Christ and illness

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

I am aware that our Lord took on all of human nature, but for sin. What about illness however? Did Christ assume our propensity towards illness (presumably not if His physical Body was perfect)? Was He ever ill, e.g. catching a cold? On the "Isenheim" altarpiece He is shown as suffering from a wasting disease. Is this a heretical representation from an Orthodox perspective?

Also, if Christ was never physically ill and did not even have our post-lapsarian propensity towards illness, what can be inferred from this about the relationship between illness and sin?

In Christ
Byron

[Theopesta]

Dear Brother Byron,

I tnink that if CHRIST not assume our tendency to illness, consequently HE will not also suffer and dead? also the illness is one of the consequences of sin as the death and the weakness of our nature

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

Wonderful question!

I would say that Christ was 'aware' of illness through His humanity but chose to submit to it fully in the broader sense at His passion so that its real cause which is death could be defeated through His resurrection.

Christ assumed our human nature including the effects of the fall- hunger, thirst, etc. Assuming & willing however are not identical in Christ. He takes on our human nature but only suffers its fallen effects by choice in order through His divinity to give hunger, thirst, etc a divine purpose. Thus it would be a mistake to think that when Christ takes on human nature He simply takes on the fallen condition and leaves it there. This would be to make the purpose of the Incarnation emotional or moral since the whole purpose of it would then be "Christ shared our burden." This however is not the purpose of the Incarnation which is the defeat of death and not simply a submission to it.

About the 'wasting away Christ' I think in light of the all the above it is deeply disturbing and based on a theological mistake of major proportions. Of course that Christ shared our condition is a foundation stone of our faith. And if this sharing did not include death then our faith would be to little purpose. But the sharing is so that death would be destroyed and not simply 'accepted'.

What kind of victory is it to see that ultimately death does triumph? The absurd tragedy of this is not really made any better if God shares this tragedy with us- as if our faith only amounts to Divine companionship & 'solidarity' and more horribly still that the ultimate Master of all even of God is death. Thus the image of Christ although it must reveal what is a submissive humbling must also reveal His triumph over death- even amidst the chosen vulnerability of His birth or the acceptance of His passion. For Christ's image to be true it must convey both of these things at once- the submission and the triumph.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mina Soliman]

St. Athanasius didn't believe so, which is quite confusing, considering that later Christologians would like it if Christ experience everything human (including corruption) except obviously sin. A question I've always wondered whether St. Athanasius was a Julianist? Were Julian and perhaps Emperor Justinian right?

God bless.

[Alec Lowly]

"Also, if Christ was never physically ill and did not even have our post-lapsarian propensity towards illness, what can be inferred from this about the relationship between illness and sin?"

Great question, Byron. But I doubt that there's any way to answer it definitively. It's akin to the question, if the Lord had not been crucified, would He have died a natural death at some point? I fail to see how speculative questions of this sort can be answered. Also, let's keep in mind that theological speculation is a very risky thing. It is one of the factors that led the Western church into schism and heresy, for instance.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Timothy Richardson]

Just for clarification I think the image to which you refer on the bottom piece of the "Isenheim" altarpiece is post crucifixion, the taking down from the cross. However the connection of this image to the sufferings of the plague is clear.

If Jesus was not susceptible to illness would he therefore have possessed some sort of "unatural" physical body? Wouldn't this be a form of Docetism?

[Sandra June Hofstead]

If this altarpiece is the one I believe you are describing then it is a paradigm of depicting Christ on the cross wasting away and in excruciating agony. It truly is horrific as was the condition of those who lie dying in the hospice where it was displayed. This image does indeed seem to suggest as Fr. Raphael said that Christ was their companion in suffering and death. Orthodox icons of the crucifixion reveal Christ as "King of Glory" submitting humbly to His death "as one asleep" peacefully. In the first image Christ is trampled on and overcome by disease and death and in the second He tramples down death by death.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

Thank you for your responses so far. Clearly the question of whether Christ is our companion in suffering and death is richly answered in the affirmative by our entire Tradition and Holy Scripture. This was not my question, however. My question refers specifically to illness, and asks: was the holy Body of our Lord susceptible to illness? Was He ever ill in fact? This point has been augmented by the observations of Timothy:


If Jesus was not susceptible to illness would he therefore have possessed some sort of "unatural" physical body? Wouldn't this be a form of Docetism?

and Mina:


St. Athanasius didn't believe so, which is quite confusing, considering that later Christologians would like it if Christ experience everything human (including corruption) except obviously sin.

(BTW Mina, what is a "Julianist"?). Sr Theopesta seems to suggest that the facts He could suffer and die do suggest that the Lord also took on our propensity towards illness. Does this necessarily follow?

Lastly, brother Alec my question is not speculative. I am not asking "what if" the Lord had been susceptible to illness; I really would like to know: was He? Is this our Orthodox teaching regarding the physical Body of Christ?

In Christ
Byron

[Klod]

Saint Athanasius


§21. Death brought to nought by the death of Christ. Why then did not Christ die privately, or in a more honourable way? He was not subject to natural death, but had to die at the hands of others. Why then did He die? Nay but for that purpose He came, and but for that, He could not have risen.

Why, now that the common Saviour of all has died on our behalf, we, the faithful in Christ, no longer die the death as before, agreeably to the warning of the law; for this condemnation has ceased; but, corruption ceasing and being put away by the grace of the Resurrection, henceforth we are only dissolved, agreeably to our bodies’ mortal nature, at the time God has fixed for each, that we may be able to gain a better resurrection. 2. For like the seeds which are cast into the earth, we do not perish by dissolution, but sown in the earth, shall rise again, death having been brought to nought by the grace of the Saviour. Hence it is that blessed Paul, who was made a surety of the Resurrection to all, says: “This corruptible259 must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality; but when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?” 3. Why, then, one might say, if it were necessary for Him to yield up His body to death in the stead of all, did He not lay it aside as man privately, instead of going as far as even to be crucified? For it were more fitting for Him to have laid His body aside honourably, than ignominiously to endure a death like this. 4. Now, see to it, I reply, whether such an objection be not merely human, whereas what the Saviour did is truly divine and for many reasons worthy of His Godhead. Firstly, because the death which befalls men comes to them agreeably to the weakness of their nature; for, unable to continue in one stay, they are dissolved with time. Hence, too, diseases befall them, and they fall sick and die. But the Lord is not weak, but is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life. 5. If, then, He had laid aside His body somewhere in private, 48and upon a bed, after the manner of men, it would have been thought that He also did this agreeably to the weakness of His nature, and because there was nothing in him more than in other men. But since He was, firstly, the Life and the Word of God, and it was necessary, secondly, for the death on behalf of all to be accomplished, for this cause, on the one hand, because He was life and power, the body gained strength in Him; 6. while on the other, as death must needs come to pass, He did not Himself take, but received at others’ hands; the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice. Since it was not fit, either, that the Lord should fall sick, who healed the diseases of others; nor again was it right for that body to lose its strength, in which He gives strength to the weaknesses of others also. 7. Why, then, did He not prevent death, as He did sickness? Because it was for this that He had the body, and it was unfitting to prevent it, lest the Resurrection also should be hindered, while yet it was equally unfitting for sickness to precede His death, lest it should be thought weakness on the part of Him that was in the body. Did He not then hunger? Yes; He hungered, agreeably to the properties of His body. But He did not perish of hunger, because of the Lord that wore it. Hence, even if He died to ransom all, yet He saw not corruption. For [His body] rose again in perfect soundness, since the body belonged to none other, but to the very Life.

[Theopesta]

dear byron and al venerable fathers and brothers:

as I understand, the sensation of suferring mean complete normal human body, also, senation with pain and bleeding is things releated to the propensity to illness. If HE could bleeded HE also, might had common cold as any man. this mean complete body with its complete physical properties. the divinity did not prevent any thing of normal complete perfect human nature' propensities save the sin because HIS Holiness. I will be very grateful to every correction

I find some texts releted to this issue in:

JOHN OF DAMASCUS: AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, BOOK III

1- CHAPTER XXVIII.Concerning Corruption and Destruction.

The word corruption has two meanings. For it signifies all the human sufferings, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, the piercing with nails, death,

But corruption means also the complete resolution of the body into its constituent elements, and its utter disappearance, which is spoken of by many preferably as destruction. The body of our Lord did not experience this form of corruption

Wherefore to say, with that foolish Julianus and Gaianus, that our Lord's body was incorruptible, in the first sense of the word, before His resurrection is impious. For if it were incorruptible it was not really, but only apparently,

But if they only apparently happened, then the mystery of the dispensation is an imposture and a sham, and He became man only in appearance, and not in actual fact, and we are saved only in appearance, and not in actual fact

we confess that our Lord's body is incorruptible, that is, indestructible, for such is the tradition of the inspired Fathers. Indeed, after the resurrection of our Saviour from the dead, we say that our Lord's body is incorruptible even in the first sense of the word. For our Lord by His own body bestowed the gifts both of resurrection and of subsequent incorruption even on our own body, He Himself having become to us the firstfruits both of resurrection and incorruption, and of passionlessness

2- Concerning the properties of the two Natures. CHAPTER XIII.

we hold that the same -- CHRIST has all the attributes of the Father save that of being ingenerate, and all the attributes of the first Adam, save only his sin, these attributes being body and the intelligent and rational soul; and further that He has, corresponding to the two natures

I will enjoyed to know more patristic texts about this item

p.s. merry chrismas to all of you, coptics will celebrate with feast of nativity in 7 Jan.
IN ONE CHRIST

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

Strictly speaking I think the question is wrongly worded. Christ is not susceptible to anything (I'm using the dictionary definition of susceptible). Christ although He has adopted human nature with its blameless passions (hunger, thirst, and I would take it illness) accepts these only by will; in other words He is not susceptible to the blameless passions in the same way we are; ie not by choice.

This is why trying to follow from what apparently St Athansius said about Christ not suffering from illness I would say that He allowed Himself to suffer the full effects of the cause of illness which is death at His passion and resurrection.

There are two crucial points here: 1)Christ's work among us is purposeful and it is through His passion and resurrection that sin whose fruit includes illness and death is defeated.
In other words Christ's purpose is to defeat the ultimate disease which is sin and not only its symptom which is illness and death.

2) Christ is never a victim. This would make Him into a companion on our way of suffering. Rather Christ is the Victor over death.

This is perhaps why Christ's particular way of working was to cure illness miraculously among us as a sign of how in Him we could overcome death.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

Byron,

While there is a relationship between the fall and susceptibility to illness, there is not necessarily a direct relationship between sinning and illness. IOW, illness is one of the general conditions of corruption to which we and all of creation are subject as a result of the fall. Just because our Lord was "sinless" does not imply that neither was he subject to the effects of corruption. In fact, if He were not subject to corruption then He also would not have suffered as He did at the hands of men for even the stones and the reeds with which He was beaten and the thorns with which He was crowned would not have hurt Him. In His incarnation, He took on a body such as we have and so was subject, like us all, to the effects of corruption. He may well have been ill (or not) during His life on earth, but noone really speaks of it that I know since it is not considered to be an important point in the process of our Lord's earthly life. The Orthodox teaching about the body is that our Lord suffered as we do, that He shared our pain, our susceptibility to injury and even disease - but whether he actually got sick is not addressed - and He even shared our condemnation to death.

Fr David Moser

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Timothy,

I've always wondered the same. Here's an interesting quote from St. Athanasius to confirm what I said earlier:


"Well then," some people may say, "if the essential thing was that He should surrender His body to death in place of all, why did He not do so as Man privately, without going to the length of public crucifixion? Surely it would have been more suitable for Him to have laid aside His body with honor than to endure so shameful a death." But look at this argument closely, and see how merely human it is, whereas what the Savior did was truly divine and worthy of His Godhead for several reasons. The first is this. The death of men under ordinary circumstances is the result of their natural weakness. They are essentially impermanent, so after a time they fall ill and when worn out they die. But the Lord is not like that. He is not weak, He is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life Itself. If He had died quietly in His bed like other men it would have looked as if He did so in accordance with His nature, and as though He was indeed no more than other men. But because He was Himself Word and Life and Power His body was made strong, and because the death had to be accomplished, He took the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice not from Himself, but from others. How could He fall sick, Who had healed others? Or how could that body weaken and fail by means of which others are made strong? Here, again, you may say, "Why did He not prevent death, as He did sickness?" Because it was precisely in order to be able to die that He had taken a body, and to prevent the death would have been to impede the resurrection. And as to the unsuitability of sickness for His body, as arguing weakness, you may say, "Did He then not hunger?" Yes, He hungered, because that was the property of His body, but He did not die of hunger because He Whose body hungered was the Lord. Similarly, though He died to ransom all, He did not see corruption. His body rose in perfect soundness, for it was the body of none other than the Life Himself.
--Chapter 4, Part 21, Verses 3-7

This is what confuses me. Logically, today, we would believe that perhaps Christ did submit to illnesses, but St. Athanasius clearly doesn't believe in that. Would that be a form of docetism? I don't know what to say, but no one ever accused St. Athanasius of such. Without this quote, one might be quick to say "Yes," but I think docetism is much more complicated than that.

Dear Byron,

Julianist is similar to docetism (it's actually called "aphthartodocetism"...sorry if I spelled that incorrectly), where Christ assumed an unfallen human nature not susceptible to illness or death. Emperor Justinian also believed in this before he died. There is a debate as to whether this belief is wrong or not, considering that St. Athanasius seems to say the same thing. People accused of Julian for saying that Christ trully didn't die or suffer, but it seems that Julian apparently did believe that Christ truly did die and suffer. Julian, btw, was a non-Chalcedonian, and the non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox) Church did condemn him and took the Severian view of a fallen human nature of Christ.

More info can be read here:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc06/htm/iii.lix.x.htm

God bless.

Mina

[Timothy Richardson]

The quote from Athanasius seems to focus on sickness that leads to death in order to explain why Christ submitted to death on the cross and to answer the question "Why then did not Christ die privately, or in a more honourable way?"

Would Athanasius have a different opinion on sickness that leads to suffering?

[Moses Anthony]

Dear All,

I mean no disrespect to any who may have an interest in the present discussion; however, I do believe it to be a moot point in the light of the profession of faith, as held by those of us who are of the Orthodox persuasion. For the Scriptures to say that "...He became in all things as we are...", means just that. To subscribe to Jesus some type of humanity foreign to that of whom He became like for the purpose of salvation, would among other things, negate the reality of the "Temptations In The Wilderness". For here we learn that apart from any display of divine power, human flesh could overcome the destroyer of souls, by co-operating with Divinity.

Whether or not Jesus ever became ill, had ear infections as a child, had rubellah, is not relevant to us. We do know that He tired, was thirsty, hungered, and could bleed. The sermons of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of John, I believe sheds some light on this current discussion, although not particularly about the same.

"...Therefore that we may know how it amazes them, let us preserve deep silence, both external and mental, but especially the latter; for what advantage is it that the mouth be hushed, if the soul is disturbed and full of tossing? I look for that calm which is of the mind, of the soul, since it is the hearing soul which I require. Let then no desire of riches trouble us, no lust of glory, no tyranny of anger, nor the crowd of other passions besides these; for is not possible for the ear, except it be cleansed, to perceive as it ought the sublimity o9f the things spoken; nor rightly to understand the awful and unutterable nature of these mysteries, and all other virtue which is in these divine oracles. If a man cannot learn well a melody on pipe or harp, unless he in every way strain his attention; how shall one, who sits as a listener to sounds mystical, be able to hear with a careless soul?

As I said, I do not mean to offend anyone; but, in light of that which we believe, the discussion seems to be pointless!

a sinful and unworthy servant

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

St Athanasius seems to be clearly stating that the Lord prevented sickness from happening to Him during his earthly life; Athanasius seems to be saying the following in the above quote:

1. Since Christ healed the diseases of others, "it was not fit" that He should fall sick; this Athanasius applies not only to illness in Christ, but also to weakness. (But whatever happened to "what has not been assumed, has not been healed?"...)

2. It may be thought of as "weakness" for Christ to fall ill, so He had to die without ever having fallen ill (but doesn't this apply to suffering also, i.e. couldn't some see suffering as weakness? And if He chose to fall ill voluntarily, as He chose to suffer, then why is it "weakness"? And why should Christ care if some take illness for "weakness" (OK, I can see that may lead some astray in their theology, but that can be said for any part of the Lord's life, since misinterpretation is a human weakness)?).

3. "He saw not corruption, for [His body] rose again in perfect soundness, since ...belonged to very Life". I'm confused by this last statement, "He saw not corruption"; is that before or after His Resurrection? If the answer is "not before, not after", then how is the Body He assumed a human body like any other? And if we have bodies which [I]are liable to corruptibility (in the sense of illness, aging and decay), then can we expect them to continue to be corruptible after the General Resurrection?

If these questions sound "pointless", as one member has suggested, forgive me. Obviously I am not trying to doubt the writings of St Athanasius (!), just asking help from others in order to understand them...

In Christ
Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

From today's Epistle reading (New Calendar, 29 December):


Therefore he had to be made like his
brethren in every respect, so that he might
become a merciful and faithful high priest in
the service of God, to make expiation for the
sins of the people. For because he himself
has suffered and been tempted, he is able to
help those who are tempted.

From St Pauls letter to the Hebrews. I put in bold the words which seem to me particularly important wrt this debate...I don't know if I'm doing a little bit of "private interpretation" here, just offering food for thought.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

In Christ
Byron

[Klod]

There is rightly pointed out that from Scripture that He became in all things as we are. But, then, we ought to understand, of course, that He was like us in every thing, except sin (and what is related to it, causes and results). Christ was the Second Adam. He didnt inherit the fallen nature.


Was Adam like us in every thing, as we are today?



Therefore, I agree with Athanasius, that Christ could voluntarily take illness, as He did take death, if necessary (for salvation of humanity), but He wasnt subjected to it by weakness in a passive way as we fallen humans are.


Moreover, Christ is (I cannot find the english word) a Unic case in Human history, so that we cannot and do not need to know in detail the manner of the co-existence of His Union, divine Hypostasis with Human flesh and soul.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Klod wrote:


He didnt inherit the fallen nature

Can you say a bit more about that, Klod? Also is taking on "everything except sin", the same as taking on "everything except sin, and its causes and consequences"? Then what about temptation, suffering and death?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Because Christ assumed human nature does not mean that He acts through this human nature as we do. This is because Christ is also pre-eternal God and as such everything accomplished through His human nature is done in cooperation with His Divine will. That is, everything Christ does humanly is done willingly for a divine purpose. This is quite different from us who deal not only with the sinful passions but also with what are called the sinless passions. In other words there is in Christ a freedom from sin and death and their effects which we can only barely strive for in Him.

I feel that we are not grasping what is meant by assuming human nature & His being like us. Christ assumes the fullness of human nature- but as the sinless Word of God. He has an awareness of sin and its effects which obviously goes beyond intellectual knowledge- and yet He is not sullied by this knowledge; He knows what demonic activity is- and yet He is never touched by this in an evil way; He sorrows for fallen man- and yet He knows that He will raise man also.

The fact of Christ's assuming human nature is the necessary bridge or hand stretched out to us so that we can attain salvation. But the way in which Christ assumes this nature is not identical to us right now; His humanity is not only a sign of the New Adam, of Adam restored in Paradise. Specifically His human nature reveals God the Word. That is why St Athanasius would refer to Christ not suffering from illness. Christ came to cure us of illness just as He came to cure us of demonic activity and He did this as Master of life.

Christ in assuming human nature experiences the effects of the fall without being ontologically changed by this. This is what both makes Him one of us but vitally also at the same time something different from us. We need both of these things at once for our salvation.

Ultimately the specific way in which Christ meets us through assuming our human nature is a great mystery. But it is a mystery we are not only allowed to seek with mind and heart- we are even called to seek this as were the shepherds and wise men. Having reached the point beyond which mind and heart cannot understand we also are called to stand in worshipful contemplation of this mystery. For what other aspect of God's dispensation could touch us so intimately than the way He chooses to come into our midst?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alec Lowly]

Byron asks Klod:

"Can you say a bit more about that, Klod? Also is taking on "everything except sin", the same as taking on "everything except sin, and its causes and consequences"? Then what about temptation, suffering and death?"

Great question, Byron. I've always wondered, Christ being who He was, how He could be "tempted" as we are tempted -- never mind "without sin," because that I understand.

Doesn't temptation somehow imply some susceptibility?

To use a dumb example: One cannot tempt the virtue of a blind man by having a beautiful woman, in complete silence, disrobe in front of him.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Moses Anthony]

Dear All,

The musing which began the current discussion was whether or not Christ ever became ill, caught a cold, etc., since He became like us in every respect, except for sin. Even the latest evolution of this query is -correct me if I'm wrong- one which the Church Fathers debated. Now, not every Orthodox apologist has concured on each and every point; but, answers have been given to the Church on the matters "of faith and practice." This is why I say the "discussion is pointless", not because of the incredulity of the query, but because in the matter of our salvation it is a given (moot point).

we're told from Scripture that "...He bore our sickness, and carried our shame...",and that "...by His stripes we are healed..." We can even learn from the destroyer of souls comment in his mis-application of Holy Writ, "...For it is written His angels will bear you up lest you strike your foot against a stone." I don't know about the rest of you; but, every time I've struck my foot against a stone, it has hurt. As Klod has said, "Christ is a unique case in human history,so that we cannot, and do not need to know in detail, the manner of the co-existence of His union...with human flesh and soul." Again which is why I've said it's "pointless." I can see however the necessity of an answer if one is constructing a theology around what Protestants call "faith healing."

But as to the resurrection of the body, what does the Holy Apostle Paul say, "...sown in corruption, it is raised on incorruption." As a child working in the family garden back in Virginia, we'd sow a kernal to get a stalk of corn, a seed to get a melon, and so forth. The body is intered in corruption, and raised by the power of God in incorruption. So we see that even here as in a glass darkly, the union of the divine and human, for while we're in this body of death, because of the Redemption of Christ, through the work of the Holy Spirit, we have a new nature, ...the old has passed away, all things have become new. The old nature we inherited from Adam was one of death, but as the Apostle wrote, ...but if we are identified with Christ in the likeness of His death, so shall we also be, in the likeness of his resurrection...raised by the power of God to walk in newness of life..."

To repeat what I said in the earlier post, "To subscribe to Jesus some form of humanity foreign to that of whom He became for the purpose of salvation, would negate the reality of the temptations in the wilderness."

As the Preacher in Ecclesiastes wrote, "...there is nothing new under the sun..."

a sinful and unworthy servant

[Mina Soliman]

Dear James,

I tend to disagree with you for a simple reason. The Orthodox Church, whether she be Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian, seems to fully condemn any "inkling" of docetism. So, recent theologians find it necessary to say that Christ in addition to suffering and temptations also bore our propensities to illness. Now, I haven't found anyone to disagree with St. Athanasius thus far. But given the fact that in some way that if Christ "cannot" bear illnesses would mean that perhaps His humanity was not like our humanity, that His suffering and temptations may not be real. Alec Lowly makes a good point by his analogy tempting a blind man by making him see something.

I do not wish to call St. Athanasius a heretic (I love him very dearly). Actually, quite the opposite, I wish the Church was much more clear on these matters. When I look into Julian's arguments, for example, they seem very close to those of St. Athanasius, and that's what's bothering me. So the question is more than just whether Christ can be sick or not?

I agree with Fr. Raphael on his post very much. I think it's important to understand that as long as a theologian can truly believe that Christ did suffer, die, and rise from the dead on the third day by His own power, then we should not think of anything as docetism. What is important is that Christ is not split into two, but He is one person, that of the Logos, who chooses to submit to corruption, even though by union with the Logos, His humanity is unfallen and incorrupt. He submitted to mortality and corruption by His own will, and submitted fully to humanity, emptying Himself, so that even by His own human free will, He can conquer temptation, for He was truly tempted. (I think this is what, funny as it seems to me, Julian believed as well. I haven't delved into Justinian the emperor however.)

So if we can go back to Alec's analogy, perhaps Christ represents this "blind man," but by His own power, opened His eyes, and was able to conquer anything in His path, temptation, suffering, and even death.

God bless.

Mina

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael,

You wrote:


I would say that Christ was 'aware' of illness through His humanity but chose to submit to it fully in the broader sense at His passion so that its real cause which is death could be defeated through His resurrection.

I have been thinking about the phrasing of this sentence. You identify the cause of illness as death; this is of course opposite to the logical understanding that the cause of death may be illness. It is, in the Christian view, death which precedes illness, the death we inherited as the awful wages of sin. In this sense, if I understood you correctly, Christ does not allow Himself to become ill at any point during His life, because He knows His mission is to defeat the very cause of illness itself: death. His various healings are perhaps signs of the one great healing that is to take place once for all on the Cross: Life ultimately defeating death, and therefore also all illness, decay, aging, wounding and suffering in general. This may be "Christianity 101", but it's useful to remember at times when the power of death and sin seem so ineradicable.

Just as the mode by which the Divine Logos is made flesh in the person of Christ is a mystery, the precise link between spiritual and physical illness is also obscure. Could this be why the Gospel is silent on Christ and physical illness?

I'm confused. Christ has two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. Some now seem to be suggesting that Christ took on all aspects of our humanity, except for sin; others seem to say that He never assumed illness. Which is it? If by taking on illness Christ would have made Himself subject to the power of death, does the same not apply to His voluntary suffering, His physical bleeding, and His having been tempted, even if only at the level of external provocation?

From an online Orthodox Catechism:


We must state here in very simple terms that although the Son and Word of God became Perfect Man, He became truly perfect, which means He became man without sin, just as Adam and Eve were originally created as sinless beings. Christ has no connection with sin, which entered man through the intervention of Satan.

Although the Son and Word of God became man and is God-man, His two natures remain distinct. One does not absorb the other. The two natures are distinct and separate, united in the same person, Christ. He is "dual in nature, but one person." Two natures, one person.

His human nature united with His divine nature becomes itself divinized, without, of course, passing beyond its limits or ceasing to be human. In this way, united with Christ we become divine in the moral sense and are saved. Our human nature becomes divine, without, of course, it being altered, or participating in the divine nature.

Keeping the above in mind, and in particular that the divine nature remains unchanged, we understand why the Virgin Mary is called Mother of God. She truly gave birth to God. How could this be? Only through a miracle. "Whenever God wills, He overthrows the order of nature."

So Christ's human body was the perfect body of our ancestors before the Fall. But what then, was the suffering on the Cross? Only apparent?

Note: I'm also confused by the above sentence:


united with Christ we become divine in the moral sense and are saved.

Does this mean we do not become "partakers of the Divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4), but only moral imitators?

Also, (sorry about all the questions), is the sentence


The two natures are distinct and separate, united in the same person, Christ.

not going against the Chalcedonian definition?

In Christ
Byron

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Nina,

Everything I've said, EVERYTHING, was said in the belief that Jesus, the anointed of God, was in every way a full human being, who at the same time was as St. John wrote, "...the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

In His humanity in the Wilderness, Jesus was tempted. In His humanity, He overcame those temptations, not by a display of His inherent divine power, but by the same method you and I overcome temptations: He submitted to, i.e., He co-operated with in His humanity, the will of God.

Whether or not as Fr. Raphael says I grasp the scope of His assuming human nature, or His being like us, as long as I have breath, you will not hear me say, insinuate, or allude to Jesus not being fully human.

I had thought that I was perfectly clear in my beliefs about this. This is probably a good time for me to tie my hands.

a sinful and unworthy servant

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

You wrote


I have been thinking about the phrasing of this sentence. You identify the cause of illness as death; this is of course opposite to the logical understanding that the cause of death may be illness. It is, in the Christian view, death which precedes illness, the death we inherited as the awful wages of sin.

Yes it's very striking how our Christian perspective reverses the way in which we often think- instead of illness- death we have sin-death-illness. As you say illness is a manifestation of the force of sin & death.


In this sense, if I understood you correctly, Christ does not allow Himself to become ill at any point during His life, because He knows His mission is to defeat the very cause of illness itself: death. His various healings are perhaps signs of the one great healing that is to take place once for all on the Cross: Life ultimately defeating death, and therefore also all illness, decay, aging, wounding and suffering in general. This may be "Christianity 101", but it's useful to remember at times when the power of death and sin seem so ineradicable.

Yes- this idea is expressed in St Athanasius' On the Incarnation where it is stressed how Christ is the Victor of Life over death and of how this is accomplished in a particular way. I think you have expressed this 'way' wonderfully clearly. Christ waited for the opportune time to defeat the real enemy of man which is death- at His passion and resurrection.

Another point here is that Christ's 'way' of defeating death also is didactic- ie it shows us there is only one real enemy whereas we in our suffering might tend to spread the blame around- illness, suffering, trials, etc. blaming exactly the wrong thing.


Just as the mode by which the Divine Logos is made flesh in the person of Christ is a mystery, the precise link between spiritual and physical illness is also obscure. Could this be why the Gospel is silent on Christ and physical illness?

I think the Scripture clearly shows that the relationship between spiritual and physical illness is that of sin. That is why Christ as the Victor over death and sin throughout the Gospels is shown healing illness as a sign of the greater healing from death.

In a way the silence of the Gospels and greater tradition about Christ and illness is explained I think by looking elsewhere; ie at how Christ heals illness through out the Gospels. This is indeed why (at least twice) St Atahansius insists that Christ could not have suffered from illness- because He is the Ultimate Healer.


I'm confused. Christ has two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. Some now seem to be suggesting that Christ took on all aspects of our humanity, except for sin; others seem to say that He never assumed illness. Which is it?

In the most profound sense it is both. Assuming all of our humanity except sin means as I wrote above, "Christ assumes the fullness of human nature- but as the sinless Word of God. He has an awareness of sin and its effects which obviously goes beyond intellectual knowledge- and yet He is not sullied by this knowledge; He knows what demonic activity is- and yet He is never touched by this in an evil way; He sorrows for fallen man- and yet He knows that He will raise man also."

In other words Christ assuming of human nature in its fullness never involves any personal acceptance of sin. Does this mean that His humanity is pre-fall? In a sense yes. But in the sense of what we are talking about it is very important to understand that Christ also shares in our present tragic condition in its fullness but without this involving Him in accepting sin.

This indeed is the starting point of our salvation but it is also a mystery which we cannot fully penetrate except partially through our own life in Christ. Who can understand what it could mean to assume our present condition but without involving oneself in sin? Who can understand what it would mean to submit to death but without being tainted by this- for death is not just a force but the force of sin?

That we cannot make the mental leap between Christ's experience and His not sinning is evident. We want to say that either He did not really share in our condition or else that He succumbed to it (as in the Isenheim crucifixion referred to above). From our perspective what else could sharing be than to succumb to what we have? If He doesn't and hasn't then how has He really shared in our condition?

Well that's the mystery of it. We know that He shares in our condition but without sin and that He shares in our condition in a much more profound way than we who are sinners can with each other. What can we say of this? This can only mean that Christ's sharing refers to His understanding of the real cause of our suffering and also to its real healing. In a way then seeing Christ in a clear way- having a true christology- is a matter of seeing what the true illness and healing are.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: Please forgive if I am slow getting to the rest of your post. We're just beginning to get into a very busy time of the year feast-wise in this part of the world!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Byron, Fr Raphael, Mina, Alec and others,

Perhaps one of the things to keep in mind in this discussion is the question of what constitutes what we are as humans, versus/as related to what we experience as humans on account of sin -- sin that the Church teaches is not a 'natural' part of our being, but something extraneous that has been made so 'second-nature' that it seems more close and familiar than what is truly natural. A temptation is to see everything that we experience as humans in this world, as constitutive of what 'being human' means; but by this reasoning, sin itself would be considered part of human nature, since it is experienced by all. Nonetheless, the Church clearly teaches otherwise. So one must then ask, how much of what is experienced is experienced because it is the effect of who we are by nature, and how much is experienced because of what has become the interior inclination of 'second nature', sin?

This seems a necessary first question, before turning to the specific issue of something such as illness in the person of Christ. First ask of illness, is this a thing natural, or unnatural to authentic human nature? If unnatural, whence does it come? And is that 'whence' something in which the incarnate Son participates?

I am not attempting to answer that question, with specific reference to illness, in this post -- only to suggest a line of consideration. On that more generally, we need to be careful with our (authentic, good) confessions, following Hebrews, that Christ 'is like us in all ways, save sin'. To be like us in all ways is read by the fathers as indicating his full humanity: he is fully human, he possesses a full and true human nature, as do we. But to be 'like us in all ways' clearly does not mean that he experiences all things as we do, which is how the statement is too often read. Christ does not experience the world 'exactly like me' (as I once heard it said): he does not engage with sin in the manner that, for us, is so much a custom and habitude that it often seems as 'normal' and 'human' as breathing or eating.

INXC, Matthew

[Timothy Richardson]

Dear MC Steenberg,

Would it help to ask the question: "Why was Jesus not subject to sin?" Was it because although he possessed a human and a divine will, the human will was perfectly subjected to the divine will? Maybe "subjected" is not the right word. Was it because his human will acted in perfect concert with the divine will? What I'm trying to get at here with this question is the fact that all sin boils down to a personal and a willful turning away from God. This was not possible for the Son of God. And so he was like us in all ways, save sin.

Tim

[Alec Lowly]

Tim writes:

"What I'm trying to get at here with this question is the fact that all sin boils down to a personal and a willful turning away from God. This was not possible for the Son of God. And so he was like us in all ways, save sin."

Hmm. If Christ was ~unable~ to sin, then how was He truly human? Adam, the perfect man before the fall, was ~able~ to sin, and thus he fell. It seems to me that Christ was like us in being able to sin -- except that He did not sin.

Can anyone shed more light?

In XC,
Alec, sinner

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Alec,

There seems to be no definite answer to your question. We can at best say that Christ had human free will to choose between good and evil, and always chose good. But then we ask whether Christ bore all corruption, including corrupt will, which is, like St. Maximus' definition of "gnomic will," the inclination to sin. St. Maximus believed that Christ did not have that inclination, yet one can argue and ask whether it's okay to say that Christ also bore that inclination, yet not sinned.

Dear Matthew,

I think St. Athanasius answers it best imho. Corruption IS natural even without sin. Corruption perhaps should include illness, weakness, and pain. Sinning is perhaps unique to the human condition. I don't believe animals can sin, for they have no rationality to choose between good and evil. They are corrupt, just as all creation is corrupt, since we were created out of nothing.

Now, God gave us the grace of incorruption, and we have transcended above our own nature by grace. We alone as humans were given this grace. When we disobeyed God, naturally, His grace left us, and we could no longer be in Paradise, and instead joined the corrupt world with all the other animals. Thus, we are naturally incorrupt.

Now is sin part of corruption? Perhaps, since we are unique, we can say sin is beyond corruption, worse than defilement. Animals can't sin. But then again, some fathers affirm that corrupt is sin. I've learned my whole life that "Original Sin" is another way of saying "Corrupt Nature," although it seems to mean otherwise, perhaps specifically the will.

One cannot help but ask regardless of whether Christ was born wiith or submitted to a corrupt will, illness should be "natural" to a graceless man. Since Christ emptied Himself even though He is the source of grace, and humbly by his own will and power "submitted" to corruption and mortality, i.e. what is natural to any human, then why can't Christ not be ill, considering that it was Christ's personal submission to illness, and not something natural in Christ's person as a whole?

God bless.

Mina

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mina,

Much of what you have written above seems to present many problems it almost seems to me to be an unintentional mutation from the Pelagians, I'm not sure yet. I think there is a very definite answer in Orthodox thought. The hypostatic union emphasizes that Christ has two natures; one fully divine and one fully human. I don't know how our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ could effectuate the salvation of the entire man without having the possibility of sin. To say that He could not sin or did not have that inclination is to restrict salvation if not negate it entirely, to me it places in doubt the entire economy of our salvation by Christ. I suppose the root of this is that Christ the new Adam redeemed the entire man. I have not read all of Saint Maximus' works but I suspect he might have been looking at from the perspecitve that even the inclination of sin is a sin, hence Christ could not have had the inclination. I'm not sure having not read the context.

It seems to me that the idea of corruption being natural even without sin is to suggest that Adam before the fall had been created by the Lord God either in a corrupt state or perhaps you are meaning corrupt material such as dust. But we know that good things are nurtured in good soil and God whose Spirit is life creating created the good soil and the good man in His image and likeness. I don't believe that when Adam disobeyed God, naturally, His grace left us. If God's grace left a person would he still have his soul and the breath of life in his body? "O Heavenly King, comforter, the Spirit of truth, who art everywhere and fillest all things, the treasury of blessings and giver of life, come and abide in us." From what I understand when Adam disobeyed God that relationship was disrupted, one could not even say that it was severed for man has free will and the God given grace to pray as we can read throughout the OT. Adams spiritual abilities had not been completely cut off he was not bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth while the wedding garment was being woven. Since the Lord God said you will die through disobedience to His one commandment then we can deduce that corruption was not part of the infant natural states of Adam and Eve. The implication that Paradise was a place of corruption prior to the fall and that the animals had been corrupt would mean that Paradise was not Paradise or a Paradise of the naturally corrupt. When Adam fell so did all of creation for sin which was not part of creation had entered creation. As such animals had not been corrupt, just as all creation was not corrupt, after Adam was created out of God's good and life creating Spirit just like all men.


God didn't create man a little lower than the Angels to die and in a mortal state, clearly God who is love did not create disobedient bodies or souls. When the body followed the soul, the unnatural separation brought about by sin was death there is nothing natural about it. The wages of sin is death, the love of God is good and Holy and so is mans nature when he is obedient. I think that when most people see a dead body our souls recognize that there is something terrible and not natural with death.



In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Posted by Byron on Dec 30, 2005:
From an online Orthodox Catechism:


We must state here in very simple terms that although the Son and Word of God became Perfect Man, He became truly perfect, which means He became man without sin, just as Adam and Eve were originally created as sinless beings. Christ has no connection with sin, which entered man through the intervention of Satan.

Although the Son and Word of God became man and is God-man, His two natures remain distinct. One does not absorb the other. The two natures are distinct and separate, united in the same person, Christ. He is "dual in nature, but one person." Two natures, one person.

His human nature united with His divine nature becomes itself divinized, without, of course, passing beyond its limits or ceasing to be human. In this way, united with Christ we become divine in the moral sense and are saved. Our human nature becomes divine, without, of course, it being altered, or participating in the divine nature.

Keeping the above in mind, and in particular that the divine nature remains unchanged, we understand why the Virgin Mary is called Mother of God. She truly gave birth to God. How could this be? Only through a miracle. "Whenever God wills, He overthrows the order of nature."

So Christ's human body was the perfect body of our ancestors before the Fall. But what then, was the suffering on the Cross? Only apparent?

Note: I'm also confused by the above sentence:

Quotation:

united with Christ we become divine in the moral sense and are saved.

Does this mean we do not become "partakers of the Divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4), but only moral imitators?

Also, (sorry about all the questions), is the sentence

It is very difficult to express oneself theologically without stressing one aspect of things: it can easily seem then that something important or essential is left out although in the total context this is not so. Perhaps that partly explains the above Catechism- but still just given the words above I am not satisfied with the way this Catechism is expressed.

First of all Christ's humanity does manifest the effects of the Fall: He hungers, thirsts, & fears death none of which Adam experienced. But in total cooperation with His divine will these things are given divine purpose or divinised.

As you suggest Christ's suffering on the Cross was entirely real. He is the New Adam but in the sense that through Him cries out the Old Adam who fell and suffers from death and seeks & finds deliverance from this.

Certainly we are called to be partakers of the Divine nature & not just moral imitators. This is the essence of our calling and what Christ offers which is Himself to us. Of course by this we do not mean that we become equal to God in nature- perhaps this is what the author of the Catechism is trying to protect us from thinking. But still- as I believe Matthew S has pointed out before & I believe him to be correct-God does share His nature with us through His uncreated energies.


The two natures are distinct and separate, united in the same person, Christ.

The translation of the definition of Chalcedon I am using says about Christ the He is, "recognised in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation."

Maybe the author is trying to stress Christ's two distinct natures but the use of the word separate seems so clearly wrong...has this been translated from another language perhaps and something was lost in translation?

I recently came across an article by Met Hierotheos Vlachos titled The Incarnation as Independent of the Fall. This is found in the book The Feasts of the Lord. Given the theme and author it was natural to begin reading this article with eager anticipation. What a disappointment to discover that amidst the rest of what is a wonderful book this one article is so badly and sloppily translated that one has a hard time following the main point. When this is done in a published book there is some sort of permanency to this since one can't just run out and find corrections. You're left with the book in hand and with something very frustrating and even irresponsible since we are talking about presenting the word of God to people.

Well that's one good thing about the internet- we can keep changing what we wrote- a never-ending-work-in-process. It's even more true to life in a way!http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear All,

The plot thickens!

Matthew, thank you for making that very important and intelligent point about 'second nature'. I say "intelligent", not only because it was a new dimension to the debate, but also because so often the obvious eludes me, and I am grateful when someone is able to point it out. I experienced a moment of clarity after reading your post, but alas, Mina's latest post (which is also very astute) has thrown me back into a perplexed state. I am beginning to think that, just as the true human nature of Christ is a mystery (referring to Fr Raphael's post #869), our own true human nature is also a mystery. What is our original nature, the one God gave us at the creation? We seem to be unsure, at least where any detail is involved. We just know it was in communion with God. Is this the human nature Christ assumed in the Incarnation? Yes, and no - since He really somehow participated in our experience, without being soiled by it. Verily we now see through a glass darkly! It's a daring - and probably wrong - conclusion, but ought we in the light of this perhaps to be a little more reserved in passing judgment on what is and isn't sin? Of course we have the Ten Commandments, the Lord's commandment and the "eight thoughts" of the Fathers, but can we ever really be sure we know what took place just then, when we or someone else seemed to have sinned?

In Christ
Byron

[Alec Lowly]

"What a disappointment to discover that amidst the rest of what is a wonderful book this one article is so badly and sloppily translated that one has a hard time following the main point. When this is done in a published book there is some sort of permanency to this since one can't just run out and find corrections. You're left with the book in hand and with something very frustrating and even irresponsible since we are talking about presenting the word of God to people."

Sadly, Father, I find that this is true of every book by Metropoltan Hierotheos I've tried to read. For instance, "Orthodox Psychotherapy" is so dreadful a translation that I frequently can make neither head nor tail of it.

[Timothy Richardson]

From the prayer of the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great "...Having cleansed us with water and having sanctified us with the Holy Spirit, He surrendered Himself as a ransom to death by which we were held captive,having been sold into bondage under sin. Descending by the Cross into the realm of Death that He might fulfill all things through Himself, He loosed the bonds of Death. Because it was impossible that the Author of Life should be the victim of corruption, He rose on the third day, preparing the way for the resurrection of all flesh from the dead. He thus became the first-fruits of the harvest of the departed, the first-born of the dead, that in all things He might have pre-eminence over all..."

How should we understand, "Because it was impossible that the Author of Life should be the victim of corruption" in this context?

[Daniel Jeandet]

The first humans were always going to change, but that didnt have to mean corruption. My opinion, (for today) is that what we call corruption is the tendency to narrow down the possibilities for change, and to try to direct the changes we undergo according to our own understanding.

The devil decieved and misdirected our ancestors, and once this narrowing of human nature began, it became a narrowing of space and time also, resulting in the need for technology (the developement of survival techniques) and the reality of time and history, things that seem to be fixed and unchanging, but only appear that way through the narrowness of our vision, the "Godlike" knowledge of good and evil. So this absurd narrowing of Gods image becomes ancestral due to the limitations iit imposes not just on our souls but also on our bodies and environment.

I dont think its right to say that nature is totally corrupt, its like a story that was never meant to have a plot, a beginning, a middle, or end, or actors, effects, audience etc. Everybody gets to make it up as they go along, but thier ability to affect change within the story is narrowed, almost down to ourslves alone. So as Christians, we avoid this playacting and try to see the creation being made, instead of painting it as a corpse and stop acting like something turns into nothing. The story remains the same and we can only recieve it in this way, Glory to God.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Byron wrote:


our own true human nature is also a mystery

This probably needs saying time and again; it's all too easy to forget.

The question of 'corruption' and 'incorruption' is not wholly straightforward. Mina raises some good points in this regard in his post above; but there are varying ways in which these terms are used, sometimes even within the vocabulary of a single writer. In one sense, all creation is 'corruptible' by very fact of being created, since what is created has come into being and thus is liable to pass out of being. In this sense, humans are 'corrupt by nature' -- and in this sense so also Christ is 'corrupt', since he took human created nature as his own, lived and died. But there is also a sense in which 'incorruptibility' is inherently the possession of man, since God fashioned this creature for eternity through union with himself. The human person is the incorruptible corruptible, that which is finite, thrust into eternity.

In both of these senses, though different in focus, the terms corruption/incorruption apply primarily to dissolution, or disintegration. There is also a context of mutation or defamation in which the terms can have a place: a thing or being is 'made corrupt' through corrupting acts. In this sense, the terms certainly apply to humanity as experienced in Adam, but not to Christ, as Christ did not sin -- i.e. he engaged in no 'corrupting acts' by which this might come about.

INXC, Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Matthew,

Your Quote:


"In one sense, all creation is 'corruptible' by very fact of being created, since what is created has come into being and thus is liable to pass out of being. In this sense, humans are 'corrupt by nature' -- and in this sense so also Christ is 'corrupt', since he took human created nature as his own, lived and died."

In your first illustration applying the corrupt term to nature and even in that sense Christ

It seems to me that a created nature that is created to be truthful is not liable to pass out of being in whole or part as long as it remains truthful of its' own volition. I think in this way all living things with a free will namely man is different from the rest of creation by means of a living unique and personal soul, common to all of humanity. Since Gods' word is truth would not the breath of life transmit attributes into a created being that would be in a sense incorrupt by nature. Would Adam not have been sanctified by His truth. Would that not migrate into the begotten Son of God when the word became flesh? Was not Adams nature to worship God in Spirit and in Truth albeit in accordance with his development in that realm. It seems to me now that Christ didn't die because of or for what has been called 'corrupt by nature' pre-fall created status, but rather to redeem fallen Adam whose sin altered our created nature, man corrupted by his actions as you have mentioned. As such I'm not comfortable hearing what you have articulated in the sense you have mentioned humans are 'corrupt by nature' hence Christ is as well since humans are created. Christ remains begotten of the Father before all ages even with the incarnation. After all it is Christ that said I am the way the Truth and the life even while the work was not yet perfect or finished. When the time comes for the dead to hear the voice of the Son of God, God provides us with a means of ascent the Archetypal Ladder. It seems to me that in the Paradise of the old Adam before the fall there was no corrupt created nature it is the effects of the fall that are resolved in the Church of our risen Christ. The difference being the degree of communion as you have mentioned in another thread a while back as well as the necessity of the Theotokas or gate to heaven. In short Jacobs latter was unimpeded but not with as many rungs on it so to speak. Nevertheless, it seems to me that neither had been put in place to pass out of being body or soul even though man was created. The aforementioned sort of thinking is why the notion of also Christ being 'corrupt' in any sense since he took human created nature as his own, lived and died doesn't seem to quite right at all to me.

Of course I could be misunderstanding you or simply wrong in the way I'm thinking usually for me one error leads to any others. I hope I didn't make a mess, I know you have spent many years looking into subjects such as this one hence your scope of understanding is significant and very much appreciated. I look forward to your comments, I know I have tendencies that can produce errors which seem to come from separating things sometimes.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mina Soliman]

HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone.

Dear Timothy,


How should we understand, "Because it was impossible that the Author of Life should be the victim of corruption" in this context?

I agree with this. The difference between us and Christ, and I'm sure this is correct opinion, that we are victims of corruption, while Christ "willingly submitted" to corruption, but is in reality stronger than it destroying its death-bound power in the process. Instead of being afraid of death, we laugh at death for it lost its damning power against us since we are living Christ's life now, as St. Athanasius would say.

Thank you for that quote. Perhaps we're on to something. :-)

Dear Matthew Panchisin,


Much of what you have written above seems to present many problems it almost seems to me to be an unintentional mutation from the Pelagians, I'm not sure yet.

How so? I know that the Pelagians do not believe in a corrupt will, that we can achieve salvation "solely" out of our own free will, and that is all I really know (and the history around it).


The hypostatic union emphasizes that Christ has two natures; one fully divine and one fully human. I don't know how our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ could effectuate the salvation of the entire man without having the possibility of sin. To say that He could not sin or did not have that inclination is to restrict salvation if not negate it entirely, to me it places in doubt the entire economy of our salvation by Christ. I suppose the root of this is that Christ the new Adam redeemed the entire man. I have not read all of Saint Maximus' works but I suspect he might have been looking at from the perspecitve that even the inclination of sin is a sin, hence Christ could not have had the inclination. I'm not sure having not read the context.

I agree. I tend to believe that Christ should have submitted Himself (notice how I used "submitted) to a corrupt will though not victim to it. I believe though, just for a balanced view, that St. Maximus saw the gnomic will as something that makes one fall victim to sin, which is why he probably did not believe in it.


It seems to me that the idea of corruption being natural even without sin is to suggest that Adam before the fall had been created by the Lord God either in a corrupt state or perhaps you are meaning corrupt material such as dust. But we know that good things are nurtured in good soil and God whose Spirit is life creating created the good soil and the good man in His image and likeness.

I agree. Without God, we are corrupting ourselves.


I don't believe that when Adam disobeyed God, naturally, His grace left us. If God's grace left a person would he still have his soul and the breath of life in his body? "O Heavenly King, comforter, the Spirit of truth, who art everywhere and fillest all things, the treasury of blessings and giver of life, come and abide in us." From what I understand when Adam disobeyed God that relationship was disrupted, one could not even say that it was severed for man has free will and the God given grace to pray as we can read throughout the OT. Adams spiritual abilities had not been completely cut off he was not bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth while the wedding garment was being woven. Since the Lord God said you will die through disobedience to His one commandment then we can deduce that corruption was not part of the infant natural states of Adam and Eve.

Forgive me, I probably have worded it wrong. Grace is infinite and fills all. When we sin however, grace cannot work as well as it can work with one who is incorruptible. Grace includes the relationship, which was harmed by the disobedience and eventual corruption of the Image in Adam. It is by this Image that Adam transcended above His nature. Even the angels are naturally corrupt, yet because of the grace of God that fills them, they are, by grace, incorrupt. Only God can be incorrupt by nature, while we are called to be such by grace.


The implication that Paradise was a place of corruption prior to the fall and that the animals had been corrupt would mean that Paradise was not Paradise or a Paradise of the naturally corrupt. When Adam fell so did all of creation for sin which was not part of creation had entered creation. As such animals had not been corrupt, just as all creation was not corrupt, after Adam was created out of God's good and life creating Spirit just like all men.

Not necessarily. First, I will agree with you that Paradise is Paradise of the incorrupt because we are all filled with the grace of incorruption, that state which transcends our own created nature. Second, if you read St. AThanasius' "On the Incarnation," he believed that only man received the grace of incorruption and that only man fell, left Paradise, and joined the corruptible world. When one understands "the fall of the world," it's not this world in the literal sense, but OUR world. When God created man, OUR world was a world of incorruption, a true PARADISE, in communion with the Holy Trinity. These ideas can be found in Chapter one of St. Athanasius' book.


God didn't create man a little lower than the Angels to die and in a mortal state, clearly God who is love did not create disobedient bodies or souls. When the body followed the soul, the unnatural separation brought about by sin was death there is nothing natural about it. The wages of sin is death, the love of God is good and Holy and so is mans nature when he is obedient.

The idea here is that man was created out of nothing by the infinite God. We are "nothing" by nature, but with God, we are "everything." That is why I bolded a part of what you wrote. If we are always united to God, what is corruptible by nature is transcended by partaking of the divine nature. Only man was given this "gift" to have this relationship with the only true Incorruptible One, to be in His likeness. We lost that likeness by the fall, and Christ, the source of the divine Image, came to bring it back to us.


I think that when most people see a dead body our souls recognize that there is something terrible and not natural with death.

I think it depends how you used "natural" in the sentence. Death is natural without God. Everlasting Divine Life is natural with God.

God bless.

Mina

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Matthew and Mina,

I would agree that man is not immortal by "nature", since man is created and the immortality of the soul is a gift of God and in that sense it is not immortal by nature. However, I'm not sure that it can be said that it is corrupt by nature, that's a concept that is difficult for me to comprehend now. I suppose my question is, if it is not immortal by nature would that necessarily mean it is corrupt by nature? As such incorruptible corruptible makes some sense today.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Matthew Panchisin,

I personally believe so. How can one be mortal and incorruptible? And how can one be immortal and corruptible? Corruption leads to death. The source of life is also the source of incorruption, i.e. God.

Maybe I might not understand the difference. I'm open to correction.

God bless.

Mina

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mina,

"How can one be mortal and incorruptible?"

Let us look to Christ being truly man and truly God, mortal and incorruptible. God did not allow His Holy One the new Adam to see corruption. For myself I think I have to settle with "corruptible by nature", if it is in accordance with the understandings of the Orthodox Church.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Matthew,


God did not allow His Holy One the new Adam to see corruption.

Well, God did not allow Christ to be victum to corruption. There's a difference. Christ did see corruption. He was tired, suffered, tempted, and died, all which are evidence of corruption. Mortality, imo, is a result of corruption. Christ was immortal and incorruptible by virtue of being the Logos, but "submitted" although "not victum to" mortality and corruption in His humanity.

Ever since Timothy provided that quote, I feel the original debate here of Christ's illness is starting to become clearer, which is why I keep using "not victum to."

God bless.

Mina

[Mina Monir]

Merry Christmass and happy feast.

special greetings to Rev.Mathew , Fr.Raphael , and Tamaph Theopesta. hello back every one , I believe it is nice to find a new more friends called Mina here ... hi mina , 'Aghapy' ... I believe it is interesting to touch this point because it is sensitive and from your writings , our chalcedonian friends can feel the difference between our common faith which was proved that it has the same faith of EO ... and the eutichian condemned monophysite belief ... the belief we were accused to have it .. and thousands of coptic martyrs were shed their blood for the chalcedonian imperial taste . I stress again that the EO OO christology is same , and this was OFFICIALLY declared , whether athos like it or not. continuing the ecumenical news , HE Metropolitan Bishoy was in Lebanon in an official meeting with a group of theologian representatives of russian church , and the news I got are optimistic , HH patriarche Alexy invited HH Pope Shenouda III to pray with him in russian cathedral in the next summer in moscow , and from the sessions of the dialogue , Fr.Shenouda Maher who was from the group of the OO family was told to him by HH Alexi that that there is a fanatic wave inside his church led by some russian theologians who refuse unity , and asked Metrop. Bishoy to invite them for a positive dialogue in order to facilitate the mission on hh Alexi to declare unity soon . The Ecumenical patriarche Barthelmow welcomed the step and decided to prepare for a huge theological OFFICIAL meeting in the Ecumenical patriarchate in switzerland on Jan. 2007 to lift the anathemas and prepare a common dyptichs ... whether athos like it or not. the unity prays are working in the hearts of the fathers.

well , back to the Discussion topic ,I'll just extract some parts from the great Alexandrian pope : St.Athanasius from his treatise on the incarnation of the word :

21. Death brought to naught by the death of Christ. Why then did not Christ die privately, or in a more honourable way? He was not subject to natural death, but had to die at the hands of others. Why then did He die? Nay but for that purpose He came, and but for that, He could not have risen.

Why, now that the common Saviour of all has died on our behalf, we, the faithful in Christ, no longer die the death as before, agreeably to the warning of the law; for this condemnation has ceased; but, corruption ceasing and being put away by the grace of the Resurrection, henceforth we are only dissolved, agreeably to our bodies' mortal nature, at the time God has fixed for each, that we may be able to gain a better resurrection.

2. For like the seeds which are cast into the earth, we do not perish by dissolution, but sown in the earth, shall rise again, death having been brought to naught by the grace of the Saviour. Hence it is that blessed Paul, who was made a surety of the Resurrection to all, says: "This corruptible [9] must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality; but when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory ?"
3. Why, then, one might say, if it were necessary for Him to yield up His body to death in the stead of all, did He not lay it aside as man privately, instead of going as far as even to be crucified? For it were more fitting for Him to have laid His body aside honourably, than ignominiously to endure a death like this.

4. Now, see to it, I reply, whether such an objection be not merely human, whereas what the Saviour did is truly divine and for many reasons worthy of His Godhead. Firstly, be cause the death which befalls men comes to them agreeably to the weakness of their nature; for, unable to continue in one stay, they are dissolved with time. Hence, too, diseases befall them, and they fall sick and die. But the Lord is not weak, but is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life.

5. If, then, He had laid aside His body somewhere in private, and upon a bed, after the manner of men, it would have been thought that He also did this agreeably to the weakness of His nature, and because there was nothing in him more than in other men. But since He was, firstly, the Life and the Word of God, and it was necessary, secondly, for the death on behalf of all to be accomplished, for this cause, on the one hand, because He was life and power, the body gained strength in Him;

6. while on the other, as death must needs come to pass, He did not Himself take, but received at others' hands, the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice. Since it was not fit, either, that the Lord should fall sick, who healed the diseases of others; nor again was it right for that body to lose its strength, in which He gives strength to the weaknesses of others also.

7. Why, then, did He not prevent death, as He did sickness? Because it was for this that He had the body, and it was unfitting to prevent it, lest the Resurrection also should be hindered, while yet it was equally unfitting for sickness to precede His death, lest it should be thought weakness on the part of Him that was in the body. Did He not then hunger? Yes; He hungered, agreeably to the properties of His body. But He did not perish of hunger, because of the Lord that wore it. Hence, even if He died to ransom all, yet He saw not corruption. For [His body] rose again in perfect soundness, since the body belonged to none other, but to the very Life.

I wanted to underline the golden sentences inside the previousAchapter thanasius mentioned . but I found I will underline all the chapter ...I think Athanasius had explained well the difference between corruption and death , and that they are not together all the time ... hunger is not like infection by disease ... one purpose was for incarnation ... death and resurruction , but because he has a Miaphysis tou theo logou sesarkwmeny ... we can understand it well that corruption cannot come together with the 'very life' as athanasius said.

in XC
Mina Mounir (I have to say Mounir ... coz we have Mina soliman too ... welcome ya 7agg mina)

[Mina Soliman]

Hi Mina,

Kollo sana w'inta tayib ya bash-mohandiss. :-)
Merry Christmas.

You know, if I was in Egypt, I'd also be "Mina Monir," since my father's name is Monir.

The quote from St. Paul that St. Athanasius quoted from is very important, which shows that death is a result of both corruption and mortality, for once we put on incorruption and immortality, death loses its sting.

God bless.

Mina "Monir" Soliman ;-)

[Theopesta]

Dear Mina,

I hope I understand what you say and as I understand from St.Athanasius and St.JOHN OF DAMASCUS: according to the Economy of the Incarnation Christ is corruptable From the part of all the human sufferings, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, the piercing with nails, death as HE is very man

JOHN OF DAMASCUS: AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, [BOOK III, CHAPTER XXVIII]: Concerning Corruption and Destruction.

But corruption means also the complete resolution of the body into its constituent elements, and its utter disappearance, which is spoken of by many preferably as destruction. The body of our Lord did not experience this form of corruption

But the Lord is not weak, but is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life....Hence, even if He died to ransom all, yet He saw not corruption. For [His body] rose again in perfect soundness, since the body belonged to none other, but to the very Life -- as Mina quote from St. Athanasius.

CHRIST overcome the corruption of death by the LIFE which personalized in HIM -- I do not this is proper expretion or not.

as the sin is the cause of corruption of death --as the venerable members write above, but in CHRIST the perfect HOLINESS which change death into resurrection.

ST. ATHANASIUS: THE TREATISE ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD : 9. The Word, since death alone could stay the plague, took a mortal body which, united with Him, should avail for all, and by partaking of this immortality stay the corruption of the Race:

He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which was come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible.