Presented to your attention is a transcript of a lecture by Father Daniil Sysoev on Dogmatic Theology on the topic of the Incarnation. Due to the fact that the sound quality in the recording leaves much to be desired, in some places it is not Father Daniil's verbatim speech that is conveyed, but its general meaning. Notes have also been added by the transcript's editor, expanding on the meaning of Father Daniil's speech more broadly. They are placed in separate brackets and marked as (ed.: ….). This has been done because not many manage to grasp the meaning of Father Daniil's fervent speech due to a lack of the knowledge that is embedded in his subconscious, which he absorbed from his very childhood.
Father Daniil:
Well, everyone is gradually gathering, in greater numbers now. Today we will be talking about Christology, that is, the doctrine of the Incarnation. This topic is probably one of the most developed in Orthodox theology. The acts of the Six Ecumenical Councils were dedicated to this very theme. And the Seventh Council also has a direct bearing on Christology. And I think the formulas of the dogma of the Incarnation have long been known to everyone. That is, we believe in one Son, one Lord, Jesus Christ, in two natures or essences, united in one hypostasis, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. This is the formula proposed by the Council of Chalcedon, which was supplemented by the formula of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, namely, that in Him there exist two natural wills – two natural energies, but in such a way that they do not contradict each other, and the human will follows the Divine will in all things. This formula is key for Orthodox dogmatic theology and, in fact, for the life of any Christian, because the main question the Gospel asks us is not "what did Christ do?", but "who is He?" Why, I think, is clear. Because the very fact of God's appearance in the flesh is greater than even everything He does here. The appearance itself is the highest revelation of God. It is no accident that the Epistle to the Hebrews begins with the words:
"1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Epistle to the Hebrews: 1; 1-4)
This is the well-known text from the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, which speaks precisely about the final, ultimate revelation of God in the Person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Indeed, this fact of Theophany is the very core of human history. A more important, a more great thing, even than the creation of the world itself, as John Chrysostom says. Because in creating the world, God was building something external to Himself. But here, He Himself entered into this external something and made a part of that external something part of Himself. But here there are a number of problems of a missionary and theological nature related to understanding the dogma of the Incarnation. The first, probably the most important problem, is understanding who Christ is. Well, actually, this question has been asked many times, starting with the Gospel. Remember, the Lord said: "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" And this question is still asked by many people. When you engage in practical mission work, you will see that very often even Christians think that Christ was God [and] became man. This is a very common opinion, which implies a certain change in the person of Christ. In the sense that "His nature changed in some way, He turned into a man, and He was God, ceased to be God and became a man." This doctrine, for example, is even part of the official creed of Jehovah's Witnesses. True, for them He was not God, but the Archangel Michael; then He ceased to be an Archangel and turned completely into a man; and then He ceased to be a man and turned into some kind of Divine being. According to the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses, that's how it turns out. But what is exaggerated in Jehovah's Witnesses is actually very common among ordinary people as well. Very often they say: "Yes, but why can't we consider Christ simply an ideal man? Why can't we consider him simply such a wonderful man, a teacher of morality? Why must we necessarily consider him God?" Well, here, I think, it's worth recalling that old logical picture, which was developed by the great scholastics in the West, and is still used in any missionary work, including Protestant ones.
Christ speaks of Himself as God. I'll remind you of the topic. Remember when we talked about the Divinity of Christ, the Divinity of the Son of God? There are many such places. The most striking is "I and My Father are one" (Gospel of John: 10; 30). And here "I and My Father are one" (Gospel of John: 10; 30) obviously speaks not of Him being like the Father, but of consubstantiality. Or as it is in Slavonic, "Az i Otets edino esma". Here, of course, we have a clear affirmation of His Divinity. And there are many such examples.
"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;" (Gospel of John; 14; 9) Or
"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." (Gospel of Matthew: 11; 27)
And there are actually hundreds of such examples in the Gospel. This raises a certain point. We must say, firstly, did Jesus say this or not? Let's follow the logical chain. Well, as for "He did not say it," it is very often said that, well, the Gospels are "forgeries," they are "fakes," texts written by the Church later. (ed.: all these false arguments have long been analyzed and do not withstand any criticism; these are simply unsubstantiated slander, and one can confidently demand evidence in response to these arguments, evidence which simply does not exist. Textual criticism confirms the authenticity of the Gospel and the entire Bible based on numerous ancient manuscripts from different parts of the world. And the historical reliability of the Gospel and the entire Bible is also confirmed from other non-biblical sources, including Jewish ones. Also, what the first Christians believed is confirmed from non-biblical sources, particularly from the very persecutors of Christians, who were pagans and pagan philosophers. Now, by God's providence, their works are used to confirm the reliability of the Gospel and Christian teaching itself. One such Christian author who worked on this issue is B.I. Gladkov, who in his work "Interpretation of the Gospel" devoted considerable attention to this issue. In addition, S.L. Khudiev does a great deal of work responding to all kinds of liberal-atheistic incontinence. The website https://pravoslavnyi-otvet-na-eres-i-okultizm.blogspot.com presents only some of his video lessons.) This is how liberals speak in such a crude form; more polite liberal writers of the Protestant tendency, like Bultmann, say that, well, this is an exposition of the "kerygma of the Church," very beautifully put, so that no one understands. But the essence is such that if you translate this beautiful phrase into Russian, it means that a crowd of violent, stupid, ignorant Christians gathered, who had a little bit of contact with Judaism but remained pagans. And so, out of their stupidity, they deified Jesus. And they have this version. And based on this, supposedly Jesus does not say this.
Here it must be said that we need to treat the Bible as any historical document. You understand, right? We cannot pick and choose from the Bible whatever we want. Just as we cannot pick and choose, for example, from the "Primary Chronicle" or Napoleon's diaries, and so on. That is, here we have the same historical document as any other historical document. And do we have evidence that Jesus did not say these words? There is no such evidence. Moreover, the Qumran finds showed, as well as the analysis of the religious teachings of the Jews of the Second Temple period, that Judaism had an idea of a certain plurality in God, so to speak. This is obvious. That is, the Divinity of the Messiah and His pre-existence are known to the Qumran texts. And they testify to this very well. I can refer to the work of Father Dmitry Yurkevich, "The Image of the Messiah in the Qumran Documents." This issue is excellently shown there based on the Qumran documents. That is, if Christians borrowed these ideas from anywhere, it was from Judaism, and certainly not from paganism. Like, when we say that Christians borrowed something from paganism, and these are favorite ideas, like in "The Da Vinci Code" or some other such fabrications, we must understand that Christians had an extremely negative attitude towards paganism. That is, extremely negative. If there was anything they could not borrow, it was pagan theology. Because Christians despised pagan theology exceedingly. Especially since the pagans actually have nothing analogous. Something similar to the doctrine of the Trinity first appears in the works of Plotinus and Proclus. Plotinus – third century, and Proclus – fifth century.
Listener:
They [the pagans] borrowed it.
Father Daniil:
Yes, of course, direct borrowing. Moreover, we know that Proclus was acquainted with Origen. They knew each other personally well. So the borrowing here is direct. There is an obvious borrowing. And it's a reverse borrowing. But even that Neoplatonic doctrine of the trinity that exists, that is, the doctrine of the One, from which emanates the logos, from which emanates the world spirit, the world soul, more precisely. This doctrine of emanation, of course, is in no way identical to the Word of Christ, because Christ speaks of Himself as equal to the Father. Likewise, the Apostles speak of Him as equal to the Father, and not as a demigod. Therefore, here we must say that moreover, even the texts of the inauthentic Gospels themselves – the Gospel of Thomas, the Infancy Gospel – these ancient apocrypha, even they say that Jesus, according to these texts, attributed some kind of divinity to Himself. Another question is what level of divinity, right? But that Jesus did not consider Himself merely a man is attested by all documents of that era. This is also attested by the Talmudic accusation that He appropriated the incommunicable name, that is, the name Yahweh – Jehovah. The same is attested by the accusation of the pagans. That is, strictly speaking, all ideas that Jesus was merely a man were perceived exclusively as certain legal tendencies that were never accepted in Christianity. That is, Jesus spoke of Himself as God. If we can speak of any fact historically, it is about this fact that we can speak most reliably historically.
Now the question arises. Did He speak the truth or a lie? Then comes the usual logical fork. If the truth, then He is God. This is precisely the path for the ordinary Christian. If we say that He spoke the truth, what confirms this? His signs, miracles, His authority over spiritual forces, over demons, which can be verified even now. Demons can be driven out even now using the name of Christ. This is a well-working argument, especially in a religious environment. When talking with Muslims, you can say that if Jesus were not God, why would demons flee from the sign of the cross? Then the logic goes like this. And if He is not God, if this is not true, then there is an option: either He was deluded, or He lied. There is no third option. If He was deluded, then He is insane. If He lied, then He is the devil. There is no place left for a righteous Jesus at all. Do you understand?
Listener:
The fact of the resurrection also confirms this.
Father Daniil:
Yes, the fact of the Resurrection is the key fact, of course, but it requires separate consideration; we will consider it separately. The fact of the resurrection is, of course, the most key fact, so we always base ourselves on it, because, as the Apostle Paul said in the Epistle to the Romans, chapter 1, verse 4:
"and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:" (Epistle to the Romans: 1; 4)
That is, Christ, risen from the dead, was declared the Son of God, that is, He showed His Divinity.
Now, regarding the second problem of understanding the dogma of the Incarnation.
So, based on what was said earlier, we are faced with a conclusion that shows that Tolstoy's teaching about Jesus as merely a righteous man, or the teaching about Him as a great initiate, is, of course, impossible. That is, either He is God, or He is a liar, an insane devil. That is, either He is Christ, or He is the antichrist. That is, no other options arise here.
But here a second question arises, related to the idea of "who is He?" This question, as I said, has always been before the Church, and here a certain point arises. How should we relate to modern theological currents? It is often said that "Jesus is a man in whom God's presence dwelt." You know this favorite phrase? "In Jesus, God's presence was active." This is a favorite phrase. If you open, say, Balthasar, among modern Catholic authors, his favorite phrase is that "Jesus is the manifestation of God's presence, or it was active in him." In our modern Russian "theology," there is an idea of the so-called "three-hypostatic Jesus." It is confessed by the so-called "symmetrical Christology." Dima knows it well. The idea is this: there is the man Jesus, there is God the Son, and they united into some third something – a person of unity. The result is a complex hypostasis, in the sense that it is composed of two hypostases. What is a hypostasis, by the way? Let's recall our previous lectures.
Listener:
Personality.
Father Daniil:
A concrete manifestation of nature and personality. Regarding beings possessing free will – it is also a person. Regarding beings not possessing free will – it is a certain concrete manifestation of nature. Well, like the hypostasis of a cup. Remember we talked about this? Here, of course, it is extremely important to remember that the Church gives a very clear affirmation of who Jesus is. This affirmation is so important that it is included in our most important prayers. Even the most frequently repeated Jesus Prayer is connected with confessing Jesus not only as Christ, but also as the Son of God. Right?
Here we have a very important point. That is, there is the teaching of the Church, confessed at the Third Ecumenical Council, that Jesus is the same Son of God, who was eternally with the Father, who became man, but while remaining God. That is, His person – whose person is it? The person of the One of the Trinity. Therefore, in describing the incarnation, the following words are used:
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (Gospel of John: 1; 14)
"Was made," i.e., entered into the closest union, but at the same time His human nature is called a "tabernacle." It is clear that a tabernacle does not have independent significance compared to its owner. And that is precisely why, for example, when in ancient times John of Damascus was asked questions: "Is the human nature of Jesus Christ worthy of worship separately from His Divinity?" He says: "Of course, that is impossible." If we could mentally separate the human nature of Christ from His Divinity, it would not be worthy of worship. It's clear, right? Therefore, the Church condemned at the Third Ecumenical Council the teaching of Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia about double worship of Jesus. For instance, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, his disciple, they asserted that Jesus as a man worshiped the Son of God as God. But this teaching was condemned by the Holy Church of God. It's clear why, right? Because in such a situation, the very essence of the incarnation, that is, the essence of the fact that God Himself came here beyond the limits of the world, disappears. That is, it would actually be one of many in the series of theophanies, of which there were many, right? That very thing, about which God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets (Epistle to the Hebrews: 1; 1), that God is with us, this unique revelation, would disappear. Indeed, let's think about what it means, God in the Flesh? That is, it turns out that there are many created persons, right? And among them there is One uncreated. In Flesh and Blood, but uncreated, do you understand? That is, there are many people who are perfected, but there is one Person who is not perfected, but emptied, humbled. It's clear, right? That is, Christ, He does not need perfection; on the contrary, He diminishes His glory, as the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews says: "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Epistle to the Hebrews: 12; 2).
That is, for Him it was a descent, a condescension to us, right? And not our ascent to the heavens. In this sense, when we discuss the question "Who is Christ?", the key text is that very text which we always read on the feasts of the Theotokos. This is the Epistle to the Philippians, chapter 2, verses 5 through 11. A very well-known text, I will read it first in the Russian translation, and then I will provide some comments, because the Russian translation, unfortunately, does not reflect all the precision of the original. The Slavonic, by the way, conveys the original more precisely, but that's why it's also more obscure, by the way.
"5. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Epistle to the Philippians: 2; 5-11)
So, here the Apostle begins by pointing to the connection between us and Christ. That very connection that constantly runs through, i.e., when we preach certain moral sermons, we must say what? You must do this and that because Christ commanded, He Himself walked this path. It's clear, right? That is, our preaching about morality without Christ is an empty shell.
This is why I consider, for example, the activities of Father Alexander Shargunov unacceptable. Remember, in the 90s he created the movement "For the Moral Revival of the Fatherland," compiled a book "Antichrist in Moscow" and fought against the moral corruption of society together with communists and other comrades. One must remember that the morality of Christians is fundamentally different from the morality of anyone else. Because outside Christianity, morality is a kind of conditional concept, so to speak, a kind of ideology into which they try to forcibly stuff a person. Do you understand? In Christianity, morality is a kind of union with the Lord Christ Himself and His Father. That is, one thing is a collection of rules, another thing is a Person.
Remember there was that Bogdan Titomir who said: "do as I do." Well, Christ, so to speak, has far more right to that than those parodists and idiots from the 90s, remember? But the principle is actually precisely expressed, right? That is, you can say, do this and that, right? Or you can do as I do. We Christians express it by a slightly different principle. We say: "we do as He does." It's clear, right? Because we are imperfect, but before us we have Someone Perfect, who is our Model.
And here the question arises, why exactly should we imitate Jesus, right? Why should we imitate Jesus specifically, and why can't we imitate someone else? And here is precisely where the question of the Incarnation immediately plays its role, you understand? And moreover, another point arises here. Not only the imitation of Christ arises here, but also a very important point arises. Which one? People can now receive God's power in an accessible form. The point is that the Incarnation itself makes God's power accessible to us. It's clear why? Otherwise, a person simply could not assimilate it; he would get burned and perish. This, by the way, is what the Apostle speaks about here. Let's now look at this text:
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" (Epistle to the Philippians: 2; 6)
(ed.: St. Theophylact of Bulgaria says this: "Furthermore, look at what Paul says: 'thought it not robbery.' When someone steals something, he is afraid to put it aside, lest he lose what does not belong to him. But when one has something by nature, he easily disregards it, knowing that he cannot be deprived of it, and if he seems to renounce it, he will receive it again. Thus, the Apostle says that the Son of God did not fear to humble His own dignity, because He possessed it, that is, equality with God the Father, not through robbery, but considered this dignity as belonging to His own nature. Therefore, He also chose humiliation, since even in humiliation He preserves His greatness.")
It is also interesting if we pay attention to the Greek original of this passage; in place of the word "form" [in the Russian translation "image"], it is not "eikon" (image), but this word "morphe" (ed. note: in the concept of Aristotle's philosophy, "morphe" is the form for formless and indefinite matter (prime matter); without morphe, no movement or process can arise. That is, essentially, in the Epistle to the Philippians, the Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus Christ as the incarnate God.) Actually, it would be better to translate this word not as "image" [in Russian "obraz"] but as "form" of God. That's how it's translated in Latin.
It says here, He, being in the morphe (in the form) of God, or, in other words, existing in the form of God, did not consider for Himself, did not need, more precisely, did not need an ecstasy, an exit, a theft, a robbery in order to be equal with God. What does it mean to be in the form of God? The mode of existence. Morphe, which is used here – the word form. The point is that the word "form" [in Russian "obraz"] has several meanings because the Russian "obraz" is used to translate several Greek words – morphe, eikon, schema; there are several names for form. Schema, morphe, image, form in Latin. Or there is "ikona," actually in the direct sense, image. So, here it says that He was in the form of God, existed eternally in the form of God. That is, He is God in the Flesh, not needing ecstasy, an exit, to rise to the heights of Divinity. Interestingly, the main idea of all pagan theologies is what? That certain beings achieve the divine level. What example? The simplest example is the deification of Romulus, who was supposedly raptured to heaven, and there a witness saw how spirits carried him to heaven. He achieved apotheosis, that is, deification.
Listener:
Buddha.
Father Daniil:
Buddha is still not considered a god, let's be objective.
There could be another point. In pagan mythologies, do you know what the favorite story is? That is, there was some god, for example, Marduk, who occupied a subordinate position, and then through a certain military operation, or like Baal through the construction of a certain fortress-palace, he achieved deification. That is, this is actually a common idea of all pagan mythologies. We practically cannot name a single pagan deity that did not need perfection. Practically not one. Either a primordial egg exploding, from which something grows. Or gods who overthrow their predecessors, growing to greatness. That is, we are faced precisely with that old classical scheme of all religions. All religions speak of the deification of the object of worship, who grows, who needs rapture, ascent, ecstasy, exit, to become like a god.
Christ does not need this. He is God as He is. He is equal to God the Father. He does not need robbery to be equal with the Father. Here one can cite such a good phrase: "There is a fundamental difference between Christ and the devil, what is it? Do you know? Christ descended from heaven, and the devil was thrown out of there." It's clear, right? That is, Christ voluntarily descends, right? And the devil wanted to go up, but they broke him, do you understand? That is the fundamental difference. And, by the way, it's similar, isn't it, how everything usually is in this religious world. In general, the most insidious lie in this world resembles the truth. It's clear, right?
Listener:
Father Daniil, does Allah need Muslims?
Father Daniil:
Well, according to the Wahhabis, actually, the namaz [prayer] exists for the deification of Allah.
Listener:
The more news the Wahhabis read, the better Allah feels?
Father Daniil:
Well, yes.
Listener:
So it's necessary for him?
Father Daniil:
Well, if you separate the concept from the Wahhabis, take Sufism, for example. In Sufism, it would be different.
Listener:
And what is in Sufism?
Father Daniil:
In Sufism, Allah is a faceless force. How can he be deified or not deified? A faceless force can neither be deified nor not deified. Do you understand? It just kind of exists.
Here, look, there is a very interesting point. That is, for the Apostle Paul in this text, firstly, we see that these words directly speak of the equality of the Son with the Father in Divinity. Make a note of it: when you are asked where it is written about the equality of the Son with the Father, it is written right here.
The second place, by the way, speaking of the equality of the Son with the Father, is the Gospel of John, chapter 5, verses 17-18:
"17. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (Gospel of John: 5; 17-18)
So, further in the Epistle to the Philippians it is said:
"7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" (Epistle to the Philippians: 2; 7)
(ed.: Blessed Augustine of Hippo (†430) says the following about these words:
"He is said to have emptied Himself, namely by taking the form of a servant, without losing the form of God. For that nature in which He is equal to the Father in the form of God remains unchanged when He assumes our changeable nature, through which He was born of the Virgin."
St. Cyril of Alexandria (†444) says the following about these words:
"but made himself of no reputation
What is this emptying? To be clothed with flesh – and in the form of a servant; to be made in the likeness of us – not having the same nature with us, but surpassing all creation. Thus He humbled Himself, according to the dispensation of salvation, confining Himself within human dimensions.
and was made in the likeness of men
How can we say that He was in the form of God and equal to the Father... if we consider Him simply and solely a man, born of a woman? What fullness would He possess in that case, such that it would make sense to speak of an 'emptying' [of His Divinity]? On what height must He have been before, to be able to say that He humbled Himself? How would He become like men, if we think that before He was already a man by nature?"
St. Leo the Great (†461) says the following about these words:
"He took the form of a servant, without having sin upon Him, increasing the human and not diminishing the Divine. This humiliation, in which the Invisible made Himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all desired to be one of mortals, was an act of mercy, but the power did not disappear.")
That is, it is clear that it is about Him assuming human nature. However, the human nature of Christ is sinless.
Listener:
I have this question. The person of Jesus Christ, how did He Himself perceive Himself after becoming incarnate?
Father Daniil:
He calls Himself both man and God. We know that His Person perceives Himself as the Person of God and as the Person of man. "Ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham." (Gospel of John: 8;40) Remember, right? The Lord said, right? There. At the same time: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (Gospel of John: 8; 58) He perceives human nature as His own nature.
So:
"8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Epistle to the Philippians: 2; 8-11)
By the way, verse 10, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," – this is a direct quote from Isaiah, chapter 45, verse 23. You know that, right? It is Jehovah speaking: "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." (Isaiah: 45; 23). What does this mean? That here, actually, for the Apostle Paul, the identity of Jehovah and Jesus is completely obvious. He is that very One, before whose name every tongue shall bow.
Now, regarding the next question. The question of the human nature of Christ. It is discussed continuously. And the question is often put: "What nature did the Lord take? Adam's nature before the fall or after the fall?" Do you understand? The most interesting thing is that this question was at the center of the dispute between Julian of Halicarnassus and Severus of Antioch – heretical Monophysite theologians. But the Church refused to answer it. And we should not answer such a question. We must precisely formulate what nature Christ has. Come on, seminarians, formulate it for me. What are the properties of Christ's human nature? Is it before the fall or after the fall?
Listener Andrey:
It is sinless, with blameless passions.
Another listener:
Before the fall. Because it did not assume Adam's sin.
Father Daniil:
Before the fall – that's exactly what Julian of Halicarnassus taught. That is, it was incapable of suffering. If He foresaw this suffering, it was a special permission for it, otherwise actually other more radical things – He only seemed to suffer... (laughs...) Yes, yes, that's exactly what Julian of Halicarnassus said. This teaching is called "aphthartodocetism." This teaching was condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. (laughs...)
Third listener:
That's what they teach us in the seminary.
Listener:
Or maybe He already has the kind of nature we will have after the transfiguration?
Father Daniil:
Well, any other suggestions? Nikolai, your suggestions?
Listener:
Is there anything left? Is there any other option?
Father Daniil:
Well, well, well. The second, right? After the fall? That is, He has an inner inclination towards evil, He is drawn to fornicate, kill, steal. He restrains Himself, right? With difficulty restrains Himself, right? So? That is the heresy of Theodore of Mopsuestia, condemned at the same Fifth Ecumenical Council. (laughs...)
Listener:
You've confused us, actually.
Listener:
Maybe He has something else entirely different?
Father Daniil:
The thing is this. You see, why did the fathers refuse to answer this question? The thing is that the answer is very simple. Christ assumed human nature such as He created it. In that sense. That is, it did not include the plant not planted by the Father. Remember, Christ said, every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. (Gospel of Matthew: 15; 13) Right? But in what sense? That is, He did not accept sin into Himself. In what sense sin? That is, He did not have within Him the sinful inclination, the satanic quality that is in every baptized person. A demon did not live in His heart. Understand? Why didn't a demon live? Why did He have that state?
Listener:
The immaculate conception.
Father Daniil:
Yes, of course, the immaculate conception, absolutely right. At the same time, at the very conception, He voluntarily takes upon Himself, as Andrey correctly said, all the blameless consequences of original sin.
Let's differentiate. There are reprehensible consequences, and there are blameless consequences. Do you understand? What do reprehensible consequences mean? A person is born with a tendency towards scandals and causes scandals. Cause and effect. The tendency manifests in scandals. The tendency towards egoism and pride manifests in scandal. But this is not in Christ. But at the same time, there are blameless passions in Him. Which ones? What do passions mean in general? The capacity to suffer, absolutely right. Moreover, this concerns both bodily and mental capacity, do you understand? Therefore, He feels pain, weeps over Lazarus, feels anguish, sorrow. Nevertheless, He remains not under the dominion of sin.
By the way, a very interesting point. In the book "Son of Man" by Archpriest Alexander Men, there are such words: "Jesus felt within Himself the emerging voice of the devil, which offered Him the third temptation." Do you think this could have been the case or not?
Listener:
No, of course.
Father Daniil:
No, why? Because the voice of the devil within is precisely the main consequence of original sin, do you understand? The sinful consequence, do you understand? That is the main manifestation of original sin. That is, if it were so, Christ would be, as Gregory Palamas says, a coin of old minting, do you understand? Right.
That is precisely why, answering the disputed question of the Monophysites, we can say: neither before nor after. It's clear, right? Before the fall, man did not feel thirst, hunger, etc. Do you understand? He was not subject to death. He learned death through the fall, right? But at the same time, Christ, like Adam before sin, does He not feel something? He does not feel the voice of satan in His heart. It's clear, right? This happens due to the immaculate conception. It's clear, right?
By the way, here is a very interesting point. Why is it important to know this question? How does it relate to our salvation? This should be our personal state. Through the gift of baptism and the gift of Communion, we can, and therefore must, attain the state of Christ during the incarnation, but before His death. Understand? Remember, the Lord said: "where I am, there shall also my servant be" (Gospel of John: 12; 26). Understand? That is, understanding what Christ's nature was like before the resurrection, that is the state we too should strive for.
Here we must understand that the same power that was in Adam before the fall, power over the elements, is returned to all Christians. I repeat, there is identity between our nature and the nature of Christ before the resurrection, the same complete, do you understand?
Listener:
Therefore, Christian civilization is airplanes, rockets...
Father Daniil:
(Laughs...) That's a parody, a parody. I wanted to show you a very important point here, actually, which is often misinterpreted. The point is that the Nestorian infection is extremely widespread now. In society, in theology, and it is particularly widespread even among those sectarians you will encounter. For example, you will certainly hear from Adventists, from Baptists, even from Charismatics, very often from Charismatics, ideas that Christ could have sinned, right? But He fought..., restrained Himself with mighty efforts and did not sin... Right. And at the same time, they rely on a certain text. Let's analyze it now. This is the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 2. We will analyze the text from verse 5 to 18:
"5. For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
6. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7. Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8. Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12. Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Epistle to the Hebrews: 2; 5-18)
Here we see, in fact, that this text is in many ways key to understanding our teaching on the Incarnation and Redemption. It is so important that it is read at every Blessing of the Waters service. But experience has shown that almost no one understands it. It is one of the most difficult Slavonic texts that exists, probably in the world. But nevertheless, one of the most important. And it contains several features that I would like to analyze with you. Well, I think it's clear that the beginning needs almost no commentary. Here the Apostle Paul continues to analyze the difference between Christ and angels. In connection with the so-called "angelic theology of the Messiah," which was present in some sects of Judaism, namely some Jewish sects assert that the Messiah will be an angel, Metatron. That is, an angel standing before the throne of God. Right. In connection with this, the Apostle Paul writes a special treatise, that He is not an angel. And then it describes that the words of the 8th Psalm apply to Him: "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour" (Ps.: 8; 5). And then he emphasizes that "we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Epistle to the Hebrews: 2; 9) What does this mean? What does it mean, Jesus crowned with glory and honour? In what sense did Jesus receive glory and honour after the resurrection? In what sense is He crowned with glory and honour, which He did not have, what did He receive? And this is said in the Gospel. After the resurrection, Christ says: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Gospel of Matthew: 28; 18). Dim, in what sense is Jesus crowned with glory and honour? What did He receive after the resurrection? What kind of glory and honour? What did He define as glory and honour?
Listener:
Glory and honour were bestowed upon His human nature, and it consisted in the human nature attaining that highest state of perfection to which the old Adam was called, and which he did not achieve.
Father Daniil:
Correct, but not completely. What else is missing? Alexander. Some other honour was also given to Him. Moreover, it has a direct relation to us...
Listener:
Maybe it has something to do with the Church?
Another listener:
He sat down at the right hand of God the Father.
Listener:
Give a hint.
Father Daniil:
Why hint? Remember what the Lord said? "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Gospel of Matthew: 28; 18). Further. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Gospel of Matthew: 28; 19). Do you understand? It is indeed connected with the Church. But how is it connected? The Church is built by the sacraments. Do you understand? It is not that the Church builds the sacrament, but the Church is built by the sacraments. Do you understand? It is not the Church that performs the sacrament, but God builds the Church through the sacraments. Do you understand? And the authority to forgive, to cleanse people from sin, and to regenerate them completely, was given precisely as a result of the resurrection.
Listener:
And the honour?
Father Daniil:
The honour – to be the Head of the Church. To be above all, the Head of the Church. Understand? Indeed, everything is interconnected, you see? So, the complete deification of Christ's human nature (not divine, of course) simultaneously manifests in power. Moreover, note, in temporal power, which will end, you know? When will He return the power to the Father? Remember when?
Listener:
At the Last Judgment?
Father Daniil:
Yes, that's what is said. And then there will be another honour, a greater one. To be the Enlightener, sanctifying all.
Listener:
And where is it said that He will deliver up the power to the Father?
Father Daniil:
First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15.
(ed.: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." (First Epistle to the Corinthians: 15; 24))
Listener:
The honour is that He is the Head of the Church. And the power?
Father Daniil:
The authority to forgive sins, stemming from that. But He had the authority to forgive sins even before. The power to regenerate a person. That is more serious than just forgiving sins. Remember, He forgave sins even before the resurrection? Remember? But baptism, which regenerates, did not exist before the resurrection, right?
Listener:
And those people whom John the Baptist baptized, how were they?
Father Daniil:
That was not regeneration. Remember, John the Baptist himself contrasted his baptism with Christ's.
Listener:
After he baptized Christ, he also baptized some people, right?
Father Daniil:
Yes.
Listener:
And those people?
Father Daniil:
Same thing. Baptism arises after the death and resurrection of Christ, because we participate in the death and resurrection of Christ. Do you understand?
Listener:
Then why did John the Baptist...?
Father Daniil:
So that all would repent and follow Christ.
Listener:
So it was like he was preparing for that?
Father Daniil:
Yes.
So. What does "that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Epistle to the Hebrews: 2; 9) mean? Interestingly, there is a Nestorian variant, which goes like this. The Nestorian variant of the text of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which Nestle-Aland interestingly used to teach. (ed.: Nestle-Aland is a so-called scientific publishing house of "New Testament" texts. The founder of this publishing house was Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913). Moreover, the text of the New Testament in the Nestle-Aland edition has been repeatedly changed and republished. At the same time, there is absolutely no logic as to why words from Holy Scripture are removed or distorted or a different text is added. How the 5700 New Testament manuscripts were taken into account is completely unclear. It is obvious that the goal of this publishing house is not to determine the true and authentic text, but to profit from the republished texts of the "New Testament." Moreover, tracing the history of Nestle-Aland reprints, one gets the impression that the publishing house is trying to follow the wake of certain heretical waves characteristic of the period of the reprints of the "New Testament" texts. And although their latest edition of the "New Testament" does not contain Nestorian corruption, relying on the imaginary authority of this publication is completely unnecessary.) Although all the Churches of the 4th-5th century considered it a special Nestorian corruption. The Nestorian corruption sounds like this: "apart from God taste death."
Listener:
"Apart from the Father?"
Father Daniil:
Well, yes. The Gnostics claimed that "apart from God" means that the Divinity left Jesus during death. So, in fact, it is "by the grace of God." That is, God's grace – the greatest gift – the good gift of God – is the death of Christ. It's clear, right? A manifestation of the greatest good gift of God to people.
And further it is said:
"For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Epistle to the Hebrews: 2; 10)
Here "for whom are all things" and "by whom are all things" – this refers to the Father, who brings many sons to the glory of Jesus – their Captain of salvation – and makes them perfect through sufferings.
Now the word "make perfect" [in Russian "sovershil"], mentioned here in verse 10...
It is very often claimed that Jesus – He grew, matured in His human nature. There is one professor at the Moscow Theological Academy (my favorite professor, you understand, I can't get by without him) who claims that Jesus lost the ability to sin, and the sinful passions disappeared in Him only at the moment of the resurrection.
Listener:
Who is that?
Another listener:
Is it Osipov?
Father Daniil:
Yes.
Listener:
And why is he still a professor?
Father Daniil:
The 12th anathematism of the 5th Ecumenical Council, by the way.
Actually, how do all the Church fathers, starting with Chrysostom, understand the word "make perfect"? That is, Christ perfected human nature. It became deified, it lost the blameless passions, the irreproachable passions, that is, hunger, thirst, fatigue, sorrow, and so on. All these interesting psychological consequences of the fall, which in an ordinary person lead to sin, when a person begins to break God's commandment for their sake. All these blameless passions disappeared during the resurrection from the dead of Christ the Savior. Therefore, it is said He "made perfect." It's clear, right? He made man perfect.
So:
"11. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified ..." – he that sanctifieth is Jesus Christ, they who are sanctified are we Christians – "are all of one:" – that is, we are all from one Father. –
"for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12. Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." (Epistle to the Hebrews: 2; 11-12)
A quote from Psalm 22 [21 LXX], remember we read it last time? (ed.: "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee." (Ps.: 22; 22))
"13. And again, I will put my trust in him..." – And this is a quote from Isaiah. – "And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me."
(ed.: "17. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.
18. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion." (Isaiah: 8; 17-18))
That is, here Jesus calls Christians His brethren. Here is quoted precisely the ancient prophecy of the prophets, which says that Jesus calls all Christians His brethren. It is not for nothing that the Lord addresses the Apostles? "but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (Gospel of John: 20; 17) – Christ addresses Mary Magdalene. That is, we are all brethren of Christ, but there are differences. We are adopted children of God, and He is the only begotten Son of the Father. Therefore, by the way, Christ distinguishes. Remember, He did not say: "go to my brethren and say, I ascend to our Father and our God"? Why does He make a distinction?
Listener:
According to humanity and according to divinity.
Father Daniil:
"To my Father" – according to Divinity, and "to your Father" – according to adoption. Right? "To my God" – according to humanity, "to your God" – according to nature. Right? This is the Gospel of John, chapter 20, verse 17.
Listener:
Why "to your God" according to nature?
Father Daniil:
For Jesus, God the Father is God according to His human nature, right? And for us, God is our God, because we are humans.
Listener:
All clear.
Father Daniil:
So, and further the Apostle says:
"14. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" (Epistle to the Hebrews: 2; 14)
That is, the Lord takes on Flesh and Blood in order to die, and through this to destroy him who has the power of death.
"15. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (Epistle to the Hebrews: 2; 15)
How did the devil rule people through the fear of death? Can you explain this to me?
Listener:
Well, they were aware that by living an unrighteous life, they would go to hell.
Father Daniil:
And what about those people who didn't think about death at all? Look, the Apostle points out a very interesting point here. He shows the tool by which the devil possessed people. Understand? What tool is this? Very simple. People, actually, all human fears ultimately come down to the fear of death. That's for an ordinary worldly person, right? If I don't work there, I'll be hungry and die. Right? If I have nothing to drink, same thing. If I have some kind of psychological problems, same thing. Do you understand? That is, we have a person who is under such a constantly looming threat of death. In fact, both ancient and modern people remembered perfectly well that death would absolutely render any human endeavor meaningless. Hence the conclusion. Let us eat and drink, while we have not yet died. And delaying death is the most important thing there is for a person. And you can delay it in any way possible. From this comes sin. Do you understand?
I agree with the Buddhists. The Buddha made an absolutely correct diagnosis, I note. He prescribed the wrong real treatment. He said that everything in this world is subject to suffering, right? Grief is suffering, but joy is also suffering, because when it ends, it causes suffering, right? There, knowledge is suffering, because from it comes much sorrow, right? Ignorance is also suffering. And so on. Here he is absolutely right. All this leads to death. That's exactly right. Pure truth. And with this tool, the devil lured people. Only the Buddha suggested, in what way to get rid of suffering? Through spiritual suicide. And what about Christ? Christ offers to get rid of suffering through resurrection. It's clear, right?
That is, here is precisely an example of how we can use correct thoughts of completely non-Christians. Only the problem is that they drew incorrect conclusions from correct thoughts. This is pure truth, actually. Therefore, the fear of death indeed leads to all these kinds of things. Therefore, if we talk about the midlife crisis, when a person ages and says: "I haven't done anything, it's a nightmare, life has passed in vain, what should I do? I didn't have a son, I didn't build a house, and so on." All these phenomena appear from what? From the fear of death. Through this, the devil takes possession of people.
Listener:
You know what else I realized? They work to please girls... I realized this long ago.
Father Daniil:
(Laughs...) So we'll be idle. (Laughs...)
Listener:
It turns out that Buddha proposed the same thing as drug addiction and alcoholism.
Father Daniil:
Only in a more radical form.
Another listener:
He made a good diagnosis, and the devil suggested: "let's fly."
Father Daniil:
Therefore, the Lord knocks out this very important point. It is no accident that the devil's main attack is on Christians' faith in the resurrection. Because if there is no resurrection, then earthly life is the most important thing. Everything is only in this life. Even the disembodied existence of man does not justify his existence. Do you understand? Because disembodied existence for man is more defective than embodied existence. And that is precisely why it turns out that man lives only by this life, and as a result, he falls into all sins. Understand? From this, the root of sin grows. And Christ knocks out this root. That is, He gives resurrection, gives eternal life.
"16. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." (Epistle to the Hebrews: 2; 16)
Verse 16 is very important, because there were different theories before, and they arise now. Origen, for example, put forward the theory that Christ would later die for demons.
Listener:
Why?
Father Daniil:
He would supposedly be crucified to redeem demons.
Second listener:
What, a second time?
Father Daniil:
Yes.
According to Origen, He died multiple times for demons, for different spiritual beings, and so on.
Second listener:
For djinns...
Father Daniil:
Yes, yes, yes... (Laughs...)
And now they start saying, what about this? Surely aliens, whom no one has found yet, will God leave them unredeemed? (laughs...) He will obviously die for them too, and so on...
Father Daniil:
Therefore, of course, here (Epistle to the Hebrews: 2; 16) it is said that Christ does not assume angelic nature. He assumes the seed of Abraham. By the way, note, the Apostle Paul specifically emphasizes here whom He assumes, who He was in terms of human nature. Did He have a nationality?
Listener:
Jewish.
Father Daniil:
Jewish, see, it's written directly?
So:
"17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Epistle to the Hebrews: 2; 17-18)
That is, Christ assumes nature to be a faithful High Priest, to offer His Blood, and thus to help those who are tempted. Right.
I also wanted to analyze a few more questions related to the incarnation. An interesting point arises. How to practically explain why the incarnation was necessary? Remember the words sung in the Church: "Thou didst come from the Virgin, neither an intercessor, nor an angel, but Thyself, O Lord, incarnate, and didst save me, the whole man. Therefore I cry to Thee: glory to Thy power, O Lord."? This is, in fact, a paraphrase of the Greek version of the 63rd chapter of the book of the prophet Isaiah, verse 9. "Not an intercessor, nor an angel, but the Lord Himself saved them, because He loves them and spares them: He Himself delivered them and took them up and exalted them all the days of eternity." (Isaiah: 63; 9). This is the Greek version; in the Hebrew it's slightly different. And here we see a very important point.
Here, actually, the question arises. Why was the incarnation necessary? Why did God have to come? As Celsus said back in the 2nd century: "Why should the Supreme Deity incarnate for the sake of a group of croaking frogs on the edge of a swamp?" Because for Celsus, what are people? Just a bit of mold on the edge of a swamp, considering themselves something great. Some still express such anti-human things nowadays. But how to answer this? Look, they tell us: "Man is such an insignificant thing that he is not worthy of God coming for him." What is the correct answer?
Listener:
He came out of love.
Father Daniil:
Look, how can you assess whether a person is worthy or unworthy? Only the Creator can assess this. Only the Creator can say whether he is worthy or unworthy. He decided that man is worthy of love, do you understand?
That is, in fact, we have a kind of spiritual intervention. Actually, such thoughts were already in the Bible.
Now, I'll even quote where exactly this was. In the book of Job, indeed. There were exactly such things. I'll even read it now. There are several such thoughts; now I'm choosing a better place. Look. This is the book of Job, chapter 4, verses 12 to 21. By the way, I'm telling you this text so you can point to the source of this thought. So that a person doesn't think he's so "smart" and so on. Or that he has read Schopenhauer and the like. Listen. Job's friend Eliphaz says:
"12. Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof.
13. In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men,
14. Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake.
15. Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:
16. It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,
17. Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
18. Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:" (Job: 4; 12-18)
Familiar, right? Do you understand whose voice it is?
"19. How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?
20. They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it.
21. Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom." (Job: 4; 19-21)
So, here we have a certain revelation of Job's friend. But what kind of revelation is this? Who came to Eliphaz?
Listener:
The same one who came to Muhammad. (Laughter in the hall...)
Father Daniil:
It's interesting here, you know, sometimes they start saying that, supposedly, an angel came there. Look, let's do this. John Climacus, referring to this place, says: "This is how the spirit of fear often comes to people in such a form." That is, our ascetics often encountered this spirit. Well, firstly, we see by the effect – fear and trembling, and it made all his bones to shake. Terror when meeting the spiritual world always occurs, actually. When a person encounters the other world, terror always occurs, but when someone from the spiritual world comes from God, what does he do first? He says: "fear not."
Listener:
He calms.
Father Daniil:
He calms, yes, because God needs a sober mind. Do you understand? Remember what is said in the Bible?
"But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard;" (Gospel of Luke: 1; 13)
"And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God." (Gospel of Luke: 1; 30)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, ..." (Gospel of Luke: 2;10) – it is said to the shepherds.
Listener:
On the water, when Christ walked.
Father Daniil:
Yes. That is, the Lord needs a sober mind. He does not need a person with a frightened mind. Because, as the book of the Wisdom of Solomon says: "For fear is nothing else but a betrayal of the succours which reason offereth." (Book of the Wisdom of Solomon: 17; 12)
So, here there is no calming at all; on the contrary, what happens? The person begins to have terror, trembling, shaking, that is, spasms, right? And then convulsions begin. This is Oriental language, of course, but we often don't translate Oriental language into ordinary language. "Made all my bones to shake" – means convulsions began. And then the hair stood up.
Further it is said: "but I could not discern the form thereof." A very interesting point. Who hides their face?
Listener:
The demon.
Father Daniil:
It's interesting, when God speaks, He speaks like this: "You cannot bear My Face, but I will show you at least My back parts." (ed.: "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." (Exodus: 33; 23)) It's interesting, but there is a very interesting parallel place, you know from where? From Goethe's "Faust." Faust asks: "Tell me, who are you?" He says: "Leave empty questions." Do you understand? It is an anonymous spirit that tries not to introduce itself. As with Muhammad, remember? He also didn't introduce himself. There is no form, he doesn't introduce himself.
But God introduces Himself. Remember, God at the bush, for example? He says: "And he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." (Exodus: 3; 6) The direct opposite. Or, for example, Gabriel says: "And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings." (Gospel of Luke: 1; 19) Or, for example, Daniel falls on all fours, face down, right? The angel first puts him on all fours, on his hands and knees, then lifts him by the scruff of the neck so that he sees the face, do you understand? Look me in the face. What is the task? Those who can see the face must enter into personal contact. Because God is a person, do you understand? He enters into personal contact with man.
Listener:
When Jacob wrestled with God, why didn't God tell him His name?
Other listeners:
Not Jacob, but Israel. And He named the name. It is Wonderful. (ed.: "And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there." (Genesis: 32; 29). The text in square brackets is present in the Septuagint. "It is Wonderful" – this is a reference to the future prophecy of Isaiah about Christ: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah: 9; 6))
Father Daniil:
He named it, said "Wonderful." He named Himself. And "Who He was" was clear. Because it is said: "for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." (Genesis: 32; 28)
So:
"16. It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,
17. Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
18. Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly;" (Job: 4; 16-18)
That is, if angels turned out to have faults, then it's clear, right? That is – these are demons who fell away from God. Actually, their chief is one very offended one. Right.
"19. How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?" (Job: 4; 19) ("houses of clay" – made of clay, mud. "Clay" is a nice word, right? "Dwell in houses of clay" – how is it translated into Russian? Those who live in huts made of mud. A hut made of mud is the body. Understand? The favorite thing of fallen spirits is to be proud of their incorporeality. As St. Gregory Palamas says: "It is not for nothing that the Lord came in the flesh to shame the false beliefs of evil spirits, who are proud of their incorporeality." It's clear, right?
Listener:
And before this they were proud?
Father Daniil:
And even now they are still proud, although they have been greatly offended. Right. It was they who led to the identification of the spiritual and the good. "Spirituality is the main thing" – that is the devil's phrase. It's clear, right?
Listener:
And what are they proud of now?
Father Daniil:
That they do not die, they are immortal, unlike these comrades. Right. And that is, you see, what is the cause of sin according to the devil's logic? "That man has a body." Whose logic is that, do you understand? It is the devil's logic. That is why the Lord comes in the flesh, to refute this logic. Man does not need to de-humanize himself to be righteous, do you understand? To be human does not mean to be a sinner. Because otherwise, who would be to blame? The Creator. Here, from satan's point of view, the blame lies precisely with the Creator. It's clear, right? That is, this is a direct quote from satan. You can directly say: "Look, the Bible directly describes how satan says the same things. Do you want to be with him? Please." Is the logic clear? Returning to the first question.
Next point. Some ask questions like: "How can God fit into a human body? How can He fit? It's impossible. God is so huge, He cannot fit into such a small body." Another classic version of this was in Gregory the Theologian: "A vessel the size of one medimnus will not contain two medimni; likewise, the space occupied by one body will not contain two or more bodies."
Listener:
I can answer this question. But God, He is immaterial, He has no dimension. He can be in a single point that is infinitely small.
Father Daniil:
Correct. Correct Andrey. Correct, He is immaterial. But moreover, we need to recall simple things. We say that He fills heaven and earth. Remember, we cited the passage from Jeremiah, chapter 23? When we talked about the omnipresent God, we cited quotes.
(ed.: "23. Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?
24. Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord." (Jeremiah: 23; 23-24))
Since He fills everything, does that mean He fits into this world? Didn't He somehow fit in the temple? The question is, was Christ limited by the human body? No, He was not limited. Here we must directly say, relying on the Gospel of John, chapter 3, verse 13, we must directly say that Christ remained omnipresent while being man.
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (Gospel of John: 3; 13)
See, He is the Son of man which is in heaven. Understand? He is everywhere. Therefore, it is said: "In the grave with the flesh, in hell with the soul as God, in paradise with the thief, and on the throne were You, O Christ, with the Father and the Spirit, filling all things, O uncircumscribed One." (Hours of Holy Pascha)
Listener:
The most interesting thing is that this pertains to the Person.
Father Daniil:
Yes, He is Jesus. By the way, here we have an example of the communication of properties. See, "Son of man which is in heaven" – this is precisely an example when Divine properties are attributed to Christ's human nature. It's clear, right? By virtue of the fact that Christ is the same Person. And here it is very important to remember that from this follows the answer to the next question. Who ruled the world when Christ was on earth? A favorite question, make a note of it. Write down this question, and immediately write down the answer. Look (Gospel of John: 3; 13). It's clear, right? The Protestants' answer is completely stupid, you should know. Do you know how Protestants answer? Do you know? They say: "Well, the other two parts of God were in heaven..." (Laughs...) Do you understand? A verbatim quote... "Complete dismemberment" – absolutely right. (Laughs...) And according to the Adventist catechism, I was simply shocked when I read the Adventist catechism, when I was struggling, laboring over my candidate's dissertation, I was shocked when it turned out that for them, Christ limited His omnipresence by becoming man. "He lost omnipresence by becoming man," do you understand? By the way, there is an example that He continued to be omnipresent, not from words, but from deeds. Do you know what it is? It is the Gospel of John, chapter 4, verses 46 to 54:
"46. So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.
47. When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death.
48. Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
49. The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die.
50. Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.
51. And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.
52. Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.
53. So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
54. This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he was come out of Judea into Galilee." (Gospel of John: 4; 46-54)
By the way, again the translation is wrong. It's not a miracle, but a sign; the word there is "semeion." In the Gospel of John, it is characteristic to divide Christ's entire journey by signs. What is the first sign? In Cana of Galilee, where He made water into wine, then the healing of the nobleman's son, then the healing of the sick man at the pool of Bethesda, then the multiplication of loaves, walking on water, healing the man born blind, the resurrection of Lazarus – these are the signs.
Here this moment shows that Christ heals at a distance. He is omnipresent, His power is omnipresent. Cana of Galilee is about 30 kilometers away from Capernaum. He didn't say, I will send an angel; He said: "Go thy way; thy son liveth." He didn't say that He prayed.
We know similar examples. Elisha saw what happened with Gehazi, remember?
(ed.:
"14. Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
15. And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.
16. But he said, As the Lord liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none. And he urged him to take it; but he refused.
17. And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the Lord.
18. In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing.
19. And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way.
20. But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, Behold, my master hath spared Naaman this Syrian, in not receiving at his hands that which he brought: but, as the Lord liveth, I will run after him, and take somewhat of him.
21. So Gehazi followed after Naaman. And when Naaman saw him running after him, he lighted down from the chariot to meet him, and said, Is all well?
22. And he said, All is well. My master hath sent me, saying, Behold, even now there be come to me from mount Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets: give them, I pray thee, a talent of silver, and two changes of garments.
23. And Naaman said, Be content, take two talents. And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of garments, and laid them upon two of his servants; and they bare them before him.
24. And when he came to the tower, he took them from their hand, and bestowed them in the house: and he let the men go, and they departed.
25. But he went in, and stood before his master. And Elisha said unto him, Whence comest thou, Gehazi? And he said, Thy servant went no whither.
26. And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants?
27. The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow." (2 Kings: 5; 14-27))
"Went not mine heart with thee?" do you understand? It's as if. And here nothing is said; He simply healed at a distance, and that's it. That is, His power is not connected to His body. This is precisely an example confirming that the Lord is not limited by His Body, His Divinity is not limited. Because very often these crazy ideas are expressed: "What about Him there... The heavens were empty...". As we just discussed about this point.
Further, the next question they ask: "How could God enter such a foul place as a woman's womb?"
Listener:
And what is this question for? Especially since she is a virgin.
Father Daniil:
You will be asked this question, guaranteed. Further they will say: "Because, look, even after she gives birth, she is not allowed into the temple for 40 days, and you say that God entered such a dirty place." The question is indeed from practice, from life. And the answer is very simple. The Virgin gave birth immaculately. So there was no filthiness here. And what else should be cited here, for example? Moreover, we must say that for God there are no dirty parts. It's clear, right? All parts of the human body are made by Him Himself. And the woman's womb is one of the most finely tuned parts of the human organism, actually. It is even known that women have slower thinking speed than men, largely because a larger part of the brain is responsible for this area. Therefore, women become duller during pregnancy. You know it yourselves. (Laughs...)
Female Listener:
Yes, absolutely.
Father Daniil:
And why? Because it's such a complexly designed place, right? Do you understand?
Female Listener:
You can't think about anything else.
Father Daniil:
Yes. That is, what does this actually say? It says that in God's eyes this is a very important place, do you understand? Not at all foul, but on the contrary, a finely designed, brilliant example of the providence of God's wonderful design, do you understand?
Listener:
That's precisely why the devil's attack is directed there, right?
Father Daniil:
The devil's attack is directed at anything, at any part of the human body. So here we must say that there is no sin in this regard. Right now, by the way, there is such a point. On the internet, on one forum, there is a debate. Is it necessary after the carnal union between husband and wife – carnal contact, to read a prayer for cleansing from defilement? Some say that if it's a priest, he should read the prayer for cleansing from defilement. What do you think, do they think correctly or not?
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews: 13; 4) – absolutely right. Before the revolution in the 17th century, the Russians had such a practice. But this is, of course, nonsense.
Listener:
Does the Church permit marital intimacy during fasting?
Father Daniil:
And on this topic, read the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 7, it is written: abstinence should be "only with consent." The same is said in canons 3-4 of St. Dionysius the Great. The same is said in the fortieth discourse of Gregory the Theologian. This is extremely desirable, but it is not as strict a requirement as the food fast, for example.
So, another such point, right? They say: "Jesus is a demigod, half-man." No, like a centaur, for example. (Laughter in the hall...) And very often this is how people who understand the word "God-man" understand it. Do you understand? In response to this, simply read the passage I read to you. That is, the Epistle to the Philippians, chapter 2, verses 5 to 11. It does not say that He was half-god, half-man, but He, being in the form, being God, was simultaneously also man. It's also good to explain this on fingers, right? If you have, for example, a baptized person who says this, and it is very often said. Say to him: "come on, show me your fingers, how do you make the sign of the cross?" Right? And then show them, right? How many fingers are here?
Listener:
Two.
Father Daniil:
Two, yes. And why two? If He were half-god half-man, one would have to do it somehow like this, I suppose. Like this, like this, like this... Or like this, like this. (Laughter in the hall...) Make some kind of hybrid, right? This is, of course, stupid.
Here's the second. If He is half-god half-man, it means God can change. And that means He changed. It means God can die. Because the capacity to change implies the possibility of dying. That which undergoes change is subject to corruption.
Remember, we said: "For I am the Lord, I change not;" (Book of the Prophet Malachi: 3; 6). Therefore, to say that God has changed – we are not talking here about a man, but specifically about God – is meaningless. If God did not change, and only the man changed, firstly, it would not be half-god half-man, but God and half-man. Secondly, what meaning does that have for us? If Christ were not a real man, there would be no benefit from His sufferings for us. No benefit from His life for us. Do you understand? Well, it would be His example, the same kind of example as, I don't know, the example of Star Wars, or, I don't know, some aliens. What difference does it make, do you understand, what aliens do there? It has nothing to do with us at all, do you understand? And that is precisely why people say: "Well, how? He wasn't a real man, it was easy for Him to pretend." – if you say it verbatim. Why do people say this? Here you need to understand that the half-god half-man idea doesn't work. He is true God and true man. That is precisely why we are saved. And we can receive eternal life. Understand? You just need to follow the logic here. Moreover, He Himself called Himself a man. Remember, right? Although I haven't given the quote, let me give it now.
Listener:
I want to understand this: the Person of God the Son, did It have human properties, right?
Father Daniil:
That's exactly what the Monophysites think.
Listener:
No, but how to understand the infinity of the Divinity?
Father Daniil:
He is the infinite God, a limited man. Describable according to humanity, indescribable according to Divinity. Depictable according to humanity, indepictable according to Divinity.
Listener:
The concept of the Person of the Son of God, He is conscious of Himself as the Person of God and as the person of man. How to understand this non-presence in the Person of God? So to speak. How can one state that He was conscious of Himself as a man, if He is the second Person?
Father Daniil:
He was conscious of Himself as such, and as such. The fact is written. We do not engage in guesswork. Do you understand?
Listener:
But changes do not occur in the person, right?
Father Daniil:
No. The nature does not change, the Person does not change. He is unchangeable as God, but changeable as man. Therefore, the Church sings: "A new and God-befitting wonder: the Lord manifestly passes through the closed virgin gate; He was naked at the entrance, and at the exit He appeared as God bearing flesh, and the gate remained closed. Her, ineffably, as the Mother of God, we magnify." (From the Divine Service). That is, God enters the Virgin's womb as bodiless, and emerges as bearing flesh. And the door remains closed.
In the Gospel, that Christ calls Himself a man, I will cite only one verse, because there are quite many such examples. "Son of Man" is simply His favorite phrase for referring to Himself – "Son of Man." Here we will cite the Gospel of John, chapter 8, verse 40:
"39. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41. Ye do the deeds of your father. ..." (Gospel of John: 8; 39-41)
So, many questions are related to the supposed impurity of human nature as such. Many questions are asked, for example: "Well, how? Did He, like, go to the toilet or something?" – or – "Did He, like, eat, or something?" – and so on. All these questions, of course, relate to all the above-listed questions and to the devil's fabrication that being human is a sin. We answer all these devilish things, as we have already said.
Now they ask: "Why was this necessary for us?" One can speak about the redemptive death. But one can also speak differently? One can say that He became the mediator between God and men, as the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to Timothy. 1 Timothy, chapter 2, verse 5:
"5. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6. Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity." (Epistle to Timothy: 2; 5-7)
So, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" (Epistle to Timothy: 2; 5) So, what does mediator mean?
Listener:
Intercessor.
Father Daniil:
No, intercessor and mediator are different things. What is the difference between an intercessor and a mediator?
Another listener:
An intercessor – he asks.
Father Daniil:
Yes. A mediator brings together. Therefore, we have only one mediator. Right? Some say: "We pray to God without mediators." And we say: "And we pray with the Mediator. You have no contact, but I do." It's clear, right? These cries about the absence of a mediator precisely indicate the absence of contact.
All these cries are the same as saying: "I am better than you, I don't have Dmitry's phone number." And Vitya says: "But I do." (Laughs...) Therefore, Vitya will find it easier to contact Dmitry in winter than me without a phone. Do you understand? Mediation implies the presence of contact. The absence of mediation indicates the absence of contact. Therefore, one can give such an example.
Mediation implies reconciliation. Two people were at enmity, they were reconciled, someone brought them together. He is called a mediator, who brought two people together. So too, men sinned, God was angry, as John Chrysostom says; Christ comes and reconciles God and men in Himself.
Another example is based on the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 10, verse 20:
"19. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20. By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21. And having an high priest over the house of God;
22. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
23. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)" (Epistle to the Hebrews: 10; 19-23)
"The veil," that is, "his flesh." See these phrases? Why is the flesh called a veil here? The flesh conceals the Divinity. And why is a veil needed? Wouldn't it be better without a veil?
Listener:
It would burn us then.
Father Daniil:
Exactly. Those who attend catechetical talks know that I always give what example? The example of a transformer box. It becomes very easy and clear. That is, the energy in the power line cannot light a light bulb. A simple light bulb would burst and burn down the whole house, right? Therefore, the energy must acquire an accessible form. So, God's power, so that It might be accessible to weak man, becomes accessible to us through the veil of the Lord's flesh, through His Flesh and Blood. That is precisely why, thanks to the incarnation, we can unite with God through the Lord's Flesh and the Lord's Blood. By the way, this immediately gives you an opportunity to explain why one needs to receive Communion, understand? The logic is clear, right? And that's it. This is a very important point. Actually, Nicholas Cabasilas, when he spoke about redemption, described three barriers – the difference of natures, the wall of sin, and the wall of death. The wall of nature – that is, weak human nature cannot contain the boundless powers of the Divinity – is removed by what? By the fact that because God became man, while remaining God, we received grace and truth from Christ. This is also spoken of by the Evangelist John, remember?
"For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (Gospel of John: 1; 17)
In what sense did they come? That is, they came for us. Thus, we receive the opportunity to receive grace and power in a form accessible to us. Until we grow. And become capable of personally uniting with God, face to Face.
Well, and also, of course, there is another very important point here, which is very important to use in preaching, for example, in educational institutions. The word "education" [in Russian "obrazovanie"] comes from what?
Listener:
From the word "image" [in Russian "obraz"].
Father Daniil:
Yes. It implies not just the transmission of certain knowledge, but a certain formation of the human person. The question is, in whose image to form the person? In the image of God. Who is the ideal man to imitate? Christ the Savior. Do you understand? That is, you can create a system of Christ-like education, do you understand? Actually, this is the main essence of Orthodox education, which must be offered by the Church to the whole world. Do you understand? Christ-like education, that is, education according to the pattern of Christ. If this is not done, then, of course, there will be no good education.
Listener:
In our country, for some reason, education is mechanically stuffing some knowledge. English, computer... What are parents even thinking? They themselves don't understand what they are stuffing them with. And then the children become drug addicts. Or they just go crazy.
Father Daniil:
And here, by the way, you can use Pilate's words as a key text for description, when you start talking about the ideal man based on the Incarnation. Remember this from the Gospel of John, chapter 19, verse 5:
"Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!" (Gospel of John: 19; 5)
It is very important to use this moment here. What can you do? You can, for example, go to some educational institution and say that you want to have a conversation about the real man. You read the passage and unfurl a poster – Christ in the crown of thorns. And starting from this poster, you begin to talk about the ideal man. Understand? Such a practical teaser. Use it too.
Female Listener:
We write an essay about the real man.
Father Daniil:
Yes.
Female Listener:
We check it. Everyone's wrong... (Laughter in the hall...) And now I'll tell you about the real man.
Father Daniil:
Yes.
Now the last thing I want to say. Regarding the mind of Christ, will, feelings. How does the mind of Christ differ from ours, Alexey? No thoughts [as in discursive thoughts?], no fantasies, He sees the world as it is.
Listener:
He has a direct connection with the Divine.
Father Daniil:
Yes. Further, His will is completely obedient to God.
By the way, here's a point. When you talk about the two wills in Christ, use this moment not just theoretically. Where are the two wills spoken of? You remember – in Gethsemane – the most striking example you can always use. But there are other places too.
"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (Gospel of John: 6; 38) – the Lord said.
There are many such examples in Scripture about two wills.
But you say: "And how does this relate to us?" And here a point arises. You turn to the person and say: "And when will your will be the strongest? When you do things your own way or when you do them God's way?"
Listener:
God's way.
Father Daniil:
God's way, yes, and why? When you take your weak will, insert it into the strong will of God, and break through. Like Christ, right? His human will was completely obedient to the will of the Father, therefore He is omnipotent. Understand? Well, use it like that.
Regarding feelings, we heard the Apostle Paul. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus," right? That is, all our feelings, will, all properties of the soul must be Christified. That is our task, which is offered to us. Well, that's briefly what I wanted to tell you today.
So, questions?
(ed.: As an additional explanation of why the dogma of the two wills in Christ is important for an undistorted view of the Incarnation, I provide the following passage, presented on the website of the information and educational portal of the Ryazan Diocese "Logos," revised and supplemented in accordance with the arguments given by Father Daniil Sysoev above:
"The Teaching on the Two Wills in Christ.
As we know, in Christ there are two natures: divine and human. They are united in Him unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably. Christ is absolute God and absolute man. Consequently, the Divine nature of Christ possesses a Divine will, and the human nature of Christ must possess a human will, which is in all things subject to His Divine will. Christ is the incarnate Logos, God the Word, which means His impossibility to sin. At the same time, He also possesses all the properties of human nature, because Christ assumed in the Incarnation that very pristine human nature which He Himself created, but with all the blameless passions (thirst, hunger, death, etc.) which man acquired after the fall; but Christ did not assume human nature after the fall with its sinful passions, because He was born through the immaculate conception.
Furthermore, the human nature of Christ possesses only the natural human will, which is in all things subject to His Divine will; but the gnomic (carnal) will, which is not necessarily inherent in human nature, is absent in Him because it implies the perception of sin.
Here the following questions may arise: if Christ does not possess a gnomic will, then has He not assumed human nature completely? And if our nature is only partially assumed by Him, then is our salvation not incomplete?
The answer is this: as we clarified above, the property of our nature is precisely the natural will, while the gnomic will is a property of the person. It follows from this that Christ cannot have a gnomic will because He assumed human nature as a whole, and not the person of a single concrete individual.
It would seem – why do we, ordinary believers, need to understand all these subtleties? Does it really matter how many wills? What exactly was so bad about Monothelitism? The Monothelites taught that there is one will in Christ. But what will is this? Divine or human? Of course, from their point of view, Divine.
Humanity in Christ, according to the thought of the Monothelites, was deprived of its own human will. The humanity of Christ turned out to be, as it were, just a certain instrument in the hands of God, nothing more. Monothelitism thus implies that Christ did not assume human nature completely.
But if Christ were not a perfect man, if He did not possess a human will, then our salvation would not be complete either. As St. Gregory the Theologian (4th century) said on this matter: "What has not been assumed (by Christ) has not been healed."")
Listener:
Will we talk about the Resurrection later?
Father Daniil:
Of course, later. We talked about the Incarnation today. Later we will talk about Redemption, we will talk about the Resurrection, Ascension, and so on.
Also, in Scripture, Christ is justifiably called prophet, king, and priest. This is about the ministry of Christ.
Listener:
Krishnas say that the Bible was given for stupid people who lived in the desert, and that there's basically nothing in it.
Father Daniil:
And you need to say: "And your books were given for stupid people who lived in the jungle." That's it. (Laughs...) This question ends. If we judge the intelligence or stupidity of a book by the place of residence, life in the jungle is no better than life in the desert. I'm not even mentioning that, excuse me, three-quarters of the Bible was not written in the desert, as is known, but in the centers of world civilization. In Babylon, in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Rome. Do you understand? Humanity hasn't come up with anything greater than Rome and Babylon, I think. If such stupid arguments are to be used.
They pray:
"It is truly meet to bless thee, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most blameless and Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim, without corruption thou gavest birth to God the Word, the very Theotokos, we magnify thee."
Father Daniil:
God save [you].
No comments:
Post a Comment