Did Christ feel emotions?

[Olympiada]

I got into a discussion with someone and she seemed to say that Christ didn't feel emotions the way we did. She used to go to a Congregationalist church. She is not Orthodox. It is my understanding that Christ was fully man, which means He did feel emotions the way we did. I have a hard time imagining emotions in a pure state, meaning I refuse to believe that anger is not a pure emotion. After all Plato discerned the incensive power of the soul before Christ. It is clear to me that God the Father and Jesus Christ both felt and expressed anger. Am I getting it wrong?

[Effie Ganatsios]

I got into a discussion with someone and she seemed to say that Christ didn't feel emotions the way we did. She used to go to a Congregationalist church. She is not Orthodox. It is my understanding that Christ was fully man, which means He did feel emotions the way we did. I have a hard time imagining emotions in a pure state, meaning I refuse to believe that anger is not a pure emotion. After all Plato discerned the incensive power of the soul before Christ. It is clear to me that God the Father and Jesus Christ both felt and expressed anger. Am I getting it wrong?


He was angry when he drove the traders from the temple. He was discouraged when praying in the garden of Gethsemane. He loved His mother and His companions. He felt compassion for so many people. Aren't all these emotions?

Did He feel these emotions as we do? I don't think so. He was pure, so His emotions were pure.

When we are angry, or discouraged, etc. there might be a hundred different reasons for our anger or whatever. We are not good or pure. Only God is good.

effie

[Olga]

Christ's anger in driving out the moneychangers in the temple was "righteous indignation", to use a lovely and evocative old turn of phrase. St Nicholas of Myra's outburst at the council of Nicea, where he physically slapped Arius in disgust at his heretical pronouncements, was a similar case of "righteous anger". Nicholas was stripped of his omophorion and ejected from the council by his fellow bishops, but, as history shows, his action was soon seen to be the right one at the time, and he was duly reinstated.

[Nina]

Christ's anger in driving out the moneychangers in the temple was "righteous indignation", to use a lovely and evocative old turn of phrase. St Nicholas of Myra's outburst at the council of Nicea, where he physically slapped Arius in disgust at his heretical pronouncements, was a similar case of "righteous anger". Nicholas was stripped of his omophorion and ejected from the council by his fellow bishops, but, as history shows, his action was soon seen to be the right one at the time, and he was duly reinstated.

I think because Panagia appeared in visions to the other bishops and told them to reinstate him. And how much we would have lost without our beloved Saint Nikolaos in the pantheon of the saints.

[Olga]

You're quite right, Nina. It is for this reason that St Nicholas is always commemorated at the dismissal at Liturgy, and among the first at the Prayer of Intercession at Vespers and Matins, following the Mother of God, the Cross, St John the Baptist, the Bodiless Powers, and the Apostles. Also many, many of his icons show a small figure of Christ on the left side blessing him, and the Mother of God on the right, handing back his omophorion draped over her outstretched arms. He is also perhaps the only saint who is shown holding an open Gospel book, showing the scriture passage of the Sermon on the Mount. A very high honour indeed.

It is no surprise that St Nicholas is so highly venerated throughout the Orthodox world. Russians have a saying (irreverent, perhaps, but completely heartfelt): If anything terrible ever happens to God, then at least we've got St Nicholas!

[Effie Ganatsios]

It is no surprise that St Nicholas is so highly venerated throughout the Orthodox world. Russians have a saying (irreverent, perhaps, but completely heartfelt): If anything terrible ever happens to God, then at least we've got St Nicholas!

St. Nicholas is the patron saint of our city, Olga, so he is especially dear to me.

[Andreas Moran]

St Nicholas is the patron saint of our house and he got me my job!

How could someone ask if Christ had emotions? He wept over Lazarus, and he was hurt that only one of the ten lepers came back to say, 'thank you'. He was so admiring of the faith of the centurion, and he loved young Apostle John. Look how he protected the blind man he healed! Unlike us, His emotions were always pure and properly directed.

[Nina]

From St. Augustine (The Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers: First Series Vol. II; Eerdmans pg. 269):


"Emotions and affections, when they are exercised in a becoming way, follow the guidance of right reason; who will dare to say that they are diseases or vicious passions? Even the Lord Himself, when He condescended to lead a human life in the form of a slave, had no sin whatever, and yet exercised these emotions where He judged they should be exercised. For as there was in Him a true human body and a true human soul, so also was there true human emotion. When, therefore, we read in the Gospel that the hard-heartedness of the Jews moved Him to sorrowful indignation (cf. Mk. 3:5), that when about to raise Lazarus He even shed tears (cf. Jn. 11:35), that He earnestly desired to eat the Passover with His disciples (cf. Lk. 22:15), that as His passion drew near His soul was sorrowful (cf. Mt. 26:38), these emotions are certainly not falsely ascribed to Him. But as He became man when it pleased Him, so, in the grace of His definite purpose, when it pleased Him He experienced those emotions in His human soul."

[Christopher Dombrowski]

He was angry when he drove the traders from the temple. He was discouraged when praying in the garden of Gethsemane. He loved His mother and His companions. He felt compassion for so many people. Aren't all these emotions?

Did He feel these emotions as we do? I don't think so. He was pure, so His emotions were pure.

When we are angry, or discouraged, etc. there might be a hundred different reasons for our anger or whatever. We are not good or pure. Only God is good.

effie

While Christ God certainly was in no way engaged in or subject to sin, He certainly was subject (before the Resurrection) to a number of consequences of the Fall. His human nature was subject to its corruption. To suggest that Christ's human nature before the Resurrection was incorrupt is a heresy called Julianism that Severus of Antioch himself combated and in which the Chalcedonians sided with him. So if by "pure", you mean free from sin, this is fine. But it by "pure" you mean that His emotional being was in no way affected by the consequences of the sin of Adam, such a thing sounds heretical.

[Peter S.]

He wept over Lazarus, and he was hurt that only one of the ten lepers came back to say, 'thank you'. He was so admiring of the faith of the centurion, and he loved young Apostle John. Look how he protected the blind man he healed! Unlike us, His emotions were always pure and properly directed. Andreas

It doesnt say in the Bible that Jesus was hurt by it. I dont think he was.


So if by "pure", you mean free from sin, this is fine. But it by "pure" you mean that His emotional being was in no way affected by the consequences of the sin of Adam, such a thing sounds heretical.
Christopher Dombrowski

His emotions were only pure because he is a unique man. A "God-man". Both God and man. Not only man. God is spirit as it says in the New Testament.

Peter

[Christopher Dombrowski]

His emotions were only pure because he is a unique man. A "God-man". Both God and man. Not only man. God is spirit as it says in the New Testament.

Peter

Well, there really is more too it that simply the matter of Jesus being both human and divine. Among a group of Christians who both recognized the humanity and divinity of Jesus, there arose a debate about the subjection of the human nature of Jesus to the effects of the Fall before His Resurrection. The group known as the "Julianists" (named after Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus) asserted that because of its union with Jesus' divinity and its incorruptibility, that Jesus' humanity became likewise incorruptible, even before His Resurrection. The mainstream group, following Severus of Antioch on the other hand, asserted that such an idea would be to introduce a mixture of the divine and human natures and that thus Jesus' humanity before the Resurrection must have been subject to corruption (the effects of the Fall such as death, disease, temptation, etc. though not sin itself). Though this debate occured within the Non-Chalcedonian camp, it entered into the Chalcedonian circles when the Emperor Justinian converted to Julianism. My understanding is that maintstream Chalcedonians took the side of Severus of Antioch in this matter (though obviously not attributing orthodoxy to Severus himself).

[Peter S.]

Well, there really is more too it that simply the matter of Jesus being both human and divine.Its not a simple matter. If you realize that Jesus was divine, then you will see that he did not cling to selfish emotions. This is what this thread is about and what is interresting.

Peter

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Its not a simple matter. If you realize that Jesus was divine, then you will see that he did not cling to selfish emotions. This is what this thread is about and what is interresting.

Peter

But you have to be able to draw the line between what is actually sin and what is simply a consequence of the original sin. Because, as I said, while Christ certainly was not subject to sin itself, His human nature before the Resurrection was subject to corruption from the Fall and inheritance of sin's consequences. Included in this may be certain dimensions of corruption on the mental and emotional level.

[Brendan Funnell]

Curiously, the debate in the early church was more to do with the notion of the infionite divinity suffering as a human being.


As with Theodore, so with Nestorius, the belief that the Logos did not undergo Christ’s human sufferings leads to a sharp distinction between deity and humanity in Christ.
Fairbairn, Donald – Grace and Christology in the Early Church [Oxford Early Christian Studies, 2003 p.54]

. . .it is clear that Nestorius’ thought is guided by his understanding of the Logos’ impassibility and transcendence. When he adopts a christology that that makes the Logos and the assumed man into virtually independent subjects, it is because his primary concern is to assert that the Logos did not undergo birth, suffering, or death.
Fairbairn, Donald – Grace and Christology in the Early Church [Oxford Early Christian Studies, 2003 p.55]


. . . Thus, prior to the Nestorian controversy, the church had opposed three extreme misrepresentations of the person and work of Christ. (1) Christ was a divine being and therefore could not suffer (Docetism); (2) God the Father was temporarily changed into the suffering Son, at the expense of his full divinity and transcendence (Patripassianism); (3) Christ was involved in change, birth, suffering, and death, therefore he could not be fully divine (Arianism). Having ruled out the three extreme options, the church asserted that the Son of God suffered in reality and not mere appearance; that it was the Son who became incarnate and suffered, not the Father; that the Son’s involvement in suffering did not diminish his divine status, because the incarnation was a supreme act of divine compassion and as such it was most appropriate and God-befitting.

The justification of the incarnation as an act worthy of God is a common theme of Christian apologetic against philosophically minded pagans, whose understanding of God did not allow for the possibility that God could empty himself, assume the human condition, and suffer the consequences. The very fact that the Fathers quite self-consciously understood their argument for the God-befitting character of the incarnation to be directed against Hellenistic philosophers puts into question the assumption that the Fathers asserted divine impassibility simply as a result of their uncritical acceptance of the conceptuality of Hellenistic theological thought.
Gavrilyuk, Paul L. – The Suffering of the Impassible God – The Dialectics of Patristic Thought [Oxford Early Christian Studies, 2004 p. 18]

[Anna Stickles]

But you have to be able to draw the line between what is actually sin and what is simply a consequence of the original sin. Because, as I said, while Christ certainly was not subject to sin itself, His human nature before the Resurrection was subject to corruption from the Fall and inheritance of sin's consequences. Included in this may be certain dimensions of corruption on the mental and emotional level.

I am not sure that this really jives with what the Father's teach about the nature of sin. Sin is not doing bad things. Sin is an act of rebellion against God and the consequences of this are a loss of grace. It is this loss of grace then which causes the corruption in our nature. If Christ never disobeyed God, then he never loss the grace of incorruption and immortality.

If we follow your argument then Christ unwillingly died a natural death on the cross due to being helpless against the corruption intrinsic in human nature. I think though that we must understand that Christ willingly allowed himself to die. It is his obedience to the Father, obedience even unto death, that reverses the effects of the disobedience at the Fall. His obedience did not simply extend to allowing Himself to be arrested, but extended all the way to allowing His incorruptible body to die.

If the Body and Blood of Christ are not incorruptible then what is the point of partaking of the Eucharist? Shall we say that they only became incorruptible after the resurrection? To say what you are saying seems to me to be saying that the Incarnation was not a full joining of God and Man, but that the fullness only came after the resurrection.

Probably my thinking here needs some adjustment but what you say just sounds very wrong.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I am not sure that this really jives with what the Father's teach about the nature of sin. Sin is not doing bad things. Sin is an act of rebellion against God and the consequences of this are a loss of grace. It is this loss of grace then which causes the corruption in our nature. If Christ never disobeyed God, then he never loss the grace of incorruption and immortality.

Actually, no, the Fathers tend to regard the status of our humanity in a somewhat more corporate fashion than you are imagining. What you are suggesting is that every single human individual who is generated will inherit the consequences of the Fall or not depending on whether they inherit the ancestral sin, that broken communion with God. However, knowing how the process of salvation happens, this doesn't entirely make sense. For instance, the Mother of God was not rendered incorruptible, when at the Annunciation, she was rendered completely without personal sin or ancestral sin. Rather, her being filled with grace is something that gradually sanctified and saved her and finally rendered her incorruptible at the end of her life. Likewise is the case with the Lord Jesus. Even though at His very conception he was entirely without sin, it still took time for salvation to take effect within His human nature and deliver incorruptibility to Him.




If we follow your argument then Christ unwillingly died a natural death on the cross due to being helpless against the corruption intrinsic in human nature.

For one thing, the Cross wasn't really a natural death. It was a particular way of dying that the Lord Jesus submitted Himself to, when He could just have easily miraculously avoided and later died from old age. But Crucifixion he willingly submitted to as His mode of death.

However, even at that your point is still off. You're missing the reality that before willingly choosing to become Incarnate, that Christ knew all of the corruptions that would go along with choosing to become human. Thus, with respect to becoming united to our humanity, Christ certainly did know that death would go along with that choice, and as such He certainly did willingly chose to undergo death.

However, even given this, it is also the case that the corruption of death was an intrinsic aspect of the humanity that he assumed. Thus it is simultaneously the case that Jesus willingly chose to undergo death but also that death was an intrinsic aspect that went along with the humanity that he assumed.




I think though that we must understand that Christ willingly allowed himself to die. It is his obedience to the Father, obedience even unto death, that reverses the effects of the disobedience at the Fall.

Agreed. But as far as I can see, this reality is compatible with both of the conceptions that we are proposing here.




His obedience did not simply extend to allowing Himself to be arrested, but extended all the way to allowing His incorruptible body to die.

This is heretical. The idea that Christ's humanity was incorruptible before His death is a view that was condemned by his holiness Severus of Antioch (a Non-Chalcedonian) and was even confirmed by his holiness John of Damascus (a Chalcedonian).




If the Body and Blood of Christ are not incorruptible then what is the point of partaking of the Eucharist?

The issue here is whether or not the humanity of Jesus was incorruptible before His Resurrection. Pretty much everyone agrees that His humanity was incorruptible after His Resurrection. His Body and Blood in the Eucharist is obviously His Risen Body and Blood.




Shall we say that they only became incorruptible after the resurrection?

Yes.




To say what you are saying seems to me to be saying that the Incarnation was not a full joining of God and Man, but that the fullness only came after the resurrection.

How is affirming that Christ's humanity and His divinity retained all their respective properties even after the union incompatible with affirming the fullness of their union?

[Anna Stickles]

Just one more quote here that I think gives us some perspective on the difference between the modern and ancient view of sin.


Until quite modern times all teachers and even all men believed the universe to be such that certain emotional reactions on our part could be either congruous or incongruous to it—believed, in fact, that objects did not merely receive, but could merit, our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt. ...'Can you be righteous', asks Traherne, 'unless you be just in rendering to things their due esteem? C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

The implication is clear, to say that Christ had some kind of corruption in his emotional responses is to say that he was not sinless, that in fact he was unrighteous.

[Michael Stickles]

Christopher,




His obedience did not simply extend to allowing Himself to be arrested, but extended all the way to allowing His incorruptible body to die.

This is heretical. The idea that Christ's humanity was incorruptible before His death is a view that was condemned by his holiness Severus of Antioch (a Non-Chalcedonian) and was even confirmed by his holiness John of Damascus (a Chalcedonian).

Don't confuse the two types of corruption. This is what St. John actually said in book 3, chapter 28 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iii.xxviii.html) of his Exact Exposition of the Christian Faith:


The word corruption has two meanings. For it signifies all the human sufferings, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, the piercing with nails, death, that is, the separation of soul and body, and so forth. In this sense we say that our Lord’s body was subject to corruption. For He voluntarily accepted all these things. 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, as the prophet David says, "For Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine holy one to see corruption."

Wherefore to say, with that foolish Julianus and Gaïanus, 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, of the same essence as ours, ... But in the second meaning of the word “corruption,” 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. For as the divine Apostle says, "This corruptible must put on incorruption."

Though death is included by St. John in the first sense of the word corruption, the necessity of death is not part of that for Christ, only the possibility. St. Athanasius makes this very clear in his On The Incarnation, section 20 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.xx.html) (emphasis added):


4. The body, then, as sharing the same nature with all, for it was a human body, though by an unparalleled miracle it was formed of a virgin only, yet being mortal, was to die also, conformably to its peers. But by virtue of the union of the Word with it, it was no longer subject to corruption according to its own nature, but by reason of the Word that was come to dwell in it it was placed out of the reach of corruption. ...

6. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, ...

Again in section 22 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.xxii.html) of the same work St. Athanasius notes (emphasis added):


3. And besides, the Saviour came to accomplish not His own death, but the death of men; whence He did not lay aside His body by a death of His own — for He was Life and had none — but received that death which came from men, in order perfectly to do away with this when it met Him in His own body.

It appears to me that you are considering the necessity of death as part of the first sense of the word corruption, while Anna is considering it part of the second sense. Based on the teaching of St. Athanasius, I would have to agree with Anna on this issue.

In Christ,
Michael

[Michael Stickles]

Christopher,


While Christ God certainly was in no way engaged in or subject to sin, He certainly was subject (before the Resurrection) to a number of consequences of the Fall. His human nature was subject to its corruption. To suggest that Christ's human nature before the Resurrection was incorrupt is a heresy called Julianism that Severus of Antioch himself combated and in which the Chalcedonians sided with him. So if by "pure", you mean free from sin, this is fine. But it by "pure" you mean that His emotional being was in no way affected by the consequences of the sin of Adam, such a thing sounds heretical.

To follow up on my last post in addressing this point (and so get back to the topic of whether Christ felt emotions), let me quote St. Athanasius again from On The Incarnation, section 21 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.xxi.html):


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.

If we do not satisfy our hunger, we will eventually die, because we are subject to decay - another word for the second type of corruption according to St. John of Damascus (as referenced in my previous post). Christ, even pre-resurrection, was not subject to decay, and hence (as St. Athanasius says) He would not have perished even had He not satisfied His hunger.

Given his immunity to decay, I would agree with Effie that His emotions were pure, or, as you put it, "His emotional being was in no way affected by the consequences of the sin of Adam". For His emotional being to be negatively affected by the effects of the Fall would mean that He was - at least in that way - subject to decay, which to me does not jive either with St. Athanasius' teaching or St. John's.

In Christ,
Michael

[Vasiliki D.]

From St. Augustine (The Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers: First Series Vol. II; Eerdmans pg. 269):

What a perfect response ... thank you for posting a quote from the Church fathers ... no one could ask for a more precise response since it validates much of the opinions in this group ... you are all a fascinating group of people with great opinions and great formed ideas of the Orthodox thinking ... my opinion and I have heard it at Sunday Sermons, or off the Internet, is that Christ did have emotions but he also taught us by His example how we are to handle our emotions as well ... we are to learn from Him how to handle grief, and friendship and love and anger all in the context of serving God ... so, you will see with most of his examples a level of dispassion attached ... he is able to "get over" his emotion quite quickly and return to that which is important which is God ...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

It is very important that we keep in mind the term that the Fathers eventually formulated for Christ's manner of relation to human nature. This is summed up in the term, 'the blameless passions.' That is Christ fully adopts human nature including certain results of the Fall but He does this in a sinless way.

This last point is what is most important here for it relates to how Christ adopts the fullness of human nature without disdaining its present weaknesses. But the manner in which He does this as the pre-Incarnate Word of God is always in reference to man's original divine purpose.

Thus He feels hunger but without greed; He fears death but without fleeing from it. In other words Christ knows & experiences our sin inexpressibly more fully than we do but the way in which He does so is sinless.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Anna Stickles]

It is very important that we keep in mind the term that the Fathers eventually formulated for Christ's manner of relation to human nature. This is summed up in the term, 'the blameless passions.' That is Christ fully adopts human nature including certain results of the Fall but He does this in a sinless way.

This last point is what is most important here for it relates to how Christ adopts the fullness of human nature without disdaining its present weaknesses. But the manner in which He does this as the pre-Incarnate Word of God is always in reference to man's original divine purpose.

Thus He feels hunger but without greed; He fears death but without fleeing from it. In other words Christ knows & experiences our sin inexpressibly more fully than we do but the way in which He does so is sinless.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Thank you very much! I guess this goes back to the fact that he bore our sin, but in a sinless way thus in this He conquers sin. This really brings to light that our redemtion consists not just in His incarnation or in His death and resurrection, but in His whole life.

To say, "the way in which he does so is sinless" is this the same as saying He wasn't moved or influenced to change His action due to suffering from these various emotions and impulses? In other words He was passible in that His body and soul could suffer these, but this passibility did not cause that body or soul to ever move outside the Will, the Action of God. Kind of like someone who could suffer burns when they put their hand on the stove but does not necessarily move their hand.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Anna Stickles wrote:




To say, "the way in which he does so is sinless" is this the same as saying He wasn't moved or influenced to change His action due to suffering from these various emotions and impulses? In other words He was passible in that His body and soul could suffer these, but this passibility did not cause that body or soul to ever move outside the Will, the Action of God. Kind of like someone who could suffer burns when they put their hand on the stove but does not necessarily move their hand.

Christ's will is certainly important. Remember that in the monothelite dispute it was maintained as a principle central to the meaning of the Incarnation that in all that Christ does His human will freely accords with His divine will. In this sense Christ is not 'moved' by emotions and impulses in the same way we often are with our will so captivated by sin we seem to be virtually enslaved and without free will in regards to it.

Christ instead fully experiences and takes on our sin but in a sinless manner. Here I haven't been able to think of a suitable analogy mainly because it must be that Christ experiences sin to its depths and in its full reality in a way we cannot fathom. He does this willingly. But yet this is not experienced in the sinful manner we do for it is a different kind of sharing and knowing- something Divine & dispassionate- whereas our sharing in sin is most often passionate, ie in assent to its sinful & destructive aspect.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Anna Stickles]

But yet this is not experienced in the sinful manner we do for it is a different kind of sharing and knowing- something Divine & dispassionate- whereas our sharing in sin is most often passionate, ie in assent to its sinful & destructive aspect.

You talk here about a sharing in "sin" and this terminology is confusing, for the way I think of things, to share in sin is to sin. I think, though, that I understand what you are saying, but please let me rephrase this and see if I am really understanding you.

Could we say that Christ is sharing in the consequences of Adam's sin in a sinless way, but that we are sharing in those consequences in a passionate (sinful) way? And can we say that the consequences of Adam's sin is to live in subjection to creation and Satan? As you said our will is so captivated by sin as to be virtually enslaved and without free will in regard to it. If I reworded this according to the terms I am trying to use here could we say that our bodies and souls are so enmeshed in the fallen impulses instrinsic in creation (the forces of sin) that apart from a participation in Christ our will is powerless to move us in regard to them?

Can we say that the combined strength of the will of all of humanity makes a force that we all participate in due to our common origin in Adam and our ontological connection? And then define the sum force of sin as the force of all those who have set their will against God, plus the forces of Satan? (St Isaac defines four causes of passions the body, the world, the soul and the devil)

Christ in Himself has enough force to reverse this flow, and as we enter into Christ our will is strengthened to overcome this force for ourselves personally, but also it has effects on humanity as a whole, and eventually enough saints will love Christ enough that the force of sin and Satan will be completely overcome.

St Isaac of Ninevah says when talking of the passions. "When the [soul] is moved by passions, all the members of the Chruch admit it has gone outside it's nature" and "Even though the soul is moved by them (the passions) it is evident that it is moved by something outside itself."

I think that because the way Greek philosophy works, this was understood by those who St Isaac was talking to, but the implication that an English reader gets from this is that it is the passions that move the soul. I was wondering if it would be better to say that it is impulses from creation that move the soul in a passionate (ie unnatural) way and that our culpability comes in when we "go with the flow".

What I am beating around the bush at here, is that to be passible to (to be able to commune with, share in) both creation and God is part of our created nature, not a corruption of that nature. Hoever before the fall Adam was not dependent on and thus enslaved to creation, but rather free in regards His communion with it. However, when Adam obeyed Satan rather then God, and did not repent, he suffered a loss of life and a fragmentation of His powers that rendered Him subject to Satan and to creation. We talk much in Orthodoxy about the fact that it is not simply some legal transaction that takes place but something real, and it seems to me that maybe man was created specifically to take Satan's place as the highest of the created beings ruling over all, but His choice resulted not simply in a legal change of position but in a real loss of power.

Christ in taking on our body took on our passibility, willingly making Himself susceptible to the fallen impulses contained within creation as well as exposing Himself to being tempted by Satan. However, Christ was never moved by those impulses, nor by Satan, thus demonstrating His sovereignty. When we partake of Him, we too are restored to our proper sovereignty in regards creation and Satan. But this is only accomplished by an effort of our own will striving against the forces of sin. Not that we can overcome that force in our efforts, but that our efforts are multiplied by the grace of God.

(I think this is one of the most fragmented posts I have tried but hopefully something of my thinking will come across)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Anna Stickles wrote:


You talk here about a sharing in "sin" and this terminology is confusing, for the way I think of things, to share in sin is to sin. I think, though, that I understand what you are saying, but please let me rephrase this and see if I am really understanding you.

The saints and holy elders share in our sin but in a way that is not passionate. In other words through their own dispassion and struggle in Christ they are able to share in the sinful brokeness of humanity that is to our healing instead of to our harm.

Of course though this is accomplished in Christ and thus in emulation of Him.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter S.]

Anna Stickles wrote:



The saints and holy elders share in our sin but in a way that is not passionate. In other words through their own dispassion and struggle in Christ they are able to share in the sinful brokeness of humanity that is to our healing instead of to our harm.

Of course though this is accomplished in Christ and thus in emulation of Him.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

28.December we are celebrating saint Tryphon of Petchenga. He knew that man can be more and more Christlike through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Peter

[Nina]

From St. Augustine (The Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers: First Series Vol. II; Eerdmans pg. 269):


"Emotions and affections, when they are exercised in a becoming way, follow the guidance of right reason; who will dare to say that they are diseases or vicious passions? Even the Lord Himself, when He condescended to lead a human life in the form of a slave, had no sin whatever, and yet exercised these emotions where He judged they should be exercised. For as there was in Him a true human body and a true human soul, so also was there true human emotion. When, therefore, we read in the Gospel that the hard-heartedness of the Jews moved Him to sorrowful indignation (cf. Mk. 3:5), that when about to raise Lazarus He even shed tears (cf. Jn. 11:35), that He earnestly desired to eat the Passover with His disciples (cf. Lk. 22:15), that as His passion drew near His soul was sorrowful (cf. Mt. 26:38), these emotions are certainly not falsely ascribed to Him. But as He became man when it pleased Him, so, in the grace of His definite purpose, when it pleased Him He experienced those emotions in His human soul."

[Fr Michael Monos]

Some quotes that may be of interest....

Saint John Chrysostom:

Why does the Evangelist (John) carefully in several places mention that "He wept," and that, "He groaned"? That you might learn that He had of a truth put on our nature. For when this Evangelist is remarkable for uttering great things concerning Christ more than the others, in matters relating to the body, here he also speaketh much more humbly than they. For instance, concerning His death he said nothing of the kind; the other Evangelists declare that He was exceedingly sorrowful, that He was in an agony; but John, on the contrary, says, that He even cast the officers backwards. So that he made up here what is omitted there, by mentioning His grief. When speaking of His death, Christ says "I have power to lay down My life"(c. x. 18), and then He utters no lowly word; therefore at the Passion they attribute to Him much that is human, to show the reality of the Dispensation. And Matthew proves this by the Agony, the trouble, the trembling, and the sweat; but John by His sorrow. For had He not been of our nature, He would not once and again have been mastered by grief.

Lactantius:

Therefore the arguments are found to be empty and false, either of those who, when they will not admit that God is angry, will have it that He shows kindness, because this, indeed, cannot take place without anger; or of those who think that there is no emotion of the mind in God. And because there are some affections to which God is not liable, as desire, fear, avarice, grief, and envy, they have said that He is entirely free from all affection. For He is not liable to these, because they are vicious affections; but as to those which belong to virtue,--that is, anger towards the wicked, regard towards the good, pity towards the afflicted, -- inasmuch as they are worthy of the divine power, He has affections of His own, both just and true.

Saint Hilary:

Stand aside then, all godless unbelievers, for whom the divine mystery is too great, who do not know that Christ wept not for Himself but for us, to prove the reality of His assumed manhood by yielding to the emotion common to humanity: who do not perceive that Christ died not for Himself, but for our life, to renew human life by the death of the deathless God: who cannot reconcile the complaint of the deserted with the confidence of the Ruler: who would teach us that because He reigns as God and complains that He is dying, we have here a dead man and the reigning God. For He Who dies is none other than He Who reigns, He Who commends His spirit than He Who gives it up: He Who was buried, rose again: ascending or descending He is altogether one.

[Vasiliki D.]

This is my favourite icon.

It cleary demonstrates the emotions of the divine Christ ...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think that this would be a very good discussion especially as we get closer and closer to Holy Week.

Two small comments here:

The icon that we have in our parish (the icon is from the Greek tradition; 'new revived style' 20th century) of the Nymphios/Bridegroom portrays Christ in much more peaceful manner. The look, especially in His eyes is inward and very peaceful, even as He holds the staff with bound hands (what is the meaning of this staff He always holds in this type of icon?).

Then there is the point about emotions: what do we mean by this? To me it seems that emotions can have two different or perhaps overlapping meanings.

In modern understanding we mean 'strong feelings' as in "he/she's so emotional!" The emphatic 'so' or 'very' emphasizes the basic definition of 'strong feeling'. Thus the statement, "he/she's not very emotional" carries with it the understanding that someone is understated or perhaps even lacking something in their human development. Here modern understanding of the human being and of psychology come into play.

In the Fathers there are references to the affections by which we mean the operation of human desire towards a certain object. The affections can become 'emotional'. But this becomes very problematic if by 'emotional' we actually are referring to passions in their sinful state. Then emotion is not inherent to human nature; it is the passionate distortion of it.

Thus we have to be very careful in our understanding of how Christ adopts the fullness of human nature. Does He adopt our human emotions? If by this we mean our sinful passions then there is a very serious problem. However if by this we mean the affections then there are references to the sinless passions which Christ adopts from our human nature.

There is I am sure good discussion that we could have from this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Vasiliki D.]

I think that this would be a very good discussion especially as we get closer and closer to Holy Week.

Two small comments here:

The icon that we have in our parish (the icon is from the Greek tradition; 'new revived style' 20th century) of the Nymphios/Bridegroom portrays Christ in much more peaceful manner. The look, especially in His eyes is inward and very peaceful, even as He holds the staff with bound hands (what is the meaning of this staff He always holds in this type of icon?).

Then there is the point about emotions: what do we mean by this? To me it seems that emotions can have two different or perhaps overlapping meanings.

In modern understanding we mean 'strong feelings' as in "he/she's so emotional!" The emphatic 'so' or 'very' emphasizes the basic definition of 'strong feeling'. Thus the statement, "he/she's not very emotional" carries with it the understanding that someone is understated or perhaps even lacking something in their human development. Here modern understanding of the human being and of psychology come into play.

In the Fathers there are references to the affections by which we mean the operation of human desire towards a certain object. The affections can become 'emotional'. But this becomes very problematic if by 'emotional' we actually are referring to passions in their sinful state. Then emotion is not inherent to human nature; it is the passionate distortion of it.

Thus we have to be very careful in our understanding of how Christ adopts the fullness of human nature. Does He adopt our human emotions? If by this we mean our sinful passions then there is a very serious problem. However if by this we mean the affections then there are references to the sinless passions which Christ adopts from our human nature.

There is I am sure good discussion that we could have from this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I always love to read your posts as there is so much wisdom and thought and direction offered.

Yes, you are very right in drawing the distinction on what the 'definition' of 'emotion' is when relating to Christ ...

My personal understanding of this when I look at the beautiful Bridegroom of my soul is what He permits me to see in Him ... and that varies depending on my prayerfyl disposition. I have a large print of this icon in my bedroom and each night I pray before him .. there have been times that I have seen the peace you describe and then there are times I can see "perfect emotions" in his face and even in his posture and body language BUT as they relate to the fruits of the Holy Spirit!

In Christ's face I see Love and pain for humanity (yes, with peaceful disposition)! The love and the pain is not mixed in with anxiety but with patience! He waits ... in a perfect "helplessness". God who is quite capable to take the ropes off his wrists willingly waits - standing in front of me gazing at me with a longing for me, his creation, to "untie" those ropes for Him ... releasing Him from the bondage of my own sin and giving myself over to His will so that he can freely raise His hands to bless me and to nurture me... He can save me by extending his hands up in the sign of the cross ... can there be any greater emotion than that sort of self-sacrificing love?

PS. Christ did cry for Lazarus and I have heard it said that one of the Patristic fathers (I dont know who) wrote that Christ's weeping for Lazarus was didactic to us on how we too can grieve in a perfect manner for our loved ones (ie. remove the hysterics and put some trust in God whilst acknowledging our humanity that we would miss them).

Oh, to summarise (cause i waffle) I believe "divine" emotions are the acts of the Holy Spirit (or fruits) that the Apostle Paul summarises for us in the New Testament and which are re-iterated in the Philokalia ... emotions of compassion and love etc. Anything beyond that scope is mixed into our own self-will - which stems from our human essence!?

[Olga]

(what is the meaning of this staff He always holds in this type of icon?)

A quick reply: The staff represents the reed or rod which was used by the Roman soldiers to strike Him, and, like the crown of thorns, and the scarlet robe, were distortions and mockeries of the usual regal attire, staff or sceptre, and crown, and used to belittle and insult the "King of the Jews".

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks Vasiliki & Olga for the explanations of Christ's bound hands and of the reed. Yes, on our icon of the Nymphios the rope around Christ's hands is quite loose.

Otherwise- yes, in the Gospel of John it says that Christ wept at the grave of Lazarus.
The canon at Compline on the Eve of Lazarus Saturday (next Friday evening) makes many references to this weeping of Christ, ascribing this to the reality of His human nature.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bogdan]

Greetings all! I have returned to Monachos after a 2 year hiatus. I hope I find you all in good health and of course increasing your spiritual health during Great Lent :)

To the topic:

I hope it is alright if i turn the conversation to what I believe to be the greatest and therefore the most intriguing example of emotion by the Christ. Mathew 27:46 - About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "(BC)ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"

To me, the shift from "Father" to "My God" shows an extreme emotional experience. As well as the obvious emotions association with His question of "being forsaken". Obviously there are many theological things to be discussed in this, however I am more interested in putting the emotional distress up for questioning. Anyone have any thoughts on the emotional significance of this?

[Anna Stickles]

There is a beautiful story in the Fr Arseny book about how he wept when one of the prisoners who tried to run away was shot.

It seems incredible to me that among so much ugliness and sorrow, one can retain the sensitivity to weep.

Maybe one problem with modern understanding of emotion is that it is seen in a purely material and thus morally neutral light. Whatever we are emoting is just 'natural' and therefore the only concern is that those feelings do not impact others in a hurtful way. Anger management classes don't teach that the anger is wrong, but that it must be expressed in constructive, non-hurtful ways.

I see this in parenting all the time. Parents do not try to restrain their children's emotions or teach them emotional control. Rather the parent legitimizes any and all emotions that come up catering to them to one degree or another. This causes insecure, manipulative children. Of course the opposite of getting frustrated and angry with the child's weakness and inability to control themselves is just as bad, but most people recognize anger as wrong. Not so many realize how even babies soon learn to use their emotions to manipulate others if this is not restrained and resisted by the parent.

My 5 yr old is an expert at crying or yelling in order to try to get his way when playing with his older brothers. Since coming into Orthodoxy and learning more about the passions, I've started telling him the, "I want" monster is torturing him and that he ought to tell that monster to go away. I am not sure how patristic this actually is but it works and help him get a hold of himself and calm down.

[Father David Moser]

what I believe to be the greatest and therefore the most intriguing example of emotion by the Christ. Mathew 27:46 - About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "(BC)ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"

To me, the shift from "Father" to "My God" shows an extreme emotional experience.

I'm not certain that this is really an "emotional" shift, but rather it is a purposeful quote of the psalmist - a quite that all those listening would have heard and recognized as a reference to a messianic psalm. It is the same as the time Jesus read the prophecy of Isaiah and said to those gathered, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4). I'm not sure that one could take this change as an indication of a state of heightened emotion.

Fr David Moser

[Bogdan]

I am not convinced that at the height of his Passion, that at "the end" Christ is reaching into his brain to quote a Psalmist..? Am i misreading your thoughts Father David?

As Fr. said at the beginning..



Thus we have to be very careful in our understanding of how Christ adopts the fullness of human nature. Does He adopt our human emotions? If by this we mean our sinful passions then there is a very serious problem. However if by this we mean the affections then there are references to the sinless passions which Christ adopts from our human nature.

So to that point, I would say that the change in how Christ addresses " his Father" and also the last words being a question of the Passion itself, to me do show a change in emotion. They in fact show a release of all emotion and human condition, therefore allowing it to be conquered. I believe it is the culmination of "adopting our human nature" and completing a "sinless passion".

I know there are many sources that discuss this last words of Christs'. Anyone know of any that discuss the emotional significance of these words?

Thanks.

p.s. - Fr. Moser - Great to hear from you again :)

[Herman Blaydoe]

I am not convinced that at the height of his Passion, that at "the end" Christ is reaching into his brain to quote a Psalmist..? Am i misreading your thoughts Father David?

Why not? Are you saying that the God man is not able to think clearly in the face of death?

Regardless, these words of Christ on the Cross are exactly the first words of the Psalm that He himself inspired King David to author. Christ is the penultimate Psalmist, is He not?

Herman the convinced Pooh

[Vasiliki D.]

Why not? Are you saying that the God man is not able to think clearly in the face of death?

Regardless, these words of Christ on the Cross are exactly the first words of the Psalm that He himself inspired King David to author. Christ is the penultimate Psalmist, is He not?

Herman the convinced Pooh

I do not have an opinion either way at this stage just a thought popped into my head that I would like to put forward for consideration.

Bogdan is claiming that Christ had a emotional shift on the cross and released the famous "Eli Eli" cry ...

Herman (and most others) are saying well no it cant be possible since the cry reflects a fulfillment of prophecy relating to the Psalmists verse ...

To me, I can not see why the both can not coexist ...

The psalms are written in a historical context by a King David at a point in time, however, the inspiration for the words behind the Psalms is outside of time and is eternal ... so is Christ and the Holy Trinity - they are outside time and have known in eternity that Christ was to unite with his creation and be sacrificed upon the cross.

Hence, instead of the assumption (that uses human time for measure) the Psalm verse came first and Christ (like a robot) repeated the words after the Psalm to fulfil prophecy ... I put forward that in the context of eternity the cry came first from Christ's mouth and that the Psalm verse was inspired from that cry thus fulfilling prophecy ...

[Vasiliki D.]

Indeed what came first Christ and His Resurrection or the prophecies of the Old Testament?

Of course most will answer (with a human measure) that the prophecies were first and Christ then came later to fulfill the prophecies. Most people presume that the fulfillment of prophecy is a LINEAR progression starting at Adam and Eve and moving forward with time ...

I am not in this greater school of thought ... I might be misleading myself but I keep trying to review my salvation always using "eternal" time rather than "human" time SO I believe Christ and His Resurrection came first and the prophecies came second ...

I believe that "history" is RADIAL and not LINEAL - the Resurrection is the central point of "time" and everything starts there and radiates out into human history - reaching into the past and into the future ...

Hence, my leaning is towards the fact that Christ never "acted out" the prophecies (thus fulfilling them) rather the prophecies were written as a testimony and witness to His actions ...

[Bogdan]

Why not? Are you saying that the God man is not able to think clearly in the face of death?

I guess in a sense I am. What I am trying to do is question the divinities control of the humanity. In my understanding of the divinity inside the humanity, there is a symbiotic relationship; i.e. equality in natures. Perhaps He is thinking clearly; but perhaps in thinking clearly He is also expressing emotion. Emotion does not have to rule thought, nor is thought always devoid of emotion.

I find Vasiliki's concept here interesting:


I believe that "history" is RADIAL and not LINEAL - the Resurrection is the central point of "time" and everything starts there and radiates out into human history - reaching into the past and into the future ...

Hence, my leaning is towards the fact that Christ never "acted out" the prophecies (thus fulfilling them) rather the prophecies were written as a testimony and witness to His actions ...

You teter a little between predetermination and choice. How much is predetermined by God and how much do we control our destinies? A conversation for another topic...another website really ;)

It does however bring into focus the fact that we do not really know God's plan; however it is determined. Perhaps the last cry of Christ was predetermined. Perhaps it is an emotional release as I describe and question in post #37. In my humble opinion, I agree with you Vasiliki; I do not see why it can not be both. To say that the change in syntex and address by Christ towards his Heavenly Father is devoid of emotion is troubling to me. Are we really saying that at the height of the Passion there was no emotion involved? Does that not seperate the humanity from the divinity? This goes to my point on symbiosis. So if there IS emotion in this, what emotion is it?

Perhaps I am asking the wrong questions..?

[Michael Stickles]

So to that point, I would say that the change in how Christ addresses " his Father" and also the last words being a question of the Passion itself, to me do show a change in emotion. They in fact show a release of all emotion and human condition, therefore allowing it to be conquered. I believe it is the culmination of "adopting our human nature" and completing a "sinless passion".

I know there are many sources that discuss this last words of Christs'. Anyone know of any that discuss the emotional significance of these words?

I've come across two so far. First, from St. Leo the Great's 16th sermon on the Passion (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.v.xxxiii.html):


Hence it is that the Lord Jesus Christ, our Head, representing all the members of His body in Himself, and speaking for those whom He was redeeming in the punishment of the cross, uttered that cry which He had once uttered in the psalm, “O God, My God, look upon Me: why hast Thou forsaken Me?” That cry, dearly-beloved, is a lesson, not a complaint. For since in Christ there is one person of God and man, and He could not have been forsaken by Him, from Whom He could not be separated, it is on behalf of us, trembling and weak ones, that He asks why the flesh that is afraid to suffer has not been heard. For when the Passion was beginning, to cure and correct our weak fear He had said, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless not as I will but as Thou;” and again, “Father, if this cup cannot pass except I drink it, Thy will be done.” As therefore He had conquered the tremblings of the flesh, and had now accepted the Father’s will, and trampling all dread of death under foot, was then carrying out the work of His design, why at the very time of His triumph over such a victory does He seek the cause and reason of His being forsaken, that is, not heard, save to show that the feeling which He entertained in excuse of His human fears is quite different from the deliberate choice which, in accordance with the Father’s eternal decree, He had made for the reconciliation of the world?

If I am reading this rightly, St. Leo seems to be saying that Christ permitted Himself in His humanity to feel the trembling and dread of death, that He might conquer it for us by His deliberate choice of obedience.

Also, there is St. Athanasius' third discourse against the Arians (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.vii.html), where he says:


Yea, it is written that He wept, O God’s enemies, and that He said, ‘I am troubled,’ and on the Cross He said, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ and He besought that the cup might pass away. Thus certainly it is written; but again I would ask you (for the same rejoinder must of necessity be made to each of your objections, If the speaker is mere man, let him weep and fear death, as being man; but if He is the Word in flesh (for one must not be reluctant to repeat), whom had He to fear being God? or wherefore should He fear death, who was Himself Life, and was rescuing others from death? or how, whereas He said, ‘Fear not him that kills the body,’ should He Himself fear? ...

But these affections were not proper to the nature of the Word, as far as He was Word; but in the flesh which was thus affected was the Word, O Christ’s enemies and unthankful Jews! For He said not all this prior to the flesh; but when the ‘Word became flesh,’ and has become man, then is it written that He said this, that is, humanly. Surely He of whom this is written was He who raised Lazarus from the dead, and made the water wine, and vouchsafed sight to the man born blind, and said, ‘I and My Father are one.’ If then they make His human attributes a ground for low thoughts concerning the Son of God, nay consider Him altogether man from the earth, and not from heaven, wherefore not from His divine works recognise the Word who is in the Father, and henceforward renounce their self-willed irreligion? For they are given to see, how He who did the works is the same as He who shewed that His body was passible by His permitting it to weep and hunger, and to shew other properties of a body. For while by means of such He made it known that, though God impassible, He had taken a passible flesh; yet from the works He shewed Himself the Word of God, who had afterwards become man, saying, Though ye believe not Me, beholding Me clad in a human body, yet believe the works, that ye may know that “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.” ...

... For in the incorporeal, the properties of body had not been, unless He had taken a body corruptible and mortal; for mortal was Holy Mary, from whom was His body. Wherefore of necessity when He was in a body suffering, and weeping, and toiling, these things which are proper to the flesh, are ascribed to Him together with the body. If then He wept and was troubled, it was not the Word, considered as the Word, who wept and was troubled, but it was proper to the flesh; and if too He besought that the cup might pass away, it was not the Godhead that was in terror, but this affection too was proper to the manhood. And that the words ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ are His, according to the foregoing explanations (though He suffered nothing, for the Word was impassible), is notwithstanding declared by the Evangelists; since the Lord became man, and these things are done and said as from a man, that He might Himself lighten these very sufferings of the flesh, and free it from them. ...

And as to His saying, ‘If it be possible, let the cup pass,’ observe how, though He thus spake, He rebuked Peter, saying, ‘Thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.’ For He willed what He deprecated, for therefore had He come; but His was the willing (for for it He came), but the terror belonged to the flesh. Wherefore as man He utters this speech also, and yet both were said by the Same, to shew that He was God, willing in Himself, but when He had become man, having a flesh that was in terror. For the sake of this flesh He combined His own will with human weakness, that destroying this affection He might in turn make man undaunted in face of death. Behold then a thing strange indeed! He to whom Christ’s enemies impute words of terror, He by that so-called tenor renders men undaunted and fearless. And so the Blessed Apostles after Him from such words of His conceived so great a contempt of death, as not even to care for those who questioned them, but to answer, ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ And the other Holy Martyrs were so bold, as to think that they were rather passing to life than undergoing death. Is it not extravagant then, to admire the courage of the servants of the Word, yet to say that the Word Himself was in terror, through whom they despised death? But from that most enduring purpose and courage of the Holy Martyrs is shewn, that the Godhead was not in terror, but the Saviour took away our terror. For as He abolished death by death, and by human means all human evils, so by this so-called terror did He remove our terror, and brought about that never more should men fear death. His word and deed go together. For human were the sayings, ‘Let the cup pass,’ and ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ and divine the act whereby the Same did cause the sun to fail and the dead to rise.

Apologies for the length; I was having trouble figuring out where to edit, so left in more than I probably needed to.

In Christ,
Michael