HOCNA ON THE DOGMA = OF REDEMPTION

THE=20 MYSTERY OF REDEMPTION

Vladimir = Moss

=A9 = Vladimir=20 Moss =

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.=20 THE =93JURIDICAL THEORY=94

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. Gregory Palamas, Homily=20 16.

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