he is talking about the inheritance of the original sin, = he has=20 in mind not paraptwma or transgression, = for which only=20 they are responsible, but amartia, that is, the law of = sinful=20 disorder which afflicted human nature as a consequence of the fall into = sin of=20 our forefathers. And hmarton - sinned in 5.12 = must therefore=20 be understood not in the active voice, in the sense: they committed sin, = but in=20 the middle-passive voice, in the sense: amartwloi in 5.19, that is, = became sinners=20 or turned out to be sinners, since human nature fell in Adam.=94[151]=20

     Thus the original sin = of Adam, in=20 the sense of his personal transgression, = the=20 original sin which=20 no other person shares, has engendered in consequence sinful, corrupt, = diseased,=20 mortal human nature, the law of sin, which we all share because we have = all=20 inherited it, but for which we cannot be held personally responsible. = And if=20 this seems to introduce of two original sins, this is in fact not far = from the=20 thinking of the Holy Fathers. Thus St. Maximus the Confessor: =93There = then arose=20 sin, the first and worthy of reproach, that is, the falling away of the = will=20 from good to evil. Through the first there arose the second =96 the = change in=20 nature from incorruption to corruption, which cannot elicit reproach. = For two=20 sins arise in [our] forefather as a consequence of the transgression of = the=20 Divine commandment: one worthy of reproach, and the second having as its = cause=20 the first and unable to elicit reproach=94.[152]=20

     We have=20 inherited the =93second=94 original sin, the law of sin, in the most basic way: through = the sexual=20 propagation of the species. For = =93in=20 sins,=94 says David, - that is, in a nature corrupted by original sin, - = =93did my=20 mother conceive me=94 (Psalm 50.5).